text:
aspectans

Etymology
Present participle of.

Participle

 * 1) observing, watching, regarding

title: aspectans


text: aspectantes

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

title: aspectantes


text: aspectantia

title: aspectantia


text: aspectantis

title: aspectantis


text: aspectantium

title: aspectantium


text: aspectanti

title: aspectanti


text: aspectante

title: aspectante


text: aspectantibus

title: aspectantibus


text: aspectantem

title: aspectantem


text:
aspergens

Etymology
Present participle of.

Participle

 * 1) scattering, strewing; splashing; sprinkling

title: aspergens


text: aspergentes

title: aspergentes


text: aspergentia

title: aspergentia


text: aspergentis

title: aspergentis


text: aspergentium

title: aspergentium


text: aspergenti

title: aspergenti


text: aspergentibus

title: aspergentibus


text: aspergentem

title: aspergentem


text:
Talk:mistakes were made

mistakes were made
From RFV:

Matching the definition given, above and beyond the mere sentence on its own. Equinox ◑ 00:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It approaches idiomacity, in that equivalent statements (e.g. "mistakes occurred", "errors were made") would seem not to convey quite the same sentiment. See, e.g.:
 * 2009, Suzanne Brockmann, Into the Fire, p. 162:
 * "I'm assuming we're talking now about the Hollywood assignment," she said, "where . . . mistakes were made?"
 * Cheers! bd2412 T 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * This seems to be just a well-documented instance of the common rhetorical practice of politely or self-servingly avoiding a clear statement of responsibility by the passive transformation. It's wired in our brains, not part of the learned lexicon, although its pragmatic use must be learned. That pragmatic use is also not a lexical phenomenon. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Move to RFD. (My vote, BTW, will probably be keep.) —Ruakh TALK 01:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep.

—Ruakh TALK 22:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete. This looks more like an entry for WikiQuote. The "idiomaticity" you are claiming comes out of the context and tone of speech, not the phrase itself. The most you could argue would be that the passive construction implies a shirking of responsibility but that is a syntactical - not a lexical - feature. And, on the contrary, "mistakes occurred" and "errors were made" would convey pretty much the same information IMO. One could also say, "mistakes were made... lines were crossed... lives were changed..." etc. ---> Tooironic 20:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, SoP, also not cited in the RFV debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about Appendix:English catchphrases and ? These are not on all fours with true idioms, but have some cultural significance. Or, do we need these to provide translation practice? Otherwise, delete. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now cited. Show me someone who thinks the 1999 and ante-2009 cites could be replaced with "mistakes occurred" or "errors were made", and I'll show you someone who's been living under a rock the past forty years. —Ruakh TALK 23:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

