text: terrebimus

title: terrebimus


text: terrebitis

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

title: terrebitis


text: terrebunt

title: terrebunt


text:
rolling in it

Phrase

 * 1)  Having an abundance of money; rich, very prosperous.

Synonyms

 * See Thesaurus:wealthy

title: rolling in it


text: terrebam

title: terrebam


text: terrebas

title: terrebas


text: terrebat

title: terrebat


text:
polyderivative

Noun

 * 1)  A derivative of a compound formed by adding or replacing many radicals or functional groups.

title: polyderivative


text: terrebamus

title: terrebamus


text: terrebatis

title: terrebatis


text: terrebant

title: terrebant


text: terrui

title: terrui


text: terruisti

title: terruisti


text: terruit

title: terruit


text: сожитіе

title: сожитіе


text: terruimus

title: terruimus


text:
vindauga

Etymology
A compound of inherited from, whence also Modern 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) a window

Etymology
For semantic parallels, compare 🇨🇬 from 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬 from 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) window

title: vindauga


text: terruistis

title: terruistis


text:
khúc khích

Verb

 * 1) to giggle

title: khúc khích


text: new sheqel

title: new sheqel


text: terruerunt

title: terruerunt


text: terruero

title: terruero


text:
khích

Etymology
.

The aspiration of the initial velar is unusual. Compare the alternative reading and the homonymous, which also gave the expected reading.

Verb

 * 1) to provoke; to irritate; to annoy

title: khích


text: terrueris

title: terrueris


text: terruerit

title: terruerit


text: terruerimus

title: terruerimus


text:
NIS

Etymology
.

Usage notes
This code is sometimes used in place of. However, this conflicts with the currency coding standardization rules in, as currency codes beginning with are reserved for , due to that being its  code.

Proper noun

 * , a Serbian multinational oil and gas company
 * , an agency of the South African government from 1980 to 1994.

title: NIS


text: terrueritis

title: terrueritis


text: terruerint

title: terruerint


text: terrueram

title: terrueram


text: terrueras

title: terrueras


text:
Citations:сожитие

 * 1876, князь Владимир Петрович Мещерский, Речи консерватора
 * Разъ — дворянство, подъ предлогомъ, что оно было живымъ существомъ только вслѣдствие крѣпостнаго права, а не в силу своего органическаго сожитія съ народомъ, было удалено отъ вліянія на реформы […] явился уже не дѣствительный, а фиктивный міръ русскаго народа и русскаго государства […]
 * Raz — dvorjánstvo, pod predlógom, čto onó býlo zhivým suščestvóm tólʹko vslédstvije krépostnago práva, a ne v sílu svojegó organíčeskago sožítija s naródom, býlo udalenó ot vlijánija na refórmy […] javílsja užé ne destvítelʹnyj, a fiktívnyj mir rússkago naróda i rússkago gosudárstva […]
 * Once — nobility, under the pretext that it was a living thing only because of serfdom, and not because of its organic cohabitation with the people, was removed from the influence of reform […] there emerged a world of the Russian people and Russian state that was no longer a valid one but a fictitious one […]

 * 1869, Салтыков-Щедрин, История одного города, "Органчик
 * Судился за сожитие вне брака с слободской женкой Матренкой и признан по суду явным прелюбодеем, в каковом звании и поныне состою.
 * Sudílsja za sožítie vne bráka s slobodskój žónkoj Matrjónkoj i príznan po sudú jávnym preljubodéjem, v kakovóm zvánii i ponýne sostojú.
 * I was tried in court for cohabitation out of wedlock with a village woman, Matryonka, and, being declared a convicted adulterer, have lived with that title ever since.

title: Citations:сожитие


text: terruerat

title: terruerat


text:
Talk:new sheqel

Spelling
Is it really spelled with a "q" rather than a "k" in English? 71.66.97.228 08:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 * It is found with both spellings. In Hebrew, it has a qoph rather than a kaf, but most people pronounce it as though it were a k. —Stephen 08:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Israeli coins and banknotes bear inscriptions in Hebrew, Arabic and English. The English inscription reads, "new sheqel" and "new sheqalim", but I know many English speakers prefer "new shekel" and "new shekels". Drork 08:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - In November 2006, The Hebrew Language Academy issued new "simplified" transcription rules for maps and roadsigns. According to these rules, the spelling on the notes should be "new shekel" and "new shkalim", but I think it is up to the Bank of Israel to decide whether it adopts the new rules. So far, I haven't seen any change as far as coins and banknotes are concerned. Drork 08:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:new sheqel


text: terrueramus

title: terrueramus


text: terrueratis

title: terrueratis


text: terruerant

title: terruerant


text:
abutilon

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1)  Any of the various tropical flowering plants of the genus, such as the flowering maple, Indian mallow, or Chinese lantern.

Translations

 * Greek:
 * Polish: zaślaz, klonik, abutilon
 * Portuguese: abutilão, abutilo

Etymology

 * ultimately from ..

title: abutilon


text: terreor

title: terreor


text: terreris

title: terreris


text: terretur

title: terretur


text: terremur

title: terremur


text:
annualis

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) one-year-old

title: annualis


text: terremini

title: terremini


text: terrentur

title: terrentur


text: terrebor

title: terrebor


text:
cerastium

Etymology
From the genus name.

Noun

 * 1)  Any of several plants of the genus, such as mouse-eared chickweed

title: cerastium


text: terreberis

title: terreberis


text: terrebitur

title: terrebitur


text: terrebimur

title: terrebimur


text: terrebimini

title: terrebimini


text: terrebuntur

title: terrebuntur


text: new sheqels

title: new sheqels


text: terrebar

title: terrebar


text: terrebaris

title: terrebaris


text: terrebatur

title: terrebatur


text:
new shekel

Etymology
A.

Noun

 * 1) The Israeli currency since 1 January 1986 (distinguished from the abolished 1980-1985 shekel). Divided into 100 agorot and represented by ₪. In English, also represented by the initialism NIS (for "New Israeli Shekel"). ISO 4217 code: ILS.

title: new shekel


text: new shekels

title: new shekels


text: terrebamur

title: terrebamur


text: Category:he:Broadcasting

title: Category:he:Broadcasting


text: terrebamini

title: terrebamini


text: terrebantur

title: terrebantur


text: terream

title: terream


text: terreas

title: terreas


text: terreat

title: terreat


text: terreamus

title: terreamus


text: terreatis

title: terreatis


text: terreant

title: terreant


text: terrerem

title: terrerem


text: headbangs

title: headbangs


text: terreres

title: terreres


text: headbanged

title: headbanged


text: terreret

title: terreret


text: terreremus

title: terreremus


text: terreretis

title: terreretis


text: terrerent

title: terrerent


text: terruerim

title: terruerim


text:
QSL card

Noun

 * 1)  A postcard confirming a successful reception of a radio signal on amateur radio, usually sent via the QSL bureau.

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: QSL卡
 * Japanese: QSLカード

title: QSL card


text: terruissem

title: terruissem


text: terruisses

title: terruisses


text: terruisset

title: terruisset


text: terruissemus

title: terruissemus


text: terruissetis

title: terruissetis


text: terruissent

title: terruissent


text: terrear

title: terrear


text: terrearis

title: terrearis


text: terreatur

title: terreatur


text: terreamur

title: terreamur


text: terreamini

title: terreamini


text: terreantur

title: terreantur


text: terrerer

title: terrerer


text:
clausus

Etymology
Perfect passive participle of.

Participle

 * 1) closed, inaccessible; having been closed
 * 2) enclosed, having been shut off
 * 3) shut, shut up, sealed, having been locked up
 * 4)  deaf, unhearing, unreachable
 * 1)  deaf, unhearing, unreachable

Descendants
See also clūsus.

 * Northern Gallo-Romance:
 * Southern Gallo-Romance:
 * Ibero-Romance:
 * Southern Gallo-Romance:
 * Ibero-Romance:
 * Southern Gallo-Romance:
 * Ibero-Romance:
 * Southern Gallo-Romance:
 * Ibero-Romance:
 * Ibero-Romance:
 * Ibero-Romance:
 * Ibero-Romance:

title: clausus


text: terrereris

title: terrereris


text: terreretur

title: terreretur


text: terreremur

title: terreremur


text: terreremini

title: terreremini


text: terrerentur

title: terrerentur


text:
disrate

Verb

 * 1) To lower a rate or rating
 * 2)  To demote a sailor to a lower rank

title: disrate


text: terreto

title: terreto


text: dorsiventral

title: dorsiventral


text: terretote

title: terretote


text: terrento

title: terrento


text: terretor

title: terretor


text: terrentor

title: terrentor


text: terruisse

title: terruisse


text: terreri

title: terreri


text:
terrens

Etymology
Present active participle of.

Participle

 * 1) alarming, scaring etc.

title: terrens


text:
terrendus

Etymology
Future passive participle (gerundive) of.

Participle

 * 1) that is to be alarmed or scared (away)

title: terrendus


text:
territurus

Etymology
Future active participle of.

Participle

 * 1) about to be alarmed or scared (away)

title: territurus


text: territum

title: territum


text:
enterostomy

Noun

 * 1)  The construction of a permanent opening into the intestine through the abdominal wall.

Translations

 * Italian:

title: enterostomy


text: terrentis

title: terrentis


text: terrenti

title: terrenti


text: terrentem

title: terrentem


text:
featherback

Etymology
, from the small and narrow dorsal fin.

Noun

 * 1) Any fish of the family.

Synonyms

 * knifefish

Derived terms

 * bronze featherback

Translations

 * Assamese: কান্ধুলি
 * Burmese:
 * Finnish: teräkala

title: featherback


text: terrente

title: terrente


text: terrentes

title: terrentes


text: terrentia

title: terrentia


text: terrentium

title: terrentium


text: terrentibus

title: terrentibus


text: terrenda

title: terrenda


text: terrendum

title: terrendum


text: terrendi

title: terrendi


text: terrendae

title: terrendae


text:
flocculus

Etymology
Borrowed from, from.

