text:
lactucin

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  One of the essential ingredients of lactucarium, having analgesic and sedative properties.

title: lactucin


text:
formatage

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  the act of formatting
 * 2)  the act of restraining someone in a certain fixed way/manner of thought/thinking (cf. set in one's ways)

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

title: formatage


text:
formater

Verb

 * 1)  to format

Verb

 * 1)  to format

title: formater


text: funebrious

title: funebrious


text:
imaginational

Adjective

 * 1) Pertaining to, involving, or caused by imagination; imaginary.

title: imaginational


text:
terreity

Noun

 * 1)  The quality of being earthy.

title: terreity


text:
conclusible

Adjective

 * 1)  demonstrable; determinable

title: conclusible


text:
disagreeance

Noun

 * 1)  disagreement

title: disagreeance


text: disagreeances

title: disagreeances


text:
truceless

Adjective

 * 1) Without a truce.
 * 2) * a. 1783,, "Redemption"
 * Two minds in one, and each a truceless guest.
 * Two minds in one, and each a truceless guest.

Derived terms

 * trucelessly

title: truceless


text:
multicrisis

Adjective

 * 1) Involving more than one crisis.

Translations

 * Greek:

title: multicrisis


text:
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-12/Merging proper nouns into nouns

Merging proper nouns into nouns

 * Voting on: Merging nouns and proper nouns. Details:
 * The POS headers ===Noun=== and ===Proper noun=== will be unified into a single header for all nouns, using the existing name ===Noun===.
 * Proper nouns will also be categorized together with other nouns in Category:English nouns, Category:Russian nouns and so on, and not in their own category (Category:English proper noun et al.). Categories for various specific kinds of proper names, such as surnames, male and female given names, cities, rivers, etc., are not affected.
 * The fact that a particular sense is (chiefly or solely) that of a proper noun may be indicated with a context tag (e.g. ). This will, however, not be necessary in most cases, as the sense often either obviously mandates properness (such as with placenames, although all of them can theoretically also be used metonymically) or all such senses as the one in question have both proper and common noun aspects (as with demonyms, which are usually common when in the singular or when used with numbers, but proper when used to refer to). As a general rule, the context tag will not be required (or recommended) for simple given name, surname, placename, or language senses, such as e.g. #, # , # The capital city of the United Kingdom, # A North Germanic language, the national tongue of Iceland ), but might be useful for senses that less obviously make the noun a proper noun, or to contrast with a similar common noun sense (which might be specifically marked as such as well). For difficult borderline cases, such as Monday, no tag should be used, but a usage note explaining the different usage and context is strongly recommended. To recap: the default is no tag, but if a given sense is proven to be proper and the editor deems it necessary (and the sense does not fall under the cases described above except in exceptional circumstances), a context tag may be used.
 * Entry layout explained and Entry layout explained/POS headers and any other relevant policy and guideline pages should be modified in accordance with this new policy (only minor adjustments will be required).

 * Rationale:
 * Many nouns that are chiefly proper nouns can be used intuitively as common nouns and vice versa, and in some cases the principal quality is unclear, e.g. names of days, demonyms, surnames, and even given names (to varying degrees in different languages)
 * The entry structure can be simplified where there were previously two POS headers for what is arguably the same word, grouping the related senses together, even though one of them usually makes the noun proper while the other does not (e.g. Egyptian, language vs. person from Egypt)
 * The distinction between proper and common seems mostly semantic rather than lexical, although it has a certain, limited, effect on word usage (e.g. allowing the dropping of articles in English), and therefore belongs in the definition line (much as transitivity in the case of verbs); in most cases, however, it is obvious whether the noun in question is proper or not
 * Although, as previously mentioned, nouns can behave slightly differently when in a proper sense (“Christian has passed away.” vs. “A Christian has passed away.”), the feature demonstrated here (dropping of indefinite article) is not unique to proper nouns, being shared by mass nouns, such as sugar.
 * Proper nouns and common nouns cannot be clearly split into separate lexical categories, as the individual words can often be both common and proper nouns
 * Languages which use indefinite articles (most notably the main West Germanic and Romance languages) make some distinction in usage, as mentioned above. This is, however, mostly for semantic reasons (indefinite article specifically marks a word as unspecific and non-unique, in contradiction to a proper noun sense). Additionally, there are differing degrees to which the definite article is normally used with proper nouns (although sometimes it is even required, as with e.g. the Thames). With proper nouns that require a definite article, that usage is explicitly stated already, and should continue to be so. With proper nouns that are mostly used without a definite article, the conventions associated with that word, it's general class (placename, etc.), or the language it belongs to, need to be discussed in a usage note or in the appropriate language appendix anyway.
 * Many languages don't distinguish in any syntactic way between common and proper nouns, such as languages which don't have indefinite articles, e.g. most (if not all) Slavic languages (Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Czech, Russian, etc.), Latin (well, Classical Latin, anyway), Chinese, Japanese, and more; the specific proper noun header makes even less sense for these languages.

 * Vote starts: 00:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23.59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Vote created: Krun 01:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] WT:BP
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-12/Merging proper nouns into nouns

