text:
User talk:KYPark/related terms

Related terms
This section is for etymologically and morphologically related terms, so mew is not a related term for the common gull. It should be listed under See also. --EncycloPetey 07:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I welcome your "See also" suggestion. Meanwhile, I understand a mew is exactly the same as a gull, or as related as the same genus Larus, while a common gull is simply Larus canus, sometimes even called mew gull as noted in Common Gull. In addition I tend to be generous about "Related terms" anyway. --KYPark 07:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, the animals are related, but the words are not. See WT:ELE regarding "Related terms".  For example, under lion, we could list as "Related terms" lioness, antlion, leonine and so forth because the words are related.  We would not list Felis or cat as related terms because they come from different word roots.  Does that help? --EncycloPetey 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I barely agree with your examples of Related terms to lion, which would better be Derived terms. Contrarily, lion would be one of Related terms to the entry lioness. Synonyms to the entry cat would include either puss or Felis rather than Related terms, vice versa. --KYPark 08:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Check their etymologies. Neither lioness nor leonine comes from lion.  Lioness comes from a separate Old French root, not from lion.  The word leonine comes from a different French word as well. The etymology of antlion is sometimes said to be obscure, sometimes transparent. --EncycloPetey 09:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 * leonine may better be under Related terms, while lioness and antlion Derived terms as presently shown under lion. The feminine lioness may have been derived either from Old French lionnesse, as you allege, or from lion, as priestess from priest, for example if ok. Let's leave it open. The point here is not to make clear etymology of any example, but the principle that lioness for example should be under Derived terms from lion iff etymology so grants. --KYPark 12:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, but back to my original point. The word mew is neither derived from the word common gull, nor is it related to that word.  They only share a meaning, not an etymological relation. --EncycloPetey 17:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, as regards mew again, I welcome your "See also" suggestion, as was the very opening word of my reply. Good point. --KYPark 04:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:KYPark/related terms


text: Category:Volapük terms prefixed with lü-

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


text: Category:French terms prefixed with physico-


text: Category:Venetian terms prefixed with in-


text: Category:English terms prefixed with epilepto-


text: nayêm

title: nayêm


text: Category:French terms prefixed with ergo-


text: nayî

title: nayî


text: nayê

title: nayê


text: haizivīm

title: haizivīm


text: haizivi

title: haizivi


text: haizivī

title: haizivī


text: têyî

title: têyî


text: haizivij

title: haizivij


text: Category:pt:Indo-European studies

title: Category:pt:Indo-European studies


text: labības

title: labības


text: labībās

title: labībās


text: Category:Macedonian supplementary templates


text: Category:nrf:Housing

title: Category:nrf:Housing


text:
hajcsár

Etymology
From. The function of the cs sound is unclear, it appears to be a suffix-like element, compare.

Noun

 * 1)  a person who drives animals, especially cattle or sheep, over long distances
 * 2)   a person who demands excessive amounts of work from employees
 * 1)   a person who demands excessive amounts of work from employees

title: hajcsár


text: hajcsárok

title: hajcsárok


text: Category:Classical Syriac euphemisms

title: Category:Classical Syriac euphemisms


text: Category:English terms prefixed with silico-


text: Category:English terms suffixed with -poietic


text: Category:Latin terms prefixed with se-

title: Category:Latin terms prefixed with se-


text: Category:English terms suffixed with -otic


text: Category:English terms suffixed with -metre


text:
User talk:KYPark/Korean false cognates

Korean "false cognates"
Talk:매다, Talk:띠앗, Talk:마니다 - When you say that these are "false cognates", you're indirectly saying that there could be possible cognates, which of course there is none because there's no genetic relationship between Korean and the listed IE languages, at least not in the time frame the lexemes you're listing were coined in actual speech (unless you want to promote your Indo-Altaic theory). So if you don't mind, I'll delete those, and I advise you not to create more of this kind --Ivan Štambuk 23:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

 * ``So if you don't mind, I'll delete those....``

 * In response to what you said as quoted above, I say I do mind indeed. But you have deleted them already. So you have to get them back right away. I am annoyed by your word and deed that never match.

 * I have still another very good reason for asking you to do so. My recent edits on those three talk pages are in complete agreement with Rod who said here at last of you all.

 * Did you delete them in accordance with the admin consensus, while in discordance with Rod? Or your personal decision?
 * Should I ever struggle against the hydra, the nine-headed monster?
 * Do you insist I should take boundless responsibility for the boundless implications of my word and deed such that "false cognates" may suggest "possible cognates"? Isn't it possible for the sun to stop shining tomorrow? Yes, anything's possible, without my talk!

 * Would Appendix:List of Korean false cognates satisfy you? --Ivan Štambuk 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Not too bad, though it was already said before. Should I accept it, someone else would say something else to tire me out. So, may I ask you to answer me as I asked you as above, because this should be meaningful and responsible discussion? --KYPark 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Since you ask: 1) it was my personal decision to delete those 2) no comment 3) I'd suggest generally that you refrain from usage of words cognate, Korean and  in the same sentence, because it's highly disturbing given your already known agenda in the past of pushing IE-Korean "cognates".
 * If you'd like to, create that appendix and I'll move the material from deleted pages onto it. --Ivan Štambuk 03:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Something highly disturbing or highly hypersensitive

 * The content I lately edited on the talk pages you deleted was mostly shown up during that bloody long BP discussion so that anybody could focally argue for or against any part of it. Specially I asked it to be answered above all. But it was mostly ignored or unanswered. You should have argued against it at that time. Reasonably, therefore, you have to undo your unreasonable overdone deletion, first of all, especially based on your "personal decision."

 * From your personal point of view, you are highly likely to infringe the reader's, especially Korean, freedom of information as well as my legitimate freedom of expression, while ascribing my contribution as highly disturbing. Highly disturbing whom, but for the hypersensitive? For example, no average reader has blamed me over a year even for my hottest etymological edits on the Finno-Ugric entries you recently reduced to a minimum at will.

 * Without enough evidence beyond the reasonable doubt, you blame me for pushing IE-Korean "cognates", which I have done little, as I have made it very clear again and again. Don't you know at all what might result from such repeated false charges and personal attacks?

 * It is quite clear that by "false cognates" by definition I am not pushing IE-Korean "cognates." The hypersensitive may believe as if "false cognates" were to suggest or imply "possible cognates." I should not be responsible nor blamed for their twisted or wicked interpretation and judgment from unlimited implications. You did not answer the question (3) properly. Your blaming me for highly disturbing is highly disturbing me. You look like drawing the sword to cut a mosquito.

 * It is highly hypersensitive, twisted or wicked to take "false cognate" for "possible cognate," for which I am definitely not responsible. Should the term "false cognate" be highly disturbing anyone indeed, I should and would just refrain from using it, as you suggest. In fact, I hate the term cognate, true or false, as its judgment belongs to scholars I hate. What I love is to guide the reader to English and often European words as compared with Korean words. The ==Korean== section is essentially to compare a Korean word with a number of English words at best. Whenever useful for better definition and understanding, I like to refer her even to European words. What is so "highly disturbing"?

 * If you reasonably ask me to reconsider and change the ==Korean false cognates==, I am well prepared to do so. But you did not do so, but completely deleted even my talks based on your personal decision. This is definite vandalism. You should apologize for this violence and undo what you did immediately! And discuss very persuasively why my comparison of Korean words with English and often European words is "highly disturbing" anyone sane. --KYPark 10:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no need to suppress mentions of "Korean false cognates" on talk pages. Discussion about interesting aspects of words belongs on the words' talk pages, so I have restored them. Rod (A. Smith) 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * That would be utter waste of wikispace, and an invitation to more crackpots like Kypark to promote their "theories". Every comparison of Korean-IE etymons is a false cognate, and there is absolutely no usefulness in the comparison tables Kypark generates.
 * Fine, let him post it to talk pages, I hope you will personally like patrolling them, for I surely won't. Just to keep that nonsense out of the mainspace, for somebody might event think that there some value in it. --Ivan Štambuk 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * "False cognates" is an accurate description of these terms and does not imply any genetic relationship. They can be useful mnemonics, so they're neither an "utter waste of wikispace" nor "nonsense".  You should apologize for your personal attack against KYPark (calling him a "crackpot").  Rod (A. Smith) 17:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * "Falso cognate" is certainly NOT an accurate description of these terms. False cognate is not the same as "not cognate". A false cognate implies that there is or was a significant number of people who believed the words were cognates. Examples of false cognates are English dog and Mbabaram dog; English mama and Quechua mama. I don’t believe anybody thinks 매 is related to English mow, or that -다 is related to English do. They are not false cognates, they simply are not cognate. To label them false cognates means that there is a group of people who think, or once thought, that they were cognate. —Stephen 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I insert a link to my new BP talk. Thanks. --KYPark 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Keeping in mind that the "false cognate" label is in the talk pages, and that our definition of false cognate: says nothing about "a significant number of people", what description would you prefer to give these learning aids? Rod (A. Smith) 18:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * So comparing Korean to Proto-Germanic, Gothic and Latin has now suddenly become a "learning aid"? I'd rather call them intentionally misleading, with next-to-none inherent educational value. --Ivan Štambuk 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Rod, you are seriously delusioned if you don't see in Kyparks IE-Korean etymologies/mnemonics anything beyond first-class pseudoscientific crackpotry, which he subtlely tries to masquerade in various ways, promoting his (transparently obvious) agenda. Let me remind you that he was the one that tried to 1) invalidate scientific methods ("anything goes", equalizing science with "system of belief" of religions - that was insultive to atheist like myself) 2) accuse his opponents of "censoring" or promoting "Euro-centrism". He know blabs about "freedom of expression" and accuses me of cutting down his "hot etymological edits" on the etymologies of Finnish entries which contained comparisons to Korean "cognates" with references to 19th century rasist crap called "Ural-Altaic".
 * I don't really feel like I've "insulted" him, at least nothing less than he's insulted the minds of everyone who tried to reasonably discuss with him in BP. --Ivan Štambuk 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd rather not speculate about whether KYPark has a nefarious agenda. The comparisons are no longer being made in the main namespace etymology sections, so we seem to be making some headway.  Adding "false cognates" to talk pages doesn't seem like a deletable offense, so I restored them.  If you were insulted, that's a shame, but it would be best not to inflame the situation with further insults.  Rod (A. Smith) 19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:KYPark/Korean false cognates


text:
User talk:KYPark/blocked

Blocked
Dear Kypark, you were just blocked for 1 week due to your repeated trolling on Talk:기린.