Noun

 * 1) A small fluffy tuft.
 * 2)  Either of two small lobes on the posterior border of the cerebellum.
 * 3)  A marking on the surface of the sun associated with a solar prominence.

title: flocculus


text: terrendo

title: terrendo


text: terrendam

title: terrendam


text: terrende

title: terrende


text: terrendorum

title: terrendorum


text: terrendarum

title: terrendarum


text: terrendis

title: terrendis


text: terrendos

title: terrendos


text:
gunnera

Etymology
From the genus name.

Noun

 * 1) Any of several plants, of the genus, that have very large leaves and small, reddish drupes.

title: gunnera


text: terrendas

title: terrendas


text: territa

title: territa


text: Template:User myv-1

title: Template:User myv-1


text: territi

title: territi


text: territae

title: territae


text:
territo

Etymology
Frequentative of

Verb

 * 1) to frighten, terrify, alarm
 * 2) to intimidate
 * 1) to intimidate

title: territo


text: territam

title: territam


text: territe

title: territe


text: territorum

title: territorum


text: territarum

title: territarum


text:
induna

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) A South African tribal councillor or headman (under the king); someone in authority, a boss.

Translations

 * Afrikaans:
 * Zulu: induna

Etymology
, obsolete form of, from. Compare 🇨🇬 alongside usual.

Verb

 * 1) to notice, realise

Noun

 * 1) chief

Noun

 * 1) headman, foreman

Noun

 * 1) headman

Noun

 * 1) male animal
 * 2) headman

title: induna


text: territis

title: territis


text: territos

title: territos


text: territas

title: territas


text:
Talk:बुल्ला

बुल्ला
Requesting verification of sense 2, vulgar slang for the male member. — [ R I C ] opiaterein — 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, sense (and language section) removed. —Ruakh TALK 03:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:बुल्ला


text: territura

title: territura


text:
inhaul

Noun

 * 1)  A rope used to haul in the clew of a sail, or a jib boom

title: inhaul


text: territurum

title: territurum


text: territuri

title: territuri


text: Category:User myv

title: Category:User myv


text: territurae

title: territurae


text: territuro

title: territuro


text: territuram

title: territuram


text: territure

title: territure


text: territurorum

title: territurorum


text: territurarum

title: territurarum


text:
Talk:Pericles

Pericles
Attributive use needed. DCDuring TALK 11:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Three citations from Google books added. I'm sure that you could have found them yourself. SemperBlotto 08:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence. I haven't had as much time for en.wikt lately. DCDuring TALK 09:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The citations are not attributive use. DCDuring TALK 09:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See also WT:RFV, September 2009. --Dan Polansky 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those look attributive to me, see attributive:. In fairness, we have no definition of attributive or durably archived when it comes to citing things. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition at attributive explicitly refers to attributive which is "A word or phrase, such as an adjective or noun, that modifies  a noun and is part of the noun's noun phrase; contrasted with predicative." In none of the 3 citations is that true. I rest your case. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1950, Hardin Craig, A history of English literature, Page 269,
 * He revised a Pericles play, whose authorship cannot be determined—very drastically in the fourth and fifth acts, less so in the third act, and very slightly in the first and second—in order to purify the part of Lysimachus and ennoble the story.
 * 1973, William Shakespeare, Hardin Craig and David M. Bevington (editors), The complete works of Shakespeare,
 * Beyond doubt, Wilkins' prose account is based in part on a Pericles play; Wilkins acknowledges in his Argument that this same story has been recently presented "by the Kings Majesties Players."
 * 1995, Jerry Combee and Kurt A. Grussendorf, History of the world in Christian perspective, Page 77,
 * In a Pericles modern representative democracy, the people elect a few men who represent them in the government.
 * Pingku 18:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 * As I understand it, the first two refer directly to Pericles and do not count as good exemplars of the sort of attributive use WT:CFI requires. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On inspection the ungrammaticality of the third is attributable to it being a scanno. Pericles: appears as the caption of an interlineated image of some kind. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Umm. Thanks for finding that. Pingku 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 * How about:
 * 1988, William Shakespeare, Ernest Schanzer, Richard Hosley, Clifford Leech (editors) Pericles, Prince of Tyre: Cymbeline: The Two Noble Kinsmen (with John Fletcher), Page 208 footnote,
 * Phyllis Gorfain, "Puzzle and Artifice: The Riddle as Metapoetry in 'Pericles,'" Shakespeare Survey 29 (1976):11-20 shows how the Pericles riddle, because unanswerable, confounds the ordinary structural and culutral functions of riddles.
 * The typo is in the original.
 * Pingku 15:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pericles (play) the play is just as encyclopedic as Pericles the Greek. The Gorfain cite refers to a riddle in the play probably using the to specify it in contrast to some other riddle discussed. The point of the attributive use rule is to exclude encyclopedic-type entries. I am a little surprised that Pericles apparently isn't citable in attributive use, at least from older texts. Perhaps widespread use of Proper nouns attributively (Mickey Mouse, White House) doesn't go back very far. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Not that it matters - because the first line of CFI still says "all words in all languages", and Pericles: is a word. SemperBlotto 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the consensus has been that slogan a slogan were enough, why would we even have WT:CFI, RfD, and even patrolling? If "Workers of the world unite" had been sufficient, why did the Soviet Union bother with a constitution and laws? DCDuring TALK 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't a slogan, it is our mission statement, and sets us apart from all other dictionaries. We have CFI to handle all terms: that are not words: (in my opinion). SemperBlotto 22:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We have specific provisions for proper nouns in WT:CFI, just as we have specific provisions for brand names and fictional universe words (not just multi-word terms). If you would like to simplify WT:CFI to read "All words in all languages", we would just have to make sure that we understood what each of "all", "words", "in", "all", and "languages" actually meant in this context. I don't think that any of these exactly correspond to the most obvious everyday meaning or that they could do so without destroying en.wikt. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose deletion, doing so outside the current CFI. The entry is one of a space-free word "Pericles" referring in most or all of its occurrences to the particular ancient Greek politician. The entry is useful for translations. The question "how do I render 'Pericles' in Polish" is a lexicographical question, to be addressed by a lexicographical reference work. So is the question "How do English speakers pronounce 'Pericles'?". The entry has an etymology. Several dictionaries do have this kind of entries; check . --Dan Polansky 11:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that OneLook does not offer "translations" or transcriptions of Pericles. All proper nouns have some kind of etymology and pronunciation. This clearly requires a coherent proposal and vote. If no one is even willing or able to organize a successful vote in favor of such entries, advocates are merely imposing the burden of supporting such entries on others who are clearly less than willing to support such entries. The basic question as to which ones are to be included is the first step. DCDuring TALK 11:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it meaningful to discuss individual cases even outside of CFI, and to consider making exceptions to CFI on individual basis. If I am the only one who supports the keeping of "Pericles" outside CFI, then "Pericles" gets deleted.
 * In any case, is there a vote the result of which is a consensus that the kind of entries like Pericles should be deleted? --Dan Polansky 12:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One more note: I for one find the definition of "New York" much less useful for the definition of "New York delicatessen" than the definition of "Pericles" for the definition of "Periclean" . I could enquire ages into the location or character of the particular "New York", and yet find almost nothing about the specific meaning of "New York delicatessen", while the definition of "Pericles" tells me what "Periclean" means given I recognize the suffix group "-ian" and "-ean". --Dan Polansky 15:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I could only invite you to New York so you could experience an ostensive definition. I suppose it must mean a deli with menu items and service typical of New York in the 1940s-1960s (possibly earlier to 1920s), especially with Jewish-American menu items of central and eastern European origin. That is the best this native New Yorker can do. We don't refer to them as New York delis here. I have never been impressed with the authenticity of "New York deli" establishments or menu items elsewhere. There might be a Damon Runyon story that covers this. Also, see Carnegie Deli. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "We don't refer to them as New York delis here. I have never been impressed with the authenticity of 'New York deli' establishments or menu items elsewhere": in that case, it seems that New York is precisely the wrong place to learn what the term means. :-)   —Ruakh TALK 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is an accurate definition of "New York deli" "an establishment hoping to profit by leading customers to hope that they will enjoy food of a type typically found in New York"? DCDuring TALK 13:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless appropriate attributive use is demonstrated. None of the CFI seem to bar our having an entry for the name, with pronunciation and etymology and translations, and even perhaps a usage note mentioning that most uses of the term are referring to this specific man. What the CFI do bar, unless there's appropriate "attributive use" (as defined by whoever happens to close an affected RFV discussion), is the entry that we currently have, which attempts wrongheadedly to define the man Pericles rather than the name . —Ruakh TALK 13:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I have found what seem attributive uses of "Pericles", in the pattern of "the Pericles of $1":. Is my understanding correct that these are considered attributive uses? --Dan Polansky 17:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

keep, because it's a word. CFI should be changed to accept all words, including proper nouns if and only if they are words (sometimes including spaces), and therefore can be addressed lexicographically here: OK for Churchill, Pericles ou ([New York]], but not Winston Churchill (=2 words). The attributive use condition was designed for English words only and it should go. CFI should focus on what's a word? (the answer may be different depending on languages) and when is a word considered as used in a language, and therefore as deserving a page here? I agree with Ruakh on the principle he describes but, as the word applies to a single man, the definition provided is quite normal. This is the meaning. Lmaltier 08:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added some of the citations that I have found to the citations namespace: Citations:Pericles. I admit that they are not attributive use in the sense of "such that it modifies a noun and is part of the noun's noun phrase".
 * I have done some digging on the origin of the requirement for attributive use in CFI. From what I have found, the requirement has never successfully passed a vote, and it does not enjoy a majority community support, let alone consensus. I don't see how such an unsupported requirement can be applied so strictly. --Dan Polansky 09:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not RfD. It is a RfV-sense for the sole sense given.
 * We have been acting as if WT:CFI is the law of the land. Irregularities in the consensus/vote process do not invalidate our practice, though they provide ammunition for damaging rhetorical attacks and may help undermine support for this aspect of WT:CFI and CFI in general.
 * I dispute the consensus point. I would need to see some facts on each of the points that you raise. If it is not a consensus anymore because of the departure of some or for other reasons then there should be no problem is make a proposal to formalize the consensus, including any limits on the inclusion of proper names or proper nouns, and put such a material change in our practice to a vote.
 * There is nothing that says that we do not have one-word proper nouns as words. In this case, the issue is with the sense. Our consensus practice has been to put specifics about coinage etc and any etymologically meaningful connection to an encyclopedic subject or name-holder in etymology. I fail to see any reason for us to waste time on becoming a short-attention-span Wikipedia when Wikipedia is not a rival, but a mother/sister project and our FL coverage is so weak and our English-language definition quality is so poor. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody proposes to include encyclopedic information. We include only linguistic information (etymology, pronunciation, etc.), and definitions/images/examples, only to be able to clearly understand what the word means and how it's used (nothing more should be added). In this case, the definition is correct, this is what this word means. We cannot invent another sense. For first names and for surnames (shared by nature), it's very different, and I would remove such definitions from their pages (I consider them as encyclopedic, and they should be replaced by links to Wikipedia). Lmaltier 15:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Pericles (n. “A Greek personal name”) is a proper noun. If it's an English given name, then it clearly meets the criteria allowing inclusion in Wiktionary.