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Brett 01:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)--Brett 01:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Ivan Štambuk 21:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —Stephen (Talk) 06:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC) They’re already marked by capitalization...unnecessary duplication. —Stephen (Talk) 06:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that makes no sense. As I'm sure you're aware, plenty of common nouns are also capitalized. Unless you're suggesting that we move [[American]] to [[american]] to avoid marking it as a proper noun, capitalization doesn't serve this purpose. —Ruakh TALK 13:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I’m concerned, American is a proper noun (unless you’re talking about the adjective). It shouldn’t be a proper noun, but then neither should many other nouns that are called proper nouns. —Stephen (Talk) 15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's . . . wow. So I guess you would say that in German, all nouns are proper nouns (because they're capitalized), while in Hebrew and Arabic, no nouns are (because there are no capital letters)? I can certainly see why you'd want to get rid of the header, then. —Ruakh TALK 16:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * German is not English. All German nouns are capitalized. As far as I’m concerned, very few Arabic nouns are proper nouns, except for the ones that have been borrowed from other languages, like company names. —Stephen (Talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Stephen G. Brown, this vote doesn't only concern English though, it concerns all languages, including German and Arabic. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what this vote concerns. Applying the English concept of proper nouns to all languages is foolish and serves no useful purpose. It isn’t even of much use in English, since English capitalization already distinguishes them sufficiently. —Stephen (Talk) 17:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This vote proposes to take the choice away from editors by forcing them to use noun instead of noun and proper noun. So you're advocating having your own hands tied. There's nothing stopping us looking into the rules for distinguishing nouns from proper noun for each individual language. Unless/until this vote passes, when it does such discussions will be irrelevant to the main namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I’m advocating nothing of the sort. You do not comprehend what I am saying. —Stephen (Talk) 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter what you advocate! That's what the vote's on. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why are you droning on and on with your interminable nonsense? —Stephen (Talk) 17:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He's not writing nonsense. You have voted in support of a proposal to forbid a ===Proper noun=== header from being used in any language. You then say that you're "advocating nothing of the sort", as though it were your advocacy, rather than your vote, that were under discussion. —Ruakh TALK 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (re: "American" and capitalization as proper-nounhood indicator): Stephen, do you say that "Frenchman" (A man of French birth or nationality) is a proper noun in your book? --Dan Polansky 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Dan Polansky: Yes. @Ruakh: Do you mean that you think that my denying that I am advocating having my own hands tied means that this discussion is about my advocacy that my own hands are tied? If that’s what you think, then it follows that if I had agreed and said that, yes, I am advocating having my own hands tied, then that would have meant that this discussion is about the vote and not about my advocacy of having my own hands tied. If you really think like that, you and I are on completely different wavelengths and I have no idea what is going on inside your head...and you don’t understand me any better. But if you don’t think like that, then I cannot imagine why you said it. —Stephen (Talk) 10:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but now you're talking nonsense. If I say, "Red is a color", it follows that I think we're talking about red and/or about colors; and if I say, "Red is not a color", then it still follows that I think we're talking about red and/or about colors. If I didn't think we were talking about red or about colors, then I wouldn't say either of these things. Capisce? —Ruakh TALK 14:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ranking "Frenchman" as a proper noun is very surprising to me. I do not know what definition and what detection criteria you are using for proper nouns, but it seems that, in your book, any English word that is capitalized is a proper noun by definition, other than those appearing in multi-word proper names and other than those that start a sentence. I wonder whether you have checked your view against some external academic sources, that is, whether there are academic sources that share your view that "Frenchman" (or "Englishman") is a proper noun. I find it fairly obvious that "Frenchman" is a common noun. One source agreeing with me: 'The rule that nouns derived from proper nouns begin with a capital, often leads children to assume that such common nouns as "Englishman" and "American" are themselves proper nouns.' in School Management and Methods of Instruction by George Collar, Charles W. Crook, 1905. --Dan Polansky 11:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be confusing different things. I don’t mean that I believe Frenchman is a proper noun, I only mean that I consider that English treats it as a proper noun. As far as I’m concerned, nationalities are not proper nouns, language names are not proper nouns, days of weeks and months of the year are not proper nouns. But in my opinion, English treats them all as proper nouns. —Stephen (Talk) 12:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What are the ways in which English treats "Frenchman" as a proper noun? English has "I saw a Frenchman" with an indefinite article, which is a standard use of the word, typical for common nouns and untypical for proper nouns. (Proper nouns can be rarely used with an indefinite article, but that is a use atypical of them.) Furthermore, "There were some Frenchmen" is a pluralization typical of common nouns and untypical of proper nouns, it is a pluralization typical of "Frenchman" rather than being its unusual use. (You can speak of "Martins", but that is an atypical or uncharacteristic use of a proper noun.) I am constraining my focus on words that refer to individual people by their nationality, excluding "Monday", "April" and the like from the discussion.--Dan Polansky 13:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Capitalizes it. —Stephen (Talk) 13:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But then you are using only a single indicator of something's being a proper noun: capitalization, disregading every other indicator. What is your source of the assertion that capitalization is the sole and reliable indicator of something's being a proper noun?
 * By contrast, User:EncycloPetey/English_proper_nouns correctly (IMHO anyway) lists several heuristic (unreliable) indicators of something's being a proper noun: it has its initial letter capitalized, it is not used in the plural (beware of "Martins"), it is not preceded by adjectives, articles, numerals, demonstratives, or other modifiers (beware of "The Thames"), it has a unique referent (beware that "Martin" refers to many individuals via reuse of the name but not via shared characteristics of the individuals). --Dan Polansky 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That’s right. It’s what I learned in school many years ago. Why do you feel it is so important? I don’t create these entries in English and I don’t edit the English once written. The fact that I learned them as proper nouns has no effect on anything. And all of those heuristics other than capitalization are merely hints. There are lots of Steves in this world. A Steve called and left a message. My uncle is called "Big Steve". Where are you going today, our Steve? This Steve is taller than that Steve. —Stephen (Talk) 14:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems improbable to me that you have learned in school that all capitalized words are proper nouns: see my quotation from George Collar and Charles W. Crook above. If you try to find a book or an article, whether a school grammar or a proper academic source, that supports your thesis that all intra-sentence capitalized nouns are necessarily proper nouns, you'll find that it is very hard; I have found none. You have not demonstrated that capitalization is the main thing while the other indicators are mere hints. EncycloPetey has pointed out that philosophers were discussing what a proper noun is at the time at which English commonly capitalized also common nouns; it was proper nounhood that has driven the capitalization of some words to the exclusion of others later on, not the other way around.
 * "A Steve called and left a message" is an atypical use of "Steve", possible but atypical. --Dan Polansky 14:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I’m sure the books I used are no longer around. Again, why do you think it is so important that it deserves a gigantic discussion. I don’t create or edit these English entries, and we are not voting on how to recognize a proper noun, or on what kinds of nouns to consider proper. It is something that I learned over 50 years ago that has no effect on anything. —Stephen (Talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think marking nouns as proper nouns is important, as proper nounhood drives the typical grammar, including lack of article and lack of pluralization. Yes, there are also atypical uses, as those you have mentioned with Steve, but these are not typical. "A Frenchman called and left a message" is a typical use of "Frenchman", while "Steve called and left a message" is a typical use of "Steve". And yes, there are many exceptions as regards the use of definite article, including "The Thames". The main reason I took issue with the statement that capitalization is a reliable marker of proper nounhood is that I find the statement blatantly false; I did not ponder too much about the practical importance of its falsity. A further reason why proper nounhood is of interest to this dictionary is that dictionaries often exclude proper nouns; proper nouns (which in Wiktionary parlance also include proper names) are subject to exclusion debate to an extent to which common nouns are not. Thus, having a category for proper nouns seems worthwhile, if only to see how many of them Wiktionary has. --Dan Polansky 15:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a separate issue. Whether to mark proper nouns as proper nouns is one thing. Which nouns qualify as proper nouns is another thing. This vote is not about which nouns are proper nouns, it is only about whether to mark proper nouns as proper nouns. If it is decided that proper nouns are to continue to be marked as proper nouns, then it might be a good time to have a discussion about which English nouns are to be considered proper nouns. But this is not that vote...this vote is only about whether to continue to mark proper nouns as proper nouns. If it is decided to continue to mark proper nouns as such, and if you decided to hold a discussion about which English nouns to consider proper, I will not be taking part in that discussion, because I do not make those kinds of edits and I have no interest in the subject. You are engaging in a discussion over which nouns to consider proper at the wrong time, and you are engaging with the wrong person, because I don’t make those kinds of edits and I the topic is not of any interest to me. If you are going to continue with this off-topic discussion, as it seems you intend to do, I may have to save myself the time and effort of repeating the same thing over and over by cutting and pasting a pat reply. —Stephen (Talk) 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I don't understand you. The discussion started with your statement that "They[proper nouns]’re already marked by capitalization...unnecessary duplication". That statement appears to be an explanation of why you voted the way you did. I am arguing that this statement is false. If you thought the statement was unimportant, you did not need to make it, and you did not need to discuss it. If that statement--an explanation of your vote--would turn out to be false, your reason for voting as you did would no longer be there, so you would have to reconsider your vote. Thus, the discussed statement seems to be of some consequence. Feel free to consider this discussion over, as long as it seems pointless to you. --Dan Polansky 15:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you should have been discussing that statement instead of all of this other stuff. I find almost no advantage to separating noun and proper nouns. The only thing concerning nouns and proper nouns that pass CFI is capitalization. I don’t see that it is of any consequence in a dictionary whether proper nouns are somewhat less likely to take certain articles or adjectives. The only thing about them is whether or not they are capitalized. Due to the fact that our software alphabetizes upper and lowercase separately, the capitalization alone is sufficient to mark capitalization, and going the extra step of marking them (or some of them) as proper nouns is gilding the lily. I see no additional profit in doing that. The capitalization fully satisfies the needs related to this matter. By the way, this is yet a third discussion. This issue that you have belatedly brought up is whether marking proper nouns as proper nouns offers a meaningful and worthwhile advantage over what capitalization alone offers. My statement above reflects my feeling that there is little or no advantage to it. Marking proper nouns is not useful, and not marking them will not result in a loss. —Stephen (Talk) 16:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "The only thing about them is whether or not they are capitalized". That is wrong. You have provided no source or any other argument to support your assertion that each capitalized intra-sentence noun is a proper noun. That assertion seems to be an unproven assumption of yours. I do not see what makes you think you are above external sources as regards the definition of "proper noun"; you seem to have redefined "proper noun" as an intra-sentence noun that is capitalized. That is your private definition, one that is of little use in a public discussion. --Dan Polansky 16:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are still trying to tie in the other discussion which is unrelated, as I kept telling you. It does not matter whether all capitalized nouns are proper nouns or if some capitalized nouns are not proper nouns. Almost all proper nouns are capitalized, although there are a tiny few that are not. The few that are not are an insignificant number. The only interesting thing about the capitalized nouns that pass CFI is that they are capitalized. I don’t think that it is meaningful in a dictionary whether proper nouns are somewhat less likely to take certain articles or adjectives. The only thing about them is whether or not they are capitalized. I see no additional advantage in marking the proper nouns as proper nouns, completely and utterly disregarding the definition of proper nouns that we use. The capitalization fully satisfies the needs related to this matter. I think that marking the proper nouns as proper, even if some capitalized nouns are not proper, is gilding the lily and unnecessarily duplicative. The assertion that each capitalized intra-sentence noun is a proper noun is unrelated to this, no matter how hard you try to connect them. What matters is whether there is any significant advantage to marking proper nouns as proper, and you are not offering a single advantage. I don’t think you can find any real advantage, because I believe there is none. —Stephen (Talk) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re a significant advantage to marking proper nouns as proper: I have already provided that significant advantage: the reader learns that these words are usually used without an indefinite article, are usually not pluralized, are usually not modified by an adjective. You seem to say that learning about that usual grammar is not a real advantage; here we can agree that we disagree. --Dan Polansky 16:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already addressed the iffy questions of articles, adjectives and plurals several times here above. The only thing that you have said so far that I find interesting is that we can agree that we disagree. I can absolutely agree with that. —Stephen (Talk) 16:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The questions are not iffy; they are neither "of dubious authenticity, legitimacy or legality" nor "uncertain or chancy". You try to refute my assertions about usual or default grammar by pointing out atypical uses, but that does not do. --Dan Polansky 17:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Vahag 14:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Anatoli (обсудить) 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 10:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I'm indifferent, and open to argument, on points 2 and 3, but I am convinced on point 1 that this is the way to go and I will support the vote for that alone.

Oppose

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose, for the various reasons I gave on the talk-page. I'm on board with the idea of covering English proper nouns under the ===Noun=== header, together with countable and uncountable common nouns, but I disagree with most of the details. I think we should keep Category:English proper nouns; I think we should consistently mark proper nouns using context labels and/or inflection-line notices; and I don't think we should apply a single vote to all languages without at least making explicit that some languages may be handled differently. (The cross-linguistic rationale strikes me as even poorer than the English-specific rationale.) —Ruakh TALK 01:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. At least, I don't think this should cover all languages willy-nilly, and don't agree with getting rid of the proper-noun category. See also the vote's talkpage. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. At least, I see no reason why Category:English proper nouns and its likes should be deleted; as I understand the proposed point 2, it proposes to delete that category. Merging part-of-speech headings could be okay. As an aside, I disagree with may statements made in the rationale, but that alone does not make me oppose. --Dan Polansky 08:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] I oppose points 2 and 3, as well as any application of point 4 that does not follow directly from point 1. Proper nouns frequently have common applications and vice versâ, as explicated at length by Ruakh (in his post on the talk page, timestamped: 19:04, 14 December 2011), which means that treating the two categories of noun under the same POS header makes sense; however, this does not mean that the distinction should be obliterated entirely (at least not in English). In English, the common–proper distinction matters and is natural; this may not be the case in other languages, and editors who work on those languages may consequently be right to reject the imposition of what is, in those languages, an artificial distinction. In the same way that Japanese ought not to be expected to do without its categories of noun distinguished by social context (see Eiríkr Útlendi's post on the talk page, timestamped: 17:51, 20 December 2011), so English ought not to eschew the long-established common–proper distinction. The ideal solution for English, I think, is for all kinds of noun to be treated under a single Noun POS header, but for common and proper senses to be marked as such consistently and in all cases with the use of  and  context tags (this marking is mentioned in point 3, but where it dismisses such context tags as unnecessary in most cases, I would favour their universal use). I don't know what the ideal solution for other languages would be, but I suspect that this proposal, in its intended application to all languages, is misguided in its scope. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  - -sche (discuss) 23:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) for many of the same reasons as Ruakh
 * 6) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose   at least point 2.  Point 1 should be decided, IMHO, on a per language basis, as posted on WT:Ax for each language x.  If there have been discussions and votes on which kinds of proper nouns meet and which do not meet CFI, then it should be helpful to have proper noun categories. —AugPi 16:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that, it should be perfectly possible for a Proper noun in English to translate to a common Noun</tt> in another language, or vice versa: it should not be something to get hung up over. —AugPi 16:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Points 1 and 3 could still be appealing, if only for aesthetic reasons such as: having all POS headers each consist of a single word. (Assuming this vote fails) that could be decided in a vote which excludes point 2.  (Then, if that vote were to pass, there could later on be another vote for point 2).  Concerning point 3, for English: a noun which is capitalized could be assumed to be proper, and if it were not to be, then that is when it would require a "common" context tag. —AugPi 17:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. See my proposal on talk page. But note that all proper nouns may be used as common nouns without becoming common nouns (it's a figure of speech), and these usess normally do not justify a common noun entry. Lmaltier 17:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  I think that the English noun forms should be merged. The vote needs rewriting (succinctly). —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 07:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  I think that the English noun forms should be merged. The vote needs rewriting (succinctly). —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 07:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC). I quite like the idea in many ways, for the reasons set out in the introduction, but it has too many drawbacks for me to support it. It treats all languages the same, so it takes away the possibility of using Wiktionary:About [language] pages, also it does take away choice from all editors, as they can no longer use the proper noun header and categories. Furthermore I'd be more likely to support it if tags like  and  were banned instead of encouraged. If you want to do away with discriminating between common nouns and proper nouns, do it 100% full on, not 95%. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain —Internoob 22:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Per MG.

