text:
Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Germanic

Indicating nasalisation in entry names
Our current practice is to not indicate nasal vowels in entry names, but to write a following -n instead. The original reasoning for this was that most sources use this convention, and so it's what most people will end up adding to etymologies. But it has the downside that it doesn't distinguish final nasal vowels from final -n, even though this distinction was phonemic in Germanic. Compare with *nahtų, the accusative of. I'm wondering now whether we should use the ogoneks in the entry titles as well. A related question concerns the combination -nh- for the same reason. -anh- was actually pronounced -ą̄h-, and similarly for all other vowels. We could still redirect the following-n names to the new names. —CodeCat 20:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that showing the distinction between the sounds is important in the headword form, even if the pronunciation key makes this clear. I would have no problem using ogoneks in entry titles. The only issue for me would be other materials which forgo this use and use -n instead, how to distinguish it myself here, but I presume that there are clear rules determining which is which? Leasnam 15:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Final -n is fairly rare in Germanic, because it normally disappeared after unstressed vowels. One case where it didn't disappear is when another sound followed it at the time it was lost. In most cases this sound was -t, which was lost after -n in time. So, usually final -n goes back to an earlier -nt. This is the case in some numbers like but also in the 3rd person plural forms of verbs. The sound was also retained in single-syllable words such as  and . But as a rule, the nominative singular forms of neuter a-stem nouns and feminine n-stem nouns will have a nasal vowel, as will the verb infinitive form. —CodeCat 15:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the nasal vowel is common in PGmc, I think they should be included in the entry titles. They would certainly help to distinguish words with nasal vowels from words where -n was not lost, too --Proto-Germanic Fan 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the former posts that the nasal vowels should be included into the entry names, because firstly we already include it into the content page, and secondly the nasalisation of vowels is phonemic in Proto-Germanic. I am in favour of using the ogoneks in the entry names, but I have another proposal too, because when I am in the library the ogoneks do not display on the computer, which is a huge disadvantage for me, because I am there often for study. I would thus propose to use the sign ɴ for nasalisation, e.g. *nahtuɴ (which looks like *nahtuN) for *nahtų. The second advantage of this is that one does notice the nasalisation surely, and thirdly it looks a little more convenient than all those signs under and above some vowels, e.g. *hūsôɴ for *hūsǫ̂. I write the nasalisation in this way for Old Norse, and it really works well. --Dyami Millarson 13:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another convention would be to use superscript n, as in nahtuⁿ. That letter is commonly used to indicate nasalization in a variety of languages, very widely supported and shouldn't have any interoperatibility issues. -- Liliana • 14:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's also a good idea yes... but it would be a bit more work. —CodeCat 17:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic given names
From the few attested PGmc given names, it seems the in the second element becomes, ex. from Nøvling, Denmark. That would render as. --Victar (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's because of Sievers' law. 10:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? --Victar (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sievers' law is a Germanic sound law that operated before, during, and sometime after the Proto-Germanic period. It says that -j- and -ij- are in an allophonic (or allomorphic) distribution, and which of the two appears depends on the length of the preceding morpheme. A syllable is short (light) when it contains a short vowel followed by a single consonant, and long (heavy) otherwise - that is, if it contains a long vowel, a diphthong, or ends in more than one consonant. -j- appears after a short syllable, -ij- after a long syllable. In the case of, the preceding syllable *har- is short, so the alternant -j- appears. The distinction between morphemes and words is also important, because this rule continues to apply even in compounds like the ones you named. This implies, then, that *Bida-warijaz must have a long ā: -wārijaz, because that is the only way to account for the -ij-. This ā must have developed from an earlier ē. *harjaz, on the other hand, is known to have had a short -j- because the word is attested separately.  16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but is attested as short, so this must have been some exception to the rule. --Victar (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On the entry page, you wrote, "The compound form of this noun was conflated with  in many languages, eventually causing both to be treated as one." Couldn't that be applied to  as well? --Victar (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? Are you suggesting that in compounds was confused with ?  16:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting all PGmc personal names that ended in became  due to this confusion. Or perhaps it wasn't a confusion at all and just an effect of . --Victar (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What evidence and motivation is there for such a change? 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * is evidence and confusion is a possible motivation. --Victar (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, found some more evidence. The Skåäng Runestone reads harija ÷ leugaz, so it could be argued that was rendered as  in the second element of PGmc names as well. --Victar (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic verbs in -ēną
Hi. I've touched on this a few times in the past, but I am still uncertain how we are dealing with these verbs here: using Gerhard Koebler's Germanisches Wörterbuch et al. (Bosworth & Toller, etc.), there is a class of verbs (stative) in which the ending is -ēną or -Vną. In OHG and ODT, these appear as -en/-ēn (a good example is . Are these what we are currently showing as -āną verbs? I doubt it, but that is the closest verb class I can find to this. I have been avoiding creating entries for these verbs solely due to the fact that I am unsure. Leasnam (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We have mostly followed Ringe's reconstruction of class 3, but it is still rather controversial and unclear. The main issue with -ēną is that -ē- normally develops into -ā- in Old High German, so it can't be the actual origin of the -ē- found in those verbs. Rather, the most accepted explanation is that the -ē- of OHG is from earlier unstressed -ai-, which is present in some of the endings but was later generalised to all the forms on the model of class 2's uniform -ō-. However, Ringe reconstructs two subclasses: a larger -ja/ai- class consisting mostly of stative verbs, and smaller -ā/ai- class of denominatives (which only survives in Gothic I believe). I think that model is gaining acceptance but there are still many disputed details. The main points of controversy are:
 * Why the ja-class has few reflexes in the Germanic languages, despite being much larger than the ā-class.
 * How the ja-class arose within late PIE, in particular given the evidence of cognates in other PIE languages.
 * How to account for certain other irregularities within Germanic that can't be explained easily with a simple two-way split.
 * There is a good discussion about the issue here. 16:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ogonek RFM
For some time we've had the situation where Proto-Germanic words that have a final nasal vowel were spelled with a following -n, but in links and headwords the display was overridden to show an ogonek instead. The rationale given for it (by me) at WT:AGEM was that many sources write the final -n, and that it would therefore be more convenient. However, now that we have lots and lots of Proto-Germanic words, it doesn't really seem so convenient anymore, but instead an unnecessary nuisance. We can't just drop the ogoneks because the distinction between regular vowel, nasal vowel and vowel + n was phonemic in Proto-Germanic and the three have distinct outcomes in the descendants. In retrospect, sources may use -n but they may also use some other representation, so we can't follow all of them. However, probably the most prominent Proto-Germanic source is currently Ringe 2006, and that uses ogoneks. So if we are to follow any source at all, that would be a very strong candidate. Therefore I propose to move all of the Proto-Germanic pages to the ogonek form when applicable, and to update all the links pointing to those entries. (One note: while you may argue that ogoneks make the words harder to type, consider that Proto-Germanic also uses macrons, circumflexes and the letter þ, so adding ogoneks would barely add any further difficulty) 02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose purely out of selfish motivation. Macra and circumflexes are easy for me to type; thorns much harder but much rarer. Ogoneks are worse than any of those for me. In general, circumflexes are a widely available character (for example, they are common enough to be in Mac's U.S. character set) and macra and thorns are used in representing several older Germanic languages and will likely be easier for Germanicists to input. Ogoneks do have some Germanic use, but it is sparing to say the least, and they are an uncommon character group in general. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but since when have we shied away from hard-to-input characters when we felt them to be more appropriate (putting the smart quote debate aside)? I mean, we don't have any problems inputting IPA characters, or any of the many awkward symbols in PIE, do we? 03:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah we do. I never argued against PIE characters because I don't know much about it, but I find it very frustrating sometimes. As for IPA, the day should come very soon when people can input X-SAMPA in the template and depend on a backwards-version of Michael's Lua converter (easy to write, a little harder to implement). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Unrelated to the main topic but I use "Character Palette" on Mozilla Firefox, which let me type any character I want without opening a second tab (except for certain diacritic symbols, esp. Arabic but I use Windows On-Screen keyboard for that). I don't need to have multiple tabs and copy-paste and I can have a few palettes if I run out of room on my toolbar. E.g. ɛŽžČčŠšʹʺÁáÉéÍíÓóÚúÝýɛ́āēīōūǎṯḥḏṣḍṭẓʿġʾâğäöüçşïıñôţḑŗŕǎ̀ʻøј fits on one panel - they have spaces on the panel and clicking on one symbol (they act like buttons) adds it to a clipboard. Other browsers should have something similar and there could be better tools. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 * My inclination is to support a switch for the reasons CodeCat outlines. - -sche (discuss) 04:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 * @Μετάknowledge, there's also Edittools (when it loads). :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I use the US international layout, which has support for a lot of diacritics on Linux, including macrons, ogoneks, breves, hačeks and so on. On Windows it's a bit more meager, but there is a keyboard layout editor for Windows that you could use to add the extra characters to your layout. For characters that are not in my keyboard layout I either use the edittools, or I look up the unicode codepoint for the combining diacritics (when I want to type ā́ for PIE, I type shift+altgr+3, a, ctrl+shift+u, 0301, space). 13:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On Win XP and Win 7, I've had good luck using the AllChars app, a little utility that lets you define behavior closer to how the Compose key works in Linux, even using text-based config files for very easy configuration. I'm not affiliated with the project at all, just a happy user.   :)  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: having to care for a cosmetic display-form is one less thing to remember to do Leasnam (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus is leaning towards supporting, so I will start the move. 13:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Ogoneks and ⁿ are the two ways I've most often seen PGmc nasalized vowels represented. —Angr 21:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The only question I have is how easily discoverable the ogonek spelling will be. If users enter the spelling with the final "n", will they be redirected to the ogonek spelling?  If so, then great, I'm all for this move.  If no, then how do we tweak things to make sure that users can find the ogonek spelling?  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The nasal vowels always occur at the end of the word, so by the time someone has typed in all the other letters of the name, there will only be one or two search suggestions left, including the final nasal if it exists. I don't think that is even a huge problem though, because I think that most users will end up on those pages by clicking on a link in an etymology. And because we hide these pages away in appendixes, they aren't actually meant to be very discoverable, I imagine. 02:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * <head scratch> Don't we usually include multiple spelling variants, with (in most cases) one selected for maintenance and the others as alternative spelling? - Amgine/t·e 01:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That works when the spelling is actually used, but these are entirely unattested forms. The spelling of attested words is therefore subject to CFI while Proto-Germanic words are of a very different nature. So what exactly does "alternative" mean when there are no attestations? Reconstructions are always made based on some kind of representation, and we've just decided on one particular representation. That doesn't mean that other representations are different terms, they're just different ways of representing the same reconstructed phonemes. It's a bit like deciding that we use straight quotes instead of angle quotes, or no macrons for Latin... the angle quotes aren't in any way an "alternative spelling", they're just a different representation of the same thing. 01:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All pages have been moved, AFAIK. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Kluge's Law in Etymologies
Guus Kroonen cites this law many times in his 2013 dictionary. Perhaps it should be discussed further before citing any more etymologies requiring it. Already, some class-2 verbs cite this law in their etymologies explaining the gemination of their consonants; however, The entries for "eagle",  "star", and many class-4 strong verbs may need some explanation on the presence of their unassimilated consonants.Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Nicknames
Presumably, and this is an assumption, people didn't call each other *Harjagastiz and *Þeudōberhtaz every day. Do we have any idea of what nicknames they might have had? Thinks like Harja or Hari, Þeō or Berti. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC) UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hiatus
CC:ing some thoughts about hiatus transcription from Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/fōr:
 * Is *fuïniz etc. really a good notation to use here? Germanic languages usually use ¨ as umlaut rather than diaresis, so this might seem to suggest something like [ɸuɨniz] to readers, rather than the intended [ɸu.iniz]. (I certainly did a double take upon seeing this form mentioned in an entry.)
 * I would suggest using IPA-compatible notation: *fu.iniz etc.