There were times when I thought you'll sooner or later be convinced by sane reason that PIE is not just "another theory", not a "model of thought" comparable to world's religions, not some "hypothesis comparable to any other", but "enforced by Euro-centric linguists" (not your exact wording, but these were all your points).

Valid scientific evidence the supports the most widely accept reconstruction of PIE (not just the lexemes themselves, but the phonology and morphology as well, and these other things are much more important) that was built by word's foremost linguist in the last 2 centuries is in no way comparable to unsupportive "theories" (the word theory: means different things in science, and in colloquial speech - this term is so often manipulated, especially by creationists and similar breed) like the Indo-Uralic that you pushed several times on the ===Etymology=== sections in the main namespace entries, and your IE-Korean relationships based on some vague phonetic correspondences that are simply a product of your imagination.

 * You should know that the prehistorical PIE etymology is not the history or etymology per se of words. Anyone can reconstruct anything like PIE anyway

Dear Kypark, Indo-European language family can be validly established only by looking at 4 basic kinship terms (mother, father, brother, sister), numerals up to 10 and the verbs "to be", "to stay, "to bear" and "to give", but the real evidence is much, much more abundant than that. It is not "some other theory" comparable to any other (like those that you like or like to fancy). Glottalic theory has gained a lot of ground in the last 2 and a half decades (and is still very strong at Leiden school), but these alternatives are not conflictive with respect to the end result. They give different means to explain how daughter languages have inherited the actually attested forms. It's like two physics theories - both give different theoretical interpretation of the phenomena that is observable in only one way.

It's fun how people who don't like the idea of PIE like to emphasize it being "hypothetical". Most of the theoretical sciences sooner or later bump into some kind of the practical limits, but in linguistics these have much more concrete consequences as soon as the conclusions collide with what people like to imagine to be their "real" history (usually - that they are ethnically and linguistically indigenous) There was a while ago a Greek nationalist that claimed that all PIE languages descend from Mycenaean Greek, since it's the earliest attested one (which is not, Old Anatolian languages are, and so is the Mitanni Indo-Aryan). He also liked to emphasize the "hypothetical" part - cf. ^_^

Also, your comparison of modern Korean and modern IE (French, German - your common targets) reminds me of other pseudoscientific linguists, who ignore ancient and extinct languages either deliberately or out of sheer ignorance, and compare modern ones. I just read the other day on sci.lang (where he's achieved almost cult-like status ^_^) an alleged relationship between what mr. Dušan Vukotić likes to call "Serbo-Slavic" oblak: and modern English - so much fun. Vukotić has also a long (almost 2 year) IP record here on Wiktionary - but it consists mostly of removing valid etymologies that he doesn't like on nationalist grounds (Serbian words derived from Ottoman Turkish), and adding protologisms and neologisms coined in the 19th century into translation tables.

 * I did nothing on these pages and I entered Wiktionary (for the first time) a fiew days ago, when I saw that someone is abusing my name and some parts of my writings.
 * Please, stop misusing my name.

 * Dušan Vukotic --Vukotic

Yes, PIE looks like nine-headed monster, but that nine-headed monster is a valid scientific theory which is accepted by most of the world's linguists, and more importantly, by all relevant world's linguists. Everything else would be highly-speculative, and would amount to original research which is forbidden. You must understand this part. I and no one else here wants to discuss with you how much the PIE theory itself is tenable or not. Please stop your attempts to bash it, because your theories are irrelevant and we don't care about them.

This block is rather symbolical than 100% purposeful, for I have no desire to actually stop you from contributing useful content on Korean entries. However, seeing the amount of effort you've put into bashing PIE in the last month, it seems that you're not that much interested in Korean entries, unless they can be used to promote your convictions (like the entry on 기린 and others mentioned in BP). I'm very sad that this is the case.

If you can firmly agree to finally let go of this anti-PIE thing, just drop me (or any other active administrator) a message or e-mail, and it will be removed ASAP. Pushing it further on mainspace talk pages will be treated as just another vandalism. Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk 16:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:KYPark/blocked


text:
labība

Etymology
From. The original meaning of was 'property', 'riches', until the early 17th century. Cognate with 🇨🇬 regionalism. Compare the same semantic evolution in 🇨🇬, from 🇨🇬, and in 🇨🇬, previously "property, riches".

Noun

 * 1) cereal kind of grass cultivated for its edible grains
 * 2)  cereal, grain the grains of cereal plants
 * 1)  cereal, grain the grains of cereal plants
 * 1)  cereal, grain the grains of cereal plants
 * 1)  cereal, grain the grains of cereal plants

title: labība


text: Category:en:Ring theory

title: Category:en:Ring theory


text:
User talk:KYPark/있다

Part of speech for 있다
Hi, KYPark. In this edit, you changed the 있다 entry to say it's an adjective instead of a verb. Since 있다 conjugates as a verb, appears at the end of sentences as a verb, and has an English definition that's a verb, I'm not sure why you changed it. Does it have something to do with the recent linguistic literature that posits that Korean adjectives and stative verbs are the same class of word? Rod (A. Smith) 03:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Das taugt nicht. (That is of no use.) In this case, the German verb taugen "to be fit, useful" is not a real but so to speak adjectival verb. Latin also has the like, but the Modern English has not, corruptedly or not. Most if not all Korean adjectives are such verbs but rather called adjectives instead. They conjugate almost like verbs, but not exactly. Remarkably, they use the infinitive as the present tense, while verbs don't. (The present tense of the infinitive verb 가다 "to go" is 간다.) So do the verbial 이다 "to be," and 있다 "to be, exist," so that these also would better be regarded as adjectives. Cheers. --KYPark 10:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

 * That's a good analysis, but if 있다 were in the same class as other Korean words commonly called adjectives, it would be ok to modify a noun by preceding it with *있은. Since that's non-grammatical, though, it seems there are four relevant Korean parts of speech to consider in order to determine how best to map Korean words to verbs and adjectives:
 * standard verbs (an open class that includes 가다 and the words we use to translate most English verbs)
 * the copula 이다 and its antonym 아니다
 * the existence verb 있다 and its antonym 없다
 * adjectives, a.k.a. adjectival/descriptive/stative verbs (an open class that includes the words we use to translate most English adjectives)
 * So, unless there's anything else to consider, I'll just add the relevant usage notes to 있다 and call it a day. :-) Rod (A. Smith) 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Though your initial question was the existential verb 있다, may I ask you to forget it for a moment as it is so special as English be? What we have to focus on at the moment would be whether verb or adjective, English or Korean. Korean verbs and adjectives are morphologically similar but soemwhat different. --KYPark 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. It's much more important to determine the POS to apply to #4 above (the open class that includes the words we use to translate most English adjectives.  I believe we both agree that "adjective" is a better POS to apply.  They seem very much like "い adjectives" in Japanese.  Last year, I think we decided that the best way to classify them is as adjectives, with a category to differentiate them from "な adjectives".  In Korean, that differentiation doesn't seem necessary, so we should probably just call them "adjectives".  Right? Rod (A. Smith) 17:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Now let me show you some more types, perhaps making your life a little harder. ;-) Japanese い-adjectives are both attributive and predicative, while な-adjectives are only attributive. Either is morphologically and grammatically quite simple. In contrast, Korean adjectives are much more diverse and complex, as partly suggested in the following. Except for the last category "Past or perfect tense," the present tense is the same as the infinitive, which is the sure sign of adjectives in contrast to verbs.

--KYPark 09:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Typical adjectives
 * 2) * 같다 / 다르다 to be identical / different
 * 3) * 검다 / 까맣다 to be black
 * 4) * 길다 / 짧다 to be long / short
 * 5) * 높다 / 낮다 to be high / low
 * 6) * 달다 / 쓰다 to be sweet / bitter
 * 7) * 맑다 / 흐리다 to be clear / cloudy
 * 8) * 밝다 / 어둡다 to be bright / dark
 * 9) * 붉다 / 빨갛다 to be red
 * 10) * 푸르다 / 파랗다 to be blue
 * 11) * 희다 / 하얗다 to be white
 * 12) -하다
 * 13) * 나른하다 to be tired
 * 14) * 느긋하다 to be leisurely
 * 15) * 편리하다 to be convenient
 * 16) * 불편하다 to be inconvenient
 * 17) * 유리하다 to be advantageous
 * 18) * 유익하다 to be useful
 * 19) * 행복하다 to be happy
 * 20) * 불행하다 to be unhappy
 * 21) * 다행하다 to be lucky
 * 22) -있다, -없다
 * 23) * 맛있다 / -없다 to taste good / bad
 * 24) * 쓸모있다 / -없다 to be useful / useless
 * 25) * 다름없다 there to be no difference
 * 26) * 잘있다 to be well, in a good condition
 * 27) -이다
 * 28) * 행운이다 to be fortunate
 * 29) * 다행이다 to be fortunate
 * 30) * 잘못이다 to be wrong
 * 31) -이다 (analogy)
 * 32) * 개다 to be (as brutal as) a dog
 * 33) * 여우다 to be (as sly as) a fox
 * 34) -같다 (simile)
 * 35) * 개같다 to be like a dog
 * 36) * 여우같다 to be like a fox
 * 37) -롭다, -스럽다
 * 38) * 자유롭다 to be free
 * 39) * 자연스럽다 to be natural
 * 40) Past or perfect tense
 * 41) * 말랐다 to be (get) thin
 * 42) * 미쳤다 to be (go) mad

 * Thanks for those examples. Can you recommend a text describing Korean grammar from a Korean standpoint?  I'd like to list the parts of speech in WT:AK, create templates for each, and perhaps describe them in an appendex.  Unfortunately, my little Korean-English dictionary does not include Korean parts of speech.  Rod (A. Smith) 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The best text would be 교육인적자원부, 고등학교 문법, 대한교과서주식회사 (Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development, High School Grammar, state-run textbook publisher). But the trouble is you could not buy it from Interpark or the like shopping mall. I have no idea how you could at the moment. A second-hand copy may be available somewhere.