Decision

 * Fails 6–8–2. —msh210℠ (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


text:
卡桑

Etymology 1
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1)  mother

Etymology 2
Borrowed from.

Proper noun

 * 1) Cassen French commune

title: 卡桑


text:
សហភាពសូវៀត

Etymology
🇰🇲

Proper noun

 * 1)  Soviet Union

title: សហភាពសូវៀត


text:
aspersive

Adjective

 * 1) Tending to asperse; defamatory; slanderous.

title: aspersive


text:
新婚旅行

Etymology
Compound of 🇰🇲.

Noun

 * 1) a honeymoon

title: 新婚旅行


text: khà-sàng

title: khà-sàng


text:
clubbist

Noun

 * 1) A member of a club; one who frequents clubs.

title: clubbist


text: clubbists

title: clubbists


text:
basaltiform

Adjective

 * 1) In the form of basalt; columnar.

title: basaltiform


text:
psora

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1)  A cutaneous disease, especially psoriasis, scabies, or mange.

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) the itch, mange

title: psora


text:
tensibility

Noun

 * 1) The quality or state of being tensible.

title: tensibility


text:
tetrahexahedral

Adjective

 * 1)  Pertaining to a tetrahexahedron.

title: tetrahexahedral


text: Category:N'Ko script languages

title: Category:N'Ko script languages


text: Category:N'Ko script

title: Category:N'Ko script


text:
chironomic

Adjective

 * 1) Relating to chironomy.

authors: Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais

title: chironomic


text:
pushingly

Adverb

 * 1) So as to push.

title: pushingly


text:
holophote

Etymology
See and.

Noun

 * 1)  A lighthouse lamp with lenses or reflectors to collect the rays of light and throw them in a given direction.

title: holophote


text: holophotes

title: holophotes


text:
inclinedly

Adverb

 * 1) In an inclined manner.

title: inclinedly


text:
pneumatocyst

Noun

 * 1)  A sac or other structure containing air and used for flotation by a marine organism, chiefly used in reference to those of kelps and siphonophores.

title: pneumatocyst


text: pneumatocysts

title: pneumatocysts


text:
catlinite

Etymology
, after, an American painter who travelled in the region.

Noun

 * 1) A brownish-red red clay found in Northern USA and Canada, used by the American Indians to make pipes.

title: catlinite


text: catlinites

title: catlinites


text:
anophyte

Etymology
From, equivalent to.

Noun

 * 1)  A moss or similar plant with cellular stems, having usually an upward growth and distinct leaves.

title: anophyte


text: anophytes

title: anophytes


text:
piciform

Adjective

 * 1)  Of or pertaining to

Synonyms

 * picoid

title: piciform


text:
多桑

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1)  father

title: 多桑


text: tò-sàng

title: tò-sàng


text:
aplanatism

Noun

 * 1)  Freedom from spherical aberration.

title: aplanatism


text: crewet

title: crewet


text: crewets

title: crewets


text:
misorder

Noun

 * 1)  Disorder; irregularity.

Verb

 * 1)  To sort or arrange incorrectly.

title: misorder


text: misorders

title: misorders


text: misordered

title: misordered


text:
misordering

Noun

 * 1) The process or result of putting things in the wrong order.
 * Some speech errors involve consonant misorderings.

title: misordering


text:
cuminic

Adjective

 * 1) Pertaining to, or derived from, cumin.

title: cuminic


text:
monosyllabled

Etymology
or.

Adjective

 * 1) Formed into, or consisting of, monosyllables.

title: monosyllabled


text:
mise en demeure

Noun

 * 1)  formal notice, letter of demand

title: mise en demeure


text:
pepperer

Etymology
, pepper being one of the items sold.

Noun

 * 1)  A grocer.

title: pepperer


text: pepperers

title: pepperers


text:
歐吉桑

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1)  grandpa; old man

title: 歐吉桑


text: 欧吉桑

title: 欧吉桑


text: o͘-jí-sáng

title: o͘-jí-sáng


text:
Thread:User talk:Yair rand/N'Ko

From what I understand reading Wikipedia, N'Ko script uses one literary language for several Mande languages. Therefore, the only language which should be set as "written in N'Ko" is the literary language itself, which even has an ISO code:.

title: Thread:User talk:Yair rand/N'Ko


text:
歐巴桑

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1)  grandma; old woman

title: 歐巴桑


text: 欧巴桑

title: 欧巴桑


text: o͘-bá-sáng

title: o͘-bá-sáng


text:
indissolublement

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) indissolubly

title: indissolublement


text: Category:N'Ko language

title: Category:N'Ko language


text:
Thread:User talk:Yair rand/N'Ko/reply

Okay. I've reverted my change to Template:bm/script and created Category:N'Ko language.

title: Thread:User talk:Yair rand/N'Ko/reply


text: griffels

title: griffels


text: Category:fr:Hindu deities

title: Category:fr:Hindu deities


text: Category:fr:Hindu mythology

title: Category:fr:Hindu mythology


text: Category:fr:Prosody

title: Category:fr:Prosody


text:
pesher

Etymology
. Popularised after the discovery of the in 1947.

Noun

 * 1) An interpretive commentary on scripture, especially one in Hebrew.

Translations

 * German:
 * Russian:

title: pesher


text: pesharim

title: pesharim


text:
วุ้น

Noun

 * 1) agar.

title: วุ้น


text:
vorsupen

Etymology
From. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1) to lose one's wealth or belongings by trading for alcohol
 * Sin gud vorsupen. (To invest one's property into alcohol.)
 * 1) to drown

title: vorsupen


text:
ܟܥܟܐ

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) cake, loaf

title: ܟܥܟܐ


text: pãdure

title: pãdure


text:
virghirã

Etymology
Probably from. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) virgin, maiden

Adjective

 * 1) virgin

title: virghirã


text: esciencia

title: esciencia


text: esciencias

title: esciencias


text:
virdzeauã

Etymology
From, diminutive of , itself a diminutive of. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) stick
 * 2) stick used in the rolling of the warp over the roller of the loom

title: virdzeauã


text:
pãne

Etymology
From. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

title: pãne


text: Category:fr:Bedding

title: Category:fr:Bedding


text: Category:fr:Fingers

title: Category:fr:Fingers


text:
ngustu

Etymology 1
From. Compare Daco-Romanian îngust; compare also Albanian ngushtë.

Adjective

 * 1) narrow

Etymology 2
From.

Verb

 * 1) to have breakfast

title: ngustu


text:
veldisvísir

Noun

 * 1)  an exponent; the power to which a number, symbol or expression is to be raised. As in the $3\,$ in $x^3\,$

title: veldisvísir


text:
veldisstofn

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  a base; number raised to the power of an exponent, as in $4\,$ in $4^6\,$

title: veldisstofn


text:
User talk:Jmarkhayward

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. 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 create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
 * Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
 * Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
 * The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
 * We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! —Internoob 05:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

developer program
Sorry I had to delete this page. We generally don't include the names of companies (see the policy WT:COMPANY), except in certain cases such as McDonald's, and even that is undergoing a request for verification. —Internoob 05:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Also note this is Wiktionary (a dictionary), not Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 21:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jmarkhayward


text:
aeronaŭtiko

Noun

 * 1) aeronautics

title: aeronaŭtiko


text: aeronaŭtikon

title: aeronaŭtikon


text:
ջիգիթ

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) dzhigit

title: ջիգիթ


text:
Wiktionary:Kyrgyz transliteration

See also Module:ky-translit and article on Wikipedia.

title: Wiktionary:Kyrgyz transliteration


text:
ܦܣܦܣܐ

Etymology
From. Compare Mishnaic 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) pebble
 * 2) game piece, die
 * 3)  game of dice

title: ܦܣܦܣܐ


text: Category:syc:Games

title: Category:syc:Games


text:
джигит

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  dzhigit (djigit, jigit) (a skilled horseman in the Caucasus and Central Asia).

title: джигит


text:
Mongóilis

Etymology
From.

Proper noun

 * 1) the Mongolian language

title: Mongóilis


text:
ܥܡܬܐ

Etymology
From ; related to 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) paternal blood aunt sister of one's father

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) paternal aunt (father's sister)

Etymology
From ; related to 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) paternal aunt

title: ܥܡܬܐ


text:
Mongólach

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Mongolian

Noun

 * 1) Mongolian, Mongol

title: Mongólach


text:
հեծյալ

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) mounted; horseback

Noun

 * 1) horseman, rider

title: հեծյալ


text: Citations:toxin

title: Citations:toxin


text:
ܥܢܐ

Etymology
From ; compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1) to answer, reply, respond
 * 2) to deal with, engage, handle
 * 3) to concern, to refer to
 * 4)  to mean, to signify
 * 1) to deal with, engage, handle
 * 2) to concern, to refer to
 * 3)  to mean, to signify
 * 1) to concern, to refer to
 * 2)  to mean, to signify
 * 1)  to mean, to signify
 * 1)  to mean, to signify
 * 1)  to mean, to signify

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) flock, herd (especially of sheep)

title: ܥܢܐ


text:
ܥܢܒܬܐ

Etymology
Akin to 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬,, , 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, and probably 🇨🇬 with its many derivatives. Possible doublet of.