--Tropylium (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since PGmc doesn't have a diphthong ui, why not just write *fuiniz? It can only be three syllables. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Germanic descendant order
, after some edits I made, pointed out to me the order of Germanic descendants mentioned under Entries, categories and templates. Our general principle in the rest of Indo-European has been a slightly modified alphabetization (We normally count Old English as English for sorting purposes). It seems to me, however that the ordering of Germanic entries has little to do with the alphabet or even the importance of the language (why is Gothic at the bottom?). May we standardize the ordering to something more sensible? — JohnC5 01:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The ordering that was adopted at the time was meant to put similar languages closer together, as well as to have English first. So the natural progression from English, the northernmost West Germanic language, is north-south towards Upper German. The same was done for North Germanic, but going from west to east. Gothic is an outlier among the Germanic languages, so it came last. —CodeCat 01:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes some sense. It still seems fairly arbitrary, and I would prefer alphabetization for consistency. — JohnC5 01:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Alphabetic order (with special preference given to English, since this is en.wikt) does seem a lot more intuitive, I for one would support that. — Kleio (t · c) 03:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not to be set in my ways, but I kind of like it the way it is for exactly the reasons given by CodeCat: grouping should show progression away from English Leasnam (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that we could start breaking it out by Eastern, Western, and Northern Germanic as we to with Slavic. That would allow us to alphabetize and keep similar forms together. — JohnC5 05:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have terribly strong feelings about it, but I don't think we need to put English at the top of the list just because this is en-wikt. I'd separate East Germanic, North Germanic, and West Germanic (in alphabetical order), and then alphabetize by main language name (Old D utch, Old E nglish, Old F risian, Old High G erman, Old S axon and so on) within each group. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Angr's proposal represents my preferred layout. — JohnC5 15:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I also like that idea, especially adopting the Slavic sorting system. Does leave me wondering what would be done with Frankish and Proto-Norse in terms of alphabetic position in those rare entries that do feature those languages. — Kleio (t · c) 15:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * F rankish and Proto- N orse (to keep it with Old Norse). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A subdivision in North (East & West) and in West (Anglo-Frisian-Saxon, Dutch, German-Yiddish) then alphabetised ? Like so:
 * East:
 * Gothic
 * North:
 * East:
 * Danish
 * Gutnish
 * Norwegian Bokmål
 * Swedish
 * Westrobothnian
 * West:
 * Faroese
 * Icelandic
 * Norn
 * Norwegian NyNorsk
 * West
 * Ingvaeonic
 * Anglo-Frisian
 * Anglic
 * Old English
 * Middle English
 * English
 * Scots
 * Yola
 * Frisian
 * Old Frisian
 * North Frisian
 * Saterland Frisian
 * West Frisian
 * Old Saxon
 * Middle Low German
 * Low German
 * Irminonic
 * Old High German
 * Middle High German
 * German
 * Istvaeonic
 * Frankish
 * Old Dutch

Is this attainable ? Am I asking too much ? ...on second thought, it looks more complicated than the current flow...Just tell me how to do it :) Leasnam (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would leave out as many headers that aren't languages as possible, besides the East/West/North Germanic division mentioned above. The Northwest/Northeast gmc., Anglo-Frisian, Anglic, Frisian, Ingvaeonic etc. headers seem to merely turn the list into an unnecessarily complicated labyrinth of nested languages. Just use the basic East/West/North scheme and nest languages alphabetically within those. — Kleio (t · c) 16:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I agree. Leasnam (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How about grouping it by the sound changes of the particular words instead of the language tree, like this:

"*putjaz"
 * /u/
 * Dutch: put
 * -> /i/
 * Old English:
 * English: pit
 * Old Dutch:
 * West Flemish: pit
 * This would be more true to how words evolved, like a Wave model, although without a geographical location. e.g some Dutch words are Ingvaeonic and the current model listing by relation doesn't always work for this. However this change cannot be automated by bots :( --Eliot (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This would be more true to how words evolved, like a Wave model, although without a geographical location. e.g some Dutch words are Ingvaeonic and the current model listing by relation doesn't always work for this. However this change cannot be automated by bots :( --Eliot (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This would be more true to how words evolved, like a Wave model, although without a geographical location. e.g some Dutch words are Ingvaeonic and the current model listing by relation doesn't always work for this. However this change cannot be automated by bots :( --Eliot (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello
I have some Proto-Germanic and Old English words I'd like to add. How should I go about it? ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are they real Old English words, that the Anglo-Saxons used? I'm asking because we sometimes get people who like to invent words. —CodeCat 16:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're real. They're red on a lot of modern-day words' etymologies. Some of them are even absent from this dictionary, being quite rare (moraþ, mulled wine). ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this edit correct? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mora%C3%BE ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks ok. Judging from the pronunciation though, the a is long, so there should be a macron on it in the written forms. Also, þ is not an IPA character. —CodeCat 17:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bosworth-Toller lists it as "móraþ, mórod", suggesting that the o rather than the a is long. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Koebler also has mōraþ. oh nvm, you already edited the entry — Kleio (t · c) 18:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

*e > *i cases
I noticed that Kroonen does not reconstruct the *i-umlaut of *e to *i for PGmc yet (see Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/heminaz). Should we follow this, or use the same logic as with *ei > *ī — even if Kroonen is right (though he presents no real argument either way), nothing in the Germanic data itself allows disambiguating *i from *e in these cases, so maybe we should still give reconstructions with *i.

(We follow the same principle with e.g. Proto-Finnic (*š > *h is post-PF but pan-Finnic) and Proto-Slavic (*ǣ *æ *a *ā > *ě *e *o *a is post-PSl but pan-Slavic); not with Proto-Indo-Iranian, however.)

There's a similar argument to be made with *eN > *iN. This seems to postdate NWG *a-umlaut of *i. E.g. in Old Norse: >,  > ,  >  etc., though to my knowledge this chronology is not very widely accepted (these cases are usually treated as "blocking of umlaut"). --Tropylium (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also an advance warning: I know a guy about to release a PhD thesis (several papers are already out) where he argues that North Germanic distinguished *i and *e even after all the raisings (*e > *i when unstressed, *eN > *iN, *e-i > *i-i), roughly as *ɨ and *i: this is demonstrated by that *i < *e always triggers later *i-umlaut, but *ɨ < *i in various positions does not ( > ); and *i < *e can be umlauted to y ( > ), but *ɨ < *i cannot ( > ). --Tropylium (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 * To be frank, I'm not a fan of the practice to project changes that we definitely know postdate the dissolution of a proto-language into the same. I'm not sure what the details are in the Finnic case that lead to the conclusion that *š > *h postdates Proto-Finnic, but relative chronology and direct attestation – including in the form of Nebenüberlieferung (secondary transmission) – are solid evidence. We shouldn't make our reconstructions less correct than we can make them. That we cannot always reconstruct a contrast like this from the known reflexes is not a clincher, in my opinion – either we can infer the contrast from other evidence, or we just don't know what the proto-phoneme was precisely – this can also happen in other cases, and reconstructions that have cover symbols like V in them aren't exactly uncommon. But they are at least honest. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That last question mark on the verbal inflection template
I noticed there was a gothic form that might fit with a thorn instead of the gothic d. I wonder why this particular aspect can't seem to be reconstructed yet. We use so many of the gothic forms already as a basis for reconstructing aspects we think were present but seem to be lost or shed. Klingt1 (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The case of class 3 weak again
Ringe notes in his addenda to volume 1 of his series:
 * Ilya Yakubovich (p.c.) points out that the merger of the stative and factitive classes under the form of the factitives is problematic only if it occurred after the PGmc period, when the factitives had become comparatively rare. He suggests an alternative which strikes me as highly plausible: most statives adopted the inflection of the factitives in pre-PGmc, when the latter can have been more numerous; only ‘have’, ‘say’, ‘live’, ‘be silent’, and perhaps a few others, such as ‘follow’ (see 3.3.2), retained the old stative paradigm in *-ai- ~ *-ja-. The subsequent developments in the daughter languages amount largely to the elimination of this relic class.

