text:
User:-sche/suspect words

dialectal
Are the words listed in User:Gilgamesh~enwiktionary attested?

 * rare but attested
 * (attested)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * rare but attested
 * (attested)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * rare but attested
 * (attested)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (attested)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (attested)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (attested)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (attested)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (attested)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (1/900th as common)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)
 * (probably attestable)

other
dunch (both etymology sections!)

Middle English
Are these attested in modern English as opposed to in Scots, in Middle English, or not at all?

 * 1) athel

 * 1) mese

 * -and
 * -kin
 * aboon
 * abread
 * afear
 * afore
 * ago
 * ahint
 * aks
 * alkin
 * all
 * amanse
 * amind
 * and
 * arm
 * armth
 * arseling
 * arselong
 * as
 * ask
 * atgo
 * athel
 * atter
 * attern
 * attery
 * awk
 * ax
 * axe
 * aze
 * bad
 * bain
 * bairnish
 * bakehouse
 * baken
 * barn
 * bat
 * batch
 * battle
 * bay
 * beach
 * beal
 * beath
 * bedone
 * bedraw
 * bedrip
 * been
 * befang
 * befight
 * befile
 * beflay
 * beget
 * behight
 * bein
 * belfry
 * belirt
 * belive
 * bene
 * bergh
 * berry
 * besee
 * besetten
 * beshine
 * betine
 * bewend
 * bewest
 * bewist
 * bide
 * bield
 * big
 * bightsome
 * bin
 * bishop
 * bist
 * blake
 * bland
 * blead
 * blin
 * blore
 * blow
 * bode
 * book
 * boon
 * bottle
 * bouk
 * brang
 * brant
 * brath
 * bread
 * breakle
 * brending
 * brian
 * brickle
 * brit
 * buck
 * bun
 * bunny
 * burian
 * bysen
 * cair
 * cake
 * camp
 * ch
 * chare
 * chavel
 * chit
 * choose
 * cleg
 * clepe
 * cleve
 * click
 * clip
 * cloam
 * clough
 * clumb
 * coath
 * cod
 * cook
 * cop
 * costning
 * cow
 * crane
 * crimp
 * cringe
 * cripple
 * crop
 * croup
 * culver
 * daff
 * dag
 * dateless
 * dave
 * dawk
 * deaf
 * deech
 * dere
 * dern
 * devil
 * dey
 * dig
 * dit
 * dize
 * dizen
 * do
 * dole
 * dook
 * dought
 * dove
 * dreave
 * dree
 * dretch
 * drib
 * dub
 * duck
 * dush
 * dwine
 * ea
 * eam
 * earn
 * eath
 * eckle
 * eid
 * eld
 * eldning
 * elsin
 * elt
 * elven
 * ennet
 * ent
 * erd
 * ern
 * erne
 * ert
 * ettin
 * ettle
 * even-
 * evenlike
 * ewte
 * fack
 * fall
 * fand
 * fang
 * fangle
 * fax
 * fay
 * feal
 * fear
 * feel
 * fele
 * fell
 * fend
 * fere
 * fettle
 * fey
 * fickle
 * fike
 * firehouse
 * firk
 * flake
 * flathe
 * flay
 * flet
 * flit
 * flone
 * fodder
 * fog
 * fold
 * folkred
 * for-
 * fordrive
 * foregain
 * foregainst
 * foreset
 * forfare
 * forhow
 * forlet
 * fornigh
 * forsee
 * forset
 * forshame
 * forshape
 * forstand
 * forsume (RFVed)
 * forswift (RFVed)
 * forthan
 * forward
 * forwerp
 * forworth
 * foryield
 * fother
 * fraist
 * frame
 * freak
 * freelage
 * fret
 * frim
 * frist
 * frock
 * frood
 * frosh
 * frosk
 * frother
 * frover
 * fry
 * fulth
 * gad
 * gain
 * gale
 * gang
 * gangway
 * gar
 * gate
 * gaum
 * gavelock
 * gear
 * geason
 * geazon
 * geg
 * girl
 * glope
 * gloppen
 * good
 * gooden
 * gorm
 * gote
 * gound
 * goundy
 * graith
 * greeve
 * grip
 * gripple
 * groop
 * gum
 * hade
 * hake
 * haked
 * hallow
 * handy
 * hap
 * har
 * harvest
 * haunt
 * haver
 * heal
 * healand
 * heighth
 * hele
 * helm
 * hen
 * hern
 * hext
 * hiddle
 * hidness
 * hield
 * hinderling
 * hirn
 * hit
 * hoast
 * holk
 * holm
 * homely
 * hone
 * houve
 * hove
 * how
 * husband
 * ickle
 * ident
 * imell
 * imp
 * inborrow
 * inkling
 * it
 * ithand
 * izle
 * kilk
 * kine
 * kink
 * kite
 * knap
 * ky
 * kye
 * kytle
 * lade
 * laik
 * lait
 * lake
 * lant
 * lathe
 * lavant
 * lave
 * lax
 * lazy
 * leaful
 * leam
 * learn
 * lease
 * lede
 * ledely
 * ledish
 * leed
 * leeftail
 * leer
 * lend
 * lere
 * lewth
 * lib
 * lidden
 * lift
 * lig
 * likam
 * lin
 * linge
 * lire
 * lirk
 * lirt
 * liss
 * lit
 * lite
 * lith
 * lofe
 * loke
 * long
 * longsome
 * loof
 * loot
 * love
 * lovered
 * low
 * lug
 * lush
 * mackly
 * mad
 * made
 * maiden
 * main
 * make
 * manred
 * manswear
 * mare
 * mask
 * masker
 * maw
 * mawk
 * meader
 * meal
 * mease
 * meat
 * mell
 * mense
 * mere
 * mete
 * mightsome
 * min
 * ming
 * minge
 * mirken
 * misken
 * mitch
 * mo
 * mong
 * more
 * mow
 * mun
 * murth
 * nait
 * nauther
 * neer
 * neeze
 * nesh
 * nether
 * neven
 * nevvy
 * newcome
 * nim
 * note
 * nother
 * nott
 * ocker
 * of
 * oker
 * on
 * oncome
 * onde
 * ongang
 * ope
 * or
 * ord
 * orl
 * orped
 * ort
 * outen
 * ouze
 * overbreak
 * overgang
 * overgo
 * overwin
 * ovest
 * own
 * pad
 * parrock
 * pen
 * pike
 * pinder
 * plant
 * plash
 * plaw
 * playstow
 * pleck
 * plight
 * pod
 * poke
 * polliwog
 * pope
 * popple
 * pot
 * preen
 * prink
 * puckle
 * puddle
 * purl
 * qualm
 * queal
 * queer
 * rackan
 * rake
 * rather
 * rax
 * ream
 * rear
 * reard
 * rede
 * ree
 * reed
 * reef
 * rethe
 * retheness
 * ride
 * right
 * rim
 * rime
 * rin
 * rine
 * rink
 * roke
 * roo
 * rood
 * room
 * roop
 * round
 * rout
 * rubble
 * ruck
 * rue
 * run
 * rung
 * sad
 * sam
 * same
 * saught
 * sax
 * scale
 * scat
 * scathand
 * scug
 * seal
 * seam
 * seave
 * seed
 * seel
 * seg
 * seld
 * sele
 * selly
 * set
 * shake
 * shalk
 * shand
 * shed
 * shildy
 * shippen
 * shippon
 * shoon
 * shore
 * shut
 * sibred
 * sicker
 * side
 * sie
 * sile
 * sitten
 * skeel
 * skill
 * skip
 * skrike
 * slade
 * sleck
 * slidder
 * slike
 * slink
 * slite
 * slive
 * slocken
 * slot
 * smeddum
 * smolt
 * snag
 * snead
 * sneap
 * snew
 * snithe
 * soal
 * sole
 * solwy
 * sook
 * souse
 * sowl
 * spale
 * spar
 * spare
 * sparhawk
 * spat
 * speel
 * spell
 * spelt
 * spider
 * spile
 * staithe
 * stalder
 * stang
 * stark
 * stathe
 * stay
 * stean
 * steel
 * stell
 * stepbairn
 * steven (cf. stevvon)
 * stick
 * stirk
 * stool
 * stoop
 * stoor
 * stop
 * stound
 * stour
 * strale
 * strand
 * straught
 * streal
 * sty
 * sullow
 * sunder
 * swan
 * swap
 * sward
 * swart
 * sweal
 * sweam
 * swear
 * sweb
 * sweer
 * swelt
 * swike
 * swipper
 * swith
 * swive
 * take
 * tale
 * tame
 * tan
 * tath
 * tend
 * tether
 * than
 * tharm
 * that
 * thede
 * thee
 * them
 * then
 * they
 * thirl
 * tho
 * thone
 * thorough
 * thou
 * thrave
 * throat
 * throng
 * thropple
 * throughgang
 * thrutch
 * thurse
 * till
 * tiller
 * tillow
 * tind
 * to
 * to-
 * tocleave
 * tomorn
 * toom
 * tor
 * tore
 * torfer
 * towel
 * town
 * treddle
 * treen
 * trend
 * trig
 * trindle
 * trow
 * truck
 * try
 * tush
 * tweenlight
 * twindle
 * tyke
 * ug
 * um-
 * umbe
 * umbeset
 * umbestound
 * umbethink
 * umgang
 * undergang
 * undermeal
 * upbraid
 * upcome
 * upgang
 * vang
 * vinnewed
 * wacken
 * waker
 * wald
 * wall
 * wallop
 * wallow
 * waltsome
 * wang
 * wankle
 * wanse
 * ware
 * wark
 * warkand
 * warp
 * was
 * waver
 * waw
 * wax
 * waxen
 * weaky
 * wear
 * weest
 * wem
 * westy
 * wheen
 * which
 * whither
 * whoost
 * why
 * wick
 * wicked
 * wicket
 * wight
 * wike
 * willy
 * wilsome
 * win
 * windle
 * winly
 * wis
 * wise
 * wiselike
 * witch
 * wither-
 * withsaw
 * withsay
 * withset
 * witter
 * wlate
 * wone
 * workly
 * wrack
 * wrinkle
 * wroo
 * wud
 * ya
 * yan
 * yar
 * yare
 * yark
 * yarm
 * yauld
 * yed
 * yedding
 * yeke
 * yet
 * yon
 * yote