 * I have also found no Korean-English dictionary including POS, perhaps to avoid disparity between Korean and English. So you have to consult the Korean-Korean dictionary like 표준국어대사전, word after word. Or, from this site you can download the Excel file of the basic Korean vocabulary listing of 6000- words in Hangul (plus Chinese characters for Sino-Korean) and POS!

 * In addition to WT:AK or whatever, I do wish that using this file you could let a bot make 6000- basic entries without definition for the moment (as Chinese characters did for CJK languages). Romanization is automated as you would know. I have seen such almost blank entries (in German or French), which may make editors' lives easier though perhaps some frustration to readers. If you agree with my proposal, we may better talk a little more later. Cheers! --KYPark 01:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:KYPark/있다


text: labībā

title: labībā


text: labībām

title: labībām


text: labībai

title: labībai


text: labību

title: labību


text: Category:English terms prefixed with epeiro-


text: Category:English terms prefixed with derm-


text: Category:French terms prefixed with cardio-


text: Category:French terms spelled with Å

title: Category:French terms spelled with Å


text:
User talk:KYPark/block

Block
I am writing to explain the reasonings behind your one day block. First of all, let me say quite emphatically that the vast majority of your contributions are top-notch and are very genuinely appreciated. However, there are a number of issues which have been raised before that need to be addressed. The first (and most important) is your continuing persistence in pushing the theory of a genetic relationship between Korean and certain European languages. While it's possible (albeit unlikely) that historical linguistics may one day validate this, the fact remains that current theory considers this postulate to be absurd. As Wiktionary strives to be a respected dictionary, we simply cannot afford to have this on our site. Please desist in noting European cognates for native Korean words, and please go back and remove any you have inserted in the past. Secondly, Stephen has discussed with you the transliteration format for Korean entries, and you have chosen to ignore this. If you believe there is a better way to transliterate Korean words than the current standard, by all means bring it up in the Beer Parlour. However, until a different method is chosen, the method which Stephen has noted is the community standard, and should be adhered to. It is my hope that these issues can be resolved, as further behavior of a similar nature will result in longer blocks, and we do not want to lose such a valuable contributor to Wiktionary. Atelaes 05:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

 * my rely

Thank you so much for granting me such a one-day break that I absolutely needed indeed.

Recently I have edited a few Etymology sections, all related to a common Finno-Ugric root *walke, whence especially Finnish valkea, clearly suggesting possible ("arbeit unlikely" as you said) cognates with Korean 밝다 "to be bright" and 박쥐 "bat," from the Ural-Altaic perspective. Elsewhere I have seldom edited such sections to claim such cognates between European and Korean, but surely offered comparative data to serve for pure curiosity rather than cognate claim. I am far from being convinced why such pure, goodwill information, especially without any clear etymological claim, should be blamed for being "absurd." You can blame me as far as you remain reasonabe; otherwise you are to blame. May I refer you to the meaning of absurd as follows:

 * "ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous"
 * "having no rational or orderly relationship to human life"

Surely I am personally interested in restoring the possible ("arbeit unlikely" as you said) Eurasian, especially Euro-Korean, connection that, perhaps together with paganism, may have been unfortunately disconnected self-deceptively by Roman Christianity. India is a highly convincing link that yielded both Indo-Europeanism and Bhuddism that has much affected Korea almost two millenia. No one could sanely deny some possibility of Euro-Korean cognates. The current total denial is thus most absurd and ridiculous, likely meddling with Christianity, Eurocentrism and the like, suppressing the opposing views by all means. This may be called, and due to, the Western premium, I am afraid.

The theory of single linguistic ancestry originated from the Bible. It is quite mystic but still influential. The idea of Proto-Indo-European and the like simply looks like a narrowed version. The worst seems to be self-contained, self-sufficient, self-sustaining, self-deceiving, and even self-defeating. How would it be possible for Indo-European to remain unaffected by the external forces, including Semitic Abrahamism. I wish PIE not to contribute to such a myth as pure IE. Instead, languages need be compared both within and without a family, say, beyond PIE! Simply I like to get such a missing job done. Nonetheless, I would like to remain cool and refrain from hurriedly claiming any congnates. My job is just to offer comparative data, while cognate judgment belongs to scholors. The [citation needed] tag or the like would be enough for readers to know that my data are not warranted by scholars.

The balance between action and reaction in the widest sense, or Yin and Yang, is indeed a cosmic nature in autonomy. Blocking or the like would serve as a shift, right or wrong. Most theses or theories are to be counter-balanced by anti-theses or anti-theories, hence "Conjectures and Refutations" (1963) in Karl Popper's terms, and the similar philosophy such as found in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962) by Thomas Kuhn, and "Against Method" (1975) or "Anything goes" by Paul Feyerabend. All these mainstream philosophers of science, especially Feyerabend, ask justice to be done to the minority theses. Most theories begin to emerge and evolve from such a minor state.

May I seriously ask here if Wiktionary would deny to do justice to the minority views so as to promote the majority only in view of its neutrality and respect? Then it would look like sort of totalitarianism that is so awkward in the free world now, I fear. And I would definitely like to fight against such an ahistoric monster. Even paganism is coming back, fortunate or not, from which Wikipedia would be the last to face away. It was regarded as such a monster and destroyed. Still it remains such, suffering minority.

Please leave the Wiktionary neutrality to the autonomy of pros and cons of editors, rather than the dictative blocking of any side. My edits, however problematic, is always subject to counter-edits. I cannot avoid. This is the royal road how Wik keeps neutral or balanced, and how it makes itself best of all, I guess. On the other hand, administrators may be so dictative as to be compared to the problematic traditional system of referees, as usual in academic journals, probably doing harm to the Wiktionary spirit and respect. Academics may be so familiar and happy with such a screen, designed to protect their own interest rather than readers' freedom of information. Wikipedia was born the very opposite, I guess.

Wiktionary is supposed to adopt the Revised Romanization of Hangul, and have much difficulty in suppressing the other systems. This would be because of the Wiktionary justice to the minority on the one hand and the editorial autonomy on the other. However, my own system, if any but not published, for example cannot be used here. Since Stephen, I have accepted his way and added it next to mine, which is not really mine but also derived from a special provision or requirement at the end of the RR, supplemented and inevitably contrasted to the general that he solely insists. My way is not without reasons, but to let Romanized roots always remain as such, that is, unchanged in actual uses as far as possibe. By doing so, I could do justice to those who ignore Hangul and read Roman letters only. Should I stop, or be blamed for, being kinder, serving more information of potential use than other editors?

Lastly, personally I do wish for a far better system for Korean Romanization. And I am sure it should be possible, depending on the needs in mind. The traditional systems paid too much attention to phonetics that most foreigners can pronounce Korean words closest. This objective is not so bad but tends to ignore orthography. Within Wiktionary, this could be better achieved by the phonetic signs than Romanization. On the other hand, Romanized orthography may be needed in addition to Hangul, however excellent and lovable it may be. Suppose such is a reasonable objective that we have to design a new system. I myself drafted one. And I would like to bring it to Beer Parlor, should Wiktionary be really interested in having a better system for its own sake.

--KYPark 09:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * You know, in Middle Ages naive scholars tried to "prove" that Latin and Ancient Greek somehow "descend" from Hebrew (which was termed as "Adamic langage" or "God's language"), by applying ad-hoc invented arbitrary permutations/elisions/additions of letters. Even when Sir William Jones discovered remarkable similarities between Avestan, Middle Persian, Sanskrit and old Europe's classical languages (in which he was educated), some still blindly claimed that "dirty Brahmins derived their own speech from Greek" (not the exact quote, but you get the point).
 * The term cognate: strictly refers to already established genetic relationship; when there is none, similarly sounding words whose semantic field partially overlaps are either borrowings, or arose by chance. You cannot claim that obvious borrowings like word for gong: and menu: are cognates, or try to masquerade it under the "Euro-Korean" category. Establishing a genetic relationship between languages requires a lot more than lists of words with similar phonetic values: it requires identifying isoglosses that were a result of common development, and cannot be explained away as borrowings or an areal feature (convergence/contact). No common development = no genetic relationship.
 * I strongly advise you to abandon any kind of Uralo-Altaic speculations in etymologies, justifying them as "minority views that need attention". They're not some "minority views", they're complete 19th century rubbish, just like are modern Sumero-Turkic, Albano-Illyrian and similar theories (notwithstanding the fact that they've been advocated by people with Ph.D.s). For a particularly fun side of these, see e.g. WT:RFD. Dušan is obviously not stupid, and knows his stuff, but his "Xur-Bel-Gon human speech formula" is just insane.
 * Historical linguistics is not an exact science, and communis opionio is essential for filtering nonsense.
 * Please don't push forward labeling obvious borrowings and similarly sounding words as "cognates", for it will result in blocks. --Ivan Štambuk 21:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:KYPark/block


text: Category:Portuguese terms derived from Mandarin


text: Category:Portuguese terms derived from Sinitic languages


text: Category:Portuguese terms derived from Sino-Tibetan languages


text: Category:Classical Syriac countable nouns


text:
soth

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) south

Etymology 1
From.