In Goering's paper linked earlier on this talk page, a similar conclusion is expressed:
 * If the arguments in this chapter are correct, then the third weak class of Proto–Germanic should be reconstructed as *-ai-~-*-ā̆-, except for the ancestor of which has the stem *-ai-~-*-ja-. The verb  certainly inflected in class III; whether a shorter, plain thematic form (perhaps still with semantic differentiation as ‘to obtain’) also existed is perhaps possible, but it seems better to do away with such a reconstruction and explain most or all of its unusual behaviour by reference to irregular shortenings as the verb became grammaticalized.

I therefore think it would make more sense if we followed suit, and converted all class 3 weak verbs to the ā-type, and only leave those ja-verbs that actually have such an inflection in the descendants. What do you think? Also, please ping anyone you think would be interested in this discussion. —Rua (mew) 09:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've only read some of Goering's arugment so I do have much knowledge on the matter; still I would support such conversion. I've always been bother by the fact that the 3 weak class *-ai-~-*-ja- left almost no trace in most 3 class ja verbs but only in a few.
 * Also, shouldn't it be possible for us to reconstruction the subjuntive of 3 weak class ā? 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging, who has been working on these entries lately. —Rua (mew) 15:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I support the change, I think that converting the class makes sense in this case, we only have relics to go on for the statives with -ja-, all other evidence seems to point to -ai-/-ā-. The origins of the third class and all its irregularities seems to be topic of ongoing debate for linguists, the only thing we can do is provide a suitable approximation after all. --DerRudymeister (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. —Rua (mew) 10:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for Lemma Inclusion in Proto-Germanic Proper
I am noticing an increase in lemmas that are restricted to Proto-West Germanic, so I think it might be necessary to create a list of criteria for either restricting an entry to Proto-West-Germanic or including in Proto-Germanic proper. Here are some suggestions. Restrict the lemma to Proto-West-Germanic if any of the following criteria apply: 1. The lemma covers a semantic area only used after the conversion of Germanic peoples to Christianity; for example, church, angel, priest, gospel. 2. The lemma is attested only in West Germanic with no direct cognates in other Indo-European languages. 3. The lemma is borrowed from Latin, but requires a sound-change that post-dates Classical Latin; for example, *munit<-monēta, *sikur<-sēcūrus. Include the entry in Proto-Germanic proper if any of the following apply: 1. The lemma has direct cognates attested at least in North Germanic languages and West Germanic languages. 2. The lemma has direct cognates in another Indo-European language family. 3. The lemma implies a sound correspondance that coincides with Classical Latin; for example, *kaisaraz<-caesar, *wīną<-vīnum (not **bīn or **fīn).

If anybody needs clarification or has suggestions for other criteria, please reply to this message or post to my talk page.Rigognos Molinarios (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Consistency in descendants listing
If Afrikaans (a nationally standardized language) is listed below Dutch, then...
 * 1. Luxembourgish ought to be listed under Central Franconian.
 * 2. Wymysorys (a.k.a. Vilamovian) ought to be listed under East Central German. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wymysorys_language

Two other entries are less clear, and so could be left where they are, at the end of the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Central_German https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipserdeutsch
 * Old Zipser. I consulted German and English wikipedia pages about this variety. And one page unambigiously lists it as East Central German. But a German wikipedia page says it's a mix of Rhenish and Silesian (East Central German)...or maybe the page was saying there are two different extant Zipser lects: an older one based on Rhenish and a newer one based on Silesian. It wasn't clear to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Central_German
 * Yiddish. The MHG source lect is disputed: Rhenish Franconian or Bavarian or East Central German.

67.246.74.170 00:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Germanic


text:
lacustral

Adjective

 * 1) Relating to lakes; lacustrine.

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

title: lacustral


text:
spongiologist

Noun

 * 1) One who studies spongiology.

title: spongiologist


text: spongiologists

title: spongiologists


text:
marinière

Noun

 * 1) a sauce of white wine and onions served especially with mussels
 * 2) French sailor shirt

title: marinière


text:
contraespionaje

Noun

 * 1) counterespionage

title: contraespionaje


text:
embryoless

Adjective

 * 1) Without embryo.
 * embryoless seeds

title: embryoless


text:
sous-marinier

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) submariner (member of the crew of a submarine)

title: sous-marinier


text:
Talk:Hunmin Jeongeum

RFV
Korean section, Korean Google Books only has hits in English, French, and German. Test case to see if Romanized Korean is attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I can close this, since the section has been removed long ago. -- Liliana • 06:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November–December 2020
Rfv-sense.

Note that this is in regards to English usage of the English phrase "Hunmin Jeongeum". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hunmin Jeongeum


text:
amatorian

Adjective

 * 1)  amatory

title: amatorian


text:
innavigable

Adjective

 * 1) Incapable of being navigated; impassable by ships etc.

title: innavigable


text:
sinciziale

Adjective

 * 1) syncytial

title: sinciziale


text:
sincizio

Noun

 * 1) syncytium

title: sincizio


text:
sincretico

Adjective

 * 1) syncretic

title: sincretico


text:
sincretista

Noun

 * 1) syncretist

Noun

 * 1) syncretist

title: sincretista


text:
sincrociclotrone

Noun

 * 1)  synchrocyclotron

title: sincrociclotrone


text:
sincronistico

Adjective

 * 1) synchronistic, synchronous

title: sincronistico


text:
sinderesi

Noun

 * 1) synderesis, synteresis

title: sinderesi


text:
User talk:Pulmonological

RN
What is NCLEX-RN? What does it stand for? We should create it along the lines of NREMT or DCAP-BTLSLucifer 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

apgar
you made apgar look good way to go i love you

title: User talk:Pulmonological


text:
sineresi

Noun

 * 1)  syneresis
 * 2)  synaeresis

Etymology
From, from + , from.

Noun

 * 1) syneresis, synaeresis

title: sineresi


text:
sinforosa

Noun

 * 1) Dolly Varden (hat and costume)
 * 2) mutton dressed as lamb

title: sinforosa


text:
singalese

Adjective

 * 1) Sinhalese

Noun

 * 1) Sinhalese (person)

Noun

 * 1) Sinhalese language

title: singalese


text:
singamia

Noun

 * 1) syngamy

title: singamia


text:
singolarista

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  singles player

title: singolarista


text: singolarizzando

title: singolarizzando


text: singolarizzante

title: singolarizzante


text: singolarizzato

title: singolarizzato


text:
singolarizzare

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to singularize

title: singolarizzare


text: singolarizzati

title: singolarizzati


text: singolarizzata

title: singolarizzata


text: singolarizzo

title: singolarizzo


text: singolarizzi

title: singolarizzi


text: singolarizza

title: singolarizza


text: singolarizziamo

title: singolarizziamo


text: singolarizzate

title: singolarizzate


text: singolarizzano

title: singolarizzano


text: singolarizzavo

title: singolarizzavo


text: singolarizzavi

title: singolarizzavi


text: singolarizzava

title: singolarizzava


text: singolarizzavamo

title: singolarizzavamo


text: singolarizzavate

title: singolarizzavate


text: singolarizzavano

title: singolarizzavano


text: singolarizzai

title: singolarizzai


text: singolarizzasti

title: singolarizzasti


text: singolarizzò

title: singolarizzò


text: singolarizzammo

title: singolarizzammo


text: singolarizzaste

title: singolarizzaste


text: singolarizzarono

title: singolarizzarono


text: singolarizzerò

title: singolarizzerò


text: singolarizzerai

title: singolarizzerai


text: singolarizzerà

title: singolarizzerà


text: singolarizzeremo

title: singolarizzeremo


text: singolarizzerete

title: singolarizzerete


text: singolarizzeranno

title: singolarizzeranno


text: singolarizzerei

title: singolarizzerei


text: singolarizzeresti

title: singolarizzeresti


text: singolarizzerebbe

title: singolarizzerebbe


text: singolarizzeremmo

title: singolarizzeremmo


text: singolarizzereste

title: singolarizzereste


text: singolarizzerebbero

title: singolarizzerebbero


text: singolarizziate

title: singolarizziate


text: singolarizzino

title: singolarizzino


text:
singolarizzazione

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) singularization

title: singolarizzazione


text: singolarizzassi

title: singolarizzassi


text: singolarizzasse

title: singolarizzasse


text: singolarizzassimo

title: singolarizzassimo


text: singolarizzassero

title: singolarizzassero


text:
siniscalcato

Noun

 * 1) seneschalship

title: siniscalcato


text:
sinistramente

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) sinisterly
 * 2) ominously, inauspiciously