hyphenated

 * 1)  Purkinje-cell
 * abstinence-only
 * accusative-case
 * action-movie
 * ad-banner
 * address-book
 * adult-movie
 * age-of-consent
 * air-resistance
 * allopathic-medicine
 * angst-bunny
 * apocrine-gland
 * arm's-length
 * army-ant
 * artificial-intelligence
 * assisted-suicide
 * at-sign
 * atomic-number
 * atomic-weight
 * auto-insurance
 * auto-racing
 * automobile-racing
 * auxiliary-verb
 * award-ceremony
 * awards-ceremony
 * baby-oil
 * bad-boy
 * bad-faith
 * baggage-claim
 * balance-beam
 * barber-shop
 * bare-metal
 * barn-owl
 * base-metal
 * bead-breaker
 * bearded-mussel
 * belly-dance
 * bet-exchange
 * big-enchilada
 * bighorn-sheep
 * biological-weapon
 * birthday-boy
 * birthday-cake
 * birthday-card
 * birthday-girl
 * birthday-present
 * bit-bucket
 * black-hole
 * black-ice
 * black-letter
 * bleu-cheese
 * blood-type
 * board-of-directors
 * bodily-fluid
 * bog-orchid
 * bone-marrow
 * book-signing
 * brass-band
 * bread-line
 * breaking-and-entering
 * broadcast-station
 * brown-recluse
 * bull-bar
 * bull-dyke
 * bush-dog
 * business-deal
 * cable-jack
 * campus-legend
 * cannon-bone
 * car-chase
 * car-hop
 * caravan-park
 * carbon-paper
 * cardinal-number
 * cash-and-carry
 * cattle-grid
 * center-of-gravity
 * centre-of-gravity
 * centrifugal-force
 * change-of-life
 * change-of-venue
 * chaos-theory
 * cheek-pouch
 * chemical-bomb
 * chemical-compound
 * chemical-formula
 * chemical-property
 * chess-clock
 * child-language
 * chocolate-egg
 * chopped-liver
 * citation-cord
 * city-council
 * civil-law
 * civil-marriage
 * civil-society
 * clock-generator
 * closed-form
 * clothes-maiden
 * clothes-shop
 * coherent-light
 * collision-theory
 * commercial-at
 * common-eland
 * common-gull
 * community-college
 * comparison-shopper
 * comparison-shopping
 * compound-sentence
 * compound-symbol
 * computer-language
 * computer-science
 * conservation-law
 * conservation-of-mass
 * constitutional-law
 * contact-lens
 * control-freak
 * cooling-tower
 * core-inflation
 * couch-potato
 * count-noun
 * country-code
 * cover-crop
 * crazy-paving
 * creek-bed
 * criminal-law
 * criminal-offence
 * crude-oil
 * cruise-control
 * currency-code
 * current-account
 * current-events
 * curtain-call
 * cyclical-unemployment
 * data-base
 * data-structure
 * date-of-birth
 * dative-case
 * dead-president
 * death-squad
 * debt-burden
 * decision-making
 * deep-breathing
 * deep-sleep
 * defining-vocabulary
 * definite-article
 * demonstrative-pronoun
 * depleted-uranium
 * descriptive-geometry
 * desktop-picture
 * dew-point
 * direct-current
 * direct-object
 * direct-verb
 * discovered-check
 * displaced-person
 * dollar-sign
 * domestic-debt
 * door-closer
 * double-action
 * double-agent
 * drag-queen
 * drum-kit
 * dry-closet
 * dual-citizenship
 * due-process
 * dutch-auction
 * eagle-owl
 * economic-development
 * egg-hunt
 * egg-roll
 * electric-chair
 * electronic-game
 * emergency-brake
 * empty-nester
 * endocrine-system
 * endowment-policy
 * entreprise-union
 * equal-sign
 * excise-tax
 * exclamation-mark
 * exterior-angle
 * eye-candy
 * eyelash-curler
 * fallow-deer
 * false-friend
 * family-size
 * fan-belt
 * fancy-dress
 * fashion-contest
 * feast-day
 * feed-drive
 * fennec-fox
 * field-hockey
 * field-trip
 * figure-of-speech
 * filing-cabinet
 * financial-market
 * fire-engine
 * first-floor
 * first-mover
 * first-name
 * first-past-the-post
 * fish-finger
 * five-past
 * five-to
 * flannel-cake
 * floor-exercise
 * floor-plan
 * foreign-debt
 * free-speech
 * french-fry
 * fried-egg
 * front-organization
 * fruit-tree
 * full-stop
 * fun-size
 * funeral-director
 * funeral-home
 * funeral-parlor
 * future-tense
 * game-bird
 * game-of-chance
 * game-point
 * gap-year
 * garlic-press
 * general-election
 * genitive-case
 * geographical-area
 * ghost-town
 * gift-horse
 * given-name
 * glad-wrap
 * glass-cleaner
 * glass-cockpit
 * glow-plug
 * golden-eagle
 * good-faith
 * graph-paper
 * great-tit
 * green-diesel
 * grey-wolf
 * greylag-goose
 * gross-domestic-product
 * group-theoretic
 * group-theoretical
 * guinea-fowl
 * guinea-pig
 * hair-gel
 * hair-spray
 * half-past
 * hand-puppet
 * head-of-household
 * head-of-state
 * helping-verb
 * horse-hockey
 * horse-race
 * hot-chocolate
 * hula-hoop
 * human-pyramid
 * ice-floe
 * impersonal-subject
 * incense-boat
 * incidental-music
 * incised-meander
 * indefinite-article
 * indefinite-pronoun
 * indirect-object
 * industrial-output
 * interstate-compact
 * intransitive-verb
 * inverted-snobbery
 * irregular-verb
 * island-state
 * jet-engine
 * junior-college
 * juvenile-delinquent
 * kangaroo-bar
 * kangaroo-piss
 * kiwi-fruit
 * knee-pad
 * knob-jockey
 * knock-about
 * knock-knock
 * language-code
 * large-intestine
 * lash-curler
 * last-name
 * laughing-falcon
 * laughing-gas
 * laughing-goose
 * laughing-gull
 * laughing-hyena
 * laughing-jackass
 * laughing-owl
 * lawn-chair
 * leap-of-faith
 * leap-year
 * least-weasel
 * leather-jacket
 * legal-beagle
 * legal-eagle
 * legal-entity
 * life-assurance
 * life-child
 * lifetime-job
 * lip-gloss
 * liquid-laugh
 * little-finger
 * little-owl
 * live-weight
 * love-egg
 * machine-translation
 * magic-wand
 * main-clause
 * main-verb
 * mammary-gland
 * man-of-letters
 * map-key
 * maple-leaf
 * maple-syrup
 * market-research
 * marsh-buck
 * mass-noun
 * mast-cell
 * maternal-death
 * med-mal
 * memory-span
 * metabolic-pathway
 * metabolic-rate
 * metal-homeostasis
 * metric-system
 * microwave-radiation
 * middle-finger
 * military-academy
 * military-school
 * mobile-phone
 * mobile-station
 * model-organism
 * molecular-engineering
 * moral-panic
 * morning-kitchen
 * mother-goddess
 * motor-racing
 * mountain-goat
 * mountain-lion
 * mountain-reindeer
 * mouse-potato
 * mouse-wheel
 * multicolour-yawn
 * musk-ox
 * mutual-masturbation
 * myocardial-infarct
 * nag-screen
 * nail-bomb
 * naked-ape
 * national-epic
 * national-revival
 * natural-gas
 * needlestick-injury
 * negative-clause
 * nerve-ending
 * nest-scrape
 * net-earnings
 * network-subsystem
 * neutral-zone
 * neutron-star
 * news-media
 * nominative-case
 * north-pole
 * noun-phrase
 * off-brand
 * one-hundred
 * open-book
 * operating-room
 * operating-system
 * operating-theatre
 * ordinal-number
 * other-woman
 * outer-space
 * paper-airplane
 * paper-plane
 * parking-brake
 * parking-garage
 * part-of-speech
 * partial-fraction
 * partial-order
 * passive-voice
 * past-participle
 * past-tense
 * pearl-necklace
 * peat-moss
 * peephole-optimization
 * peptic-ulcer
 * peregrine-falcon
 * periodic-table
 * perpetual-license
 * personal-computer
 * personal-pronoun
 * phone-sex
 * phrase-book
 * pinking-shear
 * plain-paper
 * plasma-display
 * plasma-screen
 * pocket-watch
 * pop-culture
 * portmanteau-word
 * possessive-pronoun
 * pot-luck
 * predator-bug
 * present-conditional
 * present-continuous
 * present-participle
 * present-tense
 * pressure-ulcer
 * prime-minister
 * prime-number
 * prisoner-of-war
 * private-eye
 * progressive-verb
 * pronunciation-guide
 * proper-noun
 * public-intoxication
 * public-law
 * public-school
 * publicity-stunt
 * puff-pastry
 * puffed-rice
 * pyramid-scheme
 * quantum-limit
 * quarter-past
 * quarter-to
 * question-mark
 * quotation-mark
 * quotient-space
 * radio-station
 * radiological-weapon
 * rag-week
 * rational-number
 * razor-blade
 * reasonable-person
 * red-deer
 * registered-trademark
 * relative-pronoun
 * religious-pluralism
 * report-card
 * reverse-commute
 * right-angle
 * ring-theoretic
 * ring-theoretical
 * river-bank
 * river-bed
 * road-gang
 * road-movie
 * road-race
 * rock-band
 * rock-dove
 * roe-deer
 * rolled-oats
 * roo-bar
 * rubbish-bin
 * rugby-boot
 * running-shoe
 * saddle-point
 * safety-valve
 * sand-art
 * scalene-triangle
 * school-band
 * sea-anemone
 * sea-cow
 * sea-lion
 * sea-urchin
 * seasonal-unemployment
 * second-sheet
 * secondhand-smoke
 * sewing-machine
 * sex-life
 * sexual-intercourse
 * sheet-erosion
 * sheet-piling
 * shoe-polish
 * shooting-spree
 * shopping-cart
 * short-sword
 * shoulder-blade
 * simple-past
 * simple-present
 * size-zero
 * skateboard-rail
 * skating-rink
 * skid-lid
 * skim-milk
 * skimmed-milk
 * skin-magazine
 * sleep-debt
 * small-fry
 * smoking-gun
 * snooze-button
 * snow-leopard
 * soap-opera
 * soccer-ball
 * social-psychology
 * social-science
 * soft-key
 * solar-system
 * sole-trader
 * sore-loser
 * sore-winner
 * sound-card
 * soup-kitchen
 * south-pole
 * space-age
 * space-station
 * space-travel
 * spitting-cobra
 * spray-can
 * spring-roll
 * square-root
 * stated-income
 * station-wagon
 * statutory-declaration
 * statutory-rape
 * steam-engine
 * steel-wool
 * stem-cell
 * stink-bomb
 * stomach-flu
 * stone-fruit
 * stone-mulching
 * storm-cloud
 * street-hockey
 * strong-language
 * structural-unemployment
 * subject-clause
 * subordinate-clause
 * subordinating-conjunction
 * sugar-water
 * summer-camp
 * symphony-orchestra
 * synthetic-biology
 * tail-between-one's-legs
 * tailgate-party
 * tasting-menu
 * tawny-owl
 * tea-cosy
 * team-sport
 * teddy-bear
 * tee-ball
 * telephone-jack
 * television-station
 * ten-o'clock
 * ten-past
 * ten-to
 * therapeutic-window
 * thermal-paper
 * third-gender
 * throne-room
 * tilt-barrier
 * timber-camp
 * timber-rafting
 * toilet-paper
 * toilet-roll
 * top-gun
 * total-order
 * touch-and-go
 * touch-move
 * tour-of-duty
 * toxic-waste
 * trade-deficit
 * trade-union
 * trailer-park
 * transitive-verb
 * tropical-storm
 * truck-driver
 * true-leaf
 * true-name
 * tuna-fish
 * twenty-past
 * twenty-to
 * two-liter
 * verbal-noun
 * video-game
 * visible-light
 * wall-clock
 * water-buffalo
 * water-vapor
 * weak-tea
 * wear-and-tear
 * weather-gauge
 * web-browser
 * white-cell
 * white-hole
 * white-meat
 * white-stork
 * whole-note
 * whooping-crane
 * wild-boar
 * wind-instrument
 * windscreen-washer
 * wisdom-tooth
 * woolly-bear
 * woolly-worm
 * work-release
 * zoological-garden