Etymology 2
From,.

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) to which one is entitled

Etymology 1
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  true, real

Etymology 2
From.

Noun

 * 1)  truth

title: soth


text:
وعليكم

Interjection

 * 1) and upon you as well, answer to the greeting.

title: وعليكم


text: perfums

title: perfums


text: pernils

title: pernils


text:
pèsol

Etymology
, diminutive of.

Noun

 * 1) pea

title: pèsol


text: pèsols

title: pèsols


text:
petge

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) leg (of a chair, bed, etc.)

title: petge


text: petges

title: petges


text: impenetrables

title: impenetrables


text:
nehati

Etymology
, from.

Verb

 * 1) to stop
 * 2) to quit
 * 1) to quit

title: nehati


text:
bremzati

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to brake

title: bremzati


text:
bremza

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  brake

title: bremza


text: Category:English terms derived from Literary Chinese


text:
أرقام هندية

Noun

 * 1) lit. Indian numerals; Eastern Arabic numeral

title: أرقام هندية


text:
low-bred

Adjective

 * 1)  ill-mannered and vulgar; impolite.

Translations

 * Bulgarian: ,

title: low-bred


text: labības mēnesi

title: labības mēnesi


text: labības mēnesī

title: labības mēnesī


text: labības mēneši

title: labības mēneši


text: labības mēneša

title: labības mēneša


text: labības mēnesim

title: labības mēnesim


text: labības mēnešiem

title: labības mēnešiem


text: labības mēnešus

title: labības mēnešus


text: labības mēnešu

title: labības mēnešu


text: labības mēnešos

title: labības mēnešos


text: viršu

title: viršu


text:
matraja

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) stepmother

title: matraja


text: bêrî dikin

title: bêrî dikin


text: bêrî kir

title: bêrî kir


text: bêrî kiriye

title: bêrî kiriye


text: bêrî kiribû

title: bêrî kiribû


text: bêrî bikim

title: bêrî bikim


text: bêrî bikî

title: bêrî bikî


text: bêrî bike

title: bêrî bike


text: bêrî bikin

title: bêrî bikin


text: bêrî kiribim

title: bêrî kiribim


text: bêrî kiribî

title: bêrî kiribî


text: bêrî kiribe

title: bêrî kiribe


text: bêrî kiribin

title: bêrî kiribin


text: bêrî bikira

title: bêrî bikira


text: bêrî kiribûya

title: bêrî kiribûya


text: bêrî kiribûye

title: bêrî kiribûye


text: hêvî dikim

title: hêvî dikim


text: hêvî dikî

title: hêvî dikî


text: hêvî dike

title: hêvî dike


text: hêvî dikin

title: hêvî dikin


text: hêvî kir

title: hêvî kir


text: hêvî kiriye

title: hêvî kiriye


text: hêvî kiribû

title: hêvî kiribû


text: hêvî bikim

title: hêvî bikim


text: hêvî bikî

title: hêvî bikî


text: hêvî bike

title: hêvî bike


text: hêvî bikin

title: hêvî bikin


text: hêvî kiribim

title: hêvî kiribim


text: hêvî kiribî

title: hêvî kiribî


text: hêvî kiribe

title: hêvî kiribe


text: hêvî kiribin

title: hêvî kiribin


text: hêvî bikira

title: hêvî bikira


text: hêvî kiribûya

title: hêvî kiribûya


text: hêvî kiribûye

title: hêvî kiribûye


text: deng lê dikim

title: deng lê dikim


text: deng lê dikî

title: deng lê dikî


text: deng lê dike

title: deng lê dike


text: deng lê dikin

title: deng lê dikin


text: deng lê kir

title: deng lê kir


text: deng lê kiriye

title: deng lê kiriye


text: deng lê kiribû

title: deng lê kiribû


text: deng lê bikim

title: deng lê bikim


text: deng lê bikî

title: deng lê bikî


text: deng lê bike

title: deng lê bike


text: deng lê bikin

title: deng lê bikin


text: deng lê kiribim

title: deng lê kiribim


text: deng lê kiribî

title: deng lê kiribî


text: deng lê kiribe

title: deng lê kiribe


text: csar

title: csar


text: deng lê kiribin

title: deng lê kiribin


text: deng lê bikira

title: deng lê bikira


text: deng lê kiribûya

title: deng lê kiribûya


text: deng lê kiribûye

title: deng lê kiribûye


text: gazî dikim

title: gazî dikim


text: gazî dikî

title: gazî dikî


text: gazî dike

title: gazî dike


text: gazî dikin

title: gazî dikin


text: gazî kir

title: gazî kir


text: gazî kiriye

title: gazî kiriye


text: gazî kiribû

title: gazî kiribû


text: gazî bikim

title: gazî bikim


text: gazî bikî

title: gazî bikî


text: gazî bike

title: gazî bike


text: gazî bikin

title: gazî bikin


text: gazî kiribim

title: gazî kiribim


text: gazî kiribî

title: gazî kiribî


text: gazî kiribe

title: gazî kiribe


text: gazî kiribin

title: gazî kiribin


text: gazî bikira

title: gazî bikira


text: gazî kiribûya

title: gazî kiribûya


text: gazî kiribûye

title: gazî kiribûye


text: natefînim

title: natefînim


text: natefînî

title: natefînî


text: natefe

title: natefe


text: natefînin

title: natefînin


text: netefandiye

title: netefandiye


text: netefandibû

title: netefandibû


text: netefandibim

title: netefandibim


text: netefandibî

title: netefandibî


text: bitefanda

title: bitefanda


text: tefandibûya

title: tefandibûya


text: tefandibûye

title: tefandibûye


text: naqele

title: naqele


text: naqelînin

title: naqelînin


text: neqelandiye

title: neqelandiye


text: neqelandibû

title: neqelandibû


text: neqelandibim

title: neqelandibim


text: neqelandibî

title: neqelandibî


text: biqelanda

title: biqelanda


text: qelandibûya

title: qelandibûya


text: qelandibûye

title: qelandibûye


text: nakele

title: nakele


text: nakelînin

title: nakelînin


text: nekelandiye

title: nekelandiye


text: nekelandibû

title: nekelandibû


text: nekelandibim

title: nekelandibim


text: nekelandibî

title: nekelandibî


text: bikelanda

title: bikelanda


text: kelandibûya

title: kelandibûya


text: kelandibûye

title: kelandibûye


text:
gâteau de riz

Noun

 * 1) rice pudding

title: gâteau de riz


text: gâteaux de riz

title: gâteaux de riz


text:
Category:Latvian words with falling intonation

List of words that have the Latvian falling intonation (krītošā intonācija), like.


text: Category:Latvian intonations

title: Category:Latvian intonations


text: Category:Makasar terms derived from Proto-Austronesian


text: Category:Latvian dated terms

title: Category:Latvian dated terms


text: Tilletia

title: Tilletia


text:
newsplan

Etymology
From a former trademark, “The Newsplan Discounts for Continuity”, owned by Newspaper Advertising Bureau, Inc. From.

Noun

 * 1)  A methodology used by newspapers to determine the discounted cost of ad copy.

title: newsplan


text:
subpatellar

Adjective

 * 1) Underneath the patella.
 * subpatellar ligament

title: subpatellar


text:
mașteră

Etymology

 * possibly from 🇨🇬. Compare.

Noun

 * 1) stepmother

title: mașteră


text:
mamă vitregă

Etymology
+, feminine of.

Noun

 * 1) stepmother

title: mamă vitregă


text:
Category:Latvian words with level intonation

List of words that have the Latvian level (high) intonation (stieptā intonācija), like.


text:
Citations:preference

sense: card game

 * c. 1851, Elizabeth Gaskell, Cranford, chapter 8:
 * The friendship begun over bread and butter extended on to cards. Lady Glenmire played Preference to admiration, and was a complete authority as to Ombre and Quadrille.
 * 1895?, Constance Garnett, translation of, 1852, Ivan Turgenev, "The District Doctor", 2010 Project Gutenberg edition:
 * "Well, shall it be preference?"
 * We sat down to preference for halfpenny points.
 * 1903?, Isabel F. Hapgood?, translation of, 1852, Ivan Turgenieff, "The District Doctor" :
 * "But how about that game of preference?"
 * We sat down to play preference, for kopék stakes.
 * 1916, Constance Garnett, translation of, 1872, Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Possessed, 2005 Project Gutenberg edition, part 1, chapter 5 ("The Subtle Serpent"), section 6:
 * He used to spend his time chiefly in playing preference with a greasy old pack of cards for stakes of a quarter-farthing with clerks.

title: Citations:preference


text: Template:lv-IPA

title: Template:lv-IPA


text:
gabh a-steach

Verb

 * 1) include, comprise, encompass
 * 2) take into account
 * 3) enter, come in, go in

title: gabh a-steach


text:
a' gabhail a-steach

Preposition

 * 1) including, comprising, encompassing
 * 2) taking into account

title: a' gabhail a-steach


text:
alegraia

Etymology
Cf. .

Noun

 * 1) fun, merriment
 * 2) playfulness

title: alegraia


text:
Talk:multiyear

Hyphen?
 * The content of multiyear seems to already cover this. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:multiyear


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/jikil

Etymology
From. Rebuilt from.