Pericles (n. “Athenian statesman c. 495–429 BC”) is a proper name, not an English word. CFI doesn't allow its inclusion. (Of course, the person should be mentioned in the etymology of Periclean [adj.].)

Pericles (n. attrib. “Of or relating to Pericles c. 495–429 BC”) is an attributive use of the proper name, but it fails the (unclearly written) “widely understood meaning” part of the criterion. English can use any name attributively, specifically, as “a Pericles play,” or figuratively, as “a bad-ass Pericles attitude,” etc. If this were includable, then we may as well just put every living, dead, and fictional person, place, and pet into the dictionary. But things and people belong in the encyclopedia, not the dictionary. And we do have the perfectly serviceable word Periclean.

Pericles (adj. [having some independent meaning of its own]) is the kind of word that the specific-entities rule could support, but doesn't seem to be attestable. Perhaps that's because the language already has ''Periclean.

Why are we expending all this energy trying to add a person to the dictionary, when our guideline doesn't allow it, and when there is a red link to a real dictionary word here? Can we fix the stupid guideline already? —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 18:04 z

 * Hear, hear! —Ruakh TALK 18:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Mzajac, have you invented new terminology of "proper noun" and "proper name"? What is your source for this kind of terminology, applied in this particular way?
 * Re "Pericles (n. “Athenian statesman c. 495–429 BC”) is a proper name, not an English word. CFI doesn't allow its inclusion."; where exactly does it say in CFI that this sense is excluded, other than implicitly in the attributive-use rule? But the attributive use rule does not even speak of senses or sense-lines, only of names. So again, where in CFI does it say that the sense of "Pericles, an Athenian statesman" should be excluded, given that CFI does not even speak of sense lines or senses? --Dan Polansky 09:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Re "Why are we expending all this energy trying to add a person to the dictionary": We are not expending energy to add a particular individual at all; I am expending my and your energy on keeping the person in the dictionary. Adding the person to the dictionary is quick and cheap; what is expensive is arguing with non-encyclopedic purists and exclusionists who are reading some unvoted-on rules of CFI in their particular way. I would be happy not to have to monitor RFV and RFD to prevent deletion of useful already created entries. --Dan Polansky 10:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no voted support for the attributive-use rule, and there is not even a clear interpretation of what "attributive" means in that rule, some reading it in a grammatical sense, others as if "attributive" were a synonym for "figurative", which includes "metaphorical" and "metonymic".

From Xenophanes and Talk:Xenophanes; it seems that Xenophanes has passed RFV in November 2009 with the quotations "the Xenophanes of Roman culture", "No Xenophanes arose amongst the Jews", "Euthyphro is no Xenophanes but as a religious and thinking man ", the sort of which have been provided for "Pericles". The def reads "A Greek given name; most often used in reference to the pre-Socratic philosopher Xenophanes of Colophon. By extension, a profound or transformative religious thinker." If someone wants to define "Pericles" on the model of that def, let them go ahead.

If DCDuring or Mzajac want to create a votable proposal for the change of the CFI, good luck with that :p. --Dan Polansky 09:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I draw your attention to the following text from WT:NOT, which has appeared in this wording since May 2005 and in concept since 2002:
 * Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, a genealogy database, or an atlas; that is, it is not an in-depth collection of factual information, or of data about places and people. Encyclopedic information should be placed in our sister project, Wikipedia. Wiktionary entries are about words. A Wiktionary entry should focus on matters of language and wordsmithing: spelling, pronunciation, etymology, translation, concept, usage, quotations, and links to related words.
 * Whatever confusions may have occurred in attempting to apply common-law WT:CFI, whatever irregularities might have accompanied its establishment as a policy, for some three years since its imposition as policy and for some time before that, it helped define what en.wikt should be. We have been striving to make en.wikt somewhat consistent with that and with the similar WT:ELE. Undermining the legitimacy of the few policies we have is good politics to achieve short-term particularist goals, but not to maintain the consistency of en.wikt in the minds of users and contributors.
 * WT:NOT is not a policy. WT:NOT, and the quoted text in particular, has not been voted upon, unlike some parts of CFI. Your reading of "... it is not an in-depth collection of factual information, or of data about places and people" is consistent with what you wish Wiktionary to become, but not with what has a consensual community support, and not with what the actual common practice has been, the actual practice documented for individual people by me at Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2010-03/Including_particular_individuals. It is also clear that the actual practice has been to include dedicated sense-lines for many particular places, as there is not a community consensus for getting these deleted.
 * I oppose the idea that unvoted-on regulatory policies inconsistent with the common practice and community consensus should have any binding power.
 * If you think that WT:NOT should be made policy, you are free to start a vote. I am going to oppose. --Dan Polansky 18:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with what WT:NOT states. But including the word Pericles with its meaning (i.e. who Pericles is), pronunciation, etymology, etc. is fully consistent with what WT:NOT explains. What would not be consistent would be to include details not useful to understand the word (e.g. birthplace, biography, etc.) Lmaltier 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Birthplace is a traditional way to distinguish between different people with the same name; Zeno of Elea, Zeno of Citium, and four others are listed on Zeno.--Prosfilaes 05:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, everything required to understand the sense(s) of the word should be included. Lmaltier 07:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your telegraphic comment. How many of WP's proper noun senses should we include? I am sure that we can find cases where Zeno is used tout court to refer to several of the referents in the WP dab page.

 * 1) Are we to have different presentations of proper nouns according to whether one (vs. many) individual is the only notable holder of the name in our learned opinion (ie Pericles vs Zeno)?
 * 2) Are we to have different presentations of persons according to whether they are known in history by a one-part name {eg, Hitler:, Jesus:, Pericles:) or a multi-part name (eg Queen Victoria:, Alexander the Great:?
 * A name, when a word, may mean a person (e.g. Pericles) (one sense), or happen to be common to a few person (e.g. Zeno) (several senses), or be the name of a family (e.g. Churchill) (one sense, as a surname, not as a person). The important thing is not the absence of space, but: Is it a word or not? It seems clear to me that Churchill, La Fayette are words (surnames, names of families), that Pericles is a word (it means a specific person). Alexander the Great may also be considered as a word: it's not sum of parts, unlike Winston Churchill, which means any person with the first name Winston and the surname Churchill) or Queen Victoria (sum of parts meaning a queen named Victoria''). Lmaltier 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of Pericles, it strikes me as extremely implausible that there is only one person who went by the name of Pericles.
 * Are we to have the name qua name as one sense and a separate sense for each notable individual holder of the name?
 * You seem to have an unstated (and probably unstatable) notability criterion that has misled you to believing that the encyclopedic definition referring to a specific bearer of the name is appropriate.
 * I am fascinated that Winston Churchill is SoP, but possibly not Alexander the Great. I am unclear what you mean by "word". I take it that you mean "term", in line with the mass renaming of categories that had the apparently misleading word "word" in their names. I am confused by the subsequent distinction between words often used as components of proper names ("Winston", "Churchill") and those only sometimes so used ("the", "great").
 * Is "sum of parts" now to be read "some of certain types of parts"?
 * What types would that be?
 * Is Alexander the Great a stalking horse for Karl der Grosse?
 * -- DCDuring TALK 16:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For clarifying: I use word in its linguistic sense (see w:Word), not the sense used by typographers. Yes, Karl der Grosse is exactly the same case as Alexander the Great, they are names of specific persons, not of families. Winston Churchill has no specific meaning, from a linguistic point of view, it's simply a person with this first name and this surname. Alexander the Great has a specific meaning, and this meaning should be mentioned. The fact that great is an adjective is not my point, my point is that this name is a real proper noun (it's proper to a person) and that linguistic info about this proper noun can be provided (why the Great?). Linguistic info about Winston Churchill belongs to Winston and Churchill, there cannot be any linguistic data specific to Winston Churchill, any data would be encyclopedic. And no, I have no notability criterion, the fact that a particular individual may have to be mentioned in the definition is only because it's the actual meaning, just the same as cat deserves to be defined more precisely than an animal. Defining Pericles with the actual meaning of the word is no more encyclopedic. Lmaltier 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Proper nouns and proper names
A review of the important difference between proper nouns and proper names. From the OED, (s.v. “proper”):

 * proper noun [. . .] a noun that designates an individual person, place, organization, animal, ship, etc., [. . .]
 * proper name [. . .] a name, consisting of a proper noun or noun phrase including a proper noun, that designates an individual, [etc.] A proper name may receive a connotation from the qualities of a person or thing named, and thus may be used as a common noun, as a Hercules, a Calvary, etc.

Compare, s.v. “common”:

 * Gram. and Logic a. common noun, substantive, name, term: a name applicable to each of the individuals or species which make up a glass or genus.