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) in a sinister manner

title: sinistramente


text: sinistrando

title: sinistrando


text: sinistrante

title: sinistrante


text:
sinistrare

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to damage
 * 2)  to go south, to go badly
 * 3)  to twist (the meaning of something; one's mind into bad thoughts)

title: sinistrare


text: sinistriamo

title: sinistriamo


text: sinistrano

title: sinistrano


text: sinistravo

title: sinistravo


text: sinistravi

title: sinistravi


text: sinistrava

title: sinistrava


text: sinistravamo

title: sinistravamo


text: sinistravate

title: sinistravate


text: sinistravano

title: sinistravano


text: sinistrai

title: sinistrai


text: sinistrasti

title: sinistrasti


text: sinistrò

title: sinistrò


text: sinistrammo

title: sinistrammo


text: sinistraste

title: sinistraste


text: sinistrarono

title: sinistrarono


text: sinistrerò

title: sinistrerò


text: sinistrerai

title: sinistrerai


text: sinistrerà

title: sinistrerà


text: sinistreremo

title: sinistreremo


text: sinistrerete

title: sinistrerete


text: sinistreranno

title: sinistreranno


text: sinistrerei

title: sinistrerei


text: sinistreresti

title: sinistreresti


text: sinistrerebbe

title: sinistrerebbe


text: sinistreremmo

title: sinistreremmo


text: sinistrereste

title: sinistrereste


text: sinistrerebbero

title: sinistrerebbero


text: sinistriate

title: sinistriate


text: sinistrino

title: sinistrino


text: sinistrassi

title: sinistrassi


text: sinistrasse

title: sinistrasse


text: sinistrassimo

title: sinistrassimo


text: sinistrassero

title: sinistrassero


text:
sinistrese

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  left-wing political jargon: left-speak

title: sinistrese


text:
alecithal

Etymology
en

Adjective

 * 1)  Tending to segment uniformly, and having little or no yolk embedded in the protoplasm.
 * 2) * 1880-1881,, A Treatise on Comparative Embryology
 * It is convenient to distinguish the ova which segment uniformly by some term ; and I should propose for this the term alecithal, as implying that they are without food-yolk or little

Translations

 * French:

title: alecithal


text: osieries

title: osieries


text:
osiery

Noun

 * 1)  A willow plantation.

title: osiery


text:
sinistrogiro

Adjective

 * 1) left-hand, left-handed, anticlockwise/counterclockwise
 * 2)  laevorotatory/levorotatory

title: sinistrogiro


text:
Wiktionary talk:About Middle Low German

Proto-Germanic -eu- in Saxon (and/or Dutch)
In (Middle) Low German there is a correlation between the letters û (IPA [y]) and ê (/ei/) when they come from proto-germ. *eu. For example *deupaz exists as "dêp" and "dûp" (=/dyp/). Similarly, the imperative of "sên" (to see) can be se! or su! (=/sy/). (from *sehw) My question is whether there is a similar alteration in Dutch and (and this is the part that's more important to me), whether there is a rule by which the occurrence of /y/ can be predicted. I remember vaguely that it depends on surrounding vowels. E.g. the presence of an U would have decided whether Old Saxon forms -io- or -iu- etc. from *eu. But I cannot make out a clear pattern what made Old Saxon create what - and I do not know how io/iu etc. developed in later Saxon (i.e. Old/Middle Low German).Dakhart 20:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In Old Dutch and Old High German, PG [eu] developed into [io], while PG [iu] remained as such. There are some areas where [io] and [iu] eventually merged, but in general [iu] developed into [yː], merging with the umlaut of [uː] (in late Old Dutch, [uː] was fronted to [yː] in all cases). In the transition to the Middle stages of these languages, [io] developed into [iə], which was spelled , and which later developed into [i] or [iː] by the end of the middle ages. In Dutch and German, the early medieval long closed vowels also diphthongised. There are some words that have an alternation similar to what you describe in Dutch: and, or  compared to dialectal.
 * I'm not sure what the Middle Low German development was, but maybe PG [eu] developed into [eo], which then became [eː]. But I do recall that Old Saxon had [io] as well, so I'm not sure. —CodeCat 21:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Old Saxon iu became indeed Low German /y/, but there are also those examples: thiu ~> dê, fiuwar ~> vêr. It is also generally true that ie in Dutch/German corresponds to Low German e(i). In earlier times Low German ie and ei were even used along each other, depending on dialect or emphasis (die - dê, hie - hei). Further there is German "betrügen", Dutch bedriegen, for which Wiktionary says: From Old High German triugan, triogan, from Proto-Germanic *dreuganan. So it seems iu and io were at least somehow interchangeable. Maybe someone can make sense out of this.Dakhart 22:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They did develop out of the same early Germanic phoneme, eu, but the umlauting of e to i in late Germanic turned eu into iu in those environments. When the conditioning sounds were slowly lost in the late Old period, some words may have generalised one variety or the other, often reverting the earlier application of umlaut. This was especially strong in Dutch, where umlaut tended to be applied less consistently and never became a strong grammatical marker, but it might have occurred in Middle Low German as well. I imagine that at some point, when the secondary umlaut applied, the older [iu] split further into [iu] and [iy]. The first probably merged with [io] and became [eː] in Middle Low German and [iə] in Middle Dutch, like in fiuwar > vêr or viuwar/vier > vier. While [iy] merged with [yː]. There are apparently some dialects where [iy] became [iə], as demonstrated by (from *kiukīn- /kiykiːn/). —CodeCat 22:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pretty complicated. Generally the reflex of eu in OHG (and also Old Saxon) is iu if the following vowel is high, but if the following vowel was originally a (or some other low vowel?), then the reflex is io (older eo). (Compare this to the lowering of Proto-Germanic *u to o in words such as *hurznan > Runic horna, which also seems to take place before all sorts of low vowels, not only a; however, this is a rule found in all of West and North Germanic.) However, in (OHG) Upper German, iu is always the result if a labial or velar consonant (except h if this is old and not from Proto-Germanic *k) immediately follows. Hence, (OHG) Central German tiof, flioga and kriohhan correspond to (OHG) Upper German tiuf, fliuga and kriuhhan, but biotan and ziohan do not differ systematically between Central and Upper German. In Modern Bavarian, this iu became ui or oi, depending on dialect. The Dutch situation seems to be different because in some dialects, io consistently fell together with iu, and doublets such as Diets ~ Duutsc are the result. --Florian Blaschke 19:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for this addition. I asked the same question on Wikipedia and Low German know-it-all Slomox answered [most strongly paraphrased by me, of course] that the normal development is *eu -> ie/ê for nl/mhg/gml. And that *eu -> iu is the I-Umlaut for those languages. This umlaut was then lost in Dutch as nouns and verbs were changed to fit into existing word patterns. If I do not missundertand you, the two statements back each other up, but I lack the overview to process all statements atm.Dakhart 21:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The umlaut was certainly not lost in Dutch, the word shows that. PG iu > MNL y: > NL œy is the normal development, but in some areas (notably Flemish) it is PG iu > MNL iə > NL i. —CodeCat 21:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, to summarise: *eu/*iu –> /y:/ when an /i:/ follows, an become an /e:/ when it does not.Dakhart 21:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the statement was rather meant as: When *iu became ie rather than ui, it is because of a normalisation process. Slomox spoke of modern Dutch "ui" when referring to the elder umlaut. Not to misquote anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2012_January_6#The_development_of_Proto-Germanic_-eu-_in_Dutch.2FMiddle_Low_German .Dakhart 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * iu was formed from eu in Proto-Germanic under influence of umlaut. So in general, iu was always followed by i, unless that i was lost between Proto-Germanic and Old Saxon times. —CodeCat 21:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, right. Consider the statement to refer to OSX –> GML.Dakhart 21:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's probably better to state it this way: *eu results in iu when followed by (umlauting) old *i/j, else (OHG/ONL/OSX) io > (DE/NL) ie (Low German ê).
 * However, I do not understand what has to do with *eu. (Is  a borrowing from Middle Dutch, by the way?) It seems to be a cognate of, which goes back to (quasi-) or similar, if I'm not mistaken. Oh wait, we have . But  is not clear on its derivation. Anyway, Dutch ui cannot be from short *u, so kuiken does seem to be from *kiukīnan rather than *kukkīnan.
 * There is a complication in that some words in Standard Dutch come from the eastern dialects, which have regular umlaut (these dialects being of Old Saxon origin), while Standard Dutch has lost umlaut (mostly?). I'm not clear on the nature of the umlaut loss in Dutch: phonologically or morphologically. But then, even if kuiken was from the eastern dialects, it couldn't possibly be from *kukk- either. So it seems your example is correctly used in this context. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, damn, that was already explained above. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The extent in which umlaut was preserved and remained a grammatical feature forms a gradient from the west to the east of the Netherlands. In the west (especially Hollandic and Flemish, but also western Brabantian), umlaut was not at all preserved for long vowels or diphthongs. Furthermore, in most of the Netherlands (except for Limburg) /u/ and /o/ merged in late Old Dutch, so that there are only two vowels that could result from umlaut in those areas: /e/ (from /a/) and /y/ (from /u/ and /o/). By and large that's the situation for modern standard Dutch as well, which was based primarily on the western dialects. In standard Dutch, umlaut does not exist at all as a grammatical feature except for old fossilised words such as and, and in one single plural . In the east (east Brabantian, Limburgish and presumably most Low Saxon dialects), the situation for umlaut is more like it is in German. Umlaut also applies to long vowels and diphthongs there, and is used as a morphological feature as well. In my own area around Eindhoven for example,   has the regular diminutive kuukske , and the diminutive of  is menneke. —CodeCat 23:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Creating standards for GML
Commentary: This debate originated in the Beer Parlour, May 2016, until copied here, as noted in the text.