Noun

 * 1) grape
 * 2) berry
 * 3) morel
 * 4) cluster, bunch
 * 5)  kind of haemorrhoid/hemorrhoid
 * 6)  tubercle in the eye
 * 7)  oval of the eye

Usage notes

 * Although feminine in the singular, this word behaves as a common noun in the plural.

title: ܥܢܒܬܐ


text: Category:syc:Mushrooms

title: Category:syc:Mushrooms


text: ܦܛܘܪܝܬܐ

title: ܦܛܘܪܝܬܐ


text:
ܥܢܒܐ

Etymology
From ; compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) grape

title: ܥܢܒܐ


text:
ܥܢܢܐ

Etymology 1
Compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) cloud
 * 2) cloudiness
 * 3)  quicksilver, mercury

Etymology 2
Compare 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) sexually impotent

title: ܥܢܢܐ


text:
ܥܣܒܐ

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬. Possibly related to.

Noun

 * 1)  grass, green herb

title: ܥܣܒܐ


text:
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-12/Merging proper nouns into nouns

Language specific?
Isn't this a language-specific issue? Removing the ===Proper noun=== header from English, Russian, Armenian etc. does make sense, just like ===Adjective=== and ===Adverb=== were removed from Hawaiian. The English idea of calling January and Russian proper nouns does seem strange. But there are languages where proper nouns and common nouns have different grammar. For example, Swedish or Danish names don't take the -n/-t definite suffix of common nouns. The grammatical gender of a surname depends on the sex of the name-bearer in some languages. Listing plural forms of place names, particularly rare ones, might be needless in any language, but for example Template:en-noun automatically creates it. Noun templates would have to be checked in every language. Possibly entries would have to be fixed manually in some languages. The worst possible solution is to use ===Noun=== and a context label (Proper noun), like someone suggested in the BP - that's just a more complicated way of defining proper nouns.--Makaokalani 08:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * FYI, is the option to omit the plural. —Michael Z. 2011-12-13 15:36 z
 * I believe you're mistaken in assuming that names in Swedish and Danish cannot take the appended article. Given names can, at least (in addition to being used in the plural). In Swedish, I have found the following examples: “Den bästa Alberten i världen” (The best Albert in the world; singular with suffixed article) and “Bengtarna” (the Bengts; plural with suffixed article). This is also true for my native language, Icelandic, where one can easily say e.g. “Í bekknum mínum eru tveir Jónar; annar Jóninn er yngri en hinn, en báðir Jónarnir eru yngri en ég.” (In my class there are two Johns; [the] one John is younger than the other, but both the Johns are younger than me.). This usage is actually what got me thinking and made me start this whole discussion. – Krun 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I have already suggested that the context label (proper noun) would most often be omitted, as it seems to me that it is usually not needed for the most common types of proper noun senses. – Krun 23:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That kind of use is very rare in Swedish - possibly it's more natural in Icelandic. Giving forms like Alberten or Bengten on the inflection line would be confusing. My point is that if ===Proper noun=== should be changed into ===Noun=== in every language, noun templates should be checked in every language to see if they make sense. How could a bot know if a word is a place name, and omit the plural? A lot of manual work would be needed.--Makaokalani 13:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, such forms should naturally be omitted from the inflection line if they are unattestable, and perhaps they should be generally excluded from the inflection line (but with no comment of uncountable or no plural) for words that we don't give at least one common sense for. I would still want them in the inflection table, unless they are unattestable. If the proposal is accepted, we will need to sort out the technicalities of conversion to ===Noun===, which will presumably be done mostly by bot. At that stage we could e.g. have the bots convert uses of proper noun templates in such a way that plurals and definite forms don't appear in the inflection line. Bots, of course, can't know whether or not a noun is proper or not, but under the current scheme we have the same need for manual work; no bot knows whether is correctly applied in current entries. – Krun 14:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I have just noticed that some editors have been marking language names in other languages such as Catalan (Category:ca:Languages) and Spanish (Category:es:Languages) as proper nouns. They are not proper nouns in those languages, they’re just common nouns. I did not check other common nouns such as months, weekdays, or nationalities, or any other languages, but I suspect this problem is widespread and would require a lot of work to clean up...unless a bot could be made to do it. —Stephen (Talk) 13:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I correctly understand Krun's comments below, and if his opinions are not unique to him, then there is a definition of "proper noun" by which those language names are proper nouns, since they identify unique entities, even if the language doesn't mark that in any way. (And personally, although I don't share his definition of "proper noun", I too am inclined to say that language-names are proper nouns in Spanish, because syntactically that's how they seem to behave; but I'm open to arguments to the contrary. I make no comment on Catalan, though, since I don't speak it.) —Ruakh TALK 19:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC) edited 01:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, the Spanish and Catalunyans have proper noun categories, and these are not in them. If every day had a different name, so that Glentock referred uniquely to March 3, 1956, and Paradore referred to Sept. 1, 1887, those would be proper nouns. A series of seven or twelve with repeating names like moon-day, sun-day, and seven-month aren’t proper nouns. We call them proper nouns in English mainly because they are capitalized, and then we can make up whatever rules we want to describe them as proper nouns, then apply those rules to the terms in other languages and we get proper nouns everywhere. But it’s arbitrary and scholars in those other languages don’t agree that they are proper nouns. In many Oriental languages, they just call them 1-day, 2-day, and 1-month, 2-month, and so on. They aren’t proper nouns, either. I think we call these terms in Latin proper nouns, but when the Spanish, French, or Italians write in Latin, they don’t call them proper nouns. —Stephen (Talk) 00:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, sorry, I was referring only to language-names (as in your first two sentences), not to months and weekdays and nationalities (as in your third). I've edited my comment to remove the ambiguity. —Ruakh TALK 01:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proper-noun-ness-mandating meaning?
The current proposal says that sometimes the meaning of a sense mandates its proper-noun-ness, and that a "proper noun" sense label is then unnecessary. This seems completely backward to me. One of the main reasons to explicitly mark proper nouns is precisely to help make the sense more clear. Consider this definition:

 * 1) A male given name.

Obviously a proper noun, right? Except that is a common noun. Keep in mind that what's obvious to a definition writer is not always obvious to a definition reader. We should be encouraging editors to cram in as many sense labels like "proper noun" as can possibly fit.

—Ruakh TALK 18:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * For better substitutability, a common noun can be defined without a leading article. A word used to name things can't be defined this way at all, but must be described or explained like an article or conjunction. But a proper name of a particular entity is a very different lexical item altogether.

 * Judicious use of articles helps some. —Michael Z. 2011-12-13 19:55 z

 * andronym, n.
 * Male name.

 * Matthew, n.
 * A given name for a man.
 * Saint Matthew the Evangelist, one of the Twelve Apostles of Christ and the credited author of the first Gospel of the New Testament.

 * WTF? Are you serious? You seriously think that the best way to distinguish proper nouns from common nouns is to use an indefinite article for proper nouns and no article for common nouns?
 * The funny thing is, I had considered mentioning in my original comment that definition-tweaking could help in some cases (for example, does not mean "a male given name", but rather is a male given name, so its definition is italicized), and emphasizing that it's simply too subtle to be crystal clear, and it's too much to expect editors to get these things consistently right; but your reply proves that you and I were both wrong from the get-go: what you'd consider to be a helpful definition-tweak is precisely what I'd consider to be a detrimental one, so there's no definition-tweaking that could genuinely address this issue by being helpful for all readers.
 * —Ruakh TALK 20:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I didn't say this was the best anything. I was exploring ways to improve writing definitions so their meanings are more consistent and self-explanatory.
 * Now that you mention it, I see that some “non-gloss definitions” are italicized. Never noticed that at all. Is there a guideline about that? Maybe if it was consistently used, readers may get a hint that it means that, but sure isn't a substitute for well-written definitions. —Michael Z. 2011-12-13 21:35 z