A proper noun is a term, includable in Wiktionary by the CFI, e.g., Pericles (a Greek name), Carolina (name of a North American colony after Charles II). A proper name is only includable by the vague attributive-use criterion, e.g., Pericles (the Greek statesman); many proper names are not includable as sum-of-parts phrases, e.g., North Carolina (the US state) = north + Carolina.

It's further complicated because, unlike any other dictionary, we use “noun” and “proper noun” POS headings incorrectly, as if properness were a fixed property of a term. Being a proper noun varies by grammar and context. Proper nouns are used in common-noun senses (e.g., through antonomasia), and vice versa (e.g., through apostrophe).

Winston Churchill, [. . .] means any person with the first name Winston and the surname Churchill – really? Let's see three durably-archived citations demonstrating the proper-noun sense of Winston Churchill as a person other than “Winston Churchill (1874–1965).” (There is also the common-noun sense of a Winston Churchill or the Winston Churchill of the Middle East) —Michael Z. 2010-03-14 17:17 z
 * As I understand it, both Pericles and Winston Churchill are proper names, but only Pericles is a proper noun, Winston Churchill not being a noun (not being a word). But a proper noun means an individual person, place,etc, we must state which one in its definition. And Winston Churchill is the name of anybody with this first name and this surname, yes (I'm not sure there is more than one Winston Churchill, but it's quite possible). About antonomasia, we already had this discussion on fr.wikt, and I think that using a proper noun in a common-noun sense does not make it a common noun, it's only a general possible use of all proper nouns (and proper names), just as using a noun atributively does not make it an adjective. Lmaltier 17:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * No, the proper noun Churchill doesn't “mean” a specific individual person, it means “a surname,” which tells us it has been used to name, individually, any number of specific persons, including Winston Churchill. We define both proper nouns Winston and Churchill, but we don't list any of these people as “senses” of the noun. (Likewise, Paris is a proper noun referring to many cities, but it's Wikipedia's job to list the cities and write about them.)

 * Yeah, a proper noun is a word used mainly as a proper noun, but also as a common noun (and vice versa). And there are grey areas. Per the Oxford Companion to the English Language (1992:813), “Nationality nouns (Americans, a New Zealander, the Japanese) lie on the borderline between proper and common nouns.” Maybe that's why dictionaries don't specify. —Michael Z. 2010-03-14 19:39 z

 * I agree with you, except that Paris just happens to designate several cities (i.e. several senses), while Churchill is a surname (one sense) used by many people, by its very nature of surname. These cases are very diffeent. For information, in French, Americain, Parisien, etc. are considered as common nouns, despite the capital. Lmaltier 19:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Nope. Different how? Paris is a toponym referring to some places. Churchill is a surname referring to some people. (In fact, both of these and Winston are toponyms, which the OED charmingly defines as a “place-name; a name given to a person or thing marking its place of origin.”)

 * Your formula equates “cities” with “senses,” which is wrong. A sense is a subdivision of the meaning of a term; an abstract concept residing in the minds of beings that have language. A city, or a person, is a concrete thing you can touch; a term's referent. —Michael Z. 2010-03-15 05:06 z
 * No, Churchill applies to one family, this family including many people, of course, just as the word chair is applied to one category of objects, and is applied to all individual chairs. On the other hand, the nature of placenames such as Paris is not to be shared by many cities, even if this sometimes happens. Lmaltier 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Is the name Churchill different because all Churchills are genetically related? (Are they really?) Is it different because there have been more Churchills than Parises? How is any of this of any lexical significance? Please explain your logic. You seem to be talking about the nature of people and places. What, exactly, about the nature of place names is different?

 * If anything, etymologically, every other other Paris probably inherits its name from the French original. But any claim that all Churchills, Smiths, Chekhovs, Chandras, Lees, or whatever, are related either by genetics, or that any of their names are all descended from one individual, would probably be bunk. —Michael Z. 2010-03-15 23:17 z

 * Winston Churchill b.g.c. is a well-known American author; Winston S. Churchill (1874–1965) is at best a very minor author. There's also two other British politicians by the name of Winston Churchill.--Prosfilaes 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already explained it: Churchill is the name of a "family" of people, just as Felis is the name of a category of animals, while each place has its own, proper, name. It's not a question of genetics, but the fact that, for surnames, the same word is shared because of legal linguistic rules, the same word is used by people with the name, it's the nature of surnames to be shared, and it's the nature of scientific names such as Felis to be shared. For places, they may be etymologically related, but each one deserve a definition as much as all senses of a common noun deserve a definition, even when the etymology is the same. Lmaltier 06:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mzajac, so you are using the terms "proper noun" and "proper name" in the OED senses. Now, according to these definitions, "OED:proper noun" is a hyponym "OED:proper name", right? Each OED:proper noun is by definition also a OED:proper name, right? Do we agree on that? --Dan Polansky 10:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I think so: “Some grammarians distinguish the proper noun (a single noun like London; the and a single noun: the Pennines) from the proper name, a wider category which includes these and also such word groups as the United States (of America), the Houses of Parliament, the Royal Navy, A Tale of Two Cities, The Concise Oxford Dictionary.” (Oxford Companion to the English Language 1992:813)

 * But proper nouns are “a category of noun distinguished on grammatical and semantic grounds,” and their “reference is said to be unique in context and definite,” so their identity seems to depend on usage. The Companion entry gives examples of proper nouns used as common nouns, and vice versa, and says “There is, however, no clear demarcation between proper and common nouns, [...] People can speak of Churchills, who could be members of the Churchill family, people with that surname, or people figuratively compared to Winston Churchill,” &c.

 * I see what you mean by a family name, but how is it lexically significant? (“Legal linguistic rules?”) Felis is a genus, but the East End Churchills may have no real relationship with the Southern Alberta Churchills. Certainly countless Smith families share a name of countless unremembered horse-shoers, having no more in common than all of the Williams and Stephanies. Would you consider the Carolinas, the Aleutians, or the Alps to be like surnames? What about Lake Winnipeg, the Winnipeg River, Winnipeg, Winnipeg Beach which inherited their names from geographic association, rather than commemoratively? —Michael Z. 2010-03-16 17:23 z
 * You are right, there may be several different, unrelated, "families" with the same surname (e.g. Smith) and, theoretically, it might make sense to distinguish them. However, it would be almost impossible 1. to determine the list 2. to provide a different definition for each of them (and, anyway, it would be quite useless). This is useful only when etymologies (or pronunciation, etc.) are different. For places, it's easy and it's useful to readers. Lmaltier 18:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * But the etymologies of 15 or 20 Parises are the same (“after the city in France”). Are you saying that we should list every referent when it's easy and useful? By your logic, the dictionary should duplicate Wikipedia's disambiguation pages Rockport, Smith, James, etc. Right? —Michael Z. 2010-03-17 15:01 z

 * Then we can clarify your statements on Pericles in relation to "proper noun" and "proper name". "Pericles" is a proper noun and thus also a proper name. One of its extensional meanings, those that you call "reference", is "Athenian statesman c. 495–429 BC". "Proper noun" is not a meaning of "Pericles" but rather a grammatical classification of the word "Pericles". Neither is "given name" a meaning of "Pericles", although it is given on the sense line in the dictionary for the sake of convenience. It is not true that various meanings of "Pericles" can be classified as either "proper noun" or "proper name"; they are always both or none. Each meaning of "Pericles" can be classified as either one of Pericles—proper noun or Pericles—noun, the latter for the use of "Pericles" with a definite or indefinite article.
 * What I have now written refers to the following of what you have written:
 * "Pericles (n. “A Greek personal name”) is a proper noun. If it's an English given name, then it clearly meets the criteria allowing inclusion in Wiktionary."
 * "Pericles (n. “Athenian statesman c. 495–429 BC”) is a proper name, not an English word. CFI doesn't allow its inclusion. (Of course, the person should be mentioned in the etymology of Periclean [adj.].)"
 * Each of the quoted lines identifies a proper noun and at the same time a proper name. It is not so that one is a proper noun and the other one a proper name. Once a proper name is space-free, it is automatically a proper noun. The second line identifies not only a proper name, but also a proper noun, hence the falsity of your "... is a proper name, not an English word". --Dan Polansky 20:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 * So you want to add a definition line for each known referent of the proper nouns Paris and Pericles? I suppose then that you'll want to do the same and add specific-entity senses under Cher, Seal, Beck, Björk, etc. And you'd want entries for proper nouns like Winston, adding sense lines for Winston Churchill, Winston Smith (from Orwell's 1984), Winston Leathers (the painter), Winston Peters (the politician), etc? —Michael Z. 2010-03-17 15:01 z

