text:
Nicotiana tabacum

Hypernyms

 * - order; - family;  - subfamily;  - genus;  - section

Hyponyms

 * ,, - varieties
 * See

title: Nicotiana tabacum


text:
Citations:l8z

Interjection: "(Internet slang) see you later"

 * 2010, Christopher Moore, Bite Me: A Love Story, William Morrow (2010), ISBN 9780061986161, page 179:
 * Kthxbye. Being immortal rocks! I can type like demon speed! Fear me! L8z.
 * 2010, Christopher Moore, Bite Me: A Love Story, William Morrow (2010), ISBN 9780061986161, page 179:
 * Kthxbye. Being immortal rocks! I can type like demon speed! Fear me! L8z.
 * 2010, Christopher Moore, Bite Me: A Love Story, William Morrow (2010), ISBN 9780061986161, page 179:
 * Kthxbye. Being immortal rocks! I can type like demon speed! Fear me! L8z.
 * 2010, Christopher Moore, Bite Me: A Love Story, William Morrow (2010), ISBN 9780061986161, page 179:
 * Kthxbye. Being immortal rocks! I can type like demon speed! Fear me! L8z.
 * 2010, Christopher Moore, Bite Me: A Love Story, William Morrow (2010), ISBN 9780061986161, page 179:
 * Kthxbye. Being immortal rocks! I can type like demon speed! Fear me! L8z.
 * 2010, Christopher Moore, Bite Me: A Love Story, William Morrow (2010), ISBN 9780061986161, page 179:
 * Kthxbye. Being immortal rocks! I can type like demon speed! Fear me! L8z.

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

title: Citations:l8z


text:
Talk:fledgling

fledgling
rfd-sense: I feel like the adjective sense is really just attributive use of the noun. --WikiTiki89 08:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks to be attestable used in the comparative and also gradably with "very". DCDuring TALK 16:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Kept. No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 12:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:fledgling


text:
Talk:name for

name for
Not a phrasal verb (not a phrase). Meaning the same as name + after. The "particle" is a preposition which can be fronted. Name in no way acquires a new sense in this. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We also have name after. There's an old joke with many variations, but basically it goes like this: "Did you know the Kennedy Center was named after Kennedy?" "Well of course it was, it couldn't have been named before Kennedy!" The reason we have name for is because it is a variation of name after, the primacy of which was the subject of this Tea room discussion over seven years ago. A later Tea room discussion agrees with you that these are not phrasal verbs, but concludes that these should still be kept in Wiktionary. Also, as I recall, both name for and name after were, at the time, contained in lists of entries that were requested to be made. It seems unwise to maintain these lists if entries made from them are liable to be deleted. In short, there are several historical basis to keep these. bd2412 T 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems pretty straightforward. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per bd2412.Dmol (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would add that this phrase almost exclusively uses an unusual sense of "for". If I buy groceries, or do most anything else, "for" my grandmother, it means that I'm buying them on her behalf, or for her use, and not in her honor. However, if I name my daughter "for" my grandmother, then I am doing it in her honor. There is a middle case, where, for example, I give $20 to charity "for" my grandmother, in which case I might be doing so in her honor, or I might be doing so on her behalf (because she gave me $20 and asked me to give it to this charity). That can only be determined from context. But naming someone or something "for" someone or something else is automatically understood to be done in honor of the original - a sense that would not be obvious to the non-native English speakers who are so breathtakingly undervalued by this dictionary. bd2412 T 01:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Books has a single result for "christened for" ("...his uncle"), from 1933. Equinox ◑ 01:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Books returns many, many more examples for "christened after" in the sense of "named after". I think that by itself shows that "named for" is a bit of a colloquialism. bd2412 T 03:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Keep. —msh210℠ (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 12:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:name for


text:
Talk:wireless network

wireless network
From what I can tell, the definition saying that wireless networks always have an access point is wrong, as mesh networks that work wirelessly are called a wireless network too. As such, I think this is SoP as wireless + network. -- Liliana • 09:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

 * It's a computer term that should be kept. Also defined at Your Dictionary]. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