 * The definition of Matthew should be italicized (along with all definitions af that type: being, not meaning), that of andronym not. That being said, it is unlikely that andronym will be mistaken to be a given name, or vice versa; it doesn't even use the wording “A male given name”, although it could, theoretically. The only entries I've seen here that use that wording are, in fact, given names. As for some other definitions which should be italicized as well, I can name that of London. It does not mean the same as the phrase “the capital city of the United Kingdom”, so that if the capital is moved to Liverpool, Liverpool will not be the current London. However, in my opinion, the lack of italicization does not pose a great problem in this case, although clearly something we pedants will want to correct for the sake of consistency. – Krun 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * It's true that [[andronym]] doesn't use that wording; but my point is that what seems obvious to the person writing the definition is not necessarily what will actually be obvious to a reader who isn't already familiar with the word. If X knows that "Matthew" is a male given name and Y knows that "andronym" is a word for a male given name, then X and Y might happily give the same definition for both — X thinking the definition makes it obvious that "Matthew" is a proper noun, and Y thinking the definition makes it obvious that "andronym" is a common noun. Clearly one or both is wrong. (I actually agree with Y, myself, but you and Mzajac both seem to think that Y is the more clearly wrong of the two, so obviously my example was a good one for exemplifying my point!)
 * As for italicizing the definition of London — certainly not! That is a gloss definition, or is attempting to be. As I'm sure you're aware, it's London itself, not the name, that is the capital city of the U.K. (As you can see, these things are difficult to get right. It requires a lot of thought. A lot of editors still think that the phrase "cat food" contains an adjective "cat", and this is after years of discussions of a fairly important point of English grammar. The reason, of course, is that most editors aren't reading those discussions, because they're busy writing entries, patrolling recent-changes, and so on. And one or two editors might even have lives outside of Wiktionary, which I imagine would also take up some time.)
 * —Ruakh TALK 22:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * You're absolutely right about the points of view of different editors and readers (andronym vs. actual given names). We really do need to work on improving definitions and clarifying them (this is a continual and endless task, of course). I do not agree with Mzajac either about the use of the indefinite article. The “a” in “a male given name” does absolutely nothing to make it obvious whether or not the definition is a gloss or not. As you rightly point out below, this practice is widespread for common nouns in this dictionary and others, and my language intuition also tells me that dropping the article changes nothing, but simply makes the defining phrase seem to lack it in some cases. As for your readers X and Y being wrong, that depends entirely on what is expected of our definitions. Most definitions are worded as glosses, as this is easier to understand and possible in most cases. Also, thanks for clarifying about London. Non-gloss definitions generally say what the word itself is and/or how it functions. The definition of London does not do this, although it still has the same sort of flaw as that of Matthew, i.e. it is not clear just from the wording “the capital city of the UK” that this is what the city is and this characteristic of it is simply being used to identify it, or that the word London directly means “the capital city of the UK”, just like capital means “the most important city”, etc. The reason nobody generally has a problem with this may be that 1) one already knows what London is and is only using the definition to ascertain that one is viewing the correct entry, translations, etc. 2) one generally doesn't expect a capitalized word to be a general word for a capital city (of the UK); also, people don't expect such a sense at all, since it doesn't seem like a particularly useful sense.
 * And, YES, ditto on this requiring a lot of thought. It's pretty nice to be able to have a good discussion about these things, but it really is a challenge! – Krun 14:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I see what you mean: it's obvious to us that there's no common noun meaning "the capital city of the U.K." (though there is a common noun for "the head of the Roman Catholic Church", an entity that is just as unique at any given point in time). London is the same city whether or not it's the capital of the U.K., and was the same city before the U.K. existed; but the name is used metonymically in ways that only make sense for a capital city. Arguably something like "In the 1720s, London abolished British import duties […]" is using London to mean "the then-capital of the U.K." rather than in reference to the actual city of London. —Ruakh TALK 19:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Re: exploring ways to improve writing definitions: I applaud and encourage such efforts, but I think the specific suggestion of dropping indefinite articles from English common-noun definitions is a bad idea (for a few reasons:
 * every English dictionary uses them, and every user of English dictionaries is used to that;
 * we're currently very consistent about including them, whereas I don't think we can ever become consistent about excluding them;
 * the indefinite article helps readers internalize that a sense is a noun sense, and specifically a countable common-noun sense, even if they're not confident with terms like "noun" and "common noun" and "countable".
 * ), and I think the general implication that good definitions make up for lack of is misguided, since it only works to the extent that the definition-writer's notion of "this sounds like a proper-noun definition" matches that of the definition-reader. Writing definitions is hard, and we shouldn't rely on editors' doing it perfectly. It's especially hard to write a definition that's both (1) technically correct in all details and (2) instantly clear in the broad strokes. I mean, don't get me wrong,  does not make up for weaknesses of definition, either (especially since many readers will think "proper noun" means "noun that is capitalized"); my point is simply that sense-labels and well-tuned definitions are both helpful, and we shouldn't spurn either one.
 * Re: italics: the guideline is really "always". I believe that our template-generated non-gloss definitions (form-ofs, given-names, etc.) are consistent about it, but — unsurprisingly — few editors seem to bother with when writing non-gloss definitions by hand.
 * —Ruakh TALK 22:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I think we would do well to be more consistent and get that template into more widespread use. Perhaps we should also have it go further than just italicizing. I think it would be nice (and more clear) to include a small mark of some sort for these definitions, something like e.g. a parenthesized superscript symol or abbreviation with a tooltip saying something like “this is a non-gloss definition” and a link that would lead to an appendix which explains the different types of definitions. – Krun 14:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I never bother to type when four dots work as well. Nothing surprising about that...--Makaokalani 13:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 * It would be trivial (but very useful) to shorten the template name. – Krun 14:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * . Mglovesfun (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Inflection lines.
I think the proposal needs to address inflection lines for English entries. (As Makaokalani notes above, this proposal should chiefly concern itself with English entries, anyway.) Is it really sensible to tell our readers that a word like is "uncountable"? Just as we currently support several different types of countable-and-uncountable common nouns, I think we'd want to support several different types of common-and-proper nouns. (And I imagine we'd also want to keep Category:English proper nouns, like Category:English uncountable nouns, although the current proposal says, for some reason, that we wouldn't.)

—Ruakh TALK 18:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the inflection line should leave off mention of tags such as uncountable, which belong to individual definitions. In cases where there is no plural form, the template could simply print (no plural). – Krun 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * But there's nearly always a plural form, even when all senses are uncountable and/or proper. For example, the noun has the well-attested plural form, but it's surely not worth including ad-hoc common-noun senses like "A person, animal, or thing with this name" and "An aspect or instance of a person with this name" and so on. —Ruakh TALK 22:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the inflection line is sense-independent, and the sense “a person, animal, or thing with this name” is a generally applicable subsense of names. I think an entry like this
 * Jessica (plural Jessicas)
 * A female given name.
 * covers the senses displayed in the sentences “I met Jessica at a bar” and “there are two Jessicas in my class” adequatly. – Krun 10:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 * The uncountable label really means “uncountable, mostly.” All of the usage labels work this way.

 * The Jessica example is a good one. Reminds us that we could compose a non-encyclopedic entry for a toponym, that won't threaten to become a gazetteer with 60 or more “senses”:

 * Paris (plural Parises)
 * A place name.

 * (Yes, in actual practice I would mention the capital of France.) —Michael Z. 2011-12-15 04:18 z

 * As for categorization, I fail to see the usefulness of Category:English proper nouns, etc., at least as it is. I can't really imagine needing to browse for proper nouns without being actually looking for something more specific, such as a given name or placename. Someone might perhaps want to use it for language statistics (how many proper vs. common nouns are there in a given language, etc.). Perhaps someone might want a common noun category as well (of course a vast number of nouns might need to be placed in both, depending on the community view on what it is to “be” a proper noun or common noun). – Krun 13:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 * To be honest, I don't see the usefulness of almost any categories. But we've decided to have categories like Category:English countable nouns, and this is no different. —Ruakh TALK 13:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Arrowred.png|12px|left]] Chiming in late here, but I did want to point out that one could easily use in a countable way, such as: "We encounter many different s as we view the scope of history..."
 * I primarily work with Japanese, where the main distinction between proper and common nouns (that I can currently think of before having my morning coffee) has to do with whether or not to capitalize the term when romanized. This might be automatable if a bot could be instructed to look for some sort of "proper" tag, be it in the POS header or in a context label.
 * Japanese has no gender, nor much in the way of grammatical number, so a noun, proper, pro-, or otherwise, is handled pretty much the same as any other noun, broadly speaking. The primarily distinction for Japanese is instead social context, so certain nouns are treated as crude, common, honorific, humble, or "only used when talking about/with the imperial family", and these categories *do* entail grammatical changes with regard to what verbs and verb endings to use.  That said, I haven't seen any special POS headers for these, and it looks like the Wiktionary approach here has been to use context labels and/or usage notes.
 * In short, folding the <tt>Proper noun</tt> headers into <tt>Noun</tt> headers instead probably won't have too much impact on Japanese. However, as A-cai noted for Chinese, using context labels to mark proper noun-ness will be a bear for Japanese as well due to the need for indexing parameters, which will probably require manual editing.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Re: : I think everyone was aware of that to begin with — we've even had votes about how to present that information — but thanks.
 * Re: Japanese: Keep in mind that Japanese doesn't have to be handled the same way as English. The vote is currently worded in such a way as to cover all languages, but that only means something if the vote passes. If the vote fails, editors in individual languages will still be able to evaluate whether ===Proper noun=== is useful for those languages. (By the way, I'd be hesitant to apply the term "proper noun" in any language based solely on capitalization. Note that English capitalizes plenty of common nouns and adjectives, such as "American", that are related to proper nouns but are not themselves proper nouns. If Japanese really doesn't have a syntactic category of "proper noun", then we probably shouldn't try to make one up.)
 * —Ruakh TALK 20:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I'd wondered (about proper nouns in Japanese). I'll bring that up on your talk page, since that's a side issue and so as not to clutter things here.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Demonyms.
Obviously there's an editing error here, which I assume will be fixed:

 * all such senses as the one in question may be used both as proper and common nouns (as with demonyms, which are usually common when in the singular or when used with numbers, but proper when used to refer to

so I hesitate to read too much into its current state. . . but are any demonyms used as proper nouns? Obviously there are many demonyms that double as language-names, and of course the language-names are (almost?) always proper nouns, but that's a separate sense. The only demonyms that I can recall having heard described as proper nouns (other than by people who think "proper noun" means "capitalized noun") are adjectives like and  that, like other adjectives, can be used with the definite article to refer to a whole group ("the meek", "the great unwashed", etc.); the only reason they get called "proper nouns" is because, insofar as they're nouns at all, they're obviously proper rather than common; but since they're actually not nouns at all, that doesn't say very much.