 * In particular, note that:
 * The only point of "mistakes were made" in the 1999 cite is to highlight that it's not an apology. It wouldn't make sense to say "mistakes occurred" instead, because although "mistakes occurred" is not an apology either, it isn't an idiom meaning "this is a non-apology".
 * In the ante-2009 cite, immediately after coincidentally mentioning a mistake that Columbus had made (i.e., not ending up where he thought he was), the author changes the subject by using the phrase "mistakes were made", coyly alluding to all the evils Columbus perpetrated. The alternative phrasing "errors were made" would have made no sense, because that would have applied equally to what she had just finished discussing. That is, the author is implicitly (and unconsciously) distinguishing between (on the one hand) a mistake and (on the other) a "mistakes were made" event.
 * —Ruakh TALK 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how an allusion makes something idiomatic. Is it just we happy few deletionists, we band of brothers, who believe that this way madness lies? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think all allusions are necessarily idioms, but if you can't properly understand the phrase without understanding the allusion, then it's not actually SOP. Tell me — would you understand the 1999 and ante-2009 cites in the entry if they used "errors took place" instead of "mistakes were made"? Setting aside the obvious fact that the authors would never do such a thing — that just makes it a "set phrase", and not everyone agrees that set phrases merit inclusion — I honestly don't think readers would even catch what the authors were trying to say. —Ruakh TALK 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do believe Tooironic's comment above that the point is made by almost any synonymous passive-voice construction. The specific allusive catchphrase form exerts some force in reducing frequency of the synonyms. Other allusive phrases that we have typically are not SoP, eg, emperor's new clothes omits the highly salient fact that the clothes were the null suit. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly clear: are you saying that you would understand the 1999 and ante-2009 cites if they used (say) "errors took place"? (Sorry, just — I find that so shocking and implausible that I really want to make sure I'm understanding you. I almost want to ask and make sure that you did actually read those cites, but that seems rude.) —Ruakh TALK 00:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reread them a few times now in light of your assertions. I still don't view this as very different from a good time was had by all or questions will be asked, except for the dwindling popular memory of the allusion, revived by use of the term in a recent book title. All of these are somewhat formulaic, but readily decodable. They are certainly not opaque. The use of the passive voice conveys some meaning and the fact that one might have heard the expression before conveys some triteness, but does that make these set phrases? If every catchphrase is to be an entry, let me suggest that we come up with some explicit criteria and have a vote on that point to avoid wasting time on these discussions. It's not ridiculous to have catchphrases and allusions, but it does take us farther from the lemmings we've thought of as our peers and more into the realm of the late William Safire and other more topical word commentators. DCDuring TALK 02:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete; I agree with those who see not idiomaticity here. The meaning is clear from the sum of parts.  Yes, it's a common collocation, but so is "I have a bad feeling about this."  The fact that a particular combination of words can be found together doesn't make it dictionary worthy.  Yes, I read the quotes, and they are quotes referring to other quotes.  That makes them allusive, not idiomatic. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep. It is indeed true, to use the felicitous turn of phrase above, that "it approaches idiomaticity." The usage of this expression imparts a certain tone, a flavour, which creates an enriched meaning over and above the SoP.  This term tends to express a sense of mournfulness or regret for especially consequential errors, for lost opportunities and an irrecoverable past. It also often tends to convey a note of ashamedness, an apologetic tone, or a confessional quality.  I do disagree, however, with the  context and with the limited sense of the current gloss defn (this term is bigger than that). -- The inclusionist Ghost of WikiPedant 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All good writing adds something to the bare meaning of the component words. I don't think that connotation belongs in dictionaries, unless it is at the core of an utterance (eg, interjections). DCDuring TALK 23:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per EP. —msh210℠ (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An exemplar of awareness of the meaning of the passive voice, from Slashdot:
 * Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday November 10, @10:38PM from the tonight-on-security-theater dept.
 * Jeremiah Cornelius writes "Two days before toner cartridges threatened western civilization, Britain's Home Office minister Baroness Neville-Jones was en route to a Washington summit when she was found to have an over-sized aerosol can in her bag. While being questioned by airport security staff for transporting a container with more than 100ml of liquid, the Baroness seemingly took offense at being lectured on the importance of security procedure: 'Of course I know how important it is,' she said, 'I'm the Security Minister.' The Baroness is also former head of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, and was traveling at the time to discuss the war on terror with US security chiefs. According to a Home Office spokesman, trained in the use of the passive voice, 'Liquids were inadvertently left in a bag. The item was removed and the Minister fully complied with subsequent checks.'" [emphasis added] DCDuring TALK 23:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete. It is a quotation. Equinox ◑ 00:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete, I think. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 08:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep, for the reasons Ruakh outlines. — Beobach972 21:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Further comment: I don't really understand Ruakh's comment about how this is different from errors were made, in the 2009 quote or any other. "Mistakes were made" is definitely more common, but surely any extra-semantic connotations this has come from the passive voice, and all similar statements which use the passive voice have the same connotations? Am I missing something special about this particular wording? < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 09:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the citations added just show this to be SoP. It would be a bit like me saying 'the glass is broken' without me saying 'I broke the glass'. Doesn't mean the glass is broken is an English idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not speaking of connotations, but of denotations. (Note: In this regard I am not agreeing with BD2412 or with Ghost of WikiPedant, and not endorsing the phrase's idiomaticity in the various cites they added. They may well be right — I don't know — but I'm talking of something quite different, something I'm much more sure of.) In the 1999 and ante-2009 cites this phrase can't be replaced with any other non-apology, because the speakers aren't actually non-apologizing; rather, the 1999 cite is saying "this guy should be apologizing, but isn't" (what would "an errors-occurred explanation" be? I'm not sure, since there is no such thing, but if it existed it would presumably have to involve the words "errors" and "occurred", whereas "a mistakes-were-made explanation" apparently doesn't require "mistakes", "made", or the passive voice), and the ante-2009 cite is alluding, tongue in cheek, to the evils Columbus perpetrated (what would "And of course, as they say, errors occurred" mean? I'm not sure, because "they" don't "say" that, but presumably it would mean that someone messed up, rather than that someone did evil things). I think EncycloPetey — despite denying this — comes closest to presenting a decent alternative explanation: he contends that these denotations are not "idiomatic" but rather "allusive". If such a distinction existed, he would surely be right, but I don't think idioms and allusions are mutually exclusive, and it seems to me that this is both. *shrug* But clearly most of y'all disagree, so I don't know why I'm wasting my breath. —Ruakh TALK 00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I've added another example to the article, from 1997:
 * 1997, Congressional Quarterly weekly report: volume 55:
 * Witnesses admitted wrongdoing. With no caveats, no "I can't recalls" — not even a "mistakes were made" — three Buddhist nuns from a California temple confessed on live television Sept. 4 that their organization had illegally reimbursed followers for donations to the Democratic National Committee [...]
 * — Beobach972 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be mention, not a use. Not that it is advanced in the same manner as '"I can't recall"', which is decidedly not idiomatic.
 * If it is decided that this is idiomatic, there are many formulaic phrases that would need to be included as well: "I can't recall.", "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.", "You bet your bippy.", "Not on your life." and others. DCDuring TALK 01:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno about those first three, but I think should indeed have an entry. I take it you think otherwise? —Ruakh TALK 02:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't always check my examples very carefully. That one might well be idiomatic. The terms most accessible in (my) memory are often idiomatic if not just cliches. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But what about this quote from the Washington Monthly message boards: ‘Uhh, Steve, you wrote this post in an "errors were made" style without noting WHO lost control of the stimulus proposals.’ Isn't this the same thing? < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is . . . and it sounds incredibly "wrong" to me. Does it sound natural to you? —Ruakh TALK 22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound unnatural, in all honesty. But OK, I retract my delete vote and will abstain. Perhaps the commonness of this particular collocation makes it interesting enough to have around. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "errors were made": I would point to this reference and these to the Ottoman Empire being "the ill man of Europe". — Beobach 23:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Err on the side of keep. The following snippets picked from the citations signal to me that something non-trivial is going on with the phrase: (a) "And of course, as they say, mistakes were made"; (b) "Let's just say that mistakes were made"; (c) "a mistakes-were-made explanation". I think non-apology apology would deserve a clear definition, maybe like "a statement that uses apology-like phrasing but also contains clear signs that a sincere apology is not intended", or of the sort; I do not really know what "non-apology apology" is. --Dan Polansky 19:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be barely attestable as an idiom but, whether or not it is, it seems worth some level of inclusion. At the very least inclusion in some Appendix:English catchphrases, pointed to by . This has the disadvantage of not allowing translations. It might be worth thinking of current catchphrases as good candidates for the phrasebook. Ruakh's diligent efforts have found some citations that seem to support idiomaticity without being mentions. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone's counting votes (as he shouldn't primarily be, instead focusing on arguments) then he should first strike my "delete" vote. It still does seem to me that it should be deleted, but all these wise editors disagree with me, so count me as abstaining. —msh210℠ (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