title: User:-sche/suspect words


text: يقطرن

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

title: يقطرن


text: قطعن

title: قطعن


text: يقطعن

title: يقطعن


text: قعدن

title: قعدن


text: يقعدن

title: يقعدن


text: يقعرن

title: يقعرن


text: قفزن

title: قفزن


text: يقفزن

title: يقفزن


text: قفلن

title: قفلن


text: قلون

title: قلون


text: قلين

title: قلين


text: يقلين

title: يقلين


text: قلبن

title: قلبن


text: يقلبن

title: يقلبن


text: يقلدن

title: يقلدن


text: قلقن

title: قلقن


text: يقلقن

title: يقلقن


text: يقلمن

title: يقلمن


text: يقهقهن

title: يقهقهن


text: يقومن

title: يقومن


text: قوين

title: قوين


text: يقوين

title: يقوين


text: يكاتبن

title: يكاتبن


text: يكاثرن

title: يكاثرن


text: كوثرن

title: كوثرن


text: يكدن

title: يكدن


text: كافأن

title: كافأن


text: يكافئن

title: يكافئن


text: كوفئن

title: كوفئن


text: يكافأن

title: يكافأن


text: يكالمن

title: يكالمن


text: كولمن

title: كولمن


text: يكبرن

title: يكبرن


text: يكبسن

title: يكبسن


text: كتمن

title: كتمن


text: يكتمن

title: يكتمن


text: يكحلن

title: يكحلن


text: كذبن

title: كذبن


text: يكذبن

title: يكذبن


text: كربن

title: كربن


text:
cycloramic

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to cyclorama.

title: cycloramic


text: كسبن

title: كسبن


text: يكسبن

title: يكسبن


text: يكسرن

title: يكسرن


text: كشفن

title: كشفن


text: يكشفن

title: يكشفن


text:
garlic vine

Noun

 * 1) Any of a number of vines in the family  with foliage that smells like garlic when crushed, especially:

title: garlic vine


text: يكعبن

title: يكعبن


text: garlic vines

title: garlic vines


text: كفرن

title: كفرن


text: يكفرن

title: يكفرن


text: كفين

title: كفين


text: يكفين

title: يكفين


text: كلبن

title: كلبن


text: يكلبن

title: يكلبن


text: يكلفن

title: يكلفن


text: يكلمن

title: يكلمن


text: يكملن

title: يكملن


text: يكهربن

title: يكهربن


text: يكورن

title: يكورن


text: يكيفن

title: يكيفن


text: يلاحظن

title: يلاحظن


text: لوحظن

title: لوحظن


text: يلاعبن

title: يلاعبن


text: لوعبن

title: لوعبن


text: يلقن

title: يلقن


text: يلاقين

title: يلاقين


text: لوقين

title: لوقين


text: يلمن

title: يلمن


text: يلامسن

title: يلامسن


text: لومسن

title: لومسن


text: لبسن

title: لبسن


text: يلبسن

title: يلبسن


text: لحسن

title: لحسن


text: يلحسن

title: يلحسن


text: يلطفن

title: يلطفن


text: لعقن

title: لعقن


text: يلعقن

title: يلعقن


text: quicunque

title: quicunque


text: Quicumque vult

title: Quicumque vult


text:
candle tree

Noun

 * 1) Any tree of certain species:
 * , principally of Central America, a tree with long cylindrical fruits that look like candles.
 * , of the Caribbean
 * , of the family Fabaceae, native to Mexico.
 * , of the family Fabaceae, native to Mexico.

title: candle tree


text: candle trees

title: candle trees


text:
パティシエ

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) patissier

title: パティシエ


text: pulled down

title: pulled down


text: pulls down

title: pulls down


text: pulling down

title: pulling down


text:
ミルフィーユ

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) mille-feuille, vanilla slice, Napoleon a kind of layered pastry

title: ミルフィーユ


text:
pocketability

Noun

 * 1) The quality of being pocketable.

title: pocketability


text:
Talk:Mobil

Mobil
A single-word company name. Created on September 2005, deleted on 15 March 2015. I can't find any RFD discussion.
 * Keep: can host lexicographical content such as pronunciation. Relevant discussions: Beer_parlour/2011/April, Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition at the time of deletion was: "A fuel company, part of Exxon Mobil". Even if a company meets WT:BRAND, does that extend to a part of the company's name? bd2412 T 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but let me note that Exxon Mobil originated from the merger of Exxon and Mobil: Mobil was once a standalone company. Talk:Exxon contains what to me are dubious arguments, including "Undeniably promotional entry" and "Even worse than Greater Manchester". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't support WT:BRAND application to company names, but other people may, so let me know whether the following is worth anything:
 * "Furthermore, any such contention would produce a price for Mobil which could not be described as comparable with the price paid by Mobil's most favoured competitor for its gasoline for that quarter."
 * "The record is replete with evidence of Mobil's knowledge, through its medical staff and personnel, that benzene not only was hazardous to the health of individuals but was a contributing cause of AML"
 * "He noted that neither the Clean Air Act, regulations under the Act, nor Mobil's permit included immediate reporting requirements of the type intended by Congress when it created the "federally permitted release" exemption under CERCLA."
 * --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have created an entry (from scratch) pending a decision (and I vote keep quoting "all words in all languages"). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, Exxon is a new name. ExxonMobil is really new. I remember when Exxon’s name was Humble, then Enco and Esso. They liked the name Esso, but it lacked a certain zing...and the double-x of Exxon provided that zing. —Stephen (Talk) 14:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mobil was formerly a brand, so WT:BRAND would be applicable to a definition of it as a brand. Other former (pre 1973) brands of include Humble, Enco, and Esso. DCDuring TALK  14:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete. At the very least, remove the decidedly non-lexicographical corporate company history from the "definition". Equinox ◑ 18:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep and refer to WT:RFV for citations that meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Pur ple back pack 89  21:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 16:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mobil


text: يلقبن

title: يلقبن


text: لقين

title: لقين


text: لمسن

title: لمسن


text: يلمسن

title: يلمسن


text: يلوثن

title: يلوثن


text:
ليسن

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) driver's license
 * 2) license

title: ليسن


text: يليسن

title: يليسن


text: يماثلن

title: يماثلن


text: موثلن

title: موثلن


text: يمارسن

title: يمارسن


text: مورسن

title: مورسن


text: يمازحن

title: يمازحن


text: موزحن

title: موزحن


text: يماسسن

title: يماسسن


text: موسسن

title: موسسن


text: يملن

title: يملن


text: يمهن

title: يمهن


text: يمثلن

title: يمثلن


text: يمجدن

title: يمجدن


text: محون

title: محون


text: محين

title: محين


text: يمحين

title: يمحين


text: يمحصن

title: يمحصن


text: يمحقن

title: يمحقن


text: مددن

title: مددن


text:
مدين

Proper noun

 * 1) Midian

title: مدين


text: يمدين

title: يمدين


text: يمذهبن

title: يمذهبن


text: مررن

title: مررن


text: يمررن

title: يمررن


text: مرجن

title: مرجن


text: يمرجن

title: يمرجن


text:
طربوش

Etymology
Found from the sixteenth century, variant of. The dissimilation is speculated to have been motivated by, the headpiece being fit to conceal perspiration.

Noun

 * 1) fez, tarboosh

title: طربوش


text: مرشن

title: مرشن


text: يمرشن

title: يمرشن


text: مرضن

title: مرضن


text: يمرضن

title: يمرضن


text: مزحن

title: مزحن


text: يمزحن

title: يمزحن


text: مسسن

title: مسسن


text: يمسسن

title: يمسسن


text: مشين

title: مشين


text: يمشين

title: يمشين


text: مصصن

title: مصصن


text: يمصصن

title: يمصصن


text:
desert willow

Noun

 * 1) Any of several species of willow that grow in desert regions
 * 2) Other trees or shrubs that have willow-like leaves or weeping habit:

title: desert willow


text: يمصرن

title: يمصرن


text: مضغن

title: مضغن


text: يمضغن

title: يمضغن


text: مضين

title: مضين


text: يمضين

title: يمضين


text: مطرن

title: مطرن


text: مكثن

title: مكثن


text: يمكثن

title: يمكثن


text: مكرن

title: مكرن


text: يمكرن

title: يمكرن


text: ملأن

title: ملأن


text: يملأن

title: يملأن


text: ملئن

title: ملئن


text: يملكن

title: يملكن


text: منعن

title: منعن


text: يمنعن

title: يمنعن


text: مهرن

title: مهرن


text: يمهرن

title: يمهرن


text: يموتن

title: يموتن


text: يموجن

title: يموجن


text: ميلن

title: ميلن


text: يميلن

title: يميلن


text: ينادين

title: ينادين


text: نودين

title: نودين


text: يناسبن

title: يناسبن


text: نوسبن

title: نوسبن


text: ينافرن

title: ينافرن


text: نوفرن

title: نوفرن


text: ينافسن

title: ينافسن


text: نوفسن

title: نوفسن


text: يناقشن

title: يناقشن


text: نوقشن

title: نوقشن


text: ينكن

title: ينكن


text: يناولن

title: يناولن


text: نوولن

title: نوولن


text: يناوين

title: يناوين


text: نووين

title: نووين


text: نبذن

title: نبذن


text: ينبذن

title: ينبذن


text: نجون

title: نجون


text: نجحن

title: نجحن


text: ينجحن

title: ينجحن


text: ينجمن

title: ينجمن


text: ينحتن

title: ينحتن


text: نحلن

title: نحلن


text: يندين

title: يندين


text: ينذرن

title: ينذرن


text: نزعن

title: نزعن


text: ينزعن

title: ينزعن


text: نزفن

title: نزفن


text: ينزفن

title: ينزفن


text: ينزلن

title: ينزلن


text: نسبن

title: نسبن


text: ينسبن

title: ينسبن


text: نسخن

title: نسخن


text: ينسخن

title: ينسخن


text: نسلن

title: نسلن


text: ينسلن

title: ينسلن


text: ينسين

title: ينسين


text: نشأن

title: نشأن


text: نشرن

title: نشرن


text: ينشرن

title: ينشرن


text: نشطن

title: نشطن


text: ينشطن

title: ينشطن


text: نصحن

title: نصحن


text: ينصحن

title: ينصحن


text: نصرن

title: نصرن


text: ينصرن

title: ينصرن


text: ينظرن

title: ينظرن


text: ينظمن

title: ينظمن


text: نعظن

title: نعظن


text: نفون

title: نفون


text: نفين

title: نفين


text: ينفين

title: ينفين


text: نفخن

title: نفخن


text: ينفخن

title: ينفخن


text: Template:R:Lexico

title: Template:R:Lexico


text: نفدن

title: نفدن


text: ينفدن

title: ينفدن


text: ينفذن

title: ينفذن


text: ينفرن

title: ينفرن


text: ينفسن

title: ينفسن


text: نفعن

title: نفعن


text: ينفعن

title: ينفعن


text: ينفقن

title: ينفقن


text: نقصن

title: نقصن


text: ينقصن

title: ينقصن


text: ينقلن

title: ينقلن


text: نكحن

title: نكحن


text: ينكحن

title: ينكحن


text: نكسن

title: نكسن


text: ينكسن

title: ينكسن


text: نكصن

title: نكصن


text: ينكصن

title: ينكصن


text: نمون

title: نمون


text: ينمين

title: ينمين


text: ينورن

title: ينورن


text: ينومن

title: ينومن


text: نوين

title: نوين


text: ينوين

title: ينوين


text: يهاجرن

title: يهاجرن


text: يهاجمن

title: يهاجمن


text: هوجمن

title: هوجمن


text: يهدن

title: يهدن


text: هببن

title: هببن


text: يهببن

title: يهببن


text: هبرن

title: هبرن


text: يهبرن

title: يهبرن


text: هبطن

title: هبطن


text: يهبطن

title: يهبطن


text: هجمن

title: هجمن


text: يهجمن

title: يهجمن


text: يهددن

title: يهددن


text: هدفن

title: هدفن


text: هدين

title: هدين


text: يهدين

title: يهدين


text: هذرن

title: هذرن


text: يهذرن

title: يهذرن


text: kyoka

title: kyoka


text: يهربن

title: يهربن


text: هزمن

title: هزمن


text: يهزمن

title: يهزمن


text: هلكن

title: هلكن


text: يهلكن

title: يهلكن


text: هممن

title: هممن


text:
itinerans

Etymology
Present active participle of

Participle

 * 1) travelling

Noun

 * 1) traveller

title: itinerans


text: هنأن

title: هنأن


text: يهنئن

title: يهنئن


text: يهنأن

title: يهنأن


text: يهندسن

title: يهندسن


text: يواترن

title: يواترن


text: ووترن

title: ووترن


text: يواصلن

title: يواصلن


text: ووصلن

title: ووصلن


text: يوافقن

title: يوافقن


text: ووفقن

title: ووفقن


text: يوافين

title: يوافين


text: ووفين

title: ووفين


text: يواقعن

title: يواقعن


text: ووقعن

title: ووقعن


text: يوالين

title: يوالين


text: وولين

title: وولين


text: يترن

title: يترن


text: وجدن

title: وجدن


text: يجدن

title: يجدن


text: وجعن

title: وجعن


text: يوجهن

title: يوجهن


text: يحدن

title: يحدن


text: يوحدن

title: يوحدن


text: وددن

title: وددن


text: يوددن

title: يوددن


text: ورثن

title: ورثن


text: يرثن

title: يرثن


text: يوردن

title: يوردن


text: ورعن

title: ورعن


text: يرعن

title: يرعن


text: يورعن

title: يورعن


text: يوسمن

title: يوسمن


text:
itineror

Verb

 * 1)  to travel, to fare

title: itineror


text: wrongeously

title: wrongeously


text: يوسوسن

title: يوسوسن


text: وصفن

title: وصفن


text: يصفن

title: يصفن


text: يوصفن

title: يوصفن


text: يصلن

title: يصلن


text: وضعن

title: وضعن


text: يوضعن

title: يوضعن


text: وطئن

title: وطئن


text: يطأن

title: يطأن


text: يوطأن

title: يوطأن


text: وعدن

title: وعدن


text: يوعدن

title: يوعدن


text: وعظن

title: وعظن


text: يعظن

title: يعظن


text: يوعظن

title: يوعظن


text: يفرن

title: يفرن


text: يوفرن

title: يوفرن


text:
wrongously

Adverb

 * 1)  Wrongfully; in a wrongous (wrongful) manner.

title: wrongously


text: يفقن

title: يفقن


text: يوفقن

title: يوفقن


text: يفين

title: يفين


text: يوقتن

title: يوقتن


text: يقعن

title: يقعن


text: يقفن

title: يقفن


text: وقين

title: وقين


text:
يقين

Etymology 1
-type stative-verb from the verb.

Noun

 * 1) certainty

Descendants

 * Punjabi:

Adjective

 * 1) certain, undoubted

Usage notes

 * Agrees with the noun in case and definiteness, but is invariable in gender and number.

title: يقين


text: يوقين

title: يوقين


text: يوكدن

title: يوكدن


text: يلدن

title: يلدن


text: ولين

title: ولين


text: يلين

title: يلين


text: وهبن

title: وهبن


text: يهبن

title: يهبن


text: يوهبن

title: يوهبن


text: يئسن

title: يئسن


text: ييئسن

title: ييئسن


text: يوءسن

title: يوءسن


text: ييسرن

title: ييسرن


text: يقظن

title: يقظن


text: ييقظن

title: ييقظن


text:
bug shoe

Noun

 * 1)  A length of ironbark or other hardened material on the skeg of a ship that protects from shipworm damage.

title: bug shoe


text: bug shoes

title: bug shoes


text: Category:Arabic nouns with unknown plural


text:
Category:Arabic augmented verbs with parameter override

Arabic augmented (non form-I) verbs with where parameters for the head, transliteration, imperfect or imperfect transliteration are explicitly given. Normally these are automatically computed, but they may be necessary in some cases, especially with phrasal verbs.

__HIDDENCAT__


text: Category:Arabic pronouns with basic triptote singular


text: Category:Arabic pronouns with triptote singular in -a


text:
беззвучно

Adverb

 * 1) soundlessly, noiselessly, silently

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) soundlessly, noiselessly, silently

title: беззвучно


text:
Template:R:Koseki Moji

Family Register Unified Characters (戸籍統一文字)

title: Template:R:Koseki Moji


text:
безнадёжно

Adverb

 * 1) hopelessly

title: безнадёжно


text:
безнадежно

Adverb

 * 1) hopelessly

title: безнадежно


text:
безразлично

Adverb

 * 1) indifferently

Predicative

 * 1) it doesn't matter, it's all the same

title: безразлично


text:
Template:R:Koseki Moji/documentation

This template provides a link to the  database. The sole input needed is the number of the character in the database (which can be easily found at GlyphWiki, e.g. http://glyphwiki.org/wiki/koseki-471610 → ).

title: Template:R:Koseki Moji/documentation


text: Category:Min Nan reference templates

title: Category:Min Nan reference templates


text:
бережно

Adverb

 * 1) carefully

title: бережно


text:
Talk:composite particle

RFV discussion: March–April 2015
Rfv-sense: any particle that is not an elementary particle, namely hadrons, atomic nuclei, atoms and molecules. This definition is consistent with en-Wikipedia article but not with the rest of dictionaries, which are of the opinion that this term refers to subatomic particles ][]. The only exceptions that I could find are the dictionaries which cite Wiktionary as source, e.g.. Thus, it appears to me, we should drop anything bigger than atomic nuclei from the list after the word "namely". We might also want to add an entry for composite particle board, because it is not board made of composite particles, but this is another business. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No comments within several weeks: I guess I'm right and will go ahead with editing the definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your thought about composite particle board (= composite + particle board). As with any MWE using polysemous components, there are multiple construals possible, eg, in displaying or tallying results of research on composite particles, one might use a composite particle + board. For that matter, combining several display boards of research on particles, the result might be a composite + particle + board. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:composite particle


text:
überlang

Adjective

 * 1) overly long
 * 2)  overly tall
 * 3) * 1922, Walther Kabel (pseud. William Käbler), Das Geheimnis des Zuni, Verlag moderner Lektüre, page 5:
 * "de"
 * "de"

- Auch Old Staked, ein dürrer, überlanger Mensch, war neugierig geworden.

title: überlang


text:
бесполезно

Adverb

 * 1) uselessly

Adverb

 * 1) uselessly

title: бесполезно


text:
беспомощно

Adverb

 * 1) blankly

title: беспомощно


text: Category:en:Carps

title: Category:en:Carps


text: Category:Carps

title: Category:Carps


text:
橡筋

Noun

 * 1) rubber band; elastic band
 * 2)  jellyfish salad

title: 橡筋


text:
下乳

Noun

 * 1) underboob the lower part of a woman's breast

title: 下乳


text:
上乳

Noun

 * 1) the upper part of a woman's breast

title: 上乳


text:
dice game

Noun

 * 1) Any game that requires the rolling of dice, such as craps.