 * It's also used to refer specifically to wifi. And sometimes even more specifically to wifi with internet access. But this might just be metonymy. --WikiTiki89 10:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Just wireless may also refer to both wireless network or wireless connectivity. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll bet the most common usage is as a synonym for wifi/WiFi, as a transitional term between hearing or reading wifi/WiFi and understanding wifi/WiFi. And the next most common will be a more SoP usage in discussions about the technology generally or about the next generation of WiFi. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 13:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:wireless network


text:
Talk:zurück-

zurück-
Not a real prefix, per WT:RFC. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is very common among the Indo-European languages for words to be prepositions, adverbs and prefixes at the same time, often with the same or similar meaning. At what point can you consider a word a prefix rather than a compound of an adverb and another word? How do you tell the difference? 18:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Tentatively delete. The Duden has it as a prefix, but the Duden also has herbei- as a prefix, and see Talk:herbei-. de.Wikt has neither de:herbei- nor de:zurück-. - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @CodeCat: It's not metaphysics. It's a decision we make about whether to have definitions that essentially duplicate each other. If we have something to say about zurück-, useful for users, that would be less confusing if presented at a distinct entry, we should have the distinct entry, I suppose. In this case, the zurück- is defined as "back (adverb)". That doesn't seem especially helpful and might be a bit confusing. As it stands, Delete DCDuring TALK 21:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep, if it's "not a real prefix", what is it? —Angr 21:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An adverb used in combination, much like back (back-). DCDuring TALK 21:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But back- is listed as a prefix. If it's one, why isn't zurück- one? —Angr 21:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was the one who raised the question in the first place, but then I remembered its role as a separable prefix. These are linked in a seemingly very loose, flexible way to the verb, but linked nonetheless- and paradoxically more closely than their English counterparts. They're all adverbial/prepositional in origin, but they're also an integral part of the meaning of the verb. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that is really a valid reasoning in the case of Dutch and German. In Dutch, at least, a separable verb is completely indistinguishable from a verb combined with an adverb. As far as I know there is no difference between zurück geben and zurückgeben in German, they are the same collocation spelled differently (much as the kind of thing WT:COALMINE is about). In many cases it's not even sure whether to write such combinations with a space or not, and both variations are found without any discernable difference in meaning. I am not saying that such combinations could not be idiomatic, of course; give up is obviously not give up. But I don't know if it is actually possible to distinguish the meaning of zurück as an adverb and zurück- as a separable prefix, because there is no clear-cut way to distinguish them in actual usage. Is "ich gebe es zurück" formed from zurück (verb) + geben (adverb) or zurückgeben? I think even a native German speaker would not know how to tell. 22:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, delete unless it can be demonstrated that this is clearly not an adverb that is written together with the verb. 21:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: are you saying that ab-, auf-, an-, and zu- should be deleted unless it can be demonstrated that they are clearly not prepositions written together with verbs? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. For the same reason I treat Dutch words formed with the equivalents as compounds rather than prefixed verbs. I have done that in the past for all etymologies. In fact there are even a few Dutch verbs where there is a distinction between prefixed and compounded, like or . They are two distinct words, both formed with the same two roots, but one is prefixed while the other is compounded, and they have distinct meanings, conjugations and stress patterns.  13:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So do I get you right in that you suggest that all separable verbs are compounds of an adverb/preposition and a verb and that all inseparable verbs are results of prefixation? This approach might work for adverbs such as herbei and zurück (which would mean that and  should indeed by deleted), but I can't see how it could work for prepositions because that would mean that a preposition occurs without a noun. But prepositions need nouns to complement them. Longtrend (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any examples of separable verbs that use prepositions? 17:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly umgehen? - -sche (discuss) 17:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't um an adverb? In "ich gehe um" it certainly seems like one. Also, umgehen seems like a perfect example of the difference between a prefixed and compounded verb, like Dutch ! 17:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not an adverb, because the separable variant of ("to treat", as in Ich gehe mit ihm gut um) is not at all compositionally derived from  and . It's very different to the  and  cases which don't seem to be idiomatic as you explained above. To give other examples for separable verbs that use the "prepositions" mentioned by Dan Polansky above:, , , . Longtrend (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing compounding with SoPness. Collocations of a verb and an adverb such as can certainly be idiomatic. English has many examples of this too, like , , ,  and so on. However, that doesn't make the particle that the verb is compounded with any less of an adverb. I don't think there is really much doubt that in the phrase they handed the money over the word "over" is anything but an adverb, yet "hand over" is clearly an idiomatic collocation. In the same way  is an idiomatic collocation of the verb  and the adverb . Also, I don't see why , ,  and  are not adverbs.  19:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I just guessed what your criteria to distinguish between adverbs and prepositions on the one hand and between prefixation and composition on the other hand are, because you haven't said that anywhere, AFAICS. You only claimed that Dutch and German  are ambiguous between prefixation/composition. What makes you think so? Also, what makes you think the first parts of,  etc. are adverbs rather than prepositions (and prefixes, in the latter case)? Are there any preposition+verb compounds at all in your opinion? I really fail to see your logic (which doesn't necessarily mean that there is none ;) Longtrend (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are verbs that are compounds of prepositions and verbs, both historically and currently. Historically, the current "separable verbs" are however compounds of adverbs and verbs. In Middle Dutch (and presumably Middle High German), a space was still often written between the two words: vorecomen could also be encountered as vore comen. Syntactically, the separable part appears in exactly the same place that you'd expect an adverb to be, and that is what is found in even older forms of the languages, which had no separable verbs at all (but they did have prefixed verbs; those are already in Proto-Germanic). Even today in Dutch there is still often confusion on whether to write, say  or . As for, it's not ambiguous. Rather, it is two distinct verbs that have different meanings, pronunciations and conjugations, and happen to be written the same in the infinitive.  is composed of the prefix  and the verb  (compare Latin ), while  is composed of the adverb  and the verb .  19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you know that there exists prefix voor- rather than its derivations being compounds of voor + verb? Furthermore, entry voor currently lists voordoen as a derivation of a preposition together with couple of others; do you agree with that treatment? Thus, is voordoen derived from preposition voor or is there an adverb voor currently missing in Wiktionary? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because of the difference in stress. Verbal prefixes are unstressed and have been since Proto-Germanic times. is a separable verb so it is a compound of the adverb  and the verb, and the adverb remains stressed as an adverb would. So yes,  is missing an adverb sense. If it helps for the preposition issue, there are also some cases where there is a difference in form between a preposition and its corresponding adverb.  and  are prepositions only, while  and  are adverbs only. There are no verbs anywhere at all that are compounds of  or  and a verb, but there are plenty with  and .  20:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 * (Not really wanting to interrupt; please proceed with the convo above.) A seemingly perfect analogue of Dutch is German, which is currently marked up as a prefixed verb rather than as a compound verb. If we decide to treat German  as a compound verb, and to delete vor-:, then there is going to be a consistent treatment of German prefixes, according to which neither zurück-: nor vor-: are German prefixes. However, I wonder how common it is in German grammar works to avoid treating vor-: as a prefix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