deleted. Even though people will disagree with me, I think there is no idiomaticity coming from the sequence of these three words alone. Any non-English speaker unfamiliar with politics will immediately understand the phrase if he knows the individual words mistakes, were and made. Any connotations beyond that come from its prior use as a quote by a famous politician, which is however beyond our scope, and rather within the scope of our sister project, Wikiquote. Otherwise, we would open the door to millions of phrases such as you forgot Poland, ich bin ein Berliner and the same in other languages as well, like niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten or wollt ihr den totalen Krieg. -- Prince Kassad 23:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This should not have been deleted: 7 people voted for deletion (I have excluded msh210 who has retracted his "delete"), 4 for keeping; this does not even pass the 2/3 threshold. --Dan Polansky 19:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So? RFD is not a vote. -- Prince Kassad 20:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RFD is not a place when you can close nominations as you see fit. I do not see what makes you think you are entitled to do so. As far as I am concerned, RFD should be driven by principles that come rather close to those of a vote. --Dan Polansky 20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RFD discussions should be closed with en eye to the arguments that were made. If a hundred people said to delete (or keep) something and then someone thought of a new argument to keep (respectively, delete) it, which no one had mentioned previously in the discussion and so perhaps those hundred had not thought of it, I'd tag it with, not delete (keep) it. If seven people say to delete (keep) something and five to keep (delete) it, but those five offer arguments in line with the CFI and precedent whereas the seven do not, then I will not delete (keep) it, and may even keep it. —msh210℠ (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By doing so, you imply that you are more able than other people to decide which argument is correct and which is incorrect. You in particular may be smarter than a particular set of voters, but there is no guarantee in general that the closing admin is smarter than the people who have voted against his closing judgment. The people who have voted keep were Ruakh, Wikipedant, Beobach972, and me. I won't speak about myself, but each of the three other users strikes me as exceptionally thoughtful and smart. I do not hold Prince Kassad smarter than me, Ruakh, Wikipedant, and Beobach972, so I am dissatisfied with his closing the request in this way. Actually, I found his argument for deletion one of the weakest presented. --Dan Polansky 20:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was (and am) commenting (here, in this post-RFD discussion) on the general principle of closing RFD as a pure vote versus closing it with an eye to arguments, not on the specific RFD of mistakes were made. I think a closing admin, if closing against a majority, must weigh arguments carefully and as objectively as possible. But I don't think that means he must never close against a majority. —msh210℠ (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can imagine a RFD in which the closing admin would IMHO rightfully close against a majority, such as a RFD in which many anons or registered non-contributors would push their POV. But I have never seen such a case of RFD; this one is not such one; none of the keepers have presented obviously wrong or outlandish arguments, from what I can tell. The closing admin should not assume extra privileges per his being the closing person. Unless an exceptional situation occurs, the closing admin should not try to judge which arguments are correct and which are incorrect. --Dan Polansky 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is a borderline insult. -- Prince Kassad 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly is a borderline insult? Which sentence did you find insulting? I am saying that you are not smarter than me; is this an insult? --Dan Polansky 13:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to think I deleted three hundred with a 10 to 6 majority for the deletion. 7 out of 11 is a massive majority anywhere but on Wikimedia projects. I think one of our weaknesses is we keep entries when there is no consensus no matter how poor or wrong they may be. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I said that you should not have deleted "three hundred". 7 out of 11 (64%) is not a supermajority anywhere; it is a plain majority. --Dan Polansky 13:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I think Prince Kassad erred here. His closing comment implies that he had not read the discussion, and deleted the entry simply because he felt that it should be deleted; either that implication is accurate, in which case he acted wrongly, or else it's inaccurate, in which case he did a poor job expressing himself in his closing comment. However, I don't agree with Dan Polansky's view that an entry should only be deleted if twice as many discussion-participants support deletion as oppose it. Such a criterion seems appropriate for WT:VOTE, but not for WT:RFD. —Ruakh TALK 18:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the criterion that you think is appropriate for RFD? The judgment of the closing admin? Or a percentage lower than 2/3? Or something else? Is it correct that you say that consensus should not be needed for a RFD to lead to the deletion of an entry? --Dan Polansky 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would I close an RfD without reading the discussion? This seems like a stupid thing to do for any admin. -- Prince Kassad 18:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would, and I don't particularly think that you did, but that's the impression your comment gives. —Ruakh TALK 21:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:mistakes were made


text:
assus

Etymology
From, ultimately from ; see 🇨🇬 for more on the root and its reconstruction.