Synonyms

 * Thesaurus:game

title: dice game


text: dice games

title: dice games


text:
бессмысленно

Adverb

 * 1) senselessly; foolishly

Predicative

 * 1) there is no sense, it is pointless

title: бессмысленно


text:
Appendix talk:List of dialect-dependent homophones

RFC discussion: February 2007
Spot checking several sections of this, I can't see how any of these assertions are made. As many parts overlap my NY accent, it seems odd that so very much does not correspond. So, do we have a way to label this as "controversial" or "disputed" or something? --Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly needs a bit of a clean up. It could also use references.  Though, I'm not 100% sure, Connel, what you mean.  Parts also overlap with my Sydney accent and parts don't.  Is this odd, considering that it's a list of dialect-dependent homophones?  I must be missing something. Jimp 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:𒉀

RFC discussion: March 2007
--Connel MacKenzie 00:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:𒉀


text:
Talk:dumpster diving

RFC discussion: March 2007–November 2010
The synonyms look regional; for example, "skip" is the UK (Commonwealth?) term for the Americanism "dumpster", so "skipping" is probably a UK (or Commonwealth) term. The regionality of these terms needs to be researched and suitable labels added. — Paul G 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Do we add labels in the synonyms section? DAVilla 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In Australia we use the word "skip" for the very large rubbish bins. I've never heard the verb "skipping" but I am familiar with the term "dumpster diving" but perhaps only from American sources/influence. I couldn't say "dumpster diving" is or isn't used in Australia but I can say that "dumpster" alone is not used there. It could be similar for the word "closet" which we don't used but we do used expressions such as "to come out of the closet" etc. — Hippietrail 00:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaned. — Beobach 07:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:dumpster diving


text:
Talk:HALO

RFC discussion: May 2007
— Paul G 12:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * POS is "Abbreviation", but are these acronyms or just initialisms?
 * The expanded forms are given with initial capitals, which is probably incorrect. (The fact that an abbreviation is made up of capitals says nothing about the capitalisation of the expanded form.)
 * No meaning is given for the full phrase (although it can be guessed at).

title: Talk:HALO


text:
Talk:правило

RFC discussion: May 2007–November 2010
Why is a nonstandard numbered POS heading used here? Just to mess up bots? Or just to be incomprehensible? --Connel MacKenzie 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's because the entry has two homographs, each of which has a different declension. Our structure has no other way to match declensions when we have homographs that belong to the same part of speech but decline differently. I've handled levo (for Latin) by assuming that there are two different etymologies for the two words, though I don't know what those etymologies are, and they may not in fact be different. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a non-sequitur...if they have the same etymology, then they are the same word (with the same declination.) If they are separate words (homographs) then something in their origin is different.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The lemma form is a homograph, but there are two different inflection lines because the other forms are different. It is possible for two words to share an etymological origin, but inflect differently.  The point is that outside of English, we seldom have etymologies entered.  For many languages, no good etymological research exists.  We have to be able to cope with this fact. --EncycloPetey 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Entering "Unknown" for an etymology section is perfectly valid (when accurate.) Why should an exception be made for other languages?  Etymology is equally counter-intuitive for definitions of English words.  To be less ambiguous about what I said earlier: each lemma homograph is a separate word, with a separate etymology (even if they all say simply "unknown.")  --Connel MacKenzie 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the same way that English sometimes has more than one plural to accommodate different senses (antennas, antennae), even though they have exactly the same etymology, Russian often will pronounce a word that has one spelling two different ways, with two different declensions, though they have the same etymology. Likewise, Arabic nouns frequently have different plurals for different senses of a word, sometimes even different genders, even though they share the same etymology. The same thing occurs in many different languages, and while there are occasionally different etymologies, usually the homographs share the same etymology. —Stephen 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, antenna is a good example of what I mean: the things sticking up on an insect's head are not the same word (lemma?) as the electronic devices used to relay radio waves.   Certainly, the etymology of the electronic device should not be the same, as that word's origin came from an imitation of the things sticking up from an insect's head.  (When the Latin word for the things atop an insect's head was devised, electronics did not exist.  When the term was borrowed from Latin into English, electronics did not exist.  When television sets were invented with two things sticking up from the "head", Latin was already "dead.")  --Connel MacKenzie 06:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But surely they are the same, the radio devices being named after the insects' —Saltmarsh 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the situation is generally different in the case of English, since English has borrowed the vast majority of its lexicon from other languages, especially Old French. Most languages have not done this, or at least not in historical times, and homographs are not borrowed from two similar languages, but are native vocabulary. So, the only etymological differences, if there are any at all, are the etymologies of the plural affixes. The stems of homographs usually have the same etymology. —Stephen 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have, coincidentally, just runn into the same problem with θέρος with 2 genders, 2 meanings (harvest & summer) but surely 1 etymology. —Saltmarsh 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Or лебедь with two genders, two declensions, one meaning (but one poetic, one regular). Same etymology. —Stephen 18:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that my logic above is right and philologist I aint. But if θέρος has 2 genders, it is 2 words not one they both evolved from Ancient Greek when both meanings (harvest and summer) had the same  gender. At some point the word for harvest changed gender so θέρος  θέρος  have different etymologies - the masculine version has a step beyond the neuter version - whether this was taken last year or 500y ago is irrelevant? —Saltmarsh 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. — Beobach 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:правило


text:
Category talk:Intensifiers by language

RFC discussion: May 2007
I've rfc'ed this category for two reasons: primarily to establish its parentage as it occurs to me that intensifiers should not be considered a Parts Of Speech category. Secondly, I believe there are some items in the category which do not belong. __meco 11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Usually, intensifiers are Adjectives, so no, I do not believe that inventing a new p-o-s classification is correct. Also, not all definitions will necessarily be identified as an intensifier, so having the ability to simply tag individual definitions is better, in my opinion.  --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Intensifiers can also be adverbs, and in some languages particles. This isn't a part of speech, it's a function like negation is.  --EncycloPetey 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Intensifiers by language


text:
Talk:𒀸

RFC discussion: June–October 2007
This is a symbol, right? --Connel MacKenzie 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a letter, used in cuneiform languages. However, it's also a word, and so does require all the separate language sections that it has.  Unfortunately Dbachmann was one of the few people on Wiktionary who knew enough about these characters to write a proper entry on them.  My suggestion is to simply leave them as they are.  While they are rather garbled, I believe they do contain a fair bit of good information.  Hopefully, someone will come along, in time, who knows enough about cuneiform languages (and is willing to follow Wiktionary formatting policies) to create a better entry.  Atelaes 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cuneiform is a script used to write long-extinct languages. While research exists for these languages, most of it seems to be heavily copyright protected research.  Two of the 19 references listed on Cuneiform seem OK, but are written in German.  The notion that we should wait for a native speaker come along and flesh out these entries is not reasonable.  The information that is there offhand seems highly suspect; either it is is translated from German (where it might violate NOR,) or is gleaned from copyright-protected sources.  Simply leaving it alone seems precarious.  I suppose the argument could be made that the information has been "common knowledge" since 1841, but I wouldn't believe that the whole body of research was, personally.  The fact that the "contents" of the entry is unintelligible (codes cross-referencing modern research texts, presumably) make this more suspicious.  Move to RFD?  Or to WT:BP?  --Connel MacKenzie 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:𒀸


text:
Talk:heartleaf

RFC discussion: June 2007–December 2010

 * Dealt with. — Beobach 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

heart-leaf

 * Dealt with. — Beobach 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

leather leaf

 * Dealt with. — Beobach 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ragleaf

 * Dealth with, as far as the plural is concerned. the RFV remains. — Beobach 23:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

sweetleaf
What is the plural of these words? Any botanist know what the various plants referred to are? Every dictionary I look at seems to have different definitions. — Paul G 06:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not in Mabberley (The Plant-Book), so I couldn't guess which plant(s) is meant. Common names for plants can be highly regional.  Consider that Populus alba (the white poplar) is commonly called a sugar maple in the Ozarks and Oauchitas, even though it's not even remotely a maple tree.  For an animal example, consider that the robin is an entirely different bird in the US and UK.  About their only similarity is a bit of red color (or colour) on the breast.  My guess for the plural is that it's the same as the singular.  For almost any plant, and especially grasses and shrubs, a group of individual plants uses a mass noun identical to the singular, as in: The hillside was covered in heather.  An inflected form for the plural shows up when individuals are being emphasized, as in: The forest was dark under the oaks.; or for showy flowers, as in: We strolled among the roses.; or when the common name is used to refer to a suprageneric taxon such as a family, as in: The lilies have flowers with six tepals and a superior ovary,  I couldn't say what form the plural would take in this case, as it might not even be used. --EncycloPetey 06:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The reference works with differing definitions are the OED (two defs: heart-clover; floating heart), onelook (two defs, including "wild ginger"); and Wikipedia (Houttuynia cordata as a root vegetable). — Paul G 06:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I don't have access to a British Flora these days. For the OED, we'd be dealing with nomenclature from over 100 years ago, subject to lots of changes.  So, the species might have been split into two new ones, or it might have been subsumed into another one. I can say that most clovers are in genus Trifolium, and most have heart-shaped leaflets (in threes) at the end of each leaf. I wouldn't want to guess at "floating heart" (which does not have an OED entry!), since it could be a water lily or a member of the litle floating aquatic plant species with heart-shaped leaves (whose name escapes me at the moment).  Wild ginger is usually Asarum canadense (which is in no way related to the plant used in cooking as ginger). --EncycloPetey 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the plural, I wonder whether it is "-leafs" or "-leaves"; if this is a plant you can buy, would you ask for "two heart-leafs" or "two heart-leaves"? Comparing Google hits doesn't help much. — Paul G 06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. I compared Google Books hits. — Beobach 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:heartleaf


text:
Talk:lace-leaf

RFC discussion: June 2007–December 2010
Calling all botanists again... What is the plural? Which binominal name is correct? The OED has Ouvirandra fenestralis but Wikipedia has Aponogeton madagascariensis and Aponogeton fenestralis. — Paul G 06:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the International Plants Names Index, Ouvirandra fenestralis is now called Aponogeton fenestralis. The genus Ouvirandra was subsumed into the genus Aponogeton. --EncycloPetey 07:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's very helpful. I'll update the article accordingly. — Paul G 08:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. — Beobach 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:lace-leaf


text:
Talk:euchre

RFC discussion: June 2007–December 2010
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs more definitions --Volants 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Has been dealt with. — Beobach 01:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:euchre


text:
Talk:shib

RFC discussion: June 2007–December 2010
Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been dealt with. — Beobach 02:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:shib


text:
Talk:ratepayers group

RFC discussion: March 2007–December 2010

 * Moved from RFV.

Is this any more than the sum of its parts? SemperBlotto 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem any different from most of our terms.  There is a sense missing, in the context of group benefits meaning groups of groups.  I'd say yes, this is a technical definition...just jargon specific to both the legal and health insurance industries.  --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to RFD? Keep per Connel. DAVilla 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The entry is clean. If it should be sent to RFD, that is a separate issue. — Beobach 01:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:ratepayers group


text:
Thesaurus talk:mountain

RFC discussion: June 2007–December 2010
several words which appear not to be synonyms, and not listed under any other heading.--Richardb 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaned. — Beobach 02:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Thesaurus talk:mountain


text:
Talk:apprehension

RFC discussion: June 2007–June 2010
The usage notes are a bit messy (I moved one from in between the definitions). Citations need dates as well. Doe we want WEAE in pronunciation sections? H. (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Still Websterian. Added webster tag. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:apprehension


text:
Talk:HAHO

RFC discussion: May 2007

 * See Talk:HALO.

title: Talk:HAHO


text:
Talk:heart-leaf

RFC discussion: June 2007–December 2010

 * See Talk:heartleaf.

title: Talk:heart-leaf


text:
Talk:leather leaf

RFC discussion: June 2007–December 2010

 * See Talk:heartleaf.

title: Talk:leather leaf


text:
Talk:sweetleaf

RFC discussion: June 2007–December 2010

 * See Talk:heartleaf.