Noun

 * 1)  piece of ice, icicle


text: ばじゅつ

title: ばじゅつ


text:
medco

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) doctor

title: medco


text:
שילח

Verb

 * 1)  to send out, expel
 * "he"
 * "he"
 * "he"

- וַיְשַׁלַּח יהוה בָּהֶם אֶת הָאֲרָיוֹת וַיִּהְיוּ הֹרְגִים בָּהֶם

 * "he"
 * "he"

- יָדֶיהָ שִׁלְּחָה בַכִּישׁוֹר

 * 1)  to free, allow to leave.
 * 1)  to free, allow to leave.

title: שילח


text:
lefull

Etymology
From, from , equivalent to.

Adjective

 * 1)  permissible, permitted; allowable, allowed

title: lefull


text: acsābolu

title: acsābolu


text: acsābola

title: acsābola


text: acsābolā

title: acsābolā


text: acsābolam

title: acsābolam


text: acsāboli

title: acsāboli


text: acsābolus

title: acsābolus


text: acsābolos

title: acsābolos


text: acsāboliem

title: acsāboliem


text:
Krevette

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) shrimp

title: Krevette


text: Krevetten

title: Krevetten


text: Crevette

title: Crevette


text: Crevetten

title: Crevetten


text:
בכרי

Noun

 * 1) A descendant of Becher/בֶּכֶר.

title: בכרי


text:
tíkarsonur

Etymology
From, directly translating.

Noun

 * 1)  son of a bitch

Usage notes
This word is almost exclusively used in material directly translated from English.

title: tíkarsonur


text: יעבדני

title: יעבדני


text:
vernd

Etymology
From, cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) protection

title: vernd


text:
einverstanden

Adjective

 * 1)  in agreement, agreeing
 * 2)  okay, agreed

title: einverstanden


text:
eðlilega

Adverb

 * 1) normally, naturally

title: eðlilega


text:
narskahdus

Noun

 * 1) a sudden crunch

title: narskahdus


text:
Talk:narskahtaa

What is the definition of this word? George Animal. 18:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but it is about the same as narskahdella: to grate, crunch. The ending -lla makes it frequentative, and the -htaa ending makes it momentane. Instead of continuous or repetitive, it happens just once. ~ heyzeuss 20:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:narskahtaa


text:
einverständlich

Adjective

 * 1) by mutual consent
 * 2) amicable

title: einverständlich


text:
ebenso

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬.

Adverb

 * 1)  equally, as much
 * 2)  likewise
 * 1)  likewise

Interjection

 * 1) same to you!, you too!

title: ebenso


text:
helvískur

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) of or pertaining to hell; hellish, infernal
 * 2)  damn, goddamn

title: helvískur


text:
starfsemi

Noun

 * 1) activity, operations
 * 2) function what something does or is used for
 * 3)  industriousness
 * 1)  industriousness

title: starfsemi


text:
kála

Etymology
Derived from.

Numeral

 * 1) one

Verb

 * 1)  to kill

title: kála


text:
definitiv

Etymology
17th century, from.

Adjective

 * 1) definitive, conclusive, decisive
 * 2) definite, certain, undoubtable
 * 1) definite, certain, undoubtable

Etymology
, from.

Adjective

 * 1) conclusive

title: definitiv


text:
vanalega

Adverb

 * 1) usually

title: vanalega


text:
worshipworthy

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Worthy of worship; worthy or fit to be worshipped; worshipable.

title: worshipworthy


text:
varustelu

Noun

 * 1) armament process of building up one's military capacity
 * 2) feature feature in a setting such as an architectural feature thus a built up feature
 * 3) build-up process of something that is built-up

title: varustelu


text:
blessun

Noun

 * 1) blessing

title: blessun


text:
äkämäpunkki

Noun

 * 1) gall mite mite of the Eriophyidae family, which live as plant parasites, commonly causing galls or other damage to the plant tissues

title: äkämäpunkki


text:
reiðubúinn

Adjective

 * 1) ready

title: reiðubúinn


text: soivat

title: soivat


text:
tryggð

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1)  loyalty, fidelity

title: tryggð


text:
byggð

Etymology
From, , from.

Noun

 * 1) settlement, inhabited area

title: byggð


text:
frecgan

Etymology
From, from.

Verb

 * 1) to ask

title: frecgan


text:
rump and stump

Adverb

 * 1) completely, entire

title: rump and stump


text:
svikari

Noun

 * 1) traitor

title: svikari


text:
bravó

Interjection

 * 1) bravo

Etymology
From.

Interjection

 * 1) bravo

title: bravó


text:
ܒܘܪܐ

Etymology
From the root related to being uncultivated. Compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) fallow, infertile, unproductive
 * 2) simple, basic
 * 3) unlearned, stupid, foolish
 * 4) rude

Noun

 * 1)  waste, fallow, uncultivated land

title: ܒܘܪܐ


text:
ܚܬܘܡܐ

Etymology
From the root related to sealing. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  stitcher

title: ܚܬܘܡܐ


text: t'was

title: t'was


text:
Citations:gouvernour

Noun:

title: Citations:gouvernour


text: gouvernour

title: gouvernour


text:
Threeness

Etymology
From, , , from , , variants of , , equivalent to.

Proper noun

 * 1)  In Christian belief, the three persons (personae) of the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Trinity.

title: Threeness


text:
Citations:sailour

Noun:

title: Citations:sailour


text:
Wiktionary:Tea room/2012/January

= January 2012 =

遺伝的
Is this really a noun? 的 is used to create adjectives, in Chinese anyway, don't speak Japanese though... ---> Tooironic 20:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have decided to call them so recently, based on the fact that they are indeed nouns grammatically. See Beer parlour. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

non divisi
Is non divisi a sum of parts if its entry (if it will have one) has:

==English==

===Adverb===

 * 1)  not divided

====Usage notes====

* to make every player play all of the notes in a non-arpeggiated chord or other groups of notes played simultaneously

Celloplayer115 20:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so, because the term isn't actually English but Latin. In Latin it would be SOP, but not in English. —CodeCat 21:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Italian, not Latin - like many terms from music. SemperBlotto 08:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

hossen
This is a Dutch verb that describes some kind of dance, often associated with. But I'm not really sure what it actually is, or how to define it. Can anyone help? —CodeCat 14:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Does this describe it a bit? --MaEr 14:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dutch wiktionary describes it something like "to dance and jump about as a group". Maybe to square dance? SemperBlotto 14:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not usually performed in a square but in a line, so it seems more like conga. —CodeCat 14:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfQRXnek_wI
 * http://www.bndestem.nl/regio/roosendaal/8291167/Hossen-met-de-buurtschappen.ece
 * http://www.google.nl/imghp?&tab=wi&q=hossen+-sylvia+-silvia
 * I don't understand the last link but the other two show it well yes. :) —CodeCat 14:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * About the last link: just click the search icon, this will start the google image search for "hossen", skipping all manga stuff with "Silvia van Hossen". --MaEr 14:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Could this be a Polonaise (Dutch Polonaise)? --MaEr 15:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Dutch article does contain this sentence:
 * Aanvankelijk betekende het 'langzame Poolse dans in driekwartsmaat', maar later werd het vooral gebruikt in de betekenis "dans waarbij men in een sliert achter elkaar host, met de handen op de schouders van de voorgaande persoon"
 * At first it meant 'slow Polish dance in three-quarter measure', but later it came to be used especially in the meaning "dance where people hos after one another in a line, with the hands on the shoulders of the person in front"
 * —CodeCat 15:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So hossen is the same as dancing a polonaise? If yes, you could add the missing definition. --MaEr 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand the article, the modern form of polonaise dancing involves hossen. The only real defining feature of hossen that I can think of, aside from the polonaise part, is taking steps in the rhythm of the music, so that everyone moves together. —CodeCat 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

backslash
The entry for /. "(computing, proscribed) the punctuation mark /, properly called "slash"; see below." The notes claim that / is often misread when reading out Internet addresses. I've never heard this mistake made. Are others familiar with it? Is it really so common? Equinox ◑ 14:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I've heard it many times, even from people who I think probably do know which one is the slash and which is the backslash, but who get it wrong sometimes in speech (or in listening — hear "backslash", type /); but I really don't know how common it is. Obviously the error stands out much more than the correct version. It pretty clearly meets the CFI that we apply to non-errors:
 * 2001, http://books.google.com/books?id=KXwp_xwbHrcC&pg=PA455&dq=backslash:
 * I was trying to find a web-site for which I had been given the following address: http:// www.isop.ucla.edu/pacrim/pubs/korjournal.htm. I began to work backwards, removing first the last part of the address following the last backslash (/korjournal.htm).
 * 2010, http://books.google.com/books?id=CXzvPfYaJWsC&pg=PA25&dq=backslash:
 * “So, do what I tell you. Open a browser window and type this in the menu [sic] bar: F-T-P colon backslash backslash euronews dot net backslash...”
 * I pecked carefully at the keyboard as he dictated a URL that was about fifty characters long,
 * 2010, http://books.google.com/books?id=IZoOxPievkYC&pg=PT205&dq=backslashes:
 * Also, avoid submenus [sic] that can confuse the audience—if you're giving lengthy Web site addresses full of backslashes, shorten it so only the Web site's home page is given.
 * but we do apply a "common"-ness requirement to misspellings, and we've sometimes applied that to certain other types of clear errors, so if people want to treat it only in usage notes, I think a case could be made.
 * —Ruakh TALK 22:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A commonness requirement for misspellings is important because we accept cites from Usenet, where typographical errors and lazy typing are rampant, and, for that matter, from published works, where typographical errors are not at all uncommon. Use of backslash for slash is not a typographical error or a misspeaking or a lazy typing but a wrong choice of word, which is the kind of thing we as alleged descriptivists should not bar form full entry in the dictionary. MHO. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Okay. I don't object to us having it if it's real, and Ruakh's examples seem to show that. (I'd really like to see that kind of thing in the entry to support the usage note.) Thanks. Equinox ◑ 00:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 * O.K., I've added the cites to the entry. :-)  I think the definition and usage notes should be rewritten, though. Or maybe the usage note should just be removed, and the definition reworded. —Ruakh TALK 01:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The usage note surely belongs on \, not on backslash. 81.142.107.230 10:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I was referring to a usage note that's since been removed (by me). The usage note that you refer to doesn't pertain to this sense. (But yes, I agree.) —Ruakh TALK 21:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 * My feeling is that backslash: can now refer quite acceptably (if confusingly) to either / or \. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 11:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Perhaps some Windows users, accustomed to seeing backslashes as directory separators, don't notice that slashes in URLs go the opposite direction. In other words, to those who don't recognize the difference, backslash: may signify not / per se, but either / or \. ~ Robin 23:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree with Robin: people unaware of the handedness of slashes use backslash to mean “file-system pathname delimiter,” or perhaps just “slash character,” and not specifically back- nor forward slash. However, since this contradicts all of the subject experts (glossaries, standards, and style guides in writing, computing, typesetting, etc.), we should indicate that it is considered an error, even if we documentary lexicographers refuse to hold it as such ourselves. —Michael Z. 2012-01-12 18:04 z