—Ruakh TALK 18:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I do mean something similar to “the French”; although French here is historically an adjective, and can still be analyzed as such (although some analyze it as a noun), “the Germans” (meaning the entire German nation) is proper – just as proper as, say “the Bahamas”. Many ancient demonyms, e.g. in Latin or Old Norse, are even only attested in the plural, being used as proper nouns to describe interactions between nations and tribes. In Icelandic, demonyms have for this reason traditionally been regarded as proper nouns, often even being lemmatized in the plural in dictionaries (I have also seen this for taxonomic classes both in Icelandic and Croatian dictionaries). – Krun 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Is "the Germans" really a proper noun, as opposed to a plural common noun? How can you tell? You say that it's just as proper as "the Bahamas", but one might also say that it's just as proper as "the enemy" or "the vertebrates". —Ruakh TALK 22:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * (By the way, I'm really only talking about English, because, as Makaokalani says, this vote should really only be about English. Other languages here generally use English as their starting-point, but there's no reason for a vote like this one to impose itself on all languages.) —Ruakh TALK 22:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * It is proper because it refers to the whole German nation, a unique entity; the Germans lost the war ≈ Germany lost the war. This is true in any language (provided it uses nouns/names at all), and is perhaps more philosophical than linguistic in nature. The proposed change is for all languages, not just English. I would have thought it were clear as some of my arguments specifically refer to other languages (the stuff about proper vs. common senses/usage, metonymy, etc. apply to any language). – Krun 23:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, “the Germans” can also be common, e.g. “The Germans I met yesterday …”, which is similar to “the men I met yesterday …”; here, these words do not refer to the German nation or mankind, but to a countable subset (only made specific by further qualification). – Krun 23:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Re: "the Germans" being proper: Just because noun phrases with "the" can be used to refer to globally to all things/people whatever that the noun applies to, that doesn't mean it makes sense to consider such phrases to be proper nouns. The whole point of proper nouns is that they're always definite, because they always refer to a unique entity. "The Germans" is only definite because of the "the". "Germans lost the war" generally means "some Germans lost the war", while "the Germans lost the war" generally means "all Germans lost the war", or (more accurately) "Germans taken as a whole lost the war"; it's just like "an enemy lost the war" vs. "the enemy lost the war", or "you can't stop tides" vs. "you can't stop the tides". There are, of course, some proper nouns that take "the", but the key point is that if you remove the "the" you either still have a proper noun ("the Sudan" ~ "Sudan", "the Ukraine" ~ "Ukraine") or else no longer have anything at all ("the Bahamas" ~ *"Bahamas").
 * Re: the language of the vote: Yes, it is indeed very clear that the proposed change is for all languages. Otherwise, my statement that it should only be about English would not make very much sense!
 * —Ruakh TALK 23:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree that a noun should not necessarily be considered (primarily) proper because of such usage. I myself consider demonyms like German to be primarily common. OTOH, I'm not convinced that it is useful to decide one way or the other for such borderline cases. Explaining usage in usage notes and or appendices seems a better idea. I am also not convinced by your argument regarding the article in “the Germans”. “The Germans lost” can also just mean any previously mentioned Germans, “those Germans we were talking about”, etc. The sense “the German nation as a whole” is a specific subsence of “the Germans” which has to be deduced from semantic context, and that subsence is a proper noun sense. In Icelandic, the equivalent usage actually omits the definite article: “Þjóðverjar sigruðu Englendinga 2–1” (the Germans beat the English 1–2), where the demonyms are both nouns lacking a definite article, which would normally be needed to mark them as definite, but because they are being used in a proper sense, they don't need it. – Krun 00:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I make no comment on Icelandic. It's quite possible that should be considered a proper noun. But in English, the behavior that you describe is chiefly a property of "the", not of "Germans". The same is true of many common nouns; something like "dogs are the most well-known of the canids" is perfectly grammatical, for example. (Admittedly, nouns differ in how idiomatic this is, and also in whether a singular noun, a plural noun, or a related word is preferred — "the Frenchmen" is not generally used this way, for example, because "the French" is used instead — so I'm not saying that we can't/shouldn't document this use of "Germans". But unless we're prepared to apply "proper noun" to words like "enemy" and "canids", I don't think it makes sense to apply it to "Germans", either.) —Ruakh TALK 01:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, in your sentence, “dogs are the most well-known of the canids”, it is my opinion that both “dogs” and “canids” are being used as proper nouns; they each refer to a single unique taxonomic grouping (as a whole). This does not mean that I would want a proper noun header for dog or canid. On the contrary, one of the main reasons for my starting this vote is my concern for common noun senses being covered under proper noun and vice versa (since the noun header currently implies “common noun” because of the separate proper noun header). In other words, I think it is wrong of us to mark words explicitly one way or the other when we intend to use only one of the headers (as with dog) and cover proper noun (sub-)senses under that. We are obscuring what it really means for a noun to be proper, grammatically and philosophically, because a header one way or the other implies to the reader that the word in question is only a proper or common noun, no matter what the grammatical context. Treatment like that of dog will be quite acceptable, however, if ===Noun=== simply means “noun”, because then there is no inconsistency in having proper noun senses under the header. It is clear to me that the proper noun sense of “dogs” I mentioned is a subsense of our first sense for dog (“an animal …”), which is generally applicable to words in the plural for such groupings. Similarly, many (if not most) common nouns can generally be used as proper nouns with a definite article (I certainly agree that in this case the definite article is a requirement), as in e.g. “the clock was invented in [insert year]” (meaning the clock as a general concept) as opposed to e.g. “the clock in the living room is broken”. I don't think we need separate definition lines for these subsenses, but I do want an appendix documenting such usage and the abolition of the separate proper noun header, for the completeness and consistency of our coverage. I might add that dictionaries don't usually specifically state that a noun is proper, and this has never caused any problems for me. See e.g. . – Krun 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I see. It appears that I define "proper noun" in a way that makes it a useful category, and you define it in a way that makes it a useless one; hence my view that it's useful to label proper nouns (as I define them), and your view that it's useless to label proper nouns (as you define them). So there's probably no way to make this proposal palatable to both of us. —Ruakh TALK 13:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, it seems you do have a different definition in mind; what, exactly, is your definition of a proper noun? – Krun 14:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I'd say that, to a first approximation — and speaking primarily of English — a proper noun is an inherently definite noun that names a specific entity. Typically, one of the following is true:
 * It always requires the definite article. (There's no *"Bahamas" or *"University of Michigan", only a "the Bahamas" and a "the University of Michigan". One exception is in attributive position: in "a University of Michigan professor", "University of Michigan" is still definite, and still names the same specific entity, but its definiteness is no longer expressed through an overt article.)
 * It never allows the definite article. (There's no *"the Molly Brown" or *"the Germany", only a "Molly Brown" and a "Germany". One exception is with an attributive adjective: we say "the unsinkable Molly Brown", not *"unsinkable Molly Brown". Another is with a stressed "the", as in "Are you THE John Madden?")
 * It has the same meaning with or without a definite article. ("Sudan" and "the Sudan" are synonymous, as are "Ohio State University" and "the Ohio State University".)
 * (By the way, all unasterisked example phrases and sentences in this comment, both above and below, are actual attested examples, findable via Google.)
 * Like all POS distinctions in English, this one is fuzzy. For example:
 * "The Alps" is constructed just like "the Andes" and "the Appalachians", but whereas I don't think anyone speaks of *"an Ande" (*"an Andis"?) or *"an Appalachian" (in this sense), some people do speak of "an Alp". Obviously, for those speakers, "Alp" is a common noun, whose definite plural would be "the Alps" (as in "one of the Alps that separate France and Italy"); does that mean that, for such speakers, or for some such speakers, "the Alps" is never a proper noun? How to tell?
 * All words in English can be used as countable common nouns, and proper nouns are no exception. In fact, they're particularly apt to do so — probably roughly as apt as adjectives and uncountable-common-nouns are. For example:
 * Sometimes two entities have the same name, and then that name can be used as a common noun referring to any entity with that name, as in "You are surprised that people are surprised about having more Muhammads than Harrys in Britain." (Note the spelling "Harrys", by the way. Proper nouns, even when pressed into service as common nouns, tend to be preserved more faithfully than regular common nouns.) This can also happen when the entities have different names, but with the same head, as in "The 38th Parallel increasingly became a political border between the two Koreas" or "Not sure where in the Carolinas you want to vacation or live?" (Notice that the semantically similar "North and South Korea" and "North and South Carolina", despite combining the heads, nonetheless do not use "Korea" and "Carolina" as common nouns; we say "North and South Korea", not *"the North and South Koreas". Proper nouns have both a semantic dimension and a syntactic one, and the syntactic dimension is language-dependent.) The same transformation can be done, by the way, with personal pronouns: in "is that a he or a she?", the usually-inherently-definite "he" is transformed into a common noun meaning "someone designated by 'he'" (and likewise for "she").
 * Sometimes a portion of a named entity, or a named entity at a specific point in time or space, is treated as a sort of "instance" of the named entity, using the name of the "super-entity" as a common-noun referring to the "sub-entity"; thus "the Germanys of Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler", or "we wanted to get to know the inner Jessica, so we lobbed a few questions at her". As before, the same can be done with personal pronouns, as in "You don't know the inner me, the real me" or "I'm REALLY in debt now, but the me of 1990-2008 is responsible for it, not the me of 1989."
 * I'm not sure if this is exactly a common-noun use, but there's a (British? old-fashioned?) construction that uses "a" with a person's name, as in "Mrs. Villiers referred to someone else, a Mr Gilbert, who happens to be a pilot for another airline" and "I'm extremely annoyed with a certain Mr. Weiner".
 * Conversely, words of various parts of speech, especially countable common nouns, can be deployed as definite-article–less proper nouns, where they effectively function as names. This happens particularly often to kinship terms, as in "I asked Dad to go check it out", but also to other words expressing relationships, as in "Candy wanted to talk to Teacher." I think there's always an intermediate step where the noun is used vocatively, as in "What do you mean, Dad?" or "Teacher, may I be excused?", but I'm not sure. (Obviously I'm not counting the case where an existing word really is a name, like with the girls'-names "Summer" and "Heather", the pets'-names "Pumpkin" and "Snowflake", and the nicknames "Skinny" and "Red".)
 * Similarly, when a common noun functions as the head of a definite-article–using proper noun, sometimes the common noun itself will be used alone (aside from the definite article), with the rest of the name being implied; hence "the University", "the Agency", and so on. These retain some aspects of proper-noun-itude (e.g. in that the FBI is only "the Bureau", never "the Agency"), but lose others (e.g. in that the FBI can also be "this Bureau").
 * Some common nouns can be used in the adverbial construction "[prep] [noun]", without the definite article, but still seeming to be semantically definite; "I saw him at school" seems to mean something closer to "I saw him at the school" than to "I saw him at a school". A few don't even require the preposition, as in "she went home" or "are you home?". In this respect they resemble words like "Monday" ("I'll see you (on) Monday") that are often considered proper nouns, and there may not be a principled way to distinguish.
 * But again, these sorts of fuzzinesses occur in all POS distinctions in English. The boundary between common nouns and proper nouns is not much fuzzier than, say, the boundary between adjectives and nouns, or that between adjectives and prepositions.
 * —Ruakh TALK 19:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 * But it is fuzzier. In the case of demonyms, and some other words, the boundary is sometimes indefinable.