Plurality
It seems suspect that the plural here is sweetleafs but at the spaced form it is sweet leaves. Equinox ◑ 23:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:sweetleaf


text:
Χιγκς

Etymology
.

title: Χιγκς


text:
Talk:frankalmoign

RFC discussion: August 2010
I'm seeing hits for it, but what is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. SemperBlotto 15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:frankalmoign


text:
Talk:mein Name ist Hase

RFC discussion: August 2010
Probably need amending: the POS header; the categories; the inflection line. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:mein Name ist Hase


text:
Talk:cannelure

RFC discussion: August 2010
I think we can deduce that it is a ringlike groove. Surely we don't need to say that half a dozen times. SemperBlotto 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, made it so, feel free to check. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:cannelure


text:
Talk:æwita

RFC discussion: August–September 2010
Inflection shouldn't be written out by hand, but in a table. Also synonyms are very messy, especially for a word with one meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

æwnung
Same as above. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Duly cleaned. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 10:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:æwita


text:
Talk:power gamer

RFC discussion: August 2010
Definition needs to be worded so it's understandable. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Now rephrased and split into two senses per Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, striking. —msh210℠ (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:power gamer


text:
Talk:æwnung

RFC discussion: August–September 2010

 * See Talk:æwita.

title: Talk:æwnung


text:
Talk:kurang

RFC discussion: June 2007
POS? --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not an easy question to answer. I've begun learning a little Indonesian, and I'm baffled so far by the way they handle parts of speech.  The definitions I can find for this word are sometimes verbs, sometimes adjetives, sometimes adverbs, and even nouns.  And no, the definitions are not sorted according to these various POS as we understand them.  As near as I can make out, Indonesian uses a number of base forms and the addition of affixes shades the meaning to the desired sense, grammar, and part of speech (see Indonesian_language).  It will take someone very familiar with both Indonesian and the study of grammar to categorize any Indonesian word we have questions about. --EncycloPetey 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion: December 2010
[still need cleanup, since 2007] — Beobach 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:kurang


text:
Talk:weed

RFC discussion: July–August 2007
All but two senses seem bogus or non-sensibly over-precise. For example, marijuana and tobacco are both weeds, but the slang usually refers only to marijuana. Rather than list the senses on RFD/RFV, I tagged them so it is clear (clearer) what my complaints are, directly in the entry. After cleanup, if any remain I guess they can be nominated on RFD or RFV. The translations seem to depend on the Polish language's distinction of lots of sub-senses. The English meanings shouldn't be split out to accommodate that, rather, the translation tables where it applies should list the three variants and what restrictions apply (one or two words, with usage notes or full glosses given as explanation on the target Polish entries.) --Connel MacKenzie 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments on some of the senses to be discussed:
 * I can cite usage of weed to mean tobacco from Tolkien (and it's in the OED). I remember the Peter Jackson film sticking to the original line from the first book of "Finest weed in the South Farthing", which caused unintended laughter amongst the Berkeley audience I saw it with.  We should keep the "tobacco" sense, however, we should probably mark it as archaic or obsolete, given that it's no longer understood to mean that by most English speakers.
 * The sense of "cigar" is listed and cited in the OED (likely obsolete now), so is the "animal unfit to breed from" although the OED specifically applies it to horses and says that it pertains to a mangy straggly sort of appearance.
 * The "underbrush" sense is not redundant. Look closely and you'll see it's (uncountable), and is therefore not truly combinable with sense 1.
 * I don't find any evidence of "sudden illness" or "somthing unprofitable" as possible definitions.
 * --EncycloPetey 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've made some of those changes, and reordered the current meanings to come before the obsolete meanings, and the rfv-senses to come after that.  --Connel MacKenzie 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

ety1=2idsay
c.fe.wee(urin><urinate213.49.93.250 11:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

something worn as sign of mourning: especially a black band around a sleeve or hat
WEED: something worn as a sign of mourning, especially a black band around a sleeve or hat Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have that, etymology 3 sense 3. Fay Freak (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the cursive part: especially a black band around a sleeve or hat--Backinstadiums (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just a function of the function of displaying grief. Mourning underwear is not likely. Whether it tended to be certain garments is uncertain and dubious since it had born the general meaning of a raiment. Fay Freak (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:weed


text:
Talk:economy class syndrome

RFC discussion: July 2007–December 2010
Needs wikilove. --Connel MacKenzie 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks alright. — Beobach 03:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:economy class syndrome


text:
Talk:vertical bar

RFC discussion: July 2007
Tagged but not listed. The definition needs to be split and probably made not quite so technical (and that’s coming from me!). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion: August–September 2016
Most of the definitions should be moved to as they don't refer to the name, but the symbol itself. Einstein2 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 * ✅ Equinox ◑ 18:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:vertical bar


text:
Talk:air display

RFC discussion: July 2007–December 2010
Random combination of words, or a regional equivalent of air show? --Connel MacKenzie 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To me an air display is a performance of aerobatics, etc. (more than just a fly-past) at an event that is not an air show. For example I went to the British Grand Prix (Formula One) a few years back, and there were air displays by the Red Arrows (Sunday) and the Blue Eagles (Saturday). An airshow being an event where aircraft are the primary focus - e.g the Royal International Air Tattoo. Thryduulf 21:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much my understanding too. Although the term might sometimes be used synonymously with "air show", that doesn't seem to fully capture the meaning. For example, as you say, a performance at a Grand Prix would normally be called an "air display", not an "air show". In the UK anyway. Matt 00:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Alrighty then, moving to WT:RFC instead. --Connel MacKenzie 05:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks alright. — Beobach 22:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:air display


text:
shitpuddle

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  A rude, obnoxious, or contemptible person.

title: shitpuddle


text: shitpuddles

title: shitpuddles


text:
Talk:accompany

RFC discussion: December 2010
There are indications of quotes that are nowhere to be found. Some definitions are repeated. Obsolete definitions are given before common ones. The only confirmed translations are Dutch and German.

 * I have re-ordered the definitions. Further cleanup (of redundant senses) may follow. — Beobach 21:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

equality of station
What does "equality of station" mean? --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "station" here means class or rank - being the same type of people. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:accompany


text:
Talk:-eous

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
This suffix entry has a huge list of hundreds of ostensibly derived terms. Some are clearly not as they do not even end in -eous (!), and others’ entries’ etymology sections (such as those for heterogeneous, hideous, and homogeneous) conflict with the assertion they are thence derived. It appears that the list was automatically compiled from a blanket search of the online Oxford English Dictionary, thus not only erroneously adding underived terms (as the search was for a word ending, not a common suffix), but also adding terms whose only probable relation to -eous is that their entries refer to the suffix, or make use of an -eous-terminal word. Lastly, a minor point — such a huge list ought most certainly to be enclosed in a rel-table (as translations are in trans-tables). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The words which do not end in -eous have since been removed from the mammoth list. — Beobach 21:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:-eous


text:
Talk:qilachxizax

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Do you feel qualified to start About Aleut and set about gathering input from Aleut-speaking editors and formalizing policies as to what POS headers would be appropriate? (I don't think we have a language considerations page for any agglutinative language yet, so you'd be treading new territory. For one thing, these languages will definitely test how serious we are about including "all words in all languages". From what I understand, an entire English sentence can often be cast as a single, grammatical word in Aleut; will we therefore require that Aleut sentences be attested wholesale in order to merit inclusion?) Until we have a header for such things, listing these entries here seems pointless. —Ruakh TALK 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I know a little about Aleut, but more about Yup’ik, which is a related language. I think these languages may be too exotic for Wiktionary at the present time. Yes, Aleut is polysynthetic, which means that suffixes can be piled on apparently without limit to build very complex words that mean an entire sentence or more in English. Still, there are some simple words, such as Aleut kartuufilax̂ (potato), kurix̂ (cigarette), suupax̂ (soup), paltux̂ (coat), braatax̂ (brother) (note the similarity with Russian картофель, курить, суп, пальто, and брат); or native Aleut ulax̂ (house]], angalix̂ (day). Aleut nouns are declined for three numbers, and the verb morphology is complex: asx̂alakax̂txidix (those two did not kill someone); ayugikux̂txichin (they went out in their boat); dux̂taasaĝilakatxichi (you don’t have a guest). Unfortunately, these languages require the use of some unusual grammatical terms such as postbases, relational case, aequalis, vialis, terminalis, and so on, and I am not able to make it palatable to a reader who knows little about grammar and cares less. I can’t even figure out how to do relatively easy languages such as Russian and Arabic, or even how to format the letters or syllables of scripts such as Cyrillic and Burmese. Right now I limit myself to easily described words such as nouns, basic adjectives and adverbs. Words that call for difficult or odd headers like "expression" or "impersonal verb" will have to wait for another time (and this includes Ojibwe, Aleut and Yup’ik and any other polysynthetic languages). —Stephen 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * That's disappointing, but I understand where you're coming from. The less a language is like English, grammar-wise, the harder it is to integrate into a system that we originally designed with English in mind. —Ruakh TALK 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * By the way, Cherokee often does this as well, which is one of the reasons that I have been very reluctant to add words, because there are words for such things as become an entire sentence in English. --Neskaya talk 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Very cute POV ranting, but the problem isn't the system; it is the desired end result. The target audience here is English readers, with familiarity of English.  It is hard because it is very hard, not because of systemic restrictions (as you assert.)  Fitting unexpected structures into a comprehensible scheme is very difficult.  It seems obvious to me, that you are currently pushing in some ways, to undermine the little coherency and consistency we do have.
 * How many "sentence words" does Aleut actually use? Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?  If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be "space delimited" as that would not apply.  If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.  Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?
 * --Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Very cute personal attack, but my comment was brief, calm, and sincere; not a "rant" at all. It did reflect my own POV, obviously, but that's inevitable; obviously your comments reflect your POV. I am by no means criticizing the system, besides to state the obvious: it was originally designed with English in mind. Some things are easy to extend; the languages that I speak all fit nicely into this system, as do many others (granted, one editor has objected to Hebrew having a "Root" POS section with a "Forms" subsection, but that's not a consequence of the system itself). However, with polysynthetic languages it's more difficult, because they don't all have "words" in exactly the same way we do, and it's hard to figure out how to incorporate them into our system in a coherent, consistent way (which is something that both you and I prize).
 * Believe it or not, it actually seems like you and I mostly agree about this. (Our main disagreement seems to be that whereas you think it's more important to fit other languages into the mold of English so that English-speakers will feel like they understand whether or not they actually do, I think it's more important to try to extend the mold in coherent, consistent ways so that our entries are accurate while still being maximally useful.)
 * Regarding your specific questions:
 * Re: "How many 'sentence words' does Aleut actually use?": From what I understand, an unlimited number. That's the way the language is normally structured, with everything kind of being rolled into the verb. (Caveat lector: I don't actually speak Aleut, and my understanding may be wrong.)
 * Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?": I didn't assert that. Please look up the word "often".
 * Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be 'space delimited' as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.": Aleut does have things that can be considered "words", but I don't think the boundaries are always well-defined. From what I understand, there are a lot (or perhaps arbitrarily many?) of what are called "portmanteau affixes" that blend different kinds of tense/mood/aspect and agreement information into single forms, that then interact with adjacent affixes in different ways … but I really don't know how it works, exactly: hence my suggestion that people who do speak the language start a About Aleut and set about figuring out how to fit Aleut into our system -slash- extend our system in a coherent, consistent way so that we can cover Aleut.
 * Re: "Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?": Neither.
 * —Ruakh TALK 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I am sorry if I incorrectly attributed malice to your tone; other posts of yours at the time were directed at me and rather scathing. In that light, it is hard to see your comments as having been neutral.  Yet, I still did not make a personal attack; I'm sorry you feel that way.  But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?