RFV passed. WT:CFI, while still making clear that not all names of specific entities warrant inclusion, no longer specifies attributive use as the deciding criterion. Indeed, it does not specify any criterion that, in my opinion, could be enforced via RFV. More than three independent, durably-archived citations have been provided, spanning more than 170 years; any further discussion should take place at WT:RFD. (If anyone disagrees with me, please unstrike and explain.) —Ruakh TALK 17:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pericles


text: territuris

title: territuris


text: territuros

title: territuros


text: territuras

title: territuras


text: Category:User myv-1

title: Category:User myv-1


text:
Talk:absent-minded professor

absent-minded professor
This entry was removed from the list of wanted entries by Doremítzwr. So I'd like to know if it is attestable, if possible. --Daniel. 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Widespread use. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Agree with DCDuring. A quick google search shows this term to be easily attestable (which is not to say I'm actually going to take the trouble to do so :-P).  It is also idiomatic.  An absent-minded professor need not be a professor (although they are generally absent-minded).  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It behooves the person making the entry to take the trouble to cite it or find support from other dictionaries. RfV does not exist to get other people to do work for one's own entry. DCDuring TALK 10:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Hmm, it depends on whether people are willing to verify a term proposed; I'd appreciate if someone got citations for absent-minded professor despite the fact that I created that entry. Anyway, DCDuring, if your statement were strictly true, RFV probably would not exist because we could simply ask for attestation on the talk page of each respective creator. :) --Daniel. 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Sense 1 (with quotations) and Sense 2 in a trustworthy (IMO) dictionary. la la means I love you 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three citations added to the entry. bd2412 T 19:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The literal sense is SoP. It's the other sense that wants citing IMO. The standard citation ("Oh, John is such an absent-minded professor") is most readily construed as a metaphoric use of the first sense. I'm not sure we should have this entry at all. —msh210℠ 21:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What would constitute a good citation of a common noun phrase for figurative use? If metaphoric use doesn't count, than there are many senses of many words that should be deleted, eg head. I find it easier to simply disqualify any citation that is more nearly marked as a simile by use of a word like such: or like:. (In principle, there may some similes that would be idiomatic.) Are there some other practical criteria? DCDuring TALK 22:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "John is an absent-minded professor" admits the metaphoric sense IMO, but not "John is such an...". Sorry for not making that clear. I also didn't Google the former, and was assuming it's not attestable. I may well be wrong. —msh210℠ 23:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that all of the citations we have and the 22 hits at COCA are in the context of a role, image, character, caricature, resemblance or other marker of a simile. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is all of what Google makes available of a mention of the term:
 * Take a look at the citations. They are the only 3 of the first 170 at bgc that didn't have an obvious marker of simile, IMO. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is "is a ... before his time" not a simile? (That's from the Hallowell quote.) And the West quote seems to be using the phrase literally, no? —msh210℠ 00:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are probably right about the Hallowell. In the West, I actually missed that Oak is a professor, though it is right there in the cite. I found 2 others and could probably find more. The question is whether there is any need to jump through such hoops when most of our contributors don't seem to think it worthwhile to exclude such collocations. We have folks who are flummoxed by the attributive-use standard for proper names as well. Is this just a long run for a short slide? The dictionary-evaluation book seems to consider stereotypes worth considering for inclusion. Should all attestable stereotypes be deemed includable on "cultural" grounds for non-natives? If so, why do we exclude company and brand names which are about as significant culturally? DCDuring TALK 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are probably right about the Hallowell. In the West, I actually missed that Oak is a professor, though it is right there in the cite. I found 2 others and could probably find more. The question is whether there is any need to jump through such hoops when most of our contributors don't seem to think it worthwhile to exclude such collocations. We have folks who are flummoxed by the attributive-use standard for proper names as well. Is this just a long run for a short slide? The dictionary-evaluation book seems to consider stereotypes worth considering for inclusion. Should all attestable stereotypes be deemed includable on "cultural" grounds for non-natives? If so, why do we exclude company and brand names which are about as significant culturally? DCDuring TALK 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Re your cites, thanks for the work, and I'm glad to consider this cited. Re whether they're necessary... well, I think so, and AFAICT you (DCDuring) think so, so.... Personally I think that cites of the kind I pushed for, and you've found, here, are necessary for all exemplars, like this one, and like pancake (of flatness), board (of flatness), rail (of thinness), etc. Any exemplar without such citations (that is, with only simile citations) otherwise inclusible should have a usage note saying what it's an exemplar of, but that's it. Just MHO. —msh210℠ 00:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Passed. —msh210℠ 19:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:absent-minded professor


text:
numismatology

Noun

 * 1) numismatics

title: numismatology


text:
pickerelweed

Noun

 * 1)  Any of several freshwater plants, of the genus, that have heart-shaped leaves

title: pickerelweed


text:
pipsissewa

Etymology
Perhaps from (compare ), or perhaps from.

Noun

 * 1) Any of several evergreen plants, of the genus ; the prince's pine; in particular, the,.

title: pipsissewa


text:
possessio

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) The act of taking possession of, seizing, occupying, taking.
 * 2) The act of holding; possession, occupation, control, occupancy.
 * 3) That which is possessed; a possession, property.

title: possessio


text:
prizeman

Noun

 * 1) The (male) winner of a prize

title: prizeman


text:
productum

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) that which is brought forward or produced; product
 * 2)  things which are preferable

title: productum


text: Приднестровье

title: Приднестровье


text: Category:Russian terms suffixed with -ье


text: vadlet

title: vadlet


text:
желая

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1)  to wish, to desire, to long for
 * 2)  to wish
 * 3)  to wish for oneself
 * 1)  to wish
 * 2)  to wish for oneself
 * 1)  to wish for oneself
 * 1)  to wish for oneself

Derived terms

Participle

 * : while wishing, desiring
 * : while wanting

title: желая


text:
relievo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  Relief (surface carving).

title: relievo


text:
Talk:Snoopy

Snoopy
Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See Citations:Snoopy. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Passes. I do hope, Yair and everyone else, that you look for citations (at least cursorily) before RFVing. — msh210 ℠ 16:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this considered cited? "Snoopy eyes", "Snoopy look"? These are "attributive cites"?? --Yair rand 22:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Agreed: these citations do not fulfil the CFI. Four citations refer to four different attributes of Snoopy: sad-looking, roughly-drawn, enigmatic, and surprised, respectively. But in each one the writer has had to explain the relationship; in none does the word Snoopy convey this meaning. The only definition the citations attest to is (adj.) “of or relating to Snoopy.” So this is just a plain attributive use of the name, not an English word having any “widely understood meaning.” —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 21:33 z
 * As you know, CFI makes no attempt to, and never has attempted to, explain what "used attributively means", and I certainly don't know. This is why I don't nominate specific entries for RFV as nobody knows what a pass or a fail is. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Huh? Read attributive. The attributive use of a noun is well defined, both in and out of the context of a dictionary, and not at all controversial. That a few editors don't know what it means is a different sort of problem.

 * What I do know is that editors get fixated on attributive use, and completely ignore the requirement that the attributive use have “a widely understood meaning.” —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 22:04 z
 * There are different issues. Firstly, these names are not just proper names. They are brand names, for which we have somewhat different standards. The first issue is inclusion. The second issue is meaning. The attributive use standard is required to warrant inclusion of a sense other than a bare name without a referent (eg. Ford as a brand name for a car vs. "Ford" as a surname and given name). For a brand name there is the specific question of there having been a prior mention of the noun. As to the determination of the sense, it would be helpful to be able to suggest what is typically evoked by the mention of the name, but that is not always abundantly clear. In such cases, we are left with the proper noun tout court and must leave it the citations to provide usage examples for the en-wikt user to infer what it might mean in any specific case.
 * It is not explicit in WT:CFI that all of the attributive citations must be of any one specific sense to allow for inclusion. I don't recall it ever having been interpreted that way. But it would be sensible to require multiple attestations before including some specific attributive sense.
 * It is often the case that the attributes evoked by brand names are rather hard to pin down, partially because they change over time, but also because they operate in emotion space. If this is too complicated, then we can dispense with a portion of our extended slogan ("All senses from all times of all words [read "terms"] in all (official) languages") to make it more easy for us to operate with the talent available. I would by no means object to dispensing with any definition for a proper noun that referenced a specific individual. They all seem to be encyclopedic. We can readily direct users to a certain encyclopedia that we know of to find all the specific bearers of a name word. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what you mean about attributive use and the Ford example. That citing “a Ford car” makes it a common noun? So then do the diverse ”Snoopy ___” quotations satisfy the rule in your view? The don't convey any “widely understood meaning” to me, and we seem to have fallen back on “defining” the word by identifying its eponym—substituting etymology for lack of any definition.

 * It looks like the brand names rule only applies to physical objects (although all trademarks should still be labelled). But we should consider the fictional universes rule, which has a special clause for names. I infer from it that we shouldn't define Snoopy as the dog in Peanuts cartoons. If the word is sufficiently cited out-of-universe, then why the heck can't we define it out-of-universe?

 * “With a widely understood meaning” tells me that the noun Casanova is rightly defined in the figurative sense. And that entries like Daisy Duck and Snoopy, which we claim to be English words but are unable to define as such, don't meet this criterion. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 00:55 z

 * Ford: I offered this as an example of a trademark that we have included based on attributive use. I didn't think that we wanted to abandon settled precedent, laboriously worked out, merely because some currently active contributors weren't involved in those discussions. (That is not to say that we should not reevaluate it at BP.) What PoS it (and its cousins) should have makes my head hurt. Accordingly, I leave such matters to the professionals or to more gifted amateurs than me.
 * We do seem to include service marks such as those of some retailers Mickey D and airlines too. I don't see why we should carry the water of trademark holders. Let them protect their own purported intellectual property. Clearly in the case of Snoopy the word is used out of universe in all four citations (and without explanation in three). I have trouble defining many words and often leave tags so others can join the fun. To me "Snoopy" seems to have a meaning something like "doggishly soulful". But, then, I'm a dog person.
 * I have no truck with the entry for Daisy Duck, though, come to think of it, there might be some usage in feminist circles. Older words (like Casanova) seem to have more settled meaning, perhaps because they gained that meaning in slower-moving times or because it has ossified. We have many entries that do not bear very satisfactory definitions because they are used in evocative ways. I think of Category:English degree adverbs, especially but not limited to the vulgar ones. DCDuring TALK 01:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, function words like frikkin’ defy substitutable definition. Sometimes you just have to write “an intensifier.”

 * All four Snoopy quotes are references to the specific dog Snoopy, in the specific universe of Peanuts (and only as drawn by Charles Schulz!). They aren't invoking some conventional attributes of “a snoopy,” for example. The dialogue is not between Lucy and Linus, but they refer to that Snoopy, not some other one.

 * All four incorporate explanations. If they merely said “beagles with snoopy eyes,” “my daughter calls these snoopy eyes,” “giving her snoopy look,” and “gives the patient a snoopy look,” then you'd have no idea that they meant four different things: “soulful,” “simply-drawn,” “enigmatic,” and “surprised,” respectively (at least two pointedly do not mean “doggishly soulful”). Snoopy does not carry the meaning conveyed, it only refers you to Schulz's drawing, so you get an impression of which kind of enigmatic, and only if you have read the comic. It's not a metaphor, figurative use, or analogy, just a straight reference. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 04:04 z

Ah, I've wasted too much of your time with my academic arguments. Let's just see if this has been cited sufficiently.