Proto-Germanic -eu- in Saxon (and/or Dutch)

 * Moved to Wiktionary talk:About Middle Low German —CodeCat 22:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

acknowledg, judg
Can someone check these out and confirm they are not just scannos? I'm worried Pilcrow doesn't know what he is doing and is inadvertently creating garbage (e.g. he had created the definitely wrong forms judgs and acknowledgs). Equinox ◑ 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * acknowledg would find ready attestation at . A search for judg yields many hits for the abbreviation of the book of the Old Testament. But Locke's Of Human Understanding has the verb abundantly and I think that would be a well-known work. DCDuring TALK 02:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

pronounce
Do you really pronounce pronounce /pɹəˈnæwns/? Should that /w/ be there for a start? 81.142.107.230 10:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do, which is why I added that transcription to the entry. I see it's now bene changed to use instead. Is that a British thing? I really do think Americans have an  in there, not an . —msh210℠ (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I pronounce it /pɹəˈnaʊns/. —Stephen (Talk) 16:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think in most varieties of both General American and RP the starting point is closer to [a] (not [ɑ]!) than to [æ]. At any rate, it's a custom of long standing to transcribe the vowel as /aʊ/ in broad transcriptions (which is what we want here) of both GenAm and RP. Whether we transcribe the end of the diphthong as /w/ or /ʊ/ is much of a muchness; /ʊ/ is more customary in IPA-based transcriptions, while /w/ is more customary in Americanist transcriptions. Our  links to International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects, which uses /aʊ/. Our own WT:ENPRONKEY also uses /aʊ/, though why  doesn't link there, I cannot fathom. —Angr 18:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I pronounce it closer to [æʊ] or even [ɛʊ]... —CodeCat 18:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah well, you're Dutch. ;-) —Angr 18:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * *points to the native English speaker tag on her profile page* I was raised speaking Dublin English! —CodeCat 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been to Dublin. Frankly, Dutch is easier to understand than Dublin English, and I don't even know Dutch! But I suppose in Dublin, your Netherlandic tendency to change th into t or d won't be particularly noticeable. (I once bought something in Dublin for £3.30 and was told "Dat'll be tree turrty.") —Angr 18:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But I don't have any Netherlandic tendencies, I still speak Dublin English with my family. You're right dough, I do dat... —CodeCat 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually only edited it so the IPA matched the rhyme, I dunno what the 'correct' IPA is. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * However msh210, I seem to think we've been here before with . I mean, I couldn't say if I wanted to; is your accent just a bit unusual? I think it would be best to avoid rare pronunciations as otherwise we would have literally dozens of pronunciations in some entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's indicating a rare pronunciation; he's using an alternative transcription of a common pronunciation. Transcribing the vowel of pron ou nce as [æw] isn't wrong and doesn't indicate some minority pronunciation, it's just another way of transcribing exactly the same sound as [aʊ] indicates. But [aʊ] is the more usual transcription in IPA--very few print dictionaries and phonetics textbooks that use IPA will use anything other than [aʊ], and Wiktionary should use it too. —Angr 12:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that some time ago. /aʊ̯/ is used for German . While my dialect pronounces German /au/ as [ɒʊ̯], I am constantly exposed to the German pron. [aʊ̯] through school, university and media. It does sound very much like -ou- in pronounce. It does however not sound like English /au/ in thousand, which always and in every dialect sounded more like /θäo̯zə̯nd/ to me. Are those two really the same? Because no German pronounces Haus like any English-speaking person I've ever heard in my life ever pronounced house. Ever. Dakhart 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that the ou in pronounce is nasalized, I don't hear a difference between the ou in pronounce and the ou in thousand. It's true that Haus and house sound very different, but that's a matter of precise phonetic realization, which isn't within the scope of a dictionary's pronunciation guide. The fact that German /aʊ/ and English /aʊ/ don't sound the same doesn't mean it's wrong to transcribe them the same way when your goal is a broad phonetic transcription. German /iː/ as in Miete and English /iː/ as in meet don't sound the same either, but we use the same transcription for both. (In a phonetics paper where the difference between the two sounds is the topic of discussion, of course two separate transcriptions would have to be found.) —Angr 17:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should provide both a broad and a narrow transcription, when possible. A narrow transcription can help aid in the exact pronunciation especially when there's no audio. —CodeCat 18:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ... but we'd need dozens of different "narrow transcriptions" and lots of new symbols if we were to precisely represent every possible variant. Most readers struggle with simple standard IPA.  ... also, could Dakhart please explain how German Haus differs from my northern English house?  I've always heard them as homophones.    D b f  i  r  s   17:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ree (Latin)
In response to the Latin form, double e is very unlikely (as vocative of reus). Is this backed up by any other dictionaries (mine doesn't say)? Might it form a vocative singular like deus instead?Metaknowledge 16:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See SemperBlotto 16:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

pedalomotor
I have no idea what this word means, or even that it existed once. I found it in this book: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38540/38540-h/38540-h.htm#Page_202 Is it a bycycle, or something else? 76.117.247.55 03:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 * It seems to be only in that one book. A few lines later, it is referred to as a "pedalmobile". Equinox ◑ 02:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

at-large
Listed as an alt spelling of at large. Is this real? It would be non-standard (at best! — IMHO wrong) to say "the criminal is at-large", but perhaps you could talk about an "at-large criminal" (?). Equinox ◑ 02:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As you know, in English you hyphenate an adjective placed before a noun if it contains spaces, like a book out of print vs. an out-of-print book, and coding from scratch vs. from-scratch coding. Don’t they have different stresses, by the way? — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ego Eris, correct standalone
I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly. I'll be finding out the hard way, I suppose.

In the phrase "Tu fui ego eris" are the parts of the phrase grammatically able to stand alone? Is "Tu fui" grammatically sound? Then is "Ego eris" able to stand alone as well? Looking at the words individually in their tenses all seems correct, but I wanted to be sure. Many thanks for any information.

Monica
 * Neither its parts nor its whole would be grammatically correct. It's like saying "tu suis, je seras" in French (using present rather than past for illustration), deliberately misconjugating in the wrong person to suggest "I [you]-are, you [I]-will-be". ~ Robin 10:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

paucity
Paucity is defined in Wikipedia as few in number. This is inaccurate. Specifically the meaning is "not enough". This is a critical distinction. A person may not have very much money but they may be considered as having enough and therefore are not paupers.

 * I have adjusted the definition. You could have done so yourself. SemperBlotto 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

halp
This is a colloquial or humorous variation of the imperative of 'help' that's pretty common on the internet. I'm quite sure it would meet CFI, but what is it exactly? Is it a misspelling (but it's intentional), is it an alternative form? —CodeCat 14:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about ? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That particular template application appears to work perfectly for this entry. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Halp is also the archaic spelling of the noun help and the archaic strong past tense help, halp, (ge)holp(en). --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 16:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I've only ever seen holp for the strong past tense, at least in Modern English. You seem to think of Middle English helpen (in view of your mention of holp/holpe(n) – geholpen with the prefix is only Old English, for all I know), for which halp is apparently attested as a variant of holp; but on Wiktionary, Middle and Modern English are treated separately. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Devoicing next to voiceless cons.
There is a phenomenon in German and Polish, similar to Terminal Devoicing, where a voiced consonant becomes voiceless when preceded by a voiceless consonant. (Sucht = /zuxt/, Streitsucht = /ʃtraitsuxt/) What's it called?Dakhart 21:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's called voicing assimilation, and it happens in many languages, not just those with terminal devoicing. For example, Latin has the participle . English has  /liːvz/ but  /sliːps/. It doesn't always work the same in every language though or even the same in one single language, for example the equivalent Dutch words are  /strɛi̯t/ and  /zʏxt/ but the combination can be either /strɛi̯dzʏxt/ or /strɛi̯tsʏxt/ depending on the speaker. —CodeCat 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

xtal/XTAL
We have an entry for the abbreviation xtal but I'm used to seeing it XTAL. What should be placed at XTAL? RJFJR 23:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no good reason for capitalising "xtal" (no good reason to abbreviate either, but that's another story). When seen capitalised, it is usually in electronic parts lists, which tend to captitalise everything not nailed down anyway. Spinni  ng  Spark  22:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(colloq. Japan)
What does "(colloq. Japan)" mean in the current version of ronin? --Daniel 14:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * colloq is short for colloquial. How does it look now? We need citations for this def in English. I know it's totally valid in Japanese. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