 * You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org.  The system is designed to cater to English readers.  Aleut having trouble fitting into a coherent mold is understandably difficult, but I don't think that implies (as you seem to imply) that the structure as designed can't accommodate Aleut.  The en.wiktionary.org entries for Aleut terms may not end up taking the same approach as other English-to-Aleut and Aleut-to-English dictionaries.  But then, en.wiktionary.org doesn't take the same approach for defining English words (and especially word forms) as other English dictionaries.

 * It doesn't mean that we can't have Aleut entries. It does mean we need to think about how we incorporate knowledge about Aleut words into Wiktionary.  I would not be at all surprised to learn that we can't use any other Aleut-to-English dictionary's format.  Unlike you, I don't think that is any great travesty.  If anything, it will reduce (if not effectively eliminate) the possibility of copyright violations creeping in.

 * --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Re: "But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?": I'd like that, yes. :-)

 * I completely agree with your last paragraph, except that part that implies I think that's a travesty. :-)  I'm not saying that we need to do things the way other Aleut dictionaries do; I'm just saying that we need the Aleut-speakers here to figure out a way to do it that presents Aleut accurately and jibes with our system here. It's my opinion that this will require bending the system a wee bit, but we'll never know until they try. ;-)

 * Re: "You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org.": I suppose so. It looks to me like most discussions here still take place with mostly English in mind, and we simply transfer these results into other languages, having specialized discussions when necessary. Heck, the "narrow community" clauses in CFI seem to exclude entire languages that are only spoken in narrow communities (not that such an interpretation would find any support).

 * —Ruakh TALK 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Cleaned up. — Beobach 21:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion: September 2007
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Do you feel qualified to start About Aleut and set about gathering input from Aleut-speaking editors and formalizing policies as to what POS headers would be appropriate? (I don't think we have a language considerations page for any agglutinative language yet, so you'd be treading new territory. For one thing, these languages will definitely test how serious we are about including "all words in all languages". From what I understand, an entire English sentence can often be cast as a single, grammatical word in Aleut; will we therefore require that Aleut sentences be attested wholesale in order to merit inclusion?) Until we have a header for such things, listing these entries here seems pointless. —Ruakh TALK 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I know a little about Aleut, but more about Yup’ik, which is a related language. I think these languages may be too exotic for Wiktionary at the present time. Yes, Aleut is polysynthetic, which means that suffixes can be piled on apparently without limit to build very complex words that mean an entire sentence or more in English. Still, there are some simple words, such as Aleut kartuufilax̂ (potato), kurix̂ (cigarette), suupax̂ (soup), paltux̂ (coat), braatax̂ (brother) (note the similarity with Russian картофель, курить, суп, пальто, and брат); or native Aleut ulax̂ (house]], angalix̂ (day). Aleut nouns are declined for three numbers, and the verb morphology is complex: asx̂alakax̂txidix (those two did not kill someone); ayugikux̂txichin (they went out in their boat); dux̂taasaĝilakatxichi (you don’t have a guest). Unfortunately, these languages require the use of some unusual grammatical terms such as postbases, relational case, aequalis, vialis, terminalis, and so on, and I am not able to make it palatable to a reader who knows little about grammar and cares less. I can’t even figure out how to do relatively easy languages such as Russian and Arabic, or even how to format the letters or syllables of scripts such as Cyrillic and Burmese. Right now I limit myself to easily described words such as nouns, basic adjectives and adverbs. Words that call for difficult or odd headers like "expression" or "impersonal verb" will have to wait for another time (and this includes Ojibwe, Aleut and Yup’ik and any other polysynthetic languages). —Stephen 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * That's disappointing, but I understand where you're coming from. The less a language is like English, grammar-wise, the harder it is to integrate into a system that we originally designed with English in mind. —Ruakh TALK 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * By the way, Cherokee often does this as well, which is one of the reasons that I have been very reluctant to add words, because there are words for such things as become an entire sentence in English. --Neskaya talk 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Very cute POV ranting, but the problem isn't the system; it is the desired end result. The target audience here is English readers, with familiarity of English.  It is hard because it is very hard, not because of systemic restrictions (as you assert.)  Fitting unexpected structures into a comprehensible scheme is very difficult.  It seems obvious to me, that you are currently pushing in some ways, to undermine the little coherency and consistency we do have.
 * How many "sentence words" does Aleut actually use? Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?  If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be "space delimited" as that would not apply.  If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.  Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?
 * --Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Very cute personal attack, but my comment was brief, calm, and sincere; not a "rant" at all. It did reflect my own POV, obviously, but that's inevitable; obviously your comments reflect your POV. I am by no means criticizing the system, besides to state the obvious: it was originally designed with English in mind. Some things are easy to extend; the languages that I speak all fit nicely into this system, as do many others (granted, one editor has objected to Hebrew having a "Root" POS section with a "Forms" subsection, but that's not a consequence of the system itself). However, with polysynthetic languages it's more difficult, because they don't all have "words" in exactly the same way we do, and it's hard to figure out how to incorporate them into our system in a coherent, consistent way (which is something that both you and I prize).
 * Believe it or not, it actually seems like you and I mostly agree about this. (Our main disagreement seems to be that whereas you think it's more important to fit other languages into the mold of English so that English-speakers will feel like they understand whether or not they actually do, I think it's more important to try to extend the mold in coherent, consistent ways so that our entries are accurate while still being maximally useful.)
 * Regarding your specific questions:
 * Re: "How many 'sentence words' does Aleut actually use?": From what I understand, an unlimited number. That's the way the language is normally structured, with everything kind of being rolled into the verb. (Caveat lector: I don't actually speak Aleut, and my understanding may be wrong.)
 * Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words?": I didn't assert that. Please look up the word "often".
 * Re: "Is it, as you assert, grammatically correct to compound all sentences into single words? If so, then our consideration for Aleut words cannot be 'space delimited' as that would not apply. If it is instead, a small (or finite) collection of terms, they of course should have individual entries.": Aleut does have things that can be considered "words", but I don't think the boundaries are always well-defined. From what I understand, there are a lot (or perhaps arbitrarily many?) of what are called "portmanteau affixes" that blend different kinds of tense/mood/aspect and agreement information into single forms, that then interact with adjacent affixes in different ways … but I really don't know how it works, exactly: hence my suggestion that people who do speak the language start a About Aleut and set about figuring out how to fit Aleut into our system -slash- extend our system in a coherent, consistent way so that we can cover Aleut.
 * Re: "Do you know which it is, or are you ranting for the sake of ranting?": Neither.
 * —Ruakh TALK 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I am sorry if I incorrectly attributed malice to your tone; other posts of yours at the time were directed at me and rather scathing. In that light, it is hard to see your comments as having been neutral.  Yet, I still did not make a personal attack; I'm sorry you feel that way.  But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?

 * You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org.  The system is designed to cater to English readers.  Aleut having trouble fitting into a coherent mold is understandably difficult, but I don't think that implies (as you seem to imply) that the structure as designed can't accommodate Aleut.  The en.wiktionary.org entries for Aleut terms may not end up taking the same approach as other English-to-Aleut and Aleut-to-English dictionaries.  But then, en.wiktionary.org doesn't take the same approach for defining English words (and especially word forms) as other English dictionaries.

 * It doesn't mean that we can't have Aleut entries. It does mean we need to think about how we incorporate knowledge about Aleut words into Wiktionary.  I would not be at all surprised to learn that we can't use any other Aleut-to-English dictionary's format.  Unlike you, I don't think that is any great travesty.  If anything, it will reduce (if not effectively eliminate) the possibility of copyright violations creeping in.

 * --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Re: "But, perhaps we can move past all this, anyhow?": I'd like that, yes. :-)

 * I completely agree with your last paragraph, except that part that implies I think that's a travesty. :-)  I'm not saying that we need to do things the way other Aleut dictionaries do; I'm just saying that we need the Aleut-speakers here to figure out a way to do it that presents Aleut accurately and jibes with our system here. It's my opinion that this will require bending the system a wee bit, but we'll never know until they try. ;-)

 * Re: "You seem to have missed the crux: the system isn't designed with English in mind causing these restrictions. We've had foreign language entries from very early on here on en.wiktionary.org.": I suppose so. It looks to me like most discussions here still take place with mostly English in mind, and we simply transfer these results into other languages, having specialized discussions when necessary. Heck, the "narrow community" clauses in CFI seem to exclude entire languages that are only spoken in narrow communities (not that such an interpretation would find any support).

 * —Ruakh TALK 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:qilachxizax


text:
Talk:lengen-aka

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Very good. Is it a verb, then?  --Connel MacKenzie 23:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, this particular one could be called a verb, an expression, or a sentence. Aleut is a polysynthetic language and the parts that go to make up expressions usually cannot stand independently as words. Polysynthetic languages don’t have many of the simple words that Indo-European languages have, and the smallest unit is often a sentence or clause (but not a phrase, since phrases are characteristic of analytical and agglutinative languages). —Stephen 07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I still don't see how "phrase" doesn't fit. Since when does it need to be more than one word to be a phrase?  Our definitions certainly imply that it does not need to be more than one.  That said, if you can say with any certainty that it should be a 'verb', then by all means, please make that correction.  --Connel MacKenzie 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Duly changed. — Beobach 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:lengen-aka


text:
Talk:chuka-lutten

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:chuka-lutten


text:
Talk:co-nan-nie

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:co-nan-nie


text:
Talk:toe-skin

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. The hyphen in Aleut doesn’t separate words, it only separates phonemes, like writing "work-s" or "work-ed" in English. —Stephen 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure I follow your examples of either "work-s" or "work-ed." Could you please rephrase that?  --Connel MacKenzie 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I think he meant, “hyphen in Aleut [...] only separates morphemes”. He illustated that concept by showing how the English words works and worked would look if English orthography called for separating morpheme by hyphens.  Since work, -s, and -ed are English morphemes, works would be written as work-s and worked would be written as work-ed.  With that in mind, if toe and skin are Aluet morphemes that combine into a single word, they would be appear as toe-skin.  Does that help?  Rod (A. Smith) 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I've reclassified it as a verb. — Beobach 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:toe-skin


text:
Talk:co-yana

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:co-yana


text:
Talk:cun-nie

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:cun-nie


text:
Talk:tia-lutten

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:tia-lutten


text:
Talk:tauk-ru

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:tauk-ru


text:
Talk:tick-hue

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Reclassified. — Beobach 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:tick-hue


text:
Talk:beningen-rituk

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Dealt with. — Beobach 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:beningen-rituk


text:
Talk:buft-jini-toa

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Dealt with. — Beobach 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:buft-jini-toa


text:
Talk:chak-enilshu

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Has since been reclassified. — Beobach 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:chak-enilshu


text:
Talk:chie-moca

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Reclassified. — Beobach 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:chie-moca


text:
Talk:chu-mia

RFC discussion: September 2007–December 2010
Bad header. This is a single word, not a phrase. —Stephen 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Reclassified, cleaned up. — Beobach 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:chu-mia


text:
Talk:transformational rules

RFC discussion: August 2007–December 2010

 * See Talk:artificial grammar.