''As to the determination of the sense, it would be helpful to be able to suggest what is typically evoked by the mention of the name, but that is not always abundantly clear. In such cases, we are left with the proper noun tout court and must leave it the citations to provide usage examples for the en-wikt user to infer what it might mean in any specific case.''

So, find three citation which don't indicate what the word means? That seems like a failure to cite the word. That would be contrary to the point of RFV.

''It is not explicit in WT:CFI that all of the attributive citations must be of any one specific sense to allow for inclusion. I don't recall it ever having been interpreted that way. ''

It's explicit in {rfv-sense} that a sense which can't be supported by three citations goes out the window. I'll add the tags.

''To me "Snoopy" seems to have a meaning something like "doggishly soulful". But, then, I'm a dog person.''

I was brought up by poodles, but I'm skeptical. Let's try it on for size. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 05:07 z

 * RFV passed, since the attributive-use rule has been removed from WT:CFI. But, feel free to list this at WT:RFD. —Ruakh TALK 17:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, on second look, this is clearly a fictional-universe name, and we omitted to remove the attributive-use rule for those. However, we no longer have the "with a widely understood meaning" requirement, so all that matters is that each quotation use it in an attributive sense, not that all quotations use it in the same sense. (But again, please feel free to list this at WT:RFD.) —Ruakh TALK 17:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Snoopy


text:
Днестр

Etymology
Of origin; see.

title: Днестр


text:
Днепр

Etymology
, from, from / (Sarmatian) apara "the far river" or , the first element being from  <<  <<.

Compare with, whose name probably means "the close river."

title: Днепр


text:
Talk:Donald Duck

RFV 1
Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * 3 cites for audio attributes. Can't imagine other attributive use. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed. I do hope, Yair and everyone else, that you seek citations (at least cursorily) before RFVing. — msh210 ℠ 16:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how these are "attributive cites". They're still direct references to the character, not uses as "words" like Darth Vader or Eeyore. --Yair rand 22:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are attributive in the sense "such that it modifies a noun and is part of the noun's noun phrase". WT:CFI does not define "attributive". If you have your own candidate definition of "attributive", you can propose it so that we know what you mean by "attributive". --Dan Polansky 13:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Attributive" has been taken to mean that the word does not refer directly to the specific entity, but is a word that is derived from the entity's attributes, independent of any reference to the entity or parts of the entity itself. Thus, for Donald Duck to pass, it would have to be a word derived from, but unconnected to, Donald Duck the character. --Yair rand 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you stating your reading of "attributive" in CFI. Is "the New York of the West" an attributive use of "New York", per your definition? Is "the Pericles of the Italian Renaissance" an attributive use of "Pericles"? Is there a wider support among Wiktionary editors for your definition of "attributive" as regards CFI? Can that support be documented? --Dan Polansky 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really know exactly what the boundaries of "attributive" are, but I'm pretty sure that the general idea is that it doesn't refer directly to the specific entity or parts of the specific entity. With regards to place names specifically, people generally seem to ignore the standard of requiring attributive cites, but then again, place names is an unresolved issue. "The Pericles of the Italian Renaissance" would work (I think), but the definition would explain the attributes, not the person himself. I don't think that the specific meaning is actually documented in CFI, other than a slight mention in the CFI subpage Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes, where it says that persons or places from fictional universes shall not be included unless they are used both out of context and in an attributive sense, giving the example "Irabu had hired Nomura, a man with whom he obviously had a great deal in common, and, who, as we have seen, was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball." --Yair rand 22:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Our practice has been to find citations in which the proper noun is used attributively and the context does not include prior mention of the proper noun. Thus "a Donald Duck voice" evokes the memory of voice as heard in a Disney cartoon or someone's imitation of it. (It would make a good audio example file. Anyone?) It does not signify "Donald Duck's voice". Admittedly this is not as clear-cut a case as Mickey Mouse where the reference to the character is more remote, more nearly etymological. Virtually every dictionary has the Mouse. Only en.wikt and Wordnet have the Duck. DCDuring TALK 01:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The guideline has two requirements: 1) used attributively, and 2) with a widely understood meaning. (The specific-entities CFI has unclear wording. We really need to improve it.)

An attributive noun is one that acts like an adjective. So D.D. in “Donald Duck voice” is an attributive, while “Pericles of the west” is not.

A widely understood meaning requires that the used of the name has a meaning of its own in the language, independent of any knowledge the listener may have of the eponymic person, character, place, etc. One indicator of this might be that the eponymic entity doesn't otherwise appear in the cited work, but it is not proof. Making this determination is a judgment call. So “[t]hey are putting a Mickey Mouse operation on the ice” has the conventional meaning of ‘unprofessional’ or ‘rinky-dink.’ But “I had Mickey Mouse hands” and “hair [...] pinned up in Mickey Mouse ears” are specific references to the character, having no meaning to someone who's not seen the cartoon.

Donald Duck is not an English adjective meaning “(of a voice), wheezing, high-pitched, and lisping.” Nor does it mean “wearing a blue sailor suit,” “being of foul temperament,” or “having white feathers.” If I said after some stage performance “they were very Donald Duck,” you'd have no idea what I was referring to.

If we claim that Donald Duck is an English word then we are just embarrassing ourselves. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 17:12 z

 * The current adjective defintion is "Of or relating to Donald Duck" - this is nothing but a noun/proper noun being used attributively. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 17:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I just created that heading based on the citations. Previously they had been used to show that the proper noun Donald Duck referred to a cartoon duck. It's still ridiculous. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 20:42 z

RFV passed, since we no longer have the "with a widely-understood meaning" requirement. But please feel free to list at RFD. —Ruakh TALK 17:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

RFV 2
Rfv-sense: Proper noun. Judging from the paucity of material at WikiCommons, the abundance of branded merchandise being sold at relatively high prices, and the association of the Duck with Disney (See Donald Duck for references to licensing agreements, some from this millennium.), the proper noun (and other senses ?) would seem to need to be cited under WT:BRAND. WT:FICTION seems also to apply. I am not sure whether they combine, as it were, additively or multiplicatively. ("Multiplicatively" here meaning that each citation would have to meet both sets of criteria simultaneously; "additively" meaning here that there would need to be three citations that met each set of criteria separately. I haven't really thought it through. There may be no difference between "additive" and "multiplicative" in practice.) For older fictional characters, presumably only WT:FICTION applies, unless trademark works differently than I expect. I hope we don't need an IP lawyer {:~{. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone has added some cites. I'd appreciate people's input about whether they feel these cites satisfy WT:FICTION and WT:BRAND. —Ruakh TALK 14:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Except for the 1945 Ernie Pyle citation of "Donald-Duck-like", I think they meet both criteria for inclusion. However, they do not support the encyclopedic definition. Specifically, I don't think that most use of "Donald Duck" in ordinary speech has anything to do with the Duck's clothing, for example. The 1945 cite is the only one that is somewhat supportive of "tantrums".

I have been wondering whether and how to include and attest characteristics of historic and fictional characters that are or have been invoked allusively. For example, Cincinnatus has represented a humble military man who did not seek power that could have been his. Plutarch's Lives is a source of many influential allusions of this type. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the citations meet FICTION and BRAND, so I mark this (noun sense) passed. As for the definition: I believe that once we know what a word refers to, we can define what the word refers to. We can define a bird as having wings, for example, even though a line like "his voice was as lovely as a bird's" does not reference the bird's wings (or its membership in the phylum Chordata) but its song: it nevertheless refers to a bird, and a bird has wings. The quotations refer to Donald Duck; we can define Donald Duck as an anthromorphic duck, even though the quotations all refer to his voice rather than his anthromorphic bearing. (Someone, I think it was Ruakh, has made a similar argument before.) Having said that, if we desired to find quotations that supposed each element of the definition, we could: they might not meet FICTION or BRAND, but we would use the quotations present now to meet CFI, and then use the additional quotations (for example something of the form "he quacked just like Donald Duck, that anthromorphic duck who was always throwing tantrums on TV") to illustrate each element of the definition. - -sche (discuss) 03:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is a big step away from empiricism and descriptivism. I'm perfectly happy to rely on (out-of-copyright) dictionaries for definitions and to consult with dictionaries for assistance on the words they cover. But citations illustrate meaning. We already have lots of encyclopedic content. Not relying on citations takes us farther in the direction of becoming a short-attention-span version of Wikipedia.
 * To say that citations are only necessary for attestation of an entry also contradicts our practice in attesting the senses of words: they rely on specific citations illustrating the usage. I suppose it is true that even today most of our definitions of words (not MWEs) show traces of their origins in Websters and, to a lesser extent, Century. So we can continue our heritage of unoriginality by copying prescriptive definitions from authoritative sources. If we rely neither on citations nor on authoritative sources, what will we be relying on? We certainly can't claim a great amount of lexicographic expertise nor do we have written principles about how words are to be defined. DCDuring TALK 03:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with -sche and thus support the notion that Donald Duck has been cited. The RFV process does not (or should not) require that every part of a definition of a term be attestable by quotations that use the term to convey meaning. --Dan Polansky 09:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Donald Duck
RFD for the adjective, which is really the proper noun being used attributively. DAVilla 08:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How would the appropriate sense for the Proper noun read? Or is the user to make inference from the WP article. Do we need a sound example? DCDuring TALK 13:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Known for his voice." Updated. DAVilla 19:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does our attestation support the update? DCDuring TALK 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not yet; the "very Donald Duck" citation seems to meet our CFI, but the "most Donald Duck-like" citation uses Donald Duck-like as an adjective, not just Donald Duck. I wouldn't accept that one. The remaining citations seem to be attributive use of the noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have the quotations been correctly rearranged to match the part of speech as you described? DAVilla 10:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

deleted as unattested. -- Liliana • 16:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"A fuck"
Be more specific. What kind of "a fuck"? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donald Duck


text:
ВМФ

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) navy

title: ВМФ


text:
resistibility

Noun

 * 1) The condition of being resistible.

title: resistibility


text:
ВВС

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) air force

title: ВВС


text:
有害

Adjective

 * 1) harmful; pernicious; detrimental; adverse; poisonous gas

Adjective

 * 1) harmful, nocuous

Antonyms

 * : harmless

Noun

 * 1) harmfulness

title: 有害


text:
salpiglossis

Etymology
Genus name.