Over here, During said out that I shouldn't just decide to put the lemma of Middle Low German words on their attested rather than normalised form without discussion. To my knowledge, I'm the only current editor of Middle Low German, so discussion honestly didn't occur to me, despite my Wiktionariandom. So here it is, go forth and discuss The marking of umlauts happens in the early MLG period with ø, y and slashed u (see also this question), as well as digraphs, but for the longest part of the period is so overwhelmingly absent that the leading authority of the 19th century (Lübben) was stoutly convinced that umlaut didn't occur in the language. The next standard work on the language (Lasch) does prove him wrong, but points out that "ü is hardly/likely not, ö rarely to be taken as an umlaut" ("ü ist wohl kaum..."), and the examples she gives for ö are actually spelled oe, without superscript. So following our conventions for Latin, I figured to change the lemma from e.g. vögen to vogen. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear: you would have the lemma entry be at vogen, but with the inflection line and conjugation table on that page showing vögen. Would [[vögen]] be an alternative form entry for [[vogen]]? DCDuring TALK 00:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You understood me correct, yes. The circumflex and the trema are a modern scholarly annotation for clarity, standardly applied like macron to Latin texts. I would say that anything attestable can be an alternative form, anything unattested can not. From what I understand from the grammars (I don't have access to corpora myself), the rendition of an umlaut as Ö and Ü was generally unknown in the period, though, and can be expected to be unattestable. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hence your analogizing to how we handle Latin macrons etc. rather than to how we handle German tremas, which is what I thought the analogy would be. If I actually knew anything substantive in this area, I probably would not have resorted to procedure. I suppose a discussion, preferably with more than just the two of us participating, my contribution being minimal, would be good for Wiktionary talk:About Middle Low German to memorialize the decision. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I support the lemmas being the non-diacriticized forms. I wish we would do this with Ancient Greek as well. --WikiTiki89 15:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's this way too in many cases for Middle English, where "u" ( = /y/), is nowadays oftentimes written "ü" to clarify the pronunciation, but "ü" was never actually used in Middle English orthography (tmk). Middle English "u" could also represent /u/. I would support the same for gml Leasnam (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

'''I am copying this debate to Wiktionary talk:About Middle Low German. Please give further input there.''' Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Unstressed vowels
I'm wondering how to write the unstressed vowel in the IPA section, /ə/, /ɘ/ or /ɪ/. In modern Low German, it seems to be identical /ɪ/, both ranging from [ɪ] when stressed/long to [ɘ] on average. We don't know the exact pronunciation of the vowel in Middle Low German times, but it was written ⟨e⟩ mostly and ⟨i⟩ by some authors everywhere, both appear in the same text as well. The spelling ⟨i⟩ is more common (than later) in the older part of the period, when authors still wrote more like they spoke. It also (like /ɪ/ and /iː/) triggers palatalisation and narrowing, which is largely free of any phonemic consequence but is reflected in spelling by insertion of ⟨g⟩ between vowels: /friːə/ = [friːjƏ] ⟨vrie⟩ > [friːʝƏ] ⟨vrige⟩. because your stance on false precision. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd go with /ə/ simply because that's the symbol people expect to see representing a reduced unstressed vowel, especially when a language has only one reduced vowel. I'd expect to see /ɪ/ only in a system where it contrasted with /ə/ (e.g. roses vs. Rosa's in some varieties of English). The /ɘ/ symbol is very rarely used; as a rough estimate I'd say that 95% of the time I've seen it, it was an error for /ə/ committed by someone who didn't notice the difference between an upside-down e and a mirror-image e. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May 2016
The following entries represent the normalisation of the respective words but were not actually written like that: afwölteren, wölteren, fögen, vögen, andrücken, köke, spöden, mür They're æquivalent to Latin words being lemmatised to forms with macrons. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If these aren't the lemma spellings, then can't you just move them yourself? If you want consensus first, the correct venue for this would be WT:RFM. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I created the respective lemma entries and want these pages gone. (I can remove those which have other languages on the page as well, but I figured I'd run them through here all at once.) Doesn't removing erroneously created pages belong here? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Was there an explicit policy or decision (either favorable VOTE or BP (or WT:AGML) discussion resulting in consensus) that has led to the entry you have created, with the no-umlaut form as headword but the umlaut form on the inflection line, being deemed the standard way of presenting such words? If so, was this particular matter addressed? I hope it was, so that this kind of thing could be cleaned up systematically and completely without RfD and without any further discussion. If not, there might need to be some discussion somewhere, probably not just on this page. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A discussion was had and the participants were unanimous. So I would like to restate my wish to have these entries removed. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted per above. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary talk:About Middle Low German


text:
Wiktionary:About Middle Low German

Middle Low German is a West Germanic language which developed from Old Saxon and evolved into the modern dialects of Low German. It is generally considered to have been used from about 1100 to about 1600, though some legal texts were printed in Middle Low German as late as the 19th century. (The last actual application of a Low German legal text occurred in the year 2000 in Germany.) It was the language of communication within the and the language of both legal scripture and the common people of Northern Germany.

General overview
The term Middle Low German on Wiktionary should primarily denote a West Germanic dialect descending from Old Saxon, which has merged all unstressed vowels into a phoneme, which is not apocopated. The period is roughly taken to have lasted from around 1100 to 1600.

Order of headers
Since there are no cases of MLG where lemmas have the same etymology but a different pronunciation, but homophones can have different etymologies, Middle Low German entries list the etymology section after the Pronunciation header. Note that this contrasts with most other languages on Wiktionary. Also, due to their potentially huge number, the Alternative Forms header is an L4 between 'Declension' and 'Synonyms', rather than the first thing in the entry. This too is the less usual placing.

Grammatical normalisation – The Lübeck standard
The so-called Lübeck standard describes the written language of offices between the Elbe river and western Baltic, which is often thought of as standard Middle Low German. Authors have a visible desire to normalise their language so that it does not differ grossly from this form. Grammatical forms and spellings diverging from this standard should be tagged accordingly, or be put into brackets, when in a table.

Named after, the headquarter of the entire , the Lübeck standard was not a fully standardised orthography as we know it today, nor did it reflect the actual dialect spoken in Lübeck, which diverged in a few prominent features. Authors did not slavishly copy the language of Lübeck, but, as written communication became more common, they increasingly avoided archaisms and certain forms from their own dialect, in order to ease international and interdialectal communication.

Regions with visibly unique writing traditions, and thus prime candidates for labeling, are Brandenburg and Anhalt (centered around Berlin and Zerbst), Eastphalia (notably Magdeburg), Westphalia (most notably Dortmund) and East Frisia (around Groningen).

Normalisation
Entries for Middle Low German words should be their most basic form, i.e. a form without superfluous letters or scholarly diacritics such as the trema. Of course, diacritics actually used in the original texts, rather than modern editions, can receive an entry of their own but should be marked as an alternative spelling linking to the lemma form.

Vowels
When creating a Middle Low German entry, the (but not the actual page title) should follow the tradition of Middle Low German research to mark originally short vowels with a macron and original long vowels and diphthongs with a circumflex. Further, rounded front vowels are to be identified with a trema. This discrepancy between head and page title is a Wiktionary practice to inform the user that diacritical marks are an editorial addition, not part of the original spelling.

Links should always contain the diacritics if possible. There is a module in place which will automatically refer the link to the form without the diacritic so that will link to the page rugge.

Deviations from this practice should receive a tag identifying the region or context of usage. Normalisations use ⟨ê, ô⟩ for ê⁴ and ô¹ (see below). For original /ʊɒ/, the spellings ⟨ō⟩ and ⟨ā⟩ are treated as alternative forms, as ⟨ā⟩ appears roughly in the middle of the period and is never common in Eastphalia.

Stem vowels
Middle Low German vowel spellings were highly defective, even umlaut was frequently not reflected. The normalised spelling allievates this by distinguishing short, lengthened, and long vowels as well as umlauts. Even this system, however, does not reflect all original vowel qualities. Therefore, at some point in the 20th century, a system of numbering Low German long vowels according to their origin developed, which is adhered to by the majority of authors. Wiktionary uses a slightly extended form to include lengthened vowels. Editors are encouraged to leave a note saying which of these vowels the stem of a word carries in the Pronunciation section.

During the Middle Low German period, several dialects developed by merging these vowels in various ways. While Westphalian has widely preserved the distinctions to this day, some other dialects ultimately merged all the vowels written with the same letter. As such, the pronunciations provided are usually the most conservative state at maximum distinction. If a divergent pronunciation is added, it must be tagged appropriately.

Consonants
Consonants should be normalised according to their most common form, minus any mute H.

Entries deviating from this standard of normalisation should be tagged as alternative forms. The distinction between U and V should be made in accordance with pronunciation.

An exception is pre-vocalic sch, wherein the H may be mute in most regions for most of the time, but there is also a significant number of instances where it represents either s + ch or. Note that this does not apply to orthographic sch before consonants, which is pronounced as everywhere.

Grammar
The normalised forms include the ge- prefix where applicable and use the plural ending -en over -et. Old long forms ending in -eCe are treated as alternative forms to the short ones ending in -eC.

title: Wiktionary:About Middle Low German


text:
Wiktionary:About Middle High German

Requirements
ISO 639-3 and Wiktionary code: gmh

For a term to qualify as an Middle High German entry, it must be attested in an Middle High German text between ca. 1050 - 1500 AD (cp. ISO code gmh ). Anything after 1500 is considered to be New High German (code de), which includes Early New High German, or belonging to a certain dialect like Bavarian, Swabian.

Article titles and headers
Letters with diacritics (ë, ā, ē, ī, ō, ū), the letters ʒ/ȥ and long s (ſ) are not used in article titles, but diacritic letters are used when displaying the word (using the parameter |head=).

Thus the word for "help" is at [[helfen]], but the headword line uses the parameter |head=hëlfen.

Orthography: Normalisation

 * Long vowels are indicated with macrons: ā, ē, ī, ō, ū (not with circumflexes: â, ê, î, ô, û)
 * [It is undecided whether ʒ or ȥ shall be used.]