Adjective

 * 1) roasted, baked
 * 2) dried, dry

title: assus


text: assum

title: assum


text: assae

title: assae


text: assorum

title: assorum


text: assarum

title: assarum


text:
assam

Noun

 * 1) lightning
 * 2) thunder

title: assam


text: assos

title: assos


text: asyla

title: asyla


text: asyli

title: asyli


text: asylorum

title: asylorum


text: asylo

title: asylo


text: asylis

title: asylis


text:
xerpa

Noun

 * 1) sherpa
 * 2) Sherpa

Adjective

 * 1) Sherpa

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1)  of the Sherpa

Noun

 * 1) sherpa member of an ethnic group
 * 2) sherpa local employed as mountain guide/ porter

Noun

 * 1) Sherpa language

title: xerpa


text: incomparabilities

title: incomparabilities


text: せんしゅう

title: せんしゅう


text:
Talk:imamate

There's evidence of a Latin imamatus:, does that predate this? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:imamate


text:
atheniensis

Adjective

 * 1) Athenian

title: atheniensis


text: atheniense

title: atheniense


text: athenienses

title: athenienses


text: atheniensia

title: atheniensia


text: atheniensium

title: atheniensium


text: atheniensi

title: atheniensi


text: atheniensibus

title: atheniensibus


text: atheniensem

title: atheniensem


text:
attacus

Noun

 * 1) a kind of locust

title: attacus


text: attaci

title: attaci


text: attacorum

title: attacorum


text: attaco

title: attaco


text: attacis

title: attacis


text: attacum

title: attacum


text: attacos

title: attacos


text: attace

title: attace


text:
aucupium

Etymology
From. Compare.

Noun

 * 1) wildfowling

title: aucupium


text: aucupia

title: aucupia


text: aucupii

title: aucupii


text: aucupiorum

title: aucupiorum


text: aucupio

title: aucupio


text: aucupiis

title: aucupiis


text:
audaciter

Etymology
From.

title: audaciter


text: audacissime

title: audacissime


text: audibimus

title: audibimus


text: audieram

title: audieram


text:
Domizil

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) domicile

title: Domizil


text: audisse

title: audisse


text: audissemus

title: audissemus


text:
aurichalcum

Pronunciation

 * Metrical evidence for the length of the vowel in the second syllable is inconclusive: this word occurs in verse three times in the works of Plautus, in each case in the same metrical position, with the second syllable as the third anceps element in a line of trochaic septenarius. A syllable in this position can be long or short, but given the short scansion attested for i in the alternative form, it may be preferable to assume the same length for the form with au.
 * Metrical evidence for the length of the vowel in the second syllable is inconclusive: this word occurs in verse three times in the works of Plautus, in each case in the same metrical position, with the second syllable as the third anceps element in a line of trochaic septenarius. A syllable in this position can be long or short, but given the short scansion attested for i in the alternative form, it may be preferable to assume the same length for the form with au.

title: aurichalcum


text: aurichalca

title: aurichalca


text: aurichalci

title: aurichalci


text: aurichalcorum

title: aurichalcorum


text: aurichalco

title: aurichalco


text: aurichalcis

title: aurichalcis


text: austerior

title: austerior


text: austerius

title: austerius


text: austeriores

title: austeriores


text: austeriora

title: austeriora


text: austerioris

title: austerioris


text: austeriorum

title: austeriorum


text: austeriori

title: austeriori


text: austeriorem

title: austeriorem


text: austeriore

title: austeriore


text: austerioribus

title: austerioribus


text:
auxiliatus

Etymology
Perfect participle of

Participle

 * 1) helped, aided, assisted
 * 2) relieved, healed, cured

title: auxiliatus


text: auxiliata

title: auxiliata


text: auxiliatum

title: auxiliatum


text: auxiliati

title: auxiliati


text: auxiliatae

title: auxiliatae


text: auxiliatorum

title: auxiliatorum


text: auxiliatarum

title: auxiliatarum


text: auxiliatam

title: auxiliatam


text: auxiliatos

title: auxiliatos


text: auxiliatas

title: auxiliatas


text:
aversatus

Etymology
Perfect participle of

Participle

 * 1) turned away, recoiled
 * 2) shunned, avoided, rejected, refused, declined

title: aversatus


text: aversata

title: aversata


text: aversatum

title: aversatum


text: aversati

title: aversati


text: aversatae

title: aversatae


text: aversatorum

title: aversatorum


text: aversatarum

title: aversatarum


text: aversato

title: aversato


text: aversatis

title: aversatis


text: aversatam

title: aversatam


text: aversatos

title: aversatos


text: aversatas

title: aversatas


text: aversate

title: aversate


text:
avolans

Etymology
Present participle of.

Participle

 * 1) fleeing or flying away

title: avolans


text: avolantes

title: avolantes


text: avolantia

title: avolantia


text: avolantis

title: avolantis


text: avolantium

title: avolantium


text: avolanti

title: avolanti


text: avolante

title: avolante


text: avolantibus

title: avolantibus


text: avolantem

title: avolantem


text: λευκόχρυσου

title: λευκόχρυσου


text: λευκόχρυσο

title: λευκόχρυσο


text: λευκόχρυσε

title: λευκόχρυσε


text: ballistarum

title: ballistarum


text: ballistis

title: ballistis


text: ballistam

title: ballistam


text: ballistas

title: ballistas


text:
tabelátor

Noun

 * 1)  the mechanism on a typewriter that sets the position of columns and borders