+ and/or ++
There appears to be a fairly widespread Internet phenomenon of applauding particularly clever comments by responding with pluses, usually with two together. I imagine such a thing would be nearly impossible to document in a CFI-worthy fashion, but it still seems to me to be a clearly widespread use. Any thoughts on that? Cheers! bd2412 T 16:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think + would be enough, other iterations would then become SoP as + + + (yeah I know, it looks pretty funny) -- Liliana • 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But it might very easily be derived from the ++ used in programming languages to increment, or add one, i.e. a geeky way to say "me too". Equinox ◑ 20:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the preponderance (at least in my experience) of pluses coming in pairs suggests that Equinox's theory is the more likely explanation. How do we search for citations for something like this? bd2412 T 14:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Try Usenet, perhaps? -- Liliana • 17:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but how? How do you search Usenet for <tt>++</tt>? —Ruakh TALK 15:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps subscribe to a newsserver for a few weeks and then search around a bit? -- Liliana • 16:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I read Usenet more or less regularly, so if you have a particular newsgroup in mind, I could subscribe for a month and then search the downloaded text. The ones I read are a little too old-fashioned to use this ++ notation. Equinox ◑ 00:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be a typical German/Swiss thing: there is regularly used and official classification of apparatus in terms of efficiency fo using or wasting energy. Highest class was "A", but since some time they became even better; so now we have A+/A++/A+++ for e.g. refrigerators. RMK, 14.05.2012
 * A/A+/A++/A+++ exists in the U.S. as well, but the question here is just <tt>+</tt> or <tt>++</tt> alone (without the A). —Ruakh TALK 11:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

paganismus
I'm suspicious of the plural forms. In English (paganism), it varies, but isn't it always uncountable in Latin? Metaknowledge 22:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no answer to your question, but would like to point out that Paganismus is one German translation of paganism. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the plural forms sound strange, you could only be sure by searching through the whole known corpus of Ecclesiastical Latin, I guess ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ravel
unravel, is there a name for this? ==

I was watching an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" where a character uses the pseudo-word "un-unravelable" to mean something like a mystery that can't be solved. So, I wondered if "ravelable" was a word, checked here, and was surprised to see that definition #1 of ravel is unravel. So, I wonder if there is a term for this situation that can be added at the definitions of ravel and unravel? Cheers. Haus 02:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Sadly, there is but one cite for un-unravelable, but I shall add it to Citations:un-unravelable and hope that more shall poke up at some point.--Prosfilaes 08:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the response. I see that my question was probably unclear - let me try again.  Is there a name for the situation where un-word means the same as word?  Thanks! Haus 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I don't know what the word for the phenomenon is, but another facet is that "ravel" itself means both "untangle" and "tangle", which makes "ravel" an auto-antonym, contronym or antagonym. That doesn't describe its relationship to "unravel", but I would guess most words that are synonymous with unwords are probably also their own auto-antonyms. Another example of the phenomenon is "unthaw" (meaning both "freeze" and "unfreeze") and "thaw" (also meaning "unfreeze"). Phol 08:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 * It's related to the contranym but I'm not sure what they're called. Other examples are debone and bone, regardless and irregardless, flammable and inflammable. DAVilla 03:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Interchangeable pairs, or pseudantonyms. Other pairs are flammable/inflammable; regardless/irregardless; caregiver/caretaker; restive/restless; iterate/reiterate; candescent/incandescent; loosen/unloosen. —Stephen (Talk) 04:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

chick
Wiktionary currently has two senses relating to women: I wonder about the following: See also. I am interested in informal perceptions of native speakers, and, formally, in attesting quotations. --Dan Polansky 09:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 3. A young (especially attractive) woman. Three cool chicks / Are walking down the street / Swinging their hips
 * 4. A woman. Check that chick out.
 * Do we need two senses? (Dictionaries often have only one sense relating to women.)
 * Age
 * Is being young a necessary condition for a chick as a woman?
 * Is being young an "especially" condition for a chick as a woman?
 * Is being young a condition at all for a chick as a woman?
 * Attractiveness
 * Is attractiveness a necessary condition for a chick as a woman?
 * Is attractiveness an "especially" condition for a chick as a woman?
 * Is attractiveness a condition at all for a chick as a woman?

 * My informal perception as a native speaker is that young is an "especially" condition for a chick as a woman, but not an absolutely necessary one. Attractiveness is not a condition at all for a chick as a woman--I myself have been known to refer to women as "chicks", but for me the properties "woman" and "attractive" are mutually exclusive. —Angr 10:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Chick is a slang term for a woman, particularly a young women. As for attractiveness, however, Google Books returns 500+ hits for "ugly chick". bd2412 T 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say they are a single sense, but it needs to be broadly worded to include what bd2412 says, which is almost exactly what I was going to say. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I've long noticed the striking similarity between American English slang chick and Spanish chica. Perhaps the formation of the American English slang term was inspired (or at least reinforced, given that the metaphorical sense of chick(en) referring to humans seems to be much older, but not necessarily particularly frequent prior to the 20th century) by chica in the area of North America where Spanish and English are in heavy contact – as in, for example, monolingual AmE speakers picking up the term chica in English context and re-interpreting it as chick. Possibly, this idea could be supported with evidence if one looked into it. I notice that Wiktionary mentions an attestion from 1927, and etymonline.com even speaks of an origin in "U.S. black slang" (AAVE, then), which wouldn't necessarily contradict this. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

philandry
Can someone research this and/or flag the entry? I've added an note on the discussion page, but have some doubts that this is an accepted word...?? About the only authoritative place I've found it is here! Samatva 19:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * It’s okay. Valid citations are easy to find. For example, this one. —Stephen (Talk) 00:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's certainly an accepted word. Good source cited above by . -- Cirt (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Places for language-specific discussions
Is there a place where aspects particular to a single language can be discussed? I was thinking maybe the 'WT:About' page for that language, but is that common practice? —CodeCat 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so. --Yair rand 22:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The "WT:About" pages are to discuss how we treat languages. (what are the templates, POS headers, definitions, romanizations, etc.)
 * I'd use the Information desk for linguistic questions like "WTF is the difference between 'tu' and 'você' in Portuguese anyway?" or "How is the order of words in this Egyptian Arabic phrase?" --Daniel 08:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But for consensus-building discussions about a single language? —CodeCat 11:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary talk:About Languagename. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

be be a form of be!
In a sentence like "I try not to offend them: I be polite, I take off my shoes when entering their house, etc", what form of "be" am I using? The infinitive? A conjunctive/subjunctive form? I am aware that I could also say "I am polite", but isn't "I be polite" also grammatical, if literary? What form am I using in the sentence "I'll make you a deal: I be nice to your friend John, you be nice to my friend Jane"? Phol 07:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 * You be nice is imperative. I be polite is, I believe, an antiquated form of the present indicative. —Stephen (Talk) 09:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That use of be is part of AAVE. Some linguists who study the dialect assert that it is usually used to indicate a habitual or characteristic or, at least, continuing state or condition. Superficially, it seems to me to be used to cover more tenses, aspects, and moods than that. DCDuring TALK 15:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 * It's not just AAVE. It's relatively rare, but I remember noticing it in a preview for Bratz: The Movie; one of the lead characters asks, "What do we do?" and another replies, "We be ourselves." (N.B. I don't know if this exchange occurred in the actual movie; previews are not always accurate.) I think everyone can agree that "We are ourselves" would not have worked (though I'm sure that many speakers will find that even "We be ourselves" will not work for them). As for what form — I think it's just a regular old non-third-person-singular present indicative form, but of a certain, defective sense of be. ("Defective" in that it doesn't have a complete conjugation; I'm fine with "We be ourselves", but I would not be fine with "So what did you do?" ?"I be'd myself!". Some speakers, however, do accept "be's" and "be'd", so for them I guess the conjugation isn't defective.) CGEL, by the way, refers to this sense of be as "lexical be", giving the example of "Why don't you be more tolerant?" —Ruakh TALK 15:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 * This work has be's as an inflected form sometimes occurring in the corpus used. OTOH, be'd seems much rarer. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I think we need to backtrack a bit. Above, I wrote, "It's not just AAVE"; but really what I should have written was, "it's not AAVE at all ". I disagree with your statement above, "That use of be is part of AAVE." There is a use of "be" that is part of AAVE, but Phol is (I believe) asking about a different use. My comment was about the use that (s)he is asking about. So the book that you link to, with its AAVE quotations that use be's, is not relevant to my comment. —Ruakh TALK 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 * See under Observations. —Stephen (Talk) 18:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 * All these non-subjunctive senses might well be archaisms reflecting the Old English dual conjugation of the copula, see beon-wesan. In fact, ic bēo(m), þū bist, hē/hēo/it biþ, wē/gē/hī bēoþ, which would then be continued more or less directly in I be, thou beest, he/she/it be, we/ye/they be (which is also found as the general paradigm dialectally), do seem to have had a habitual sense originally. Note that AAVE can very well continue dialectal/archaic features conveyed through Southern American English dialects. Fascinating stuff. --Florian Blaschke 19:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 * @Stephen G. Brown: Yeah, that may be what Phol has in mind; I wouldn't have thought so, except that (s)he describes it as "literary", which is a fair description of that use, and not a fair description of the use that I mentioned. —Ruakh TALK 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Thinking over it again, the usage that Phol describes (and you, Ruakh, too, in your movie example) may rather be something else than an archaism – just an infinitive with a pronoun prepended: "What do we do?" – "We? Be ourselves." or "We, be ourselves." Though this might eventually have been supported by the archaic or (also) AAVE usage. --Florian Blaschke 19:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "What do we do? ―We be ourselves", is that because there's an elided "do" in there ("We [do] be ourselves"), copied over from the question? Does the answer to that question make any difference? —msh210℠ (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This source characterizes non-imperative "do be" as part of Irish English and not part of Standard English, the latter being in accord with my ear.
 * There are a few things you can't quite say without it. "So what do we do? Do we be ourselves?" Definitely cannot use "are" here. Equinox ◑ 20:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be nice to know more about the context of the usages Phol has offered for discussion. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * sorry, i've just been following this discussion rather interestedly. Perhaps this is actually a (rare) example of a first-person plural imperative being attested in English? Piddle 05:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 * CGEL's "lexical be" seems like a simple infinitive to me, at least in the example given. Phol 06:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 * No, sorry, you misunderstand me. CGEL's "lexical be" is not a form, but a sense. Like, the word "child" has one sense where it means "young human" (as in "hundreds of children attend the school") and one sense where it means "a human's offspring" (as in "all of her children are in their thirties"). In the example sentence, "Why don't you be more tolerant?", the form is the infinitive, but the sense is the so-called "lexical be". —Ruakh TALK 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Ah, gotcha. Phol 21:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 * So would a good definition be "To exist or behave in the manner specified" with a usage note about how it differs from the usual be? —msh210℠ (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Ah, now I gotcha (I hope); it is easier to handle this as a sense (with its own conjugated forms), rather than as a conjugated form. Hang]] might be a model for how to explain the differing conjugations of the different senses. Phol 00:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I can't be sure it's the same form, because I'm not sure what the form is, but I think "what do we do? we be ourselves" is great example of the form I'm thinking of. An alternate indicative rather than a subjunctive seems like a good explanation. In fact, I would guess that Ruakh's defective conjugation of "be" is Stephen's archaic conjugation, which just lost a few forms as it made its way into the modern era. (It's not missing past tense forms for me; I'd say "what did I do? I was myself"; but I am missing a third person singular indicative.) The difference between the conjugations for me is that "I be" connotes doing, whereas "I am" is static. "I am polite to them" means I am unremarkably showing them the politeness I generally show everyone (and note this as I list everything that should lead to them not being offended), whereas "I be polite to them" emphasizes that I show them politeness (even when they test me with rudeness, or even when my politeness is not sincere). Hence I wrote "I be" in an e-mail, but then I questioned the grammar. (And FWIW I would say "We’re in Japan! What do we do? We be ourselves.") Re: my second, hypothetical example: I suppose whether "I'll make you a deal: I be nice to John, you be nice to Jane" is subjunctive or imperative depends on whether it's truly an offer or a demand. Phol 06:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Re: "'I be' connotes doing, whereas 'I am' is static": Yes, exactly: "I be polite" is a lexical be, whereas "I am polite" is a regular copula be. —Ruakh TALK 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 * So, how's this for a usage note? (Maybe we should have a giant collapsible table of forms like rechercher.) Phol 21:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 * In the case of I'll make you a deal: I be nice to your friend John, you be nice to my friend Jane? ... That's a subjunctive form. Fee, fie, fo, fum / I smell the blood of an Englishman; / Be he alive or be he dead, / I'll grind his bones to make my bread. (Jack and the Beanstalk) --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 15:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is correct. --Jtle515 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Irish sí and English sidhe
Isn't sidhe/Sidhe simply borrowed from the pre-reform spelling sídhe/Sídhe of sí? Both words mean "(of the) fairy-mound", and seem to be pronounced identically; however, the pages note no connection, and sí lacks an etymology.