Preferably, the lemma or 'main' entry should be at the normalised spelling (compare the lemmatisation in Köbler's dictionary). Any other attested spellings (see WT:CFI) may be listed under an Alternative forms heading at the beginning of the normalised entry, and may have their own entries when attested, which should link back to the normalised spellings.

title: Wiktionary:About Middle High German


text:
bleurgh

Etymology
Imitative. Compare,.

title: bleurgh


text:
sintagmatico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) syntagmatic

title: sintagmatico


text:
sintatticamente

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) syntactically

title: sintatticamente


text:
sintonismo

Noun

 * 1) syntony

title: sintonismo


text: sincizi

title: sincizi


text: sincretisti

title: sincretisti


text: sincretiste

title: sincretiste


text: sincrociclotroni

title: sincrociclotroni


text: sinforose

title: sinforose


text: singalesi

title: singalesi


text: singamie

title: singamie


text: singolaristi

title: singolaristi


text: singolariste

title: singolariste


text: singolarizzazioni

title: singolarizzazioni


text: siniscalcati

title: siniscalcati


text: sinistresi

title: sinistresi


text: sintonismi

title: sintonismi


text: sinciziali

title: sinciziali


text: sincretica

title: sincretica


text: sincretici

title: sincretici


text: sincretiche

title: sincretiche


text: sincronistica

title: sincronistica


text: sincronistici

title: sincronistici


text: sincronistiche

title: sincronistiche


text: sinistrogira

title: sinistrogira


text: sinistrogiri

title: sinistrogiri


text: sinistrogire

title: sinistrogire


text: sintagmatica

title: sintagmatica


text: sintagmatici

title: sintagmatici


text: sintagmatiche

title: sintagmatiche


text: ammoxidations

title: ammoxidations


text:
balloon loop

Etymology
From its typical shape.

Noun

 * 1) A looped section of track that allows a rail vehicle or train to reverse direction without having to shunt or even stop.

title: balloon loop


text: balloon loops

title: balloon loops


text:
Wiktionary:About Old Norse

Old Norse is an extinct Germanic language, formerly spoken in Scandinavia, the Faroe islands, Iceland and Greenland, as well as parts of Britain and Ireland.

Normalisation
Old Norse texts, grammars and dictionaries, like those of other old Germanic languages, often present terms in a normalised orthography. This means that variations in spelling and representation are 'evened out' to produce a common standard spelling. For Old Norse, the most common normalised spelling is based on modern Icelandic spelling. This normalisation scheme is detailed in the Wikipedia article on Old Norse orthography. There is some uncertainty about the letter ę, which is sometimes used in normalised spelling to represent the 'open e' phoneme (/ɛ/ or /æ/) as distinct from 'closed e' (/e/), which is represented by the letter e.

Preferably, the lemma or 'main' entry should be at the normalised spelling. Any other attested spellings may be listed under an ===Alternative forms=== heading at the beginning of the normalised entry, and may have their own entries when attested, which should link back to the normalised spellings using the template (if the difference is only a matter of spelling) or  (if the pronunciation was also different) to avoid the duplication of information.

Vowel length
In common with many other old European languages whose early orthography was based on that of Latin, vowel length was only sometimes indicated Old Norse texts. Like the modern Icelandic orthography on which it is based, however, the standard normalisation scheme represents long vowels by using an acute accent: á, í, ó and so on. Unlike Latin and other old Germanic languages, Old Norse includes these accents in entry names, so no special linking is necessary.

title: Wiktionary:About Old Norse


text:
Wiktionary:About Old Dutch

Old Dutch is an extinct Germanic language, formerly spoken in the southern and western Netherlands, northern Belgium and Picardy, and most of the northern Rhineland area of modern Germany. Under this definition, Old Dutch is synonymous with Old Low Franconian, and includes both eastern and western varieties. This page has the aim of informing Wiktionary editors about how Old Dutch words are formatted.

Requirements
For a term to qualify as an Old Dutch entry, it must be attested in a Dutch/Low Franconian text between the 5th and mid-12th centuries AD. Anything from the mid-12th century onwards is considered to be Middle Dutch.

Normalisation
Old Dutch texts, grammars and dictionaries, like in other old Germanic languages, often use normalised spelling. This means that variations in spelling and representation are 'evened out' to produce a common standard spelling. There is no single normalised spelling for Old Dutch, however; different sources may apply different rules and schemes, which mostly differ in how many normalisations they apply. The following scheme is suggested for Old Dutch terms on Wiktionary:

Preferably, the lemma or 'main' entry should be at the normalised spelling. Any other attested spellings may be listed under an ===Alternative forms=== heading at the beginning of the entry. Such entries may be created if they are attested, but to avoid duplication of information, they should link back to the normalised spelling using the template.

Vowel length
In common with many other old European languages whose early orthography was based on that of Latin, vowel length was not indicated in Old Dutch texts. As a result, it is not indicated in Wiktionary entry names either. However, whenever a vowel is known to be long, a macron sign is placed above that vowel, like in Latin and many other languages. This macron is to be used only for display, not in entry names, so the additional parameter that is available in many templates should be used to change the displayed form without affecting the link. For example:

All of these variations display brōt, but in case of a link, they link to brot without the macron.

title: Wiktionary:About Old Dutch


text:
Wiktionary:About Swazi

Language name
The language name to be used is Swazi. Neither siSwati (including the language prefix used in Bantu languages) nor Swati (a less common alternative name) should be used. See Template talk:ss for the discussion regarding this decision.

title: Wiktionary:About Swazi


text:
occidentissimus

Adjective

 * 1) westernmost

title: occidentissimus


text:
User talk:Mrnatural

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!

Editors who have a critical eye, broad knowledge, and a willingness to rethink themselves are most welcome here! --EncycloPetey 22:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mrnatural


text:
qudit

Etymology
. Compare,.

Noun

 * 1)   A quantum dit; the unit of quantum information described by a superposition of d states, where the number of states is an integer greater than two.

title: qudit


text: qudits

title: qudits


text:
User:PartTimeGnome/common.css

/* About this page: This page simply imports my other common.css files for any skin on the * English Wikipedia. */

/* HTTPS is not used for importing CSS so it is fetched more quickly and cached in the browser. * Login cookies are not needed to access the CSS, and it is not particularly sensitive. */

/*= Import CSS for ALL MediaWiki sites =*/ @import url("//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PartTimeGnome/common-all.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css");

/*= Import local CSS styles =*/ @import url("//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User:PartTimeGnome/common-local.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css");

/**** IMPORTANT: Do not add any local styles here **** * Anything other than @import here will stop the @import rules in monobook.css from working. * Hence, if you want to add extra styles, put them in common-local.css instead. */

title: User:PartTimeGnome/common.css


text:
qugate

Noun

 * 1)  The kind of logic gate used in quantum computing.

title: qugate


text: qugates

title: qugates


text:
quantum computing

Noun

 * 1)  The use of quantum mechanical phenomena to transcend classical time complexity limitations in computing.

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 量子計算
 * Finnish: kvanttilaskenta
 * Hungarian: kvantumszámítás
 * Portuguese: computação quântica
 * Vietnamese: điện toán lượng tử

title: quantum computing


text: User:PartTimeGnome/Navigation bar

title: User:PartTimeGnome/Navigation bar


text:
korkean tason kieli

Etymology
A calque of English: +  +.

Noun

 * 1)  high-level language programming language focusing on user-friendly code development by automating core tasks such as accessing memory

title: korkean tason kieli


text:
Talk:mandrel

RFV
Rfv-sense: "an object used to shape material being worked". Any object to shape any material? In fact I suspect this is an error and that the two other senses define "mandrel" sufficiently and non-misleadingly. --Hekaheka 09:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'd like to see citations like "a hammer is a mandrel", "a knife is a mandrel". But I second what you've said, I think this is just plain wrong. Mandrel copies our definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact Wikipedia first read: "object used to shape machined work", limiting the sense to machining. It was then "copied" to Wiktionary in the current form and later copied back to Wikipedia. I believe that even the original Pedia definition was wrong. As far as I know mandrel is something that holds either the tool or the piece that is being worked with the tool, but it is not the tool. --Hekaheka 17:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from the fact that we seem to be missing a basic meaning — metal rod, or spindle: — there is a bit of information tucked away in Tube bending that suggests usages may be based on particular applications. Here, the application is putting something in a pipe to support it so that it doesn't kink when you bend it, and it seems most anything that does this job can be called a mandrel - including sand! The information in this section appears to come from Todd, Robert H.; Allen, Dell K.; Alting, Leo (1994), Manufacturing Processes Reference Guide (1st ed.). — Pingkudimmi 13:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have understood that not any rod or spindle is a mandrel, only one that is used for holding a workpiece or machining tool in its position during the machining process. For the second use you mention: this may be the one to which the rfv'ed sense refers. If that is correct we could combine the current senses #2, 3 and 4 into one and rewrite #1:
 * A rod, spindle or similar part used to hold a workpiece or a machining tool in its position during machining.
 * A part used as an aid for shaping a material, e.g. bending a pipe without creasing or kinking it.
 * How does this sound? --Hekaheka 04:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No comments in last five months - I assume my interpretation has been accepted as correct at least until someone comes up with better proposal. Proceeding to edit the entry.

title: Talk:mandrel


text:
Oceanus Pacificus

Proper noun

 * 1) Pacific Ocean

title: Oceanus Pacificus


text:
User:PartTimeGnome

Note: The majority of my activity takes place on the English Wikipedia. Please see my user page there for more information.