 * Take the variable nature of properness, mix in some metonymy and whatever, and you get a continuum of references to an entire people, or a representative group of the people, right through to individual members of the group: the Germans are very precise, the Germans lost the war, the Germans were forced across the Rhine, the Germans export luxury cars, the Germans designed the Volkswagen, the Germans left the table at the summit, the Germans slept through breakfast (I made these up. Can you tell me which are examples of proper nouns and which are not?). Often even the speaker hasn't even determined whether he is using a proper noun or common noun.

 * First Nations, in Canada, is a proper collective demonym referring to Canadian Indians, an attributive noun indicating Indian heritage, or a common plural noun referring to Indian bands, settlements, or reserves. Sometimes it's two or three of these simultaneously.

 * You can indicate that many words are usually proper or common nouns, and it can be understood that they may be used the other way. But some words are so changeable or indeterminate that you probably shouldn't indicate this. —Michael Z. 2011-12-15 00:40 z

 * Obviously you didn't read a single word I wrote. I don't say that because you continue to disagree with me — I'd like to believe that I'm magically persuasive, and that no one could resist my all-compelling arguments, but sadly, I know that's not true — but because my comments clearly express my own opinion, and your comment is clearly unaware that I hold that opinion. So, for the last time: Every single one of your examples is a common noun. There is absolutely no value in ever considering any of those as a proper noun, because the entirety of their syntax and semantics is adequately explained by viewing them all as common nouns. The only way you can possibly expect me to accept that those examples are "fuzzy", and that they militate for a non-distinction between common nouns and proper nouns, is if you also expect me to accept that "cat food" is "fuzzy" because the speaker may not have decided whether "cat" is an adjective or a noun, and that it militates for a non-distinction between nouns and adjectives. —Ruakh TALK 04:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, I guess I'm just an idiot and expressing your presumptions isn't arrogant at all. —Michael Z. 2011-12-15 15:53 z

 * Not arrogant, just annoyed. I found your comment very obnoxious. This whole discussion was about whether something like "the Germans" is a proper noun when it refers to the entire German people/country/government/etc., and I explained that I felt that it wasn't and why I felt that it wasn't. (In particular, see my comment that begins "Re: 'the Germans' being proper".) Krun then asked me to clarify what I meant by "proper noun", and I put a lot of effort into explaining my point of view, acknowledging its limitations, and documenting those limitations with real examples. Now, I'm still open, of course, to the possibility that "the Germans" actually should be considered a proper noun in some uses, and if you had presented an argument along those lines, I'd have been all ears. Instead, you dismissed half of what I wrote with an unsupported claim, simply presupposing that "the Germans" is sometimes a proper noun and presupposing that the only discussion is over when that's the case. In other words, you took for granted that I shared a certain position even after I'd explicitly rejected it, and then you used that position to dismiss the small portion of my comment that you hadn't simply ignored. Furthermore — at this point I'm sure I should have assumed good faith — but your bit of "I made these up" really seemed like you were mocking me for finding real examples. Since I'd put a lot of effort into finding those examples, I found that really offensive. —Ruakh TALK 18:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In French, demonyms are often considered as (capitalized) common nouns. Alpes is a proper noun, but the common noun alpe also exists, with a related meaning. ANd the use of the article or not has nothing to do with the fact that it's a common noun or a proper noun. Language names, days and months are never considered as proper nouns. The most popular French dictionary is the Petit Larousse, and it includes a proper nouns part. Nouns mentioned in this part include companies and organizations, persons or famous families, placenames, famous works (and some demonyms too, such as Inuits). Not surnames or first names. This is more or less what is considered as proper nouns in French (surnames and first names may be considered as proper nouns but they are somewhat special). But the tradition differs between languages. I would change the proposal to ''The POS should be Proper nouns only in two cases: 1. when the language considers the noun as a proper noun or 2. when there is no proper noun/common noun distinction in the language, and this is a place, person or organization name of a kind always considered as a proper noun in languages where the distinction exists. Lmaltier 08:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I do not think that "the Germans" is a proper noun. Neither do I think that "the computer" as referring to the invention rather than to any particular physical object that is a computers is a proper noun. Singularity of reference does not guarantee that an expression is a proper noun. All definite expressions ("the cat over there", "the third planet of the Solar System") show singularity of reference, but that makes them neither proper nouns nor proper names. --Dan Polansky 13:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


text:
Borôro

Proper noun

 * 1) An indigenous language of Brazil believed to be part of the Macro-Gê family.

title: Borôro


text:
Hann

Etymology
From a given name derived from, variant of , or less often from  or.

Verb

 * 1)  To apply the Hann function to (a signal).

Etymology 1
From, , from , from , from. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) brain

Etymology 2
From and. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) horn

title: Hann


text:
User:Beta M

I knows english languages good. I does translatings into russia language, because i am can understanding it.

title: User:Beta M


text:
Hance

Etymology
From + the patronymic suffix. In Scotland, a contraction of.

title: Hance


text:
Hancock

Etymology
From +.

title: Hancock


text:
Hancocks

Etymology
From + the patronymic suffix.

title: Hancocks


text:
Hancox

Etymology
From + the patronymic suffix.

title: Hancox


text:
Handcock

Etymology
Variant of.

title: Handcock


text:
Hankin

Etymology
From.

title: Hankin


text:
Hankins

Etymology
From + the patronymic suffix.

title: Hankins


text:
Hankinson

Etymology
From.

title: Hankinson


text:
Hanks

Etymology

 * From + the patronymic suffix.
 * From + the pluralization suffix.

title: Hanks


text:
Hansom

Etymology
From.

title: Hansom


text:
Hanson

Etymology
From.

Proper noun

 * 1) A placename
 * 1) A placename

title: Hanson


text:
Jaggs

Etymology
From + the patronymic suffix.

title: Jaggs


text:
Jaynes

Proper noun

 * 1)  derived from a medieval variant of.

title: Jaynes


text:
Jeanes

Etymology
From a medieval variant of + the patronymic suffix.

title: Jeanes


text:
Janson

Etymology
From the medieval male given name.

title: Janson


text:
Jenkinson

Etymology
From.

title: Jenkinson


text:
Jenks

Etymology
From a back-formation of + the patronymic suffix.

title: Jenks


text:
Jinks

Etymology
Variant of.

title: Jinks


text:
Jeynes

Etymology
From a medieval variant of + the patronymic suffix.

title: Jeynes


text:
Joinson

Etymology
From.

title: Joinson


text:
Joynson

Etymology
From.

title: Joynson


text:
Jennison

Etymology
From a medieval variant of.

title: Jennison


text:
Jenning

Etymology
From, a diminutive of the male given name , variant of.

title: Jenning


text:
Jennens

Etymology
From, a diminutive of the male given name , variant of + patronymic suffix.

title: Jennens


text:
Jennett

Etymology
From, a diminutive of the male given name , variant of.

title: Jennett


text:
Jenns

Etymology
From the medieval male given name, variant of , + the patronymic suffix.

title: Jenns


text:
Johncock

Etymology
From +  as a medieval diminutive suffix.

title: Johncock


text:
Ianson

Etymology
From.

title: Ianson


text: deselections

title: deselections


text:
deselectable

Adjective

 * 1) Capable of being deselected.

title: deselectable


text:
Heavens

Etymology
Variant of.

title: Heavens


text:
Evens

Etymology 1
Variant of.

title: Evens


text:
Ivins

Etymology
Variant of.

title: Ivins


text:
Ions

Etymology 1
From a Northumberland variant of + the patronymic suffix.

title: Ions


text: Beebs

title: Beebs


text:
demitint

Etymology
Borrowed from, or.

Noun

 * 1)  That part of a painting, engraving, etc. which is neither in full darkness nor full light.
 * 2)  The shade itself; neither the darkest nor the lightest in a composition.

title: demitint


text: demitints

title: demitints


text:
pensative

Adjective

 * 1)  pensive

title: pensative


text:
traducible

Adjective

 * 1)  Capable of being derived or propagated.
 * 2)  Capable of being traduced or calumniated.
 * 1)  Capable of being traduced or calumniated.

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) translatable capable of being translated into another language
 * 2) translatable capable of being transferred from one context or environment to another

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) translatable capable of being translated into another language
 * 2) translatable capable of being transferred from one context or environment to another

title: traducible


text:
pererro

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to wander through, roam or ramble over

title: pererro


text:
assizor

Noun

 * 1)  A juror.

title: assizor


text: assizors

title: assizors


text:
invitement

Noun

 * 1)  invitation; allurement; temptation

title: invitement


text: invitements

title: invitements


text: pererras

title: pererras


text: pererrat

title: pererrat


text: pererramus

title: pererramus


text: pererratis

title: pererratis


text: pererrant

title: pererrant


text: pererrabo

title: pererrabo


text: pererrabis

title: pererrabis


text: pererrabit

title: pererrabit


text: pererrabimus

title: pererrabimus


text: pererrabitis

title: pererrabitis


text: pererrabunt

title: pererrabunt


text: pererrabam

title: pererrabam


text: pererrabas

title: pererrabas


text: pererrabat

title: pererrabat


text: pererrabamus

title: pererrabamus


text: pererrabatis

title: pererrabatis


text: pererrabant

title: pererrabant


text: pererravi

title: pererravi


text: pererravisti

title: pererravisti


text: pererravit

title: pererravit


text: pererravimus

title: pererravimus


text: pererravistis

title: pererravistis


text: pererraverunt

title: pererraverunt


text: pererravero

title: pererravero


text: pererraveris

title: pererraveris


text: pererraverit

title: pererraverit


text: pererraverimus

title: pererraverimus


text: pererraveritis

title: pererraveritis


text: pererraverint

title: pererraverint


text: pererraveram

title: pererraveram


text: pererraveras

title: pererraveras


text: pererraverat

title: pererraverat


text: pererraveramus

title: pererraveramus


text: pererraveratis

title: pererraveratis


text: pererraverant

title: pererraverant


text: pererror

title: pererror


text: pererraris

title: pererraris


text: pererramur

title: pererramur


text: pererramini

title: pererramini


text: pererratur

title: pererratur


text: pererrantur

title: pererrantur


text: pererrabor

title: pererrabor


text: pererraberis

title: pererraberis


text: pererrabimur

title: pererrabimur


text: pererrabimini

title: pererrabimini


text: pererrabitur

title: pererrabitur


text: pererrabuntur

title: pererrabuntur


text: pererrabar

title: pererrabar


text: pererrabaris

title: pererrabaris


text: pererrabamur

title: pererrabamur


text: pererrabamini

title: pererrabamini


text: pererrabatur

title: pererrabatur


text: pererrabantur

title: pererrabantur


text: pererrem

title: pererrem


text: pererres

title: pererres


text: pererret

title: pererret


text: pererremus

title: pererremus


text: pererretis

title: pererretis


text: pererrent

title: pererrent


text: pererrarem

title: pererrarem


text: pererrares

title: pererrares


text: pererraret

title: pererraret


text: pererraremus

title: pererraremus


text: pererraretis

title: pererraretis


text: pererrarent

title: pererrarent


text: pererraverim

title: pererraverim


text: pererravissem

title: pererravissem


text: pererravisses

title: pererravisses


text: pererravisset

title: pererravisset


text:
broiderer

Noun

 * 1)  One who embroiders.