RFM discussion: July 2011
Not really got the faintest idea what this means, but both the definitions read like definitions of plurals rather than plural only meanings. Anyone have the faintest idea? --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:transformational rules


text:
Talk:-ne

RFC discussion: November 2007–December 2010
Needs a lot of cleanup. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's extensive, but it looks alright. ? — Beobach 01:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:-ne


text:
Talk:conscious parallelism

RFC discussion: December 2007–December 2010
This need a rollback or a rewrite? --Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for the last version before the anonymous contributor gave us the WP article. I'll put in a pedialite link and some "see also"s to make the other anti-trust terms more accessible. DCDuring 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Has been dealt with. — Beobach 04:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:conscious parallelism


text:
Talk:you know

RFC discussion: December 2007–December 2010
Had old obscure cleanup tag on - it is a very scruffy page, dubious definitions and quotations, vague and unhelpful usage note, translations to be checked and sorted too and probably unclear headings - It would be an interjection, not a particle. --Keene 01:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As you say, 2nd sense is clearly an interjection, very much like er, um, erm, uh, and possibly others that indicate hesitation. I have so amended it. Could the first sense be viewed as an impersonal pronoun, specifying "that which you know I mean, but don't want to say"? Reminiscent of you-know-who and similar. I will sleep on it and think about it tomorrow. DCDuring 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My best guess would be pronoun for sense 1, and I agree with calling the second one an interjection. Good catch. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pronoun? Creative. Struck as dealt with. — Beobach 05:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Affirmative meaning
My English isn't good enough to write a definition, but I think "you know" can have an affirmative, confirming, confident sense. Something like: I'm not as stupid as you may think, you know! That's English, isn't it? Well, if so... I don't think it's covered by any of the definitions that we have. Kolmiel (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

you know the
We use you know the… when we are telling stories or introducing a person, place or thing which the listener already knows about: You know the guy who used to call around selling lottery tickets? --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another common way of separating part of a sentence is to introduce it with You know..., as in You know Sylvia. Well, she ... --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

ELF
ELF speakers use you know predominantly as a selfserving strategy for purposes of creating coherence and “fumbling for words” in order to gain time for getting their  message across (Juliane, 2009, p. 171) Backinstadiums (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:you know


text:
Talk:-ise

RFC discussion: February 2008–December 2010
Long etymology, definite POV, possible copyvio. Incidentally, the Latin etymon should probably be in the form used by lemmata with this suffix. —Ruakh TALK 22:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Seems to have been dealt with. — Beobach 06:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:-ise


text:
Talk:conspectus

RFC discussion: March 2008–November 2010
This needs formatting, but I don't know whether this is singular (what's the plural then) or plural (what's the singular, or is it a plurale tantum?). Thryduulf 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as a borrowed Latin fourth-declension noun, the plural is the same as the singular (like deer is in English). That doesn't mean that English hasn't fashined it's own plural form, mind you, but strictly as a borrowed Latin term, that's the expected plural situation. --EncycloPetey 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking. I have removed frc from the entry, as there is no formatting issue; I have entered plural with quotation mark, so anyone feel free to indicate the right plural. A missing plural seems insufficient for a largish rfc box. --Dan Polansky 09:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:conspectus


text:
Talk:Cyllenean

RFC discussion: June 2010
Needs basic formatting. --EncycloPetey 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Striking.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cyllenean


text:
Talk:non-integer

RFC discussion: June–July 2010
Header says adjective, definition says noun. Maybe both? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a noun. The adjective is non(-)integral, though the noun sees attributive use also. I've switched the header and inflection template to noun. Good? —msh210℠ (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Without looking, yes of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:non-integer


text:
Talk:happy-clappy

RFC discussion: July–December 2010
The adjective def comes first but references the noun def, and so cannot be understood on it's own. I don't have time to fix this myself atm. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dealt with, I think. — Beobach 08:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:happy-clappy


text:
Talk:upas

RFC discussion: July 2010
This entry needs lots of templates. --Volants 08:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:upas


text:
Talk:idiom

RFC discussion: July 2010
The phrase-oriented linguistics definition depends on the reader having knowledge of foreign languages, an unreasonable expectation for a large segment of our users. It is arguably a criterion, rather than a definition and may have been intended to be POV. As a definition it does not correspond to what SIL offers. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the definition is ok, we just lack the one that you've cited. In class at uni we'd talk about "idiomatic translations" referring to this sort of thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only a polyglot or a linguist would find it OK. Operational criteria rarely serve well as a definition, however important they are for a dictionary. We do not define "adjective" as a word that satisfies more than one of a some set of conditions. Still worse is a definition based on a single criterion, let alone one whose illustration cannot be accomplished without using foreign languages. Perhaps we need to RfV the sense. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. Literal translateability is a good (though not perfect) test for idiom-ness, and it may be a major reason that people care about idiom-ness, but it's not what idiom-ness actually means. Even if there existed only one language, that language could still have idioms. What would you think of a definition like this? :
 * An expression whose meaning is separate from the meanings of its component words.
 * 2008, Patricia Hampl, “You’re History”, in Patricia Hampl and Elaine Tyler May (editors), Tell Me True: Memoir, History, and Writing a Life, Minnesota Historical Society, ISBN 9780873516303, page 134:
 * You’re history, we say . Surely it is an American idiom. Impossible to imagine a postwar European saying, “You’re history. . . . That’s history,” meaning fuhgeddaboudit, pal.
 * —Ruakh TALK 21:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is fine. I am aware of the incredible difficulty in getting more specific than that definition. The literal translatability criterion must mean "over several languages" as it may be that one or more of French, German, Latin, Spanish, Italian, Yiddish, and Latin may have the same expression. I am very skeptical of a definition that implies that one needs to consult a committee of polyglots (or other experts) who are also expert in English (say en-4) to know something about an aspect of English.
 * I have been reading Lexical Semantics, D. A. Cruse, 1986. I did not find any improvement on the definition you offer. But, based on my reading I have been thinking of classifying the terms in Category:English idioms as "set phrases", "inflecting true idioms", "bound collocations", and "dead metaphors" to see which ones don't fit in those categories, revisit their appropriateness, and develop additional categories. I am hoping to develop an adequate scheme for reducing controversy over the multi-word terms we include. DCDuring TALK 22:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Striking. I've implemented my proposal. (Of course, y'all are welcome to make any improvements.) I look forward to your scheme, DCDuring, if and when you've developed it. —Ruakh TALK 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

uncountable
What meaning(s) are (or can be) uncountable? --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Good question. All of the definitions start with A or An, agreeing with my understanding that all listed meanings are countable, so I'm going to change it to only countable. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 15:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is used uncountably. I'm not sure about senses other than the first, but you can find uncountable usage of much idiom, which clearly demonstrates uncountability. DCDuring (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Double negation in definition of sense 3
Is the double negation intentional? How about "An established expression whose meaning may not be deducible [...]"?--Roland Wingerter (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Your wording looks good to me. DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:idiom


text:
Talk:manitag

RFC discussion: July–October 2010
Head word does not match entry title. Not even close. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:manitag


text:
Talk:cyrin

RFC discussion: July–October 2010
Noun meaning 'to churn'. No gender, but category and header both say noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Converted to noun. Listed as 'noun' in the first revision of the page history. Also Old English verbs don't end in -in (or do they?). Still no gender, mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:cyrin


text:
Talk:Hornsby

RFC discussion: July 2010
Old English: Village or farm of the horns. See -by. WTF? Reads like an etymology. Delete if we can't clean it up. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * English place name, not Old English, and even as an etymology the first part was wrong. --Makaokalani 15:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hornsby


text:
Talk:볏

RFC discussion: July–August 2010
I'm assuming that the etymology should be in the etymology. It almost looks like a mistake, a copy-and-paste error. Is it saying this Korean was is from Latin? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a entry.  is known for crackpot etymologies. Removed the stuff. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:볏


text:
Talk:witi

RFC discussion: July–October 2010
First Drago nomination. Old High German feminine noun meaning. So what's a with? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:witi


text:
Talk:incredulous

RFC discussion: July–September 2010
If there are indeed two separate etymologies, then the sense need to be split up between them. Right now, all the senses are listed under "Etymology 2", and nothing under "Etymology 1". --EncycloPetey 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was rubbish. I put it all together and cleaned the entry up a bit. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:incredulous


text:
Talk:benchmark

RFC discussion: July–August 2010
The etymology section for this entry is wordy, and possibly a copyvio. --EncycloPetey 21:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, I added that etymology. I also added a reference to the source. I'll try to improve it. Suggestions are welcome. GiuseppeMassimo 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There, I believe I fixed the wordiness and removed any possibility of a copyvio. This is the first time I deal with a  situation and am not sure what is the protocol, so I'll wait a few days for feedback before removing the  from the entry (or feel free to remove it if you are satisfied with the changes). GiuseppeMassimo 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I adjusted the entry to use . DCDuring TALK 11:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no more comments, I'll remove the today. Let me know if I am jumping the gun. GiuseppeMassimo 15:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the original contributor should not be the one to remove the tag. For the  and, the challenger should not delete the challenged entry or part and the contributor or attester should generally not remove the tag. It's an easily enforced practice intended to make sure that multiple people (at least two or three) have taken a look at the issue. It works well for English. Languages with fewer contributors depend more on the restraint and good judgment of the veteran contributors. DCDuring TALK  15:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! I think the issue is solved, so who should remove the rfc tag then? GiuseppeMassimo 19:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So do I. Striking. Thanks to those who worked on this. —msh210℠ (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:benchmark


text: blow one's lid

title: blow one's lid


text:
Talk:benthamianus

RFC discussion: January 2010
I think this is translingual and hence needs redoing entirely. I don't think Modern English has been around long enough to influence Latin, has it? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not Translingual; it's Latin. This word is not used on its own in any language but Latin.  Where it appears in Translingual contexts, it is only as a component of a proper name.  So, in the same way that Faso is not Translingual by virtue of being part of Burkina Faso, so benthamianus is not Translingual.  Latin is still in existence, and is still being used.  --EncycloPetey 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To put it another way, would it be attestable per CFI in Latin? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking as whatever it is, it's not a cleanup issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:benthamianus


text:
Talk:itadakimasu

RFC discussion: January 2010
Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Cleaned up. —Stephen 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Striking. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:itadakimasu