title: tabelátor


text:
bestialsk

Adjective

 * 1) brutal, bestial
 * 2)  brutally

Etymology
Probably from

Adjective

 * 1) bestial

Etymology
Probably from

Adjective

 * 1) bestial

title: bestialsk


text: balteorum

title: balteorum


text: balteis

title: balteis


text: balteum

title: balteum


text: balteos

title: balteos


text: baltee

title: baltee


text: bellasti

title: bellasti


text: bellicosissimus

title: bellicosissimus


text: bellicosissimum

title: bellicosissimum


text: bellicosissimae

title: bellicosissimae


text: bellicosissimorum

title: bellicosissimorum


text: bellicosissimarum

title: bellicosissimarum


text: bellicosissimis

title: bellicosissimis


text: bellicosissimam

title: bellicosissimam


text: bellicosissimos

title: bellicosissimos


text: bellicosissimas

title: bellicosissimas


text: Thesaurus:bodily

title: Thesaurus:bodily


text:
Talk:multiple disabilities

Creator insists this refers to someone with an intellectual and a motor disability, not just "more than one disability". Citations may be a little trick, any evidence of use in medical literature would be a fine thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see hundreds of thousands of uses, so this should probably be at RFD. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 13:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia article agrees with the entry. Equinox ◑ 13:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Sure thing. Here is a detailed and trustworthy source about multiple disabilities. At the end of the page, there is a quick list of books about multiple disabilities. See Severe and Education of individuals With Multiple Disabilities - Definition and Types of Severe and Multiple Disabilities, MARTHA E. SNELL, StateUniversity.com
 * Oh my. I needed to create this entry thrice before any discussion started. I'm not familiar with en.wikibooks, but hopefully I know Wikipedia so I was able to insist and make sure the entry is not deleted without a discussion. But it must be really - really - hard for newbies, I bet a few years ago I would not have understood a thing, and I would have given up. Yours, Dodoïste 13:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your source, ironically enough, seems to say it just means "more than one disability". Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I admit it is a little complicated. The source says that "more than one disability" of the same kind is not considered as multiple disabilities. For example, a deaf-blind person does not have multiple disabilities. A person with two motor handicaps does not have multiple disabilities. There are indeed some cases where a multiple disabilities person does not have a mental handicap. But the severity of the handicaps affects significantly the education of the person, so a severe mental retardation appears as the person grows up and usually be detected at a joung age (since 18 months or so).
 * The official U.S. definition is quite vague, and causes significant misunderstandings. The UK definition, PIMD (Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities) is more accurate and states clearly that it concerns at least of a mental handicap and another kind of handicap. See the book "Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities: Nursing Complex Needs", Jillian Pawlyn, Steven Carnaby. Yours, Dodoïste 14:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't think the specificness of the definition can really be supported by citations, since, despite the fact that some authorities may seek to delineate what "multiple disabilities" means, many people clearly use it in a wider sense. Including many professional works (eg here: ‘This classification includes children with a combination of two or more disabilities. These might include deafness, hearing impairment, blindness or visual impairment, mental retardation...’ (etc.), which seems to suggest that someone who's deaf-blind would be considered as having multiple disabilities). Maybe the issue is just whether this is felt to be a set term or not. It seems like a borderline one to me. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 14:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we move to RFD, then? It sounds like another prescriptive definition (like homosexual act). Still, I'd like to see three citations anyway before moving to RFD. Though, as I say, that might be difficult because of the number of total hits involved. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know . . . it seems almost certain that we could find three cites where "multiple disabilities" was applied to a person covered by our sense; but it doesn't follow that said three cites would make this an idiom. What's needed is a sort of "reality-based RFD", where the denizens of WT:RFD look at the facts before voting "keep" or "delete". —Ruakh TALK 17:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Striking as wrong forum, moving to RFD. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

multiple disabilities
Please continue discussion here. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, easy to show that this can simply refer to multiple: + disabilities:. The fact that it can also refer to mental and physical handicaps doesn't seem to make it idiomatic. If kept, should probably go back to RFV as it is uncited, although I'd say there's quite a good chance that there are citations out there. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It failed to get citations in a month. No OneLook reference has it. Anyone providing citations can get it reinstated. Therefore, in this case, as in most others, there would have been no harm in an RfV Delete. OTOH, a failed RfD seems more prejudicial and certainly offers no constructive guidance to a would-be contributor.
 * No one has made a fact-based case for it being a "set phrase". The facts seems to point in the opposite direction. Among the first 40 hits (out of 9,410 total) for "and|or multiple disabilities" were "profound", "severe", "visual", "intellectual", "physical", and "significant".
 * The sole link with visible content does not support the sense. The reference provided (no page, no quote) is not visible at Google Books. The hand-waving reference to more accurate UK definition does not even say that it is an official definition, which might have some legal force and thereby meet one of the Pawley "idiomaticity" tests.
 * If every unsupported claim that a term has a prescriptive definition requires this much hand-wringing attention, how will we ever get anywhere? DCDuring TALK 01:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the WP article consists of a single line in non-standard English. The three "references" do not define the term in accord with the entry. DCDuring TALK 01:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok stronger delete as I didn't know it had already failed the RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

deleted. -- Prince Kassad 23:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:multiple disabilities