Noun

 * 1) Any of several plants, of the genus, that have variegated, funnel-shaped blossoms in a variety of colors

title: salpiglossis


text:
сожитие

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  cohabitation

title: сожитие


text: Category:Russian terms prefixed with со-


text:
АТР

Proper noun

 * : APR (Asia Pacific Region)

title: АТР


text:
Talk:BitTorrent

BitTorrent
Nominated a while ago, can't find discussion, and deleted by User:Jackofclubs. However, this is not just a piece of corporate software, it is a protocol and possibly a generic way of referring to like file sharing programs.

 * Are protocols exempt from the usual restrictions on proper nouns? I suppose it would sort of make sense if they were, and they're obviously useful things for us to have entries for; but I can't recall this issue being raised before.  In any event, I would be inclined to delete sense as far as the specific BT client goes (absent CFI-compliant citations, of course).  -- Visviva 06:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Yep, keep the protocol sense. It's a huge phenomenon and a word that many people will need defined for them if they come across it unawares. Tooironic 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs to pass the brand names criteria. Conrad.Irwin 20:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Cited fairly easily, removed the tag. - 21:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I've restored the tag for now. It's really not clear to me that those cites satisfy Criteria for inclusion. —Ruakh TALK 02:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I am not sure what you feel is unclear, the first cite "...acts as a BitTorrent client..." refers to the protocol not the software or else there wouldn't be multiple potential clients (a vs the). The second "...clusters in a large-scale BitTorrent-like underlying overlay network..." is commenting on network structure, something unique to the protocol and not the software which is a client.  The third "...you can use the Transmission BitTorrent client to..." refers to an entirely different client which operates using the same protocol but is maintained by a whole different group.  There are also multitudes more cites available, as well as tons of usage on the sites and forums of the dozens of other popular BitTorrent clients and trackers.  -  02:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * edit: Oh, I misread, yeah those are for the protocol not the client, I wasn't trying to cite the client which I thought was already removed. - 02:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

BitTorrent is a US corporation which controls both the BitTorrent name and the BitTorrent protocol. BitTorrent is a trademark of BitTorrent, Inc. A BitTorrent client is part of Ubuntu Linux, which is sponsored by US corporation Canonical. Many parties have economic interest, so let's find three measly citations which very clearly fall under WT:BRAND. —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 19:03 z

RFV failed for the sense "The original BitTorrent client, simply named BitTorrent." Leaving the protocol. DAVilla 04:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:BitTorrent


text:
storeyed

Adjective

 * 1)   (Having the stated number of storeys (building levels))

title: storeyed


text: Template:ru-adv

title: Template:ru-adv


text:
Talk:storeyed

Definition
I thought was the past tense of  and  was from  meaning "having x storeys" (a bit like talented). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:storeyed


text:
tabacum

Etymology
Latinized from, itself possibly from

Noun

 * 1)  tobacco
 * 2) * 2017, Tuomo Pekkanen, Societates tabacariae de periculis tabaci monent., Nuntii Latini 1.12.2017:
 * "la"

- Magnae societates tabacariae in USA tandem adducti sunt, ut nuntiis divulgandis de periculis tabaci in actis diurnis monerent.

title: tabacum


text:
Talk:green mile

green mile
Really? All I can see is the name of a prison film. SemperBlotto 08:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The book on which the film was based started coming out in 1996, so I tried searching for books from before then. The first 250 (sic) hits on that search did not yield any relevant results whose snippets were visible on the search-result page, nor, indeed, any obviously non-SoP results at all. So if this exists, I guess it's only in recent use, based on the book and film, but yields AFAICT no relevant results among the first 100. — msh210 ℠ 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "mile" or possibly "last mile" would be a more general version; from what I remember of the film, their death row just happened to have a green floor. Interplanet Janet 12:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Batman game, the green mile (in lower case) refers to the area of the penitentiary for prisoners waiting to be executed. I agree that this is a recent development. It will probably see more frequent use in the near future. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 09:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 01:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:green mile


text: Fenians

title: Fenians


text:
искони

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) in the beginning, from the beginning

Etymology
or likely.

Adverb

 * 1) in the beginning

Etymology
, from.

Adverb

 * 1)  since olden times, from of old, from time immemorial

title: искони


text:
unbribable

Adjective

 * 1) Who cannot be bribed

title: unbribable


text:
Talk:pleuvable

pleuvable
(French.) Rainable? Equinox ◑ 12:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That word is absurd (what the hell could it mean?) and does not exit. Immediate delete. --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 12:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We are looking for verification because languages include and included things beyond any one individual's ken. There are very few people whose on-sight deletions we accept. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no valid attestations of the word. For the good reason that pleuvoir (“to rain”) is intransitive and impersonal. Can you pleuvoir something? Of course, not! That's why I'm asking for deletion. --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 13:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted. I see there are only four Google Web matches, they aren't all in French, and the most promising is a linguistics book that has the word asterisked as an intentionally erroneous construct. Equinox ◑ 13:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job, Equinox!--Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 13:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If something comes here, our process provides for it to remain here for 30 days. I suppose that if the nom "erred" in placing it here, there is nothing to prevent correction with an explanation, such as that provided. The low number of raw web hits (single digits, say) would be strong evidence of likely unattestability.
 * It would be more difficult with the purported English gloss: rainable. There are abundant raw bgc hits (let alone Web hits). I have not found a OneLook dictionary that has it, of course, and all of the first 100 bgc hits are scannos. As rain is a transitive verb, morphogically there is nothing to prevent "rainable" from having a sensible interpretation, however unlikely or rare it might be. ("We can all agree that cats and dogs are not really rainable?") I could not speak with equal confidence about whether "pleuvable" is as plausible in French. I wonder whether Google has had much success in getting French libraries and newspapers to offer material for scanning. DCDuring TALK 16:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:pleuvable


text:
velvetleaf

Noun

 * 1) Any of several plants with a velvety leaf as a most notable feature.
 * 2) A tall Asian herb, of species, that has velvety heart-shaped leaves and yellow flowers.
 * 3) , native to Europe.
 * 4) , an aquatic flowering plant native to southeast Asia.
 * 5) A succulent of species, native to Madagascar, often kept as a houseplant.

Translations

 * Bulgarian: просфорник
 * Catalan: soja borda,
 * Dutch:
 * French: abutilon de Théophraste
 * Korean: 어저귀
 * Portuguese: malvão

title: velvetleaf


text:
garac

Noun

 * 1) bastard

title: garac


text: velveteens

title: velveteens


text:
Talk:hwaet

When dealing with an old language like this, what does it mean when we say "common misspelling"? Does it mean that in this time we are misspelling it or does it mean the people back in the day were often (also) misspelling it? 81.68.255.36 10:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See WT:RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said on RFD, it started as a redirect because of the difficulty in typing æ. I think it's basically just a wrong entry. Also (not that I know much Old English) spelling wasn't standardized back then, and typography even less, so it seems almost silly to talk about misspellings. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 * It should remain a redirect, due to the difficulty of typing æ. 71.66.97.228 17:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't actually, the search function 'guesses' at hwæt if you type in hwaet. So it achieves nothing, and perhaps hwaet will one day be an entry in another language. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

hwaet
"Common misspelling" - I don't think it is, it's just use of ae to replace the ligature æ which is harder to type on a QWERTY keyboard. If kept, we'd pretty much have to allow any ae æ substitution. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See Talk:hwaet. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing but I thought someone with more knowledge of OE created it. Anyway, why delete it and not just say "alternative spelling of"? 81.68.255.36 10:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it was created as a redirect towards hwæt. As for alternative spelling, that would depend on it being used somewhere. It gets a little trickier at that point as we'd be relying on modernized versions rather than original texts. However, my point stands, "If kept, we'd pretty much have to allow any ae æ substitution". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Google gets 28 hits for hwaet on the English Wikisource, only one of which is hwaet, the other 27 are for hwæt. The one that's for this form is not Old English, it's an etymology so it wouldn't meet CFI (see use-mention distinction). Ergo delete or move to RFV, where it would likely fail. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I thought iwas used the same as daemon. Cheers 81.68.255.36 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Old English treated æ as a distinct letter, whereas in Latin ae was just written as æ because it had turned into a single sound. Writing æ as ae is never correct in any of the Germanic languages that use it. —CodeCat 09:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dæmon is Modern English, which is a distinct language. It's not a good choice of comparison. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But the issue of two spellings (æ and ae) is inherited from the original Latin writing. So yes, it is. —CodeCat 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean the rules for Modern English don't also apply for Old English, though I take your point, just it seems to be a separate point. Deleted this entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:hwaet


text: гандон

title: гандон


text: fenestrations

title: fenestrations


text:
noninterpretative

Adjective

 * 1) Not interpretative.

title: noninterpretative


text:
noninterpolating

Adjective

 * 1) Not interpolating.

title: noninterpolating


text:
warmblood

Noun

 * 1) A horse of a middle-weight classification, between draught horses and thoroughbreds.

title: warmblood


text:
waxpod

Noun

 * 1) A dwarf variety of French bean.

title: waxpod


text:
ксива

Etymology
via, from.

Noun

 * 1)  identity card, ID
 * 2)  any document
 * 3)  false document
 * 4)  a slip or letter passed secretly from cell to cell, from prison to prison or to the outside world

title: ксива


text:
waybread

Etymology
From, from , , equivalent to. Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) The.

title: waybread


text: waxpods

title: waxpods


text: warmbloods

title: warmbloods


text: Category:el:Home appliances

title: Category:el:Home appliances


text:
woollybutt

Noun

 * 1)  Any of several types of eucalyptus that have a wooly or stringy bark

title: woollybutt


text: Category:el:Machines

title: Category:el:Machines


text:
цуцик

Etymology
From, ultimately from.