Note that the pages sídhe and Sídhe have been deleted for unclear reasons. Also note Scottish Gaelic sìdh, sluagh sìdhe, bean-shìdh and the like.

More precisely, I think the derivation is (and MacBain agrees): Proto-Celtic (Nom. Sg.) *sīdos, (Gen. Sg.) *sīdesos (a neuter s-stem) 'seat' > Old Irish síd, síde (neuter, I think) 'fairy dwelling/hill/mound' > Modern Irish sídh, sídhe (modern spelling: sí, sí) and Scottish Gaelic sìdh, sìdhe, with the genitive abstracted from set phrases such as fir síde, daoine síde and áes síde already in Old Irish as síde 'fairies', from whence Modern Irish sídh ~ sígh (modern spelling: sí) 'fairy', Scottish Gaelic sìdh ~ sìth. Proto-Celtic *sīdos is apparently also the origin of Old Irish síd 'peace' and its modern descendants. A mailing list post suggests that the ambiguity could be employed in Old Irish deliberately, to interpret the Áes Síde as 'people of the peace'. --Florian Blaschke 20:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

judgment of Solomon
Has anyone else heard of judgment of Solomon to mean 'really good judgment'? It's one of those things where I say it, and I'm not sure if anyone else does. Compare patience of Job. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with wisdom of Solomon. I'm not sure it's idiomatic. —msh210℠ (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've heard it in connection of decisions that appear to be impossible to make. "It will take the judgement of Solomon to make a fair settlement in this divorce". Spinni ng  Spark  22:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a go. feel free to improve. SemperBlotto 22:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Daniel come to judgement is similar. In the case of Solomon, the famous judgement seems to be the one about cutting a baby in half to appease two woman claiming to be its mother. (The one who refused to have this done was the real mother.) Equinox ◑ 21:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd have to agree I've certainly heard it used in that fashion. -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In German, we rather use salomonisches Urteil, i. e. "Solomonic judgment", and it seems that variant is in use in English, as well. A salomonisches Urteil is a wise judgment that satisfies all involved sides. Apparently the German sense is different from the English (and from the original story), or simply more general. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

batshit
The noun meaning of batshit is given as "alternative spelling of bat shit", but bat shit redirects batshit leaving no definition at all. Also, this does not have a plural, surely. Spinni ng  Spark  22:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The etymology is simply fascinating! -- Cirt (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

lord of creation
In the entry for weaker vessel there's this quote:

 * 1) *1868, Louisa May Alcott, Little Women, ch. 41:
 * When women are the advisers, the lords of creation don't take the advice till they have persuaded themselves that it is just what they intended to do. Then they act upon it, and, if it succeeds, they give the weaker vessel half the credit of it. If it fails, they generously give her the whole.

Does "lord of creation" refer to men? If so, is it a common enough usage to merit an entry? I searched Google for this term, but found little evidence, but perhaps it's dated. Capitalized it seems to refer to God. In Finnish there's the expression luomakunnan kruunu:, which refers to men, and I would want to find a proper translation for it. "Men" will do, of course, but I want something that catches the spirit. --Hekaheka 05:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm not familiar with that phrase in lowercase referring to mortal men, either. But I suppose patriarchal Judeochristians may hold a doctrine that Yahweh created Adam in his image to be lord over Yahweh's creation. ~ Robin 06:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it means men, though, or has some other meaning with men as the most common referent. —msh210℠ (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

santorum
Could someone not previously involved in editing this entry please check it over and make sure it conforms to this project's policies, please? Definition 2 seems particularly gratuitous. --Anthonyhcole 14:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Admin has dutifully explained matters pertaining to site policy at the talk page for the entry, and admin  has been quite helpful with adding additional sourcing and referencing for the page, both at its main definition page with quotes, and at the citations page with additional referencing. -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Definition one is absolutely solid. Definition 2 is a bit more precarious, and I will be happier when we get more printed citations and fewer usenet ones. But it still looks like it passes CFI. (Arguably, the two could be combined without much loss.) < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ</> 08:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I made this edit to the etymology to correct some POV. The wording "equated homosexuality with bestiality" was particularly nebulous IMO. Equated in what way? You could read that as "he said that homosexuality was equally as bad as bestiality" whereas his opinion was really that bestiality is another thing that a "healthy family" is not. It was enough to say that his views were "perceived as anti-gay" in the spirit of NPOV. Although even for NPOV it wouldn't be a too much of a stretch to say that they were anti-gay, someone might take exception to that and WT:NPOV does say "It's OK to state opinions in articles, but they must be presented as opinions, not as fact." —Internoob 03:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Admin created a Citations page for this entry, at Citations:santorum. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just realised we copied the definition verbatim from spreadingsantorum.com and several other sources. Isn't that a copyright violation? Shouldn't we reword the definition? —CodeCat 21:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it originated at spreadingsantorum, I wouldn't worry, since that site's name (and the fact that the definition is its entire contents) makes it clear that it wants people to share and distribute the definition. I wouldn't even be surprised if such a site was using our definition — perhaps cause and effect are reversed here? If it comes from somewhere else then we should think about it more. Equinox ◑ 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

morfosi
This Italian word is defined as meaning morphosis, which doesn't appear to be an English word at all. Is morphosis a word that needs to be added, or is morfosi bogus/unclear/otherwise problematic? Metaknowledge 23:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Added English word. I know we have nearly three million words, but there are just as many that we haven't got yet. SemperBlotto 08:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

gelatin
How come this is defined as an alternate form of gelatine? In my experience, it is exactly the opposite. Can we switch these two? Metaknowledge 21:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The label of "alternative form" does not mean "lesser" or less common. It means that the spelling is an alternative, and the difference may be regional. --EncycloPetey 21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably a US/UK variation. In these cases our normal policy is - whoever bothers to actually add the word gets to choose which is the primary form and which is the alternative. It is considered impolite to swap them around later. SemperBlotto 21:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What about a case such as this in which gelatin is 75 times more common than gelatine in the US and just one-third as common in the UK (based on COCA and BNC)? And generally are evidence-based changes rude? DCDuring TALK 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I suppose we could use ((mostly|UK)) and ((mostly|US)). IMO, in general, if one form is significantly more common than another, and without large variation between major Englishes, we should put the main content at the common form and have others link to it. But (i) ideally those "links" should probably be drawing in the content from the main entry, rather than forcing us to click again, and (ii) the commonness of forms is definitely variable across the time dimension. Equinox ◑ 23:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I have a package of "Gelatine" which clarifies itself by saying "Ingredients: Gelatin" :P - -sche (discuss) 00:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The other ingredient is an E number. Equinox ◑ 00:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @ -sche on my packet of ibuprofen it says "do not take if allergic to ibuprofen". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary:Tea room/2012/January