text:
Talk:food fish

food fish
SOP — a fish that is food. Pingku 10:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This entry was apparently created because Finnish has a single word for it. Is English the tail or the dog? DCDuring TALK 12:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Page history reveals that this entry was created by SemperBlotto. I added the fi translation 2,5 years later. --Hekaheka 16:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not bothering to check. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The grammar seems a bit weird; I can't imagine anyone saying food bird or food plant. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the weirdness. What seems weird to you? DCDuring TALK 16:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still interested in the weirdness. I'd like to avoid bringing things here that have widespread support. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Food plant" seems to have two senses according to quick Google search: 1) industrial scale food processing plant 2) plant used for food. Also "food fish" seems to be widely used as well as "food animal", but I found nothing for "food bird". --Hekaheka 17:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think anyone ever confuses sense 1 and sense 2 of "food plant"? DCDuring TALK 19:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not mean that they might be confused. I just wanted to demonstrate (to Mglovesfun) that many people seem to be able to imagine saying "food plant". --Hekaheka 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems weird to me. Also it's not any food, only human food, as opposed to say fish that are used to feed other fish. Keep. DAVilla 09:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition that is given is not SoP; I read this discussion, clicked over to the page, and found the definition surprising. I was expecting food fish as in a fish you buy to feed your pets, not human food. I suspect the definition that is given may be overly narrow, though.--Prosfilaes 19:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: I've never seen food used attributively mean mean "edible, comestible". So if food didn't collocate with another noun in this way, this expression would be unique. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that's how it's being used here. The vast majority of fish are edible, but this seems to be specifically about types (not individuals) of fish that are treated as food by man, not just could be eaten. I found isolated examples of "food cattle" and "food cow" with food being used attributively in this sense. A couple for food snake: "When a harmless food snake was introduced into Junior's cage, Junior would immediately approach it and seize it anywhere on the body." but that's for zoo animals (or possibly even in the wild, from another citation). Food animal and food animals get a lot of hits. I suspect this is just one attributive use.--Prosfilaes 21:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP.--Prosfilaes 21:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Prosfilaes. Usage of "food" in this sense at COCA includes "crop", "plant", "stuffs", "animals", "commodities", "product", "protein", but not such other collocations as "person", "people", "professional", "parcel", and "baby". I think the point is that context determines the nature of the relationship between Noun1 and Noun2 in Noun1-Noun2 combinations. If there is ambiguity, the conversation may be interrupted by laughter or a clarifying question or the speaker may use a circumlocution, possibly just a helpful preposition, to make the relationship more (not perfectly) explicit (eg, "fish for food", "fish used for/as food". DCDuring TALK 22:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If we delete food fish (which dictionary.com has), why do we have fish food (which dictionary.com does not have)? Btw, definition for "fish food" appears narrow as this citation shows: ...Belinda Balaski is the more sympathetic of the two camp counselors and she ends up as fish food. --Hekaheka 00:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking your question non-rhetorically:
 * we don't follow a lemming rule (or indeed any rule) uniformly and
 * we don't have systematic search-and-RfD projects.
 * I'm not sure we have a culture that is very rule-friendly or consistency-friendly, so the situation doesn't seem likely to change. DCDuring TALK 01:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because fish food isn't any food that a fish eats, it's food that is specifically manufactured to feed fish. DAVilla 09:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I don't think Belinda Balaski is manufactured to feed fish. She just ended up being eaten by fish (not in reality, in the movie that is). --Hekaheka 14:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So they called her fish food in the movie? Then it must have been figurative use, a sort of joke. DAVilla 04:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 * (back on topic) Delete . Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC). Striking per arguments below. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that we include terms that (some of) our users might not understand. In the case of terms having the form "noun noun" there is often the possibility of confusion or misunderstanding. So we keep aircraft carrier: (not obviously a ship) but not toast rack: (a rack for toast). Unfortunately food fish: seems to lie between the obvious extremes. I would keep it as it is not doing any harm. SemperBlotto 10:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Keep per WT:COALMINE: . Furthermore, this term is surprising by being very common yet much more so than "food mammal", "food reptile", "food snake" or whatever comes to mind. --Dan Polansky 11:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Curiously there's a problem with this: "Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words to officially meet WT:CFI when significantly more common than a single word spelling that already meets CFI." Foodfish seems to be more common than food fish, so it wouldn't pass under that criterion. Yet, I feel we may as well keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no entry for foodfish. The evidence offered indicates that "foodfish" is limited to use in special contexts, which makes me suspect that its definition would differ from most usage of food + fish. Without an actual entry for foodfish, arguments based on WT:COALMINE are merely hypothetical. Such canards should not influence this discussion. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My searches show "food fish" to be much more common than "foodfish". --Dan Polansky 12:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 * kept per WT:COALMINE. We now have a valid entry for foodfish --Parttimer 14:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on, coalmine only works when 'significantly more common'. My Google Books search found 597 hits for "food fish" and 599 hits for foodfish. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unstriking. —msh210℠ (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we have slapdash entries (as both food fish and foodfish), slapdash arguments (as invoking WT:COALMINE before we even have an entry, and slapdash process (as ultra-rapid striking of this matter)? Don't we have the patience to do this right? Or is Urban Dictionary to be our standard? DCDuring TALK 16:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The spirit of coalmine is to not mislead dictionary users into an incorrect spelling. If anything, we should be happy that the spaced version existed before the unspaced: no one was misled. Although stated in terms of commonness, the spirit of coalmine allows the entry when it is the preferred spelling. Other dictionaries have food fish, but no dictionary has foodfish. If anything we should tweak WT:COALMINE to admit that this is the correct outcome. DAVilla 18:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Without a proper cited entry for foodfish I don't see that we can invoke WT:COALMINE at all or draw any conclusions from frequency. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 * You're still holding out? Stubborn man, you could cite it yourself. DAVilla 20:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Let us look at some numbers. : 596,000 hits; : 35,100 hits; : 597 hits; : 599 hits; my search for "food fish" in Google books: 112,000 hits; my search for "foodfish" in Google books: 2,810 hits; : 25 hits; : 1 hit. I do not know what explains the difference between my searches in Google books and the searches in Google books provided by the templates. --Dan Polansky 09:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Are you sure you aren't also hitting food-fish? DAVilla 20:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