-sche already pointed at the discussion at Talk:herbei-. This entry was deleted. I'm not sure I agree with this decision (please see the arguments brought forward on the talk page); however, as a logical consequence we probably should delete too, since there's no real difference between the two. Longtrend (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 13:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * delete as per the herbei- case -- Liliana • 21:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. My keep is actually tentative, but I am giving a full "keep" anyway, as I find most of the pro-deletion reasoning unconvincing. I still do not see why "auf" in "aufmachen" should be considered a prefix while "zurück" in "zurücksetzen" not. As regards processes and people: I am the one who defended "herbei-" as a prefix in Talk:herbei-. To use Talk:herbei- as a predecedent is tricky, as there was only one boldfaced "delete" there, coming from Lucifer, an editor noted for shoddy lexicography. Talk:herbei- was closed as deleted by the nominator: Prince Kassad AKA Liliana-60. As regards the discussed substance: If it is true that Duden has "zurück-" as a prefix (as pointed out by -sche), that is a thing to consider. Those who want to keep ab-, auf-, an-, zu-, bei-, vor-, ein-, unter-, über-, um- and the like as prefixes while wanting to delete herbei- and the like should explain how ab- etc. differ from herbei- and zurück- for the purpose of prefixhood; the would-be prefixes listed have a corresponding preposition, adverb or particle: ab, auf, an, zu, bei, vor, ein, unter, über, um. Furthermore, it would be worthwhile to collect an extensive list of would-be prefixes to be considered for deletion, including perhaps herbei-, hervor-, herab-, heran-, heraus-, herein-, herum-, herunter-, but also weg-, and possibly others. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dan Polansky's well-thought out reasoning. bd2412 T 16:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet Dan hasn't explained why it is a prefix rather than an adverb compounded to a verb. I have shown above that in Dutch this distinction is semantically and grammatically meaningful, and presumably there are a few German examples of this too. And even if there are not, you still have to consider that German, like Dutch, distinguishes adverbial compounds ("separable verbs") from prefixed verbs, in conjugation and in pronunciation. 16:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Related discussion (mentioned above, reposting here for greater visibility): Talk:herbei-. - -sche (discuss) 16:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC discussion: December 2012
Hello, does anyone know more details about that German prefix? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it a prefix? isn't it just used as the first part of a compound? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At least it's what the entry tells me. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's one of the separable prefixes. I'm sorely tempted to delete both as "No usable content given", but I suppose we should make real entries out of them so as not to disrespect a fellow admin... Chuck Entz (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that admin still agree with himself? I certainly find my opinions of matters lexical can change over 3 years.
 * He is a big boy and can take care of himself. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? No admin had touched the page until Lo Ximiendo came by to clean it up on the 22nd (yesterday). If you want to be polite, you can RFD it, as I have done. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten that he'd turned down the invites. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, I mistakenly gave a promotion. He's the one who created both entries with the "definition" of "A prefix". He's a regular here, but not an admin. I'm still a bit surprised at the lapse on his part, though some of my reaction last night was just grumpiness. As for the rfd, I had already indicated that I had changed my mind about the issue, though not said so explicitly. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

weg-
The same goes for zurück-. Thank you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added meanings and pronunciations for both. —Angr 10:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:zurück-


text:
l8z

Etymology
Leetspeak rendering of /.