title: broiderer


text: broiderers

title: broiderers


text: pererravissemus

title: pererravissemus


text: pererravissetis

title: pererravissetis


text: pererravissent

title: pererravissent


text: pererrer

title: pererrer


text: pererreris

title: pererreris


text: pererremur

title: pererremur


text:
bubaline

Adjective

 * 1)  Of, pertaining to, or resembling a buffalo.

Noun

 * 1) A buffalo

title: bubaline


text: pererremini

title: pererremini


text: elleborin

title: elleborin


text: pererretur

title: pererretur


text: pererrentur

title: pererrentur


text: pererrarer

title: pererrarer


text: pererrareris

title: pererrareris


text: pererraremur

title: pererraremur


text: pererraremini

title: pererraremini


text: pererraretur

title: pererraretur


text: pererrarentur

title: pererrarentur


text: pererra

title: pererra


text: pererrato

title: pererrato


text: pererrate

title: pererrate


text: pererratote

title: pererratote


text: pererranto

title: pererranto


text: pererrare

title: pererrare


text: pererrator

title: pererrator


text: pererrantor

title: pererrantor


text: pererravisse

title: pererravisse


text: pererrari

title: pererrari


text:
recti-

Etymology
.

Prefix

 * 1) straight

title: recti-


text:
enterer

Noun

 * 1) One who enters.
 * 2) * 1585, (translator), The Worke of, the Cosmographer, concerninge the Situation of the World, London: Thomas Hacket, Book 1, Chapter 13, “Of Cilicia,” p.23,
 * When ye come to the bottome, there againe openeth an other Caue, woorthy to be spoken of for other things. It maketh the enterers into it afraide with the din of Timbrels, which make a gastly and great ratling within.
 * 1) * 1760,, “Elegy Written at the Approach of Winter” in Four Elegies: Descriptive and Moral, London: J. Buckland et al., p.20, (cited by in a letter to Mrs Hayley dated 27July, 1790, in Letters of Anna Seward, Edinburgh: Archibald Constable, 1811, Volume 3, p.30,),
 * Who dreams of Nature Free from Nature’s Strife?
 * The Hope-flush’d Ent’rer on the Stage of Life,
 * The Youth to Knowledge unchastis’d by Woe!

title: enterer


text: enterers

title: enterers


text:
disguisedly

Adverb

 * 1) In disguise.

title: disguisedly


text: lustrical

title: lustrical


text:
urocele

Noun

 * 1)  A swelling of the scrotum due to extravasation of urine into it.

title: urocele


text: uroceles

title: uroceles


text: ironwares

title: ironwares


text:
توتا

Noun

 * 1) parrot

Usage notes
The spelling, although common, is considered incorrect.

title: توتا


text: Chilians

title: Chilians


text:
menticultural

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to mental culture; serving to improve or strengthen the mind.

title: menticultural


text:
relbun

Noun

 * 1) The roots of the plant, used for dyeing crimson.

title: relbun


text:
perlabor

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to slip or glide through or over; skim

title: perlabor


text: perlaberis

title: perlaberis


text: perlabitur

title: perlabitur


text: perlabimur

title: perlabimur


text: perlabimini

title: perlabimini


text: perlabuntur

title: perlabuntur


text: perlabar

title: perlabar


text: perlabetur

title: perlabetur


text: perlabemur

title: perlabemur


text: perlabemini

title: perlabemini


text: perlabentur

title: perlabentur


text: perlabebar

title: perlabebar


text: apoplex

title: apoplex


text: perlabebaris

title: perlabebaris


text: apoplexes

title: apoplexes


text: perlabebare

title: perlabebare


text: perlabebatur

title: perlabebatur


text: perlabebamur

title: perlabebamur


text: perlabebamini

title: perlabebamini


text: perlabebantur

title: perlabebantur


text: perlabaris

title: perlabaris


text: perlabare

title: perlabare


text: perlabatur

title: perlabatur


text: perlabamur

title: perlabamur


text: perlabamini

title: perlabamini


text: perlabantur

title: perlabantur


text: perlaberer

title: perlaberer


text: perlabereris

title: perlabereris


text: perlaberere

title: perlaberere


text: perlaberetur

title: perlaberetur


text: perlaberemur

title: perlaberemur


text: perlaberemini

title: perlaberemini


text: perlaberentur

title: perlaberentur


text: perlabere

title: perlabere


text: perlabitor

title: perlabitor


text: perlabuntor

title: perlabuntor


text: perlabi

title: perlabi


text:
spathed

Adjective

 * 1)  Having a spathe or calyx like a sheath.

title: spathed


text:
thionoline

Noun

 * 1)  A fluorescent crystalline substance, intermediate in composition between thionol and thionine.

title: thionoline


text: thionolines

title: thionolines


text:
perobscurus

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) very obscure or vague

title: perobscurus


text:
synocil

Etymology
From and.

Noun

 * 1)  A sense organ found in certain sponges, consisting of several filaments, each arising from a single cell.

title: synocil


text: synocils

title: synocils


text: perobscura

title: perobscura


text: perobscurum

title: perobscurum


text: perobscuri

title: perobscuri


text: perobscurae

title: perobscurae


text: perobscurorum

title: perobscurorum


text: perobscurarum

title: perobscurarum


text: perobscuro

title: perobscuro


text: perobscuris

title: perobscuris


text: perobscuram

title: perobscuram


text: perobscuros

title: perobscuros


text: perobscuras

title: perobscuras


text: perobscure

title: perobscure


text:
hyo-

Etymology 1
From hyoid.

Prefix

 * 1) U-shaped
 * 2)  hyoid; the hyoid bone or arch

Derived terms

 * See Category:English terms prefixed with hyo-

Etymology 2
From "pig".

Prefix

 * 1) pig (attributive)

title: hyo-


text:
mydatoxin

Etymology
From +.

Noun

 * 1)  A poisonous amido acid, C6H13NO2, originally obtained from decaying horseflesh and similar in action to curare.

title: mydatoxin


text: mydatoxins

title: mydatoxins


text:
perrepto

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to crawl or creep through

title: perrepto


text: perreptas

title: perreptas


text: perreptat

title: perreptat


text: perreptamus

title: perreptamus


text: perreptatis

title: perreptatis


text: perreptant

title: perreptant


text: perreptabo

title: perreptabo


text: perreptabis

title: perreptabis


text: perreptabit

title: perreptabit


text: perreptabimus

title: perreptabimus


text: perreptabitis

title: perreptabitis


text: perreptabunt

title: perreptabunt


text:
senegin

Noun

 * 1)  A substance extracted from the rootstock of  (Seneca root), probably identical with polygalic acid.

title: senegin


text: perreptabam

title: perreptabam


text: perreptabas

title: perreptabas


text: perreptabat

title: perreptabat


text: perreptabamus

title: perreptabamus


text: perreptabatis

title: perreptabatis


text: perreptabant

title: perreptabant


text: perreptavi

title: perreptavi


text: perreptavisti

title: perreptavisti


text: perreptavit

title: perreptavit


text: perreptavimus

title: perreptavimus


text: perreptavistis

title: perreptavistis


text: perreptaverunt

title: perreptaverunt


text: perreptavero

title: perreptavero


text: perreptaveris

title: perreptaveris


text: perreptaverit

title: perreptaverit


text: perreptaverimus

title: perreptaverimus


text: perreptaveritis

title: perreptaveritis


text: perreptaverint

title: perreptaverint


text: perreptaveram

title: perreptaveram


text: perreptaveras

title: perreptaveras


text: perreptaverat

title: perreptaverat


text: perreptaveramus

title: perreptaveramus


text: perreptaveratis

title: perreptaveratis


text: perreptaverant

title: perreptaverant


text: perreptor

title: perreptor


text: perreptaris

title: perreptaris


text: perreptamur

title: perreptamur


text: perreptamini

title: perreptamini


text: perreptatur

title: perreptatur


text: perreptantur

title: perreptantur


text: perreptabor

title: perreptabor


text: perreptaberis

title: perreptaberis


text: perreptabimur

title: perreptabimur


text: perreptabimini

title: perreptabimini


text:
perreptans

Etymology
Present participle of.

Participle

 * 1) crawling through

title: perreptans


text: perreptabitur

title: perreptabitur


text: perreptabuntur

title: perreptabuntur


text:
perreptaturus

Etymology
Future active participle of.

Participle

 * 1) about to crawl through

title: perreptaturus


text: perreptabar

title: perreptabar


text: perreptabaris

title: perreptabaris


text:
perreptatus

Etymology
Perfect passive participle of.

Participle

 * 1) crawled through

title: perreptatus


text: perreptabamur

title: perreptabamur


text: perreptabamini

title: perreptabamini