a borderline term
I love this nomination because it is so clearly on the border. The suggestion that it might be a legitimate term comes from the inclusion in other dictionaries, the single-word translation in other languages, and the existence of an as common compounded form, none of which are enough by any current criterion. The argument that it is idiomatic, applying to food specifically for humans, is very weak. However we decide to keep this, I would hope that it's clear where all the evidence points, if that can be somehow internalized, as I don't think there will be any survivor rules written from this one. DAVilla 18:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

kept. When I try the search, the spelling food fish is always way more common than the other spelling. -- Prince Kassad 08:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:food fish


text:
Talk:absentia

absentia
English. But it is only used in set phrases. I have added them as descendants in absentia. DCDuring TALK 02:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Keep. I certainly see the argument that isn't English, only  is; but since  is also a regular English word, it's not so simple as that. And we're descriptivist, which means that no matter how ugly we may find  and, we have to admit that  doesn't only exist in . —Ruakh TALK 02:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ruakh. —msh210℠ (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Is that ever ugly usage! It never occurred to me to look for "in his/her/their absentia". Keep. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and explain better. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination's been withdrawn, and no one else is saying to delete. Kept. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:absentia


text:
Talk:three of spades

three of spades
Also tagged: two of spades, four of spades, five of spades, six of spades, seven of spades, eight of spades, nine of spades, ten of spades, knave of spades, jack of spades, queen of spades, king of spades. SoP. —msh210℠ (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * delete sum of parts, definitely. -- Prince Kassad 16:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all.
 * Who would translate these one at a time? I would be so happy if folks would take the trouble to create an appendix for their language explaining the naming convention(s) in their language for poker and other card decks. If such appendixes were in a shared category anyone needing to play cards in a given language could find the terms needed all at once. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Talk:ace_of_hearts, to my annoyed puzzlement, passed a while ago. Equinox ◑ 17:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete any numbered suits unless a good claim can be made to allow each. Keep the knave/jack, queen, and king of spades and other suits on account of their use in literature. DAVilla 17:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember in the last debate being unsure. Overall, delete, an appendix to me sounds fine, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which we've had since 2006. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's a start. It would help if the locutions used in each language (eg, in English, "[rank] of [suit]") were present in the appendix.
 * For yet another, but monolingual (English) take see User: DCDuring/Appendix:English playing card naming, which has some synonyms, a table of the images of the faces of the 52-card "French" deck, and a somewhat silly table of the most common names of the cards. This is an example of the idea of monolingual "construction" appendices. In this case, it would be desirable to have a similar appendix for each language with a sufficient number of speakers who play games using the deck. The tarot deck might warrant a similar set of appendixes. I'd welcome suggestions about improvements. I intend to move it to Appendix space in the new year, but I'd like to be better first. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The logic is such appendices rather than individual entries is that users need to understand a large part of the whole linguistic field of terms in order to, say, play bridge or poker or write or talk about them. Also the whole set of 52 expressions (more with synonyms for the suits and ranks) requires 100 largely repetitive entries which do not make clear the pattern. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is you can't just roll up and dismiss all of these terms so easily. Of the fifty thousand Google Book hits for each of queen of hearts and ace of spades, are you telling me there's no literary merit, no chance of metaphorical use? My vote above is for an easy, immediate solution, and respects the sentiment both here and in previous deletion requests. DAVilla 18:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As defined, the nominees are just cards. Note that I did not nominate ace of spades, as it has another sense. (OTOH that sense is now at RFV, and if it can't be verified and these entries are deleted then that entry will presumably be deleted too.) If you can add another sense to any of these entries, please do! and then it'll be kept, natch. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as these nominated pages, we don't keep definition lines that are not idiomatic either, so I would have to apply the same outcome here to those senses, leaving the origin of queen of hearts in the etymology if need be. I say they have literary merit also because of uses that are not figurative yet out of context:
 * His business life had commenced by the manufacture of shovels on an enormous scale ; he was the King of Spades for the whole land.
 * They grumbled that he was the “King of Spades,” not a fighting General. Digging dirt, they said, was no work for gentlemen.
 * I just don't see why we should have to find examples where the definition line would not help at all to support what are clearly common collocations. DAVilla 19:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, the case for deletion is stronger for the numbered ranks than for the named ranks. I would argue that we should apply the appendix approach to all repetitive numbered entries that follow some standard rules of construction once the rules are in an Appendix. Of course, component terms, pattern-breaking exceptions to the logic of constructions, and idiomatic meanings warrant individual lexical entries. I would argue also for presumptively excluding terms constructed using synonyms for the ranks (deuce, trey) and suits (flowers, squares) even if they are attestable. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thus deleted. Does someone want to close this? DAVilla 03:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:three of spades


text:
Talk:donkey keeper

donkey keeper
Also donkey-keeper. Evidently created as a convenient translation target, but too transparent to be useful in English. Equinox ◑ 20:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've modified all of the translations to link to donkey-keeper, and to mention each other in their See also sections. — Beobach 20:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the following dynamic link for the "See also"s instead: entries with "donkey keeper"? It's not a pretty but it requires less maintenance. It should be possible to improve the appearance with JS. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The little arrow can be done away with by use of . The color of the link can be made blue by using a link to [[special:search/donkey keeper]] instead, which I think will work once the entry is gone. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Add that after the links to the specific currently-existing entries. :) — Beobach 05:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. ---> Tooironic 07:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete. I hope it doesn't occur to anyone to write a phrasebook-entry for "I need a donkey keeper". We might end up keeping it ;-) --Hekaheka 22:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to say delete as well, but does tennis player apply here? DAVilla 16:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In order for tennis player to apply, donkey keeper would have to refer only to someone who kept donkeys occupationally, and not anyone who was keeping a donkey at the time of the reference...? Which is plausible. Hm... I was going to make a reference to software developer as a counterpoint, a term we wouldn't keep, but software development is a blue link with a PR/marketing-textbook definition. — Beobach 05:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