Interjection

 * 1)  See you later.

title: l8z


text:
Category:Swahili u class nouns

These Swahili nouns are in the u class.

title: Category:Swahili u class nouns


text:
Talk:abligurations

abligurations
The singular abliguration has previously been deleted as an error for abligurition so isn't the plural an error as well? Also, abliguration is used as an example at template:en-noun. An erroneous spelling is probably not the best choice to use there. Spinning Spark  20:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Clear case, deleted. Yes, en-noun probably needs a new example. -- Liliana • 20:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The page is locked, it needs an admin to change it (hint). Spinning Spark  20:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? Template:en-noun/documentation is certainly not protected. -- Liliana • 21:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh right, I was looking at the transclusion on the template page. Spinning Spark  21:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:abligurations


text:
Category:Swahili n class nouns

These Swahili nouns are in the n class.

title: Category:Swahili n class nouns


text:
Talk:эѳира

эѳира
Inflected form for a spelling never to be used again, the spelling reform of 1918 replaced "ѳ" with "ф", see modern эфир (lemma). We have a couple entries with archaic letters, though. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * keep how is this different from English archaic words? -- Liliana • 04:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Liliana. RFV if necessary. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 * All right, I'll withdraw. I was just reluctant to maintain Russian words in spellings, which are not used and hard to find citations for. There's little work done on Russian standard inflected forms, let alone archaic. The vulgar form пізда (archaic form) (there was a Russian section) was deleted by User:Wikitiki89 with no objections in the past (see ).

 * I have created эѳир. If there is no objection I'll remove the citation request, it should be done on the lemma form, even if citations are in inflected forms. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Keep. I have returned the Russian term to пізда, as it was deleted out of process and with no deletion summary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the confusion but after double-checking the pre-1918 spelling rules пізда wasn't a correct spelling. Letter "і" was only used before vowels (including iotated) and in the word "міръ" (mir) ("world") to differentiate from "миръ" (mir) ("peace"). In the modern Russian spelling "" means both "world" and "peace". It was a bit hard to check, since this is a modern Belarusian spelling, the Ukrainian misspelling. Deleting again, User:Wikitiki89 was right in deleting the Russian section.--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Just wanted to note that I moved эѳир to эѳиръ. --WikiTiki89 19:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I must have been drunk or something, when I wrote "эѳир" without "ъ" but I don't think much about pre-1918 spelling. I'll be more careful next time. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:эѳира


text:
Category:Swahili ki-vi class nouns

These Swahili nouns are in the ki-vi class.

title: Category:Swahili ki-vi class nouns


text:
Talk:Muslim Patrol

Muslim Patrol
"A British gang that seeks to enforce sharia law". For the same reason we don't list minor political parties. Equinox ◑ 16:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a significant entity. Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as a name of a specific entity. DCDuring TALK 23:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Muslim Patrol


text:
Category:Swahili m-mi class nouns

These Swahili nouns are in the m-mi class.

title: Category:Swahili m-mi class nouns


text:
Category:Swahili m-wa class nouns

These Swahili nouns are in the m-wa class.

title: Category:Swahili m-wa class nouns


text:
Category:Swahili pa class nouns

These Swahili nouns are in the pa class.

title: Category:Swahili pa class nouns


text:
Talk:Hankyū

Hankyū
Since this is capitalized, it refers to a proper noun (hankyū is fine.) Hankyū is the Romanization of 阪急, which is a fine company but I doubt its name merits inclusion. --Haplology (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I think the applicable policy here is either WT:CFI or WT:BRAND. My reading of these suggests that neither  nor  would merit inclusion, as the only proper noun I can find that would be romanized as  is, and  is only ever used as the name of the conglomerate, its various subsidiaries and affiliates, or products made by these.  By way of comparison, I note that the JA WP has articles about Hankyū things like specific Hankyū trains, such as the Hankyū 800 (ja:w:阪急800系電車), but that's the encyclopedia.  The JA WT doesn't have any  entry -- see the empty page at ja:阪急.  Nor does it have any entries starting with  or any other proper nouns with the hankyū reading, as seen in the JA WT index of JA terms.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Hankyū is only a romanisation. doesn't exist.  exists but it has another sense. Speedying Hankyū (converted by me to a romaji entry) and removing the proper noun section from . --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hankyū


text:
Category:Swahili ma class nouns

These Swahili nouns are in the ma class.

title: Category:Swahili ma class nouns


text:
Wiśniewska

Etymology
From, , or. Place names from.

title: Wiśniewska