Regarding how to contact me: If you want to discuss anything Wiktionary-related with me, please use my Wiktionary talk page. If you want to discuss anything Wikipedia-related with me, use my Wikipedia talk page.

title: User:PartTimeGnome


text: Category:la:Oceans

title: Category:la:Oceans


text:
e-conomy

Noun

 * 1) The economy associated with the Internet and e-commerce.

title: e-conomy


text: User talk:PartTimeGnome

title: User talk:PartTimeGnome


text: Hail Marys

title: Hail Marys


text:
maixella

Etymology
, from. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) jawbone

title: maixella


text:
Talk:ngan

RFV discussion: June 2011
Some person who made this in Vietnam might have some motive. --Lo Ximiendo 06:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Might, perhaps. But a request here makes only sense if there is some content that could be verified. Here, some IP (geolocated in Vietnam) created a new page, claiming this to be an English (!) adjective, with the meaning "Of or pertaining to ". Judging from the incoming links, the word has a meaning in some language but this is not the place for random guesswork. Bring it to the appropriate requested entries page. -- Gauss 07:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:ngan


text:
Talk:free reed instrument

RFV discussion: June 2011
See steel guitar above, but ask anyone familiar with free reed instruments. --Lo Ximiendo 15:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:free reed instrument


text:
Talk:clee

RFV discussion: June 2011
The person who created it came from New Zealand. --Lo Ximiendo 07:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what kind of request is this? The entry contains nothing except the vague claim this might be an English noun. In particular, no possible sense of clee was indicated that could be verified here. The provenance of the "creating" IP is not relevant to the subject. -- Gauss 08:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Clee as a place name
Jamplevia (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1831 "CLEE (or CLEE ST MARGARET'S), a parish, in the hundred of MUNSLOW...
 * 1887 From Clee to heaven the beacon burns...

title: Talk:clee


text:
Talk:ŝpruci

RFV discussion: March–September 2011
I'm seeing a couple transitive uses in Google News, but nothing to indicate that there's a different transitive meaning, or even that those uses aren't simple mistakes. I put one in an HTML comment, since I didn't think it supported the sense. Furthermore the current example sentence implies a far more specialized usage then the definition offers.--Prosfilaes 02:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:ŝpruci


text:
Talk:farrant

RFV discussion: March–September 2011
Any takers? SemperBlotto 17:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing a bunch of mentions and even some uses for a "handsome, neat, orderly" and even "good" sense (for farrantly (current redlink) more, but also possibly sufficiently many for farrant or especially the older farande), but none for the RFVed sense of "short, brief". —msh210℠ (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a Surrey slang, but perhaps only in recent usage (4 years or so), what is the Wiktionary stance on that kind of thing? Maybe better as an Urban Dictionary entry?
 * Needs written attestation. Sometimes local words like this are only ever spoken, and we can't document that. Wiktionary is a written project. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:farrant


text:
Talk:mak su

RFV discussion: March–September 2011
English: a dish. I see three Web hits for, all of which capitalize it as Mak Su. There are other senses on bgc, whihc makes it a little hard to search for. (They may well be transliterations, though.) —msh210℠ (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:mak su


text:
Talk:Lanner

RFV discussion: March–September 2011
I have added a quotation to Jawjah/Jawjuh — from 1867! I can however not find quotations of Lanner. - -sche 02:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lanner


text:
Talk:hov

RFV discussion: March–October 2011
Does this word exist in English outside of Urban Dictionary? Rspeer 06:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV failed. Equinox ◑ 13:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Danish etymology?
In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hugr#Old_Norse under descendants, "hov" is listed as a descendant of "hugr" via https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hugiz but in this entry is listed https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/huf%C4%85

title: Talk:hov


text: heroise

title: heroise


text:
Talk:GROLIES

RFV discussion: March–October 2011
There is a mention at, initial Google Book search shows only hits for grolies (Dutch, I assume). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

NFN
Normal for Norfolk. Same source as above. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

GLM
Good looking mum. Same source as above. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:GROLIES


text: heroises

title: heroises


text:
Talk:NFN

RFV discussion: March–October 2011

 * See Talk:GROLIES.

title: Talk:NFN


text: heroising

title: heroising


text:
Talk:UBI

RFV discussion: March–October 2011
No hits for or same on ggc. As this is by our new friend Polaisz, who's been adding a lot of these, that's the extent of my effort. —msh210℠ (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that he's an old friend. SemperBlotto 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:UBI


text:
Talk:GLM

RFV discussion: March–October 2011

 * See Talk:GROLIES.

title: Talk:GLM


text: heroised

title: heroised


text:
Talk:cabinessence

RFV discussion: March–October 2011
Definitely a song title, but searching for "his cabinessence" yields no hits on Groups or Books. But a further search may be productive. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Well-known work"? Or is that reserved for only a special meaning of "well-known"? DCDuring TALK 19:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only hits on Google book search are "mentions". I can't find any usage beyond the Beach Boys record. SemperBlotto 13:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Failed; deleted. —msh210℠ (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:cabinessence


text:
Talk:prisoner of war

RFV discussion: March–August 2011
adjective: head word and usex show prisoner-of-war. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Adjective RFV-failed, noun kept. - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:prisoner of war


text:
Talk:paperflier

RFV discussion: May–September 2011
Paper aeroplane. Nothing in Google Books/Groups. Alt spelling paperflyer: also seems suspect, but it's somebody's user name on a newsgroup so harder to narrow down. Equinox ◑ 15:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 11:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:paperflier


text:
Talk:huǒzàng

RFV discussion: May–October 2011
No hits on GoogleBooks. . ---> Tooironic 01:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I dare say most if not all pinyin entries would not have any google hits, as they are simply not used in literature (unless one that specifically deals with pinyin). The phrase 火葬, however, is a common term. I think ddpy (aka 123abc, even though he doesn't admit it himself)'s reasoning behind including pinyin terms is to make it convenient for people, not whether they are attestable in books. I don't have too much of a problem with that, except he doesn't create the corresponding character entries for the pinyin entries that he creates... - but I guess that's an issue for another topic. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Toned pinyin entries are not disallowed but they should not encouraged (toneless pinyin entries is not allowed), so applying the attestability check is a method to restrain the flood of pinyin entries without character entries. The purpose of pinyin is to help learners to pronounce Mandarin words correctly, not to replace the writing system. Entries kaishi, kāishǐ (I added the 2nd etymology recently) make the work on the true Chinese entries duplicated - 開始 / 开始, 開駛, 开驶, creating a mess and inconsistency. I see no value and they are not citable, delete. (I have deleted the Mandarin section of kaishi - toneless)--Anatoli 06:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Toned Pinyin entries are allowed and they should encouraged. They have value, please see Wenlin Pinyin dictionary.  91.106.38.88 13:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think something has value is beside the point. Entries must pass Wiktionary's CFI. Anyway, even if someone were to type in toned pinyin (which is impossible to do without copying and pasting from another source anyway!) they could still find the entry under its hanzi equivalent. By the way we know you are User:123abc and have blocked you on the multiple accounts you are abusing under, so really your input is not required. ---> Tooironic 00:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep if attestable. Otherwise don't. 'Nuff said. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted - no corresponding character entries. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:huǒzàng


text:
Talk:huǒzàngchǎng

RFV discussion: May–October 2011
No hits on Google Books. ---> Tooironic 01:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted - no corresponding character entries. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "no corresponding character entries" should be the reason for speedy deletion. In Votes/2011-07/Pinyin_entries there's a clause: "whenever we have an entry for a traditional-characters or simplified-characters spelling.". There are still plenty of pinyin entries in the old format, easier deleted than fixed, if you ask me. --Anatoli 01:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:huǒzàngchǎng


text:
Talk:enfold

RFV discussion: May–September 2011
To put in a folder (in a computer system). I googled around and found nothing. Equinox ◑ 18:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 11:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:enfold


text:
Talk:RR's

RFV discussion: February–October 2011
RReally? SemperBlotto 22:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good use of WT:BRAND, as do the similar following terms. DCDuring TALK 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:RR's


text:
Talk:EB's

RFV discussion: February–October 2011
Does this really meet our CFI? SemperBlotto 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:EB's


text:
Talk:edge

edge
The edge of a cricket bat.

Pretty obvious it refers to the edge of a cricket bat in context. I've added another cricket sense "A shot where the ball comes off the edge of the bat, often unintentionally" with a Usenet citation, can be cited using Usenet alone providing you accept three apparently unrelated citations from the same group. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. —msh210℠ (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete DCDuring TALK 18:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 09:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–October 2011
Rfv-sense noun - rock-climbing. Looks like it might be a verb, but is difficult to check. SemperBlotto 22:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolved. Wikipedia has this at Edging as a noun, so I moved it there. - -sche (discuss) 02:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sharpness of a blade 2. provocative risky manner
1. Sharpness of a blade A knife with a fine edge 2. An audacious, provocative, original quality or manner

--Backinstadiums (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

have an/the edge on
To have an advantage over someone or something; to be in a more favorable position than someone or something else.  I think I had an edge on her in the race because I'd been training harder''. Backinstadiums (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:edge


text:
Talk:spectrum typology

RFV discussion: February–October 2011
Any takers? SemperBlotto 14:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The users two other entries phrasal typology and rhetorical device could use some cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed spectrum typology. The other two seem to be valid, and the definitions have been improved. - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:spectrum typology


text:
Talk:Syntexis

RFV discussion: February–October 2011

 * See Talk:syntexis.

title: Talk:Syntexis


text:
Talk:syntexis

RFV discussion: February–October 2011
Rfv-senses emaciation and wasp SemperBlotto 08:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "emaciation" sense appears in a medical dictionary. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - I've found it now. SemperBlotto 12:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-passed: RFV withdrawn by nominator, and I added one citation to each sense. - -sche (discuss) 05:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Syntexis
I split this entry from syntexis. There does appear to be a one-species genus, a type of sawfly or woodwasp. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's OK too. SemperBlotto 12:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-passed: RFV apparently withdrawn by nominator, and I can indeed find it on Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 05:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:syntexis


text:
Talk:cellpadding

RFV discussion: May–December 2011

 * See Category talk:HTML.

title: Talk:cellpadding


text: fatḥa

title: fatḥa


text: Category:English terms spelled with Ḥ

title: Category:English terms spelled with Ḥ


text:
Talk:chasmophilia

RFV discussion: May–December 2011
"The love of small places." Nowt in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 18:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Google Groups only has it as a definition in word lists, and HathiTrust only gives one hit, to Sex crimes and paraphilia, 2006, but doesn't even give a snippet view, only that it's on page 91.--Prosfilaes 23:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 15:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:chasmophilia


text:
Talk:protestant

The English entry should be spelt with a capital P: Protestant. Don Hodgkinson.