deleted -- Prince Kassad 14:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:donkey keeper


text:
bibiturus

Etymology
Future participle of

Participle

 * 1) about to drink

title: bibiturus


text: bibitura

title: bibitura


text: bibiturum

title: bibiturum


text: bibituri

title: bibituri


text: bibiturae

title: bibiturae


text: bibiturorum

title: bibiturorum


text: bibiturarum

title: bibiturarum


text: bibituro

title: bibituro


text: bibituris

title: bibituris


text: bibituram

title: bibituram


text: bibituros

title: bibituros


text: bibituras

title: bibituras


text: bibiture

title: bibiture


text:
Talk:blow one's chances

blow one&
NISoP. See. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Delete. I agree with DC. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 19:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I too agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. ---> Tooironic 07:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:blow one's chances


text: bituminis

title: bituminis


text: bituminum

title: bituminum


text: bituminibus

title: bituminibus


text: bitumine

title: bitumine


text: blasphemasset

title: blasphemasset


text:
でんしじしょ

Noun

 * 1)  electronic dictionary

title: でんしじしょ


text: blasphemasti

title: blasphemasti


text: Thesaurus:belly

title: Thesaurus:belly


text: denshijisho

title: denshijisho


text:
brucus

Etymology 1
From, from. Documented once in a late gloss. Parallel borrowing to 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) heather

Descendants
Forms influenced by :
 * Ibero-Romance:
 * Gallo-Romance:
 * Italo-Romance:
 * Western Romance of N. Italy:
 * Italo-Romance:
 * Western Romance of N. Italy:
 * Western Romance of N. Italy:
 * Western Romance of N. Italy:

title: brucus


text: brucorum

title: brucorum


text: brucis

title: brucis


text: brucum

title: brucum


text: brucos

title: brucos


text: burdones

title: burdones


text: burdonis

title: burdonis


text: burdonum

title: burdonum


text: burdoni

title: burdoni


text: burdonibus

title: burdonibus


text: burdonem

title: burdonem


text: burdone

title: burdone


text: Thesaurus:navel

title: Thesaurus:navel


text:
egagrópila

Noun

 * 1) a food pellet regurgitated by owls and vultures

title: egagrópila


text:
Citations:Humeian

 * 1836, Catherine Grace Frances Gore, Mrs. Armytage; or, Female Domination, volume 3, page 316
 * Nor did this sweeping Joseph Humeian reduction appear impossible; for Mrs. Armytage, though expansive in her views and prudent in her system, was at best only such a manager as can be found in the best of managing women, obstinately attached to their own plans, yet guided with a thread by the first adroit manœuvrer.

title: Citations:Humeian


text: egagrópilas

title: egagrópilas


text:
elektrisitet

Noun

 * 1) electricity

Noun

 * 1) electricity

title: elektrisitet


text: midadolescent

title: midadolescent


text:
mid-adolescent

Adjective

 * 1) being in or pertaining to the middle of the adolescence

title: mid-adolescent


text:
minibag

Noun

 * 1) a small volume bag

title: minibag


text: minibags

title: minibags


text:
multiformat

Adjective

 * 1) Accessible in more than one format.

title: multiformat


text: splashproof

title: splashproof


text:
splash-proof

Adjective

 * 1) constructed to withstand splashing

Translations

 * Spanish: a prueba de salpicaduras, resistente a salpicaduras, protección contra salpicaduras, a prueba de chapoteo

title: splash-proof


text:
feel ten feet tall

Alternative forms
Forms with other numbers are used also, though less frequently. Fairly common are, , and.

Verb

 * 1) To feel proud of oneself.

title: feel ten feet tall


text: feels ten feet tall

title: feels ten feet tall


text: feeling ten feet tall

title: feeling ten feet tall


text: felt ten feet tall

title: felt ten feet tall


text: Thesaurus:pubescent

title: Thesaurus:pubescent


text: feel eight feet tall

title: feel eight feet tall


text: feel nine feet tall

title: feel nine feet tall


text: feel twelve feet tall

title: feel twelve feet tall


text:
User talk:81.34.17.144

Editing user pages
Hi. If you are User:Francis Tyers, please log in before editing your user page. Eivind (t) 18:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:81.34.17.144


text:
Humeian

Adjective

 * 1) * 1963, Walter John Hipple Jr. [ed.] in the preface to the 1963 Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints edition of Alexander Gerard’s 1759 Essay on Taste, page viii
 * This was the philosophical company Gerard kept, and it is surprising to find in him so much of the Humeian analyst as we do alongside the inevitable concessions to “common sense.”
 * This was the philosophical company Gerard kept, and it is surprising to find in him so much of the Humeian analyst as we do alongside the inevitable concessions to “common sense.”

title: Humeian


text:
User talk:Tphardrock

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

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

The entry you created at shaffing seems to have been a protologism and has been deleted. If you are sure that it is a real word, please provide evidence of its being used in durably archived media (mainly print works and Usenet groups) as required by our inclusion criteria. (For a term to be included, it must be used by at least three different authors over more than a year, and the authors must be actually using the word, not just explaining its meaning or stating that it exists.) If you can find any such quotations, please add them to Citations:shaffing. If you again add this entry without citations, it will likely get you blocked from editing further. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tphardrock


text: Humian

title: Humian


text: womaned

title: womaned


text: whoman

title: whoman