Noun

 * 1)  puppy of a small dog
 * 2)  a young and unexperienced person

title: цуцик


text: ηλεκτρικές σκούπες

title: ηλεκτρικές σκούπες


text: чувих

title: чувих


text: δεξαμενές σκέψης

title: δεξαμενές σκέψης


text:
невод

Etymology
, formally equivalent to, perhaps implying “one that does not allow further advancement”.

Noun

 * 1)  seine large fishing net

Declension
Dialectally:

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) seine
 * 2)  window grate
 * 1)  window grate

title: невод


text:
daggarmark

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) dew point

title: daggarmark


text:
насилователь

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  violator; oppressor; offender

title: насилователь


text:
кутузка

Etymology
From the Russian family name (after chief of police Павел Васильевич Голенищев-Кутузов).

Noun

 * 1)  lockup, jail, quod

title: кутузка


text:
бухло

Noun

 * 1)  booze, alcoholic drinks

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  booze

title: бухло


text:
aliskiren

Noun

 * 1)  A renin inhibitor that is used in the treatment of hypertension.

Translations

 * Finnish: aliskireeni
 * Portuguese: aliskireno, aliscireno

title: aliskiren


text: Category:Russian terms suffixed with -ло


text:
alloreactive

Adjective

 * Of, pertaining to, or causing alloreactivity

Translations

 * Portuguese: alorreativo

title: alloreactive


text:
angiotensinase

Noun

 * 1)  Any peptidase that hydrolyzes angiotensin

Translations

 * Portuguese: angiotensinase

Noun

 * 1)   any peptidase that hydrolyzes angiotensin

title: angiotensinase


text:
cryoactivation

Noun

 * 1)  activation (of an enzyme etc) by application of low temperatures

title: cryoactivation


text: endothelins

title: endothelins


text:
extrarenal

Adjective

 * 1)  Outside (but adjacent to) a kidney

title: extrarenal


text:
glucosaminidase

Etymology
?

Noun

 * 1)  Any enzyme that hydrolyzes chitin to produce glucosamine.

title: glucosaminidase


text:
glycosylating

Adjective

 * 1) That produces glycosylation.

title: glycosylating


text: λάσπης

title: λάσπης


text: gravidae

title: gravidae


text: gravidas

title: gravidas


text: λάσπες

title: λάσπες


text: λασπών

title: λασπών


text:
hyalinosis

Noun

 * 1) hyaline degeneration

Derived terms

 * fibrohyalinosis

title: hyalinosis


text: αλανίνης

title: αλανίνης


text:
hyaline degeneration

Noun

 * 1)  The degeneration of cellular tissue to form a mass of glassy, homogenous material

title: hyaline degeneration


text:
անհերքելի

Etymology
From ; see it for more.

Adjective

 * 1) irrefutable; undeniable, indisputable, incontestable

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) irrefutable; undeniable, incontestable

title: անհերքելի


text:
hyperactivated

Adjective

 * 1) activated as a result of hyperactivation

Related terms

 * hyperactivatable

title: hyperactivated


text: αλλαγής

title: αλλαγής


text: αλλαγές

title: αλλαγές


text: αλλαγών

title: αλλαγών


text:
immunometric

Adjective

 * 1)  Of or pertaining to measurement (of biochemical systems) using antibodies

Related terms

 * immunometrics

Translations

 * Finnish: immunometrinen

title: immunometric


text:
immunonephelometric

Adjective

 * 1)  Relating to immunonephelometry or to a immunonephelometer

title: immunonephelometric


text: ακετόνης

title: ακετόνης


text:
interleukine

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to interleukin

title: interleukine


text: βαλίνης

title: βαλίνης


text:
հերքելի

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) refutable, confutable

title: հերքելի


text: limit points

title: limit points


text:
intrapartum

Adjective

 * 1) During parturition (childbirth; labor).

title: intrapartum


text:
intravacuolar

Adjective

 * 1) Within a vacuole

title: intravacuolar


text:
macroalbuminuric

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to macroalbuminuria

title: macroalbuminuric


text: malignances

title: malignances


text:
malignance

Noun

 * 1) malignancy

title: malignance


text:
microalbuminuric

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to microalbuminuria

Noun

 * 1) A patient that has microalbuminuria

title: microalbuminuric


text:
multigravidity

Noun

 * 1) The condition of being multigravid.

title: multigravidity


text:
multigravid

Adjective

 * 1) Describing a woman who has been pregnant multiple times.

title: multigravid


text:
հերքեմ

Etymology
The root is, of origin.

Verb

 * 1) to repulse, to drive away; to reprove, to refute, to contradict
 * 2) to be able to withstand; to persist
 * 1) to be able to withstand; to persist

title: հերքեմ


text:
nonproteolytically

Adverb

 * 1) In a nonproteolytic manner; without causing proteolysis

title: nonproteolytically


text:
հերքել

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to deny, to repudiate, to refute, to disclaim (to deny accusations, to counter inaccuracies or untruths)

title: հերքել


text:
normoalbuminuric

Adjective

 * 1)  Having a normal amount of albumin in the urine

Noun

 * 1) A patient who has normoalbuminuria

title: normoalbuminuric


text: nulliparas

title: nulliparas


text:
osteoclastic

Adjective

 * 1)  Of or pertaining to an osteoclast
 * 2)  Of or pertaining to osteoclasis

Derived terms

 * subosteoclastic

title: osteoclastic


text: dining tables

title: dining tables


text:
mixing bowl

Noun

 * 1)  A large bowl in which ingredients are mixed for the purpose of preparing food.

Translations

 * French: ,
 * German: ,
 * Greek:
 * Ancient: κρατήρ
 * Norwegian:
 * Bokmål: bakebolle
 * Nynorsk: bakebolle
 * Polish:

title: mixing bowl


text: mixing bowls

title: mixing bowls


text: dinner plate

title: dinner plate


text: dinner plates

title: dinner plates


text:
User talk:Vuckovac aljosa

Welcome
Hello, we write in English here. Thanks, Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vuckovac aljosa


text:
Hauptsache

Etymology
From, equivalent to de. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) main thing, most important thing
 * 2)  main issue
 * 1)  main issue

title: Hauptsache


text:
Abrede

Noun

 * 1)  agreement

title: Abrede


text:
in Abrede stellen

Verb

 * 1) to deny

title: in Abrede stellen


text:
অনুবাদ করা

Verb

 * 1) to translate

Conjugation

 * Chalita Bhasha

 * Sadhu Bhasha

title: অনুবাদ করা


text:
Herr werden

Verb

 * 1) to master, to get under control

title: Herr werden


text:
তর্জমা

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) translation

title: তর্জমা


text:
তর্জমা করা

Verb

 * 1) to translate

Conjugation

 * Chalita Bhasha

 * Sadhu Bhasha

title: তর্জমা করা


text:
Talk:ducdame

The line gives 'ducdame' three times. This is likely to be a literal translation of the Welsh 'Dewch gyda fi' meaning - come with me -. This fits the circumstances of the play and neatly echoes the earlier lines in the same scene 'Come hither, come hither, come hither'.

The musicians in the play, instrumentalists and singers, were likely to be drawn from Welsh-speaking Londoners; and Augustine Phillips, a prominent member of The Chamberlain's Men, who organised their music, was a Londoner who came from a Welsh family and who probably spoke the language.

John Idris Jones Ruthin, denbighshire.

RFV discussion: March–April 2022
Shakespeare's nonce word Notusbutthem (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed, compare This, that and the other (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:ducdame


text: دروغ‌ها

title: دروغ‌ها


text:
ננס לבן

Etymology
A noun-adjective phrase made of +

title: ננס לבן


text:
User talk:Neuralwarp

rfv
rfv isn't used for stuff like context labels, you can either used the talk page (recommended) to WT:RFC (you may never get an answer there). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I repeat... Mglovesfun (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the Tea room is the best choice here, I think. You don't always need to 'tag' entries, in this case seems to be the best choice. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Neuralwarp. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Neuralwarp~enwiktionary that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Neuralwarp


text:
로봇

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) robot (intelligent mechanical being)

title: 로봇


text:
Örs

Derived terms

 * a town at the border of the Hungarian capital Budapest

title: Örs


text:
ferilskrá

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) curriculum vitae, résumé

title: ferilskrá


text:
misaim

Verb

 * 1)  To aim incorrectly.

title: misaim


text: misaiming

title: misaiming


text: misaims

title: misaims


text: misaimed

title: misaimed


text: superinducing

title: superinducing


text: superinduces

title: superinduces


text:
Talk:hyaena

Archaic?
Is this archaic or just a 'variant' spelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks current enough. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:hyaena


text: καλλιγράφου

title: καλλιγράφου


text: καλλιγράφο

title: καλλιγράφο


text: καλλιγράφε

title: καλλιγράφε


text: καλλιγράφοι

title: καλλιγράφοι


text: καλλιγράφους

title: καλλιγράφους


text: καλλιγράφων

title: καλλιγράφων


text:
traslocatore

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) house mover, removalist

title: traslocatore


text:
Talk:identicus

identicus
Language: Latin.

I am sending the entry I have created for verification, as neither I nor EncycloPetey are able to find Latin quotations for attestation. Maybe someone else is able to attest this.

The term is found in an etymology in Century 1911 and also in an etymology in M-W online, but not in Lewis and Short. --Dan Polansky 07:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally this. So it only seems to appear in Latin after 1800. I'll keep looking. Do we accept any Latin citation, despite the date? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A single one before 1600. In case you haven't realised, I can't read Latin therefore I can't cite it myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great job anyway!
 * An additional find:, --Dan Polansky 13:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have entered three citations into the Citations namespace, to satisfy the letter of the requirement.
 * A good search strategy that finds many more citations is to search in Google books only in the full-view. --Dan Polansky 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Passes. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:identicus


text:
traslocatrice

Etymology
From.

title: traslocatrice