RFV discussion: May–August 2011
"Of greater quality or merit." Not in Chambers, although that does have our example of Protestant Work Ethic, saying it is associated with the religious movement and not with any generic sense. Equinox ◑ 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March–June 2023
Rfv-sense of the sex sense (the label of which needs templatizing), as with catholic above. - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Failed. - TheDaveRoss  17:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:protestant


text:
Talk:colspan

RFV discussion: May–December 2011

 * See Category talk:HTML.

title: Talk:colspan


text:
Talk:cellspacing

RFV discussion: May–December 2011

 * See Category talk:HTML.

title: Talk:cellspacing


text:
Talk:nbsp

RFV discussion: May–December 2011

 * See Category talk:HTML.

title: Talk:nbsp


text:
Talk:in the driver seat

RFV discussion: June–December 2011
Possibly a variant of in the driver's seat. I'll try to attest it later, if no one beats me to it. --Daniel 16:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I have heard of driver's seat and driving-seat but not driver seat. Equinox ◑ 23:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would write it "in the driver's seat". Much to my amazement, in various google searches drivers seat/drivers' seat is more common (sometimes much more common) than either. driver's seat is the least common form. Adding "in the" doesn't change anything.DCDuring TALK 01:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 15:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:in the driver seat


text:
Talk:aqua

RFV discussion: June–December 2011
Sense 3 for the noun on this page refers to the NASA spacecraft, but I would have thought this was only found capitalised as Aqua or AQUA. Caladon 09:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nor is it a common noun. Should be deleted. Equinox ◑ 10:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 15:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cosmetics ingredient lists
Like parfum for fragrance, I seem to remember seeing aqua used as a fancy euphemism for water in the ingredient lists of cosmetic products. Our "inorganic compound" gloss doesn't suggest such usage outside of chemistry. Equinox ◑ 21:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Just saw it again as the first ingredient (by volume) in hand sanitizer. Equinox ◑ 00:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:aqua


text: ḍamma

title: ḍamma


text:
Talk:xanthopous

RFV discussion: June–September 2011
Only in dictionaries. Nadando 13:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 23:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:xanthopous


text:
Talk:bacn

Updated
I check'd the link above but didn't see the RFV for bacn. The deletion note said that it needed verifiable cites. There they are. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–September 2011
A kind of spam. This is one of those words that was invented recently, blogged to death, and mentioned a zillion times without really being used. CFI-compatible citations would be nice. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 23:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:bacn


text:
Talk:idgas

RFV discussion: June–December 2011
I don't know if it's made up but I never use something like that, honestly, when I type on the forums. --Lo Ximiendo 17:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited and moved to IDGAS. —Internoob 21:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Striking: entry was moved and this form no longer exists. Equinox ◑ 15:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:idgas


text:
Talk:wah

RFV discussion: June–December 2011
"Used within the British Army in response to an answer to an obvious question. This is a question that you have set the other person up to answer. Can become quite frustrating as you become paranoid answering any question in case it is a Wah!" Equinox ◑ 16:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The wording is certainly too informal; I agree that attestation is the best place to start with rewording a definition like this. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 15:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Etymology 1
Really from Nepali? wah is almost certainly a word in a Sino-Tibetan language, from 🇨🇬. Wyang (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Furry slang
People have started to call red pandas "wah" again 128.0.94.142 19:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:wah


text:
Talk:snert

RFV discussion: June–December 2011
Three senses, all slang and all highly dubious. "1. an annoying user of a bulletin board etc. 2. yellow snow. 3. troll who preys in spiritual chat rooms, forums, etc, getting the title snert. snot nosed egotistical religious twit." Equinox ◑ 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 15:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

etymology
we're familiar with how often acronym etymologies turn out to be false. i wonder if this is just a variant form of snot, which is also used in a countable sense for an unpleasant person. — Soap — 18:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:snert


text:
Talk:Cartman

RFV discussion: August–October 2011
Was marked with. Needs whatever a fictional character needs for citation. Has no cites now. DCDuring TALK 04:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to rfv-sense, I added the surname definition. Also, is there no English word cartman:? We don't have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do now. 81.142.107.230 09:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cartman


text:
Talk:pyxidium

RFV discussion: August–September 2011
"(botany) A seed capsule in the form of a box, the seeds being released when the top splits off." I just can't seem to find evidence for this in usage. Equinox ◑ 22:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pyxidium_(PSF).png
 * Three examples among others from gbooks :
 * Henderson's dictionary of biology: "pyxidium n. a capsular fruit which dehisces transversely, the top coming off as a lid"
 * Flowering plants, Dicotyledons: "The large, globose, woody pyxidium of Bertholletia is secondarily indehiscent and has only a small operculum that falls inwards. This species drops the pyxidium to the ground and is dispersed by agoutis."
 * Fabre Poet of Science: "The capsule of gold−beater's skin, in which the grubs of the Cione are enclosed, divides itself, at the moment of liberation, into two hemispheres "of a regularity so perfect that they recall exactly the bursting of the pyxidium when the seed is distributed" (note: Cione = Cionus thapsus).
 * Or did I misunderstand your request? — Xavier, 23:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added three additional citations to the entry. Is there any further objection to striking this as verified? bd2412 T 02:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 * No objection from me; I say it passes RFV. - -sche (discuss) 02:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling it struck, then. bd2412 T 02:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:pyxidium


text:
Talk:insensate

RFV discussion: August–October 2011
"Having two or more of one's own senses absent (i.e. being blind, deaf and/or mute), either by having been born so or having lost them due to sickness or an accident." Equinox ◑ 22:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Not in the OED, American Heritage, MacMillan, Collins, any of the 4 Webster's at OneLook (1828, 1913, 4th ed., 11th ed) or Random House Unabridged. Move to rfd and get rid of it . -- · 16:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 * We don't need an RFD if it's unattested, that's what this page is for! --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Right you are, Mglovesfun. Lost my head for a minute there. I expect we'll soon be rid of it, in any case. · 14:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

RFV failed. Sense removed from entry. · 21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:insensate


text:
Talk:Fluffy

RFV discussion: August–September 2011
"A fictional giant three-headed dog in the Harry Potter franchise." Equinox ◑ 19:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Should go to the Appendix for the Harry Potter universe. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't even go there. Are all giant three-headed dogs in that realm called "fluffies"? It seems to me that it is merely the name of one character, and if anywhere belongs in an appendix of common pet names. bd2412 T 18:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of moving it to the HP appendix, which is where these specific characters are "meant" to go anyway (though I still fail to see the value of movie cast lists in a dictionary). Equinox ◑ 18:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fluffy


text:
Talk:Sylvester

RFV discussion: August–October 2011
"A fictional anthropomorphic cat who is a character of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies, whose full name is Sylvester J. Pussycat, Sr., and who usually stars the role of antagonist of Tweety." This would be a fine Wikipedia article. Needs to meet WT:BRAND, being a trademark. Equinox ◑ 19:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sufferin' succotash! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Arabic translation incorrect?
سهمرثفسثق seems incorrect for the Arabic translation. Transliterated, it would be "shmrṯfsṯq", which doesn't sound anything like "Sylvester", nor does it look at all like an Arabic calque. Iwsfutcmd (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 * It appears to be simply vandalism - I've removed it. — S URJECTION / T / C / L / 15:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sylvester


text:
Talk:ナルト

RFV discussion: August–November 2011
Entry added by known-suspect IP user Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109. Specific to the Naruto anime/manga franchise, and therefore would seem to fail WT:CFI. Can anyone confirm any use in other contexts? Moreover, the entry contains no information. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 * No, it’s just Naruto, the anime character. —Stephen (Talk) 21:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 * RFV Failed. ✅, striking.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:ナルト


text:
Talk:Abiturient

RFV discussion: September 2011–January 2012
Rfv-sense: Is that really an English word? --The Evil IP address 19:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited, I think. Also, I corrected the definition. - -sche (discuss) 20:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Passed. - -sche (discuss) 22:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abiturient


text:
Talk:狼人

RFV discussion: August–September 2011
Another from our favorite Japanophile IP user, Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109. As noted at ja:w:狼男, the more common words are or  - can anyone verify ? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 04:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I speedily added this as a Japanese translation werewolf but you must be right. is indeed incorrect in Japanese. I have removed the translation. Delete the entry. --Anatoli 04:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:狼人


text:
Talk:Clifford

RFV discussion: August–November 2011
Rfv-sense: Clifford the Big Red Dog. All the citations include the word "dog", and don't meet WT:BRAND WT:FICTION (or WT:BRAND, either) .--Makaokalani 13:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sense removed (by anonip, but correctly). RFV failed. —msh210℠ (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Clifford