text:
Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Celtic

Notation
I'm pretty sure that when I first created Proto-Celtic entries, the diphthongs ended in u and i and the letter j was used instead of y. Why was this changed? —CodeCat 20:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure no modern English-language sources use "j" for Proto-Celtic, though some German-language sources still may. Diphthongs end in w and y to match both Matasović 2009 and PIE entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But for PIE there's a good reason to use w and y; it's to show ablaut and the fact that they were phonologically consonants. That doesn't apply for Proto-Celtic, *ai was one phoneme and not two. —CodeCat 21:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Really I just wrote down the w/y forms because looking through the existing Proto-Celtic entries that contained diphthongs, far more of them were written with w/y than with u/i. I don't know who wrote them that way; I may have written some of them but I don't think I did most of them. I don't really care which way we write them as long as we're consistent, and moving the few that used i/u is considerably less work than moving all the ones that use y/w. Ablaut is a very bad reason to use y and w in PIE, though, since ablaut is more clearly seen in "ei ~ oi ~ i" than in "ey ~ oy ~ i". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked through some of the older entries. Apparently User:Victar renamed them all, then started adding more in "his" format. I think they should be moved back. —CodeCat 21:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, there were only a few Proto-Celtic entries to begin with before I added the majority, maybe 2 or 3 with u/i. Secondly, w/y and u/i were used interchangeable in entries, largely English etymologies. I went with w/y because it's what used in the most recent published literature, namely Matasović (2009), which is also the source of most of the reconstructions. To use u/i is to actually go against the cited source. Victar (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not required to follow Matasović's notational conventions to the letter. I still prefer u/i. —CodeCat 23:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not required but I see no reason to break from it just because it isn't to your preference. Victar (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But the same applies to you too doesn't it? —CodeCat 23:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is I'm not pushing any personal preference. I was simply adding new entries using the convention of the source of my entries, which is the most recent and complete reconstructed dictionary of Proto-Celtic. Victar (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked some other sources; Kim McCone and Peter Schrijver both use i/u. And we don't follow Matasovic for ɸ, since he uses f. Consistency with PIE is important too, though, in my opinion; if we say Proto-Celtic *oinos came from PIE it will look like more changed between PIE and PC than actually did. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But we use u/i with most other PIE descendants. Germanic, Italic, Balto-Slavic, and Hellenic. —CodeCat 00:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, as long as we're consistent I really don't care one way or the other. It is a matter of zero importance. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. If there were a way to do it online, I'd be willing to settle it by coin toss. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I just don't see enough justification to change things based on your personal preference. Maybe when a new dictionary is published with i/u we can revisit this, but for now, the consensus appears to keep it as is. Victar (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All I see is no consensus for either state of affairs. You want it one way, I want it another, and Angr is indifferent. So we need more opinions. —CodeCat 01:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So who else works on Proto-Celtic that we can ping? User:Word dewd544 and User:Ivan Štambuk, perhaps? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't work on Proto-Celtic entries. However, I'm in favor the most widely used reconstruction system, whatever that is. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't one though. At least not any more than for PIE. In PIE some sources use ey/oy, some use ei/oi, some use y/w, some use i̯/u̯, some use ḱ/ǵ, some use k̂/ĝ, some use bh/dh/gh, some use bʰ/dʰ/gʰ, and other things like that. For Proto-Celtic, some sources use f, some use ɸ, and there probably are sources that use oi while others use oy. My own preference is for oi, because this was a single diphthong phoneme in Proto-Celtic, whereas it was a vowel followed by a consonant in PIE. I would also prefer f for ease of typing, but I don't feel as strongly about it. —CodeCat 17:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree; there isn't one "most widely used reconstruction system". Matasovic uses f and ow/oy; McCone and Schrijver use ɸ and ou/oi; German authors tend to use ou̯ and oi̯. But as far as I can tell, no author follows CodeCat's suggestion of using one system for PIE and another for PC; everyone uses either ow/oy for both PIE and PC, or ou/oi for both PIE and PC, or ou̯/oi̯ for both PIE and PC. And seriously I don't think any reader, not even a reader with advanced knowledge of historical linguistics, is going to look at oy and think "that's a vowel followed by a consonant" and then look at oi and think "that's a monophonemic diphthong". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we please move back to using oi/ou and such? All other reconstructed PIE descendant languages already use this notation, except for Proto-Indo-Iranian. Most importantly, Proto-Italic uses it, but also Proto-Balto-Slavic, Proto-Hellenic and Proto-Germanic. I find the current notation nonsensical for a language that didn't have syllabic sonorants the way PIE does. The y in the diphthong oy is not a consonant in Proto-Celtic, it's the second part of a diphthong. This is different from PIE and plenty of attested non-PIE languages such as Slavic and Turkic where it is a consonant, and thus writing it with the consonant letter is appropriate. —CodeCat 22:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't mind one way or the other. ? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. I think they should be inline with the sourced materials. --Victar (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So you think we should also be using f instead of ɸ wherever Matasovic uses it, and use different notations for our entries when different sources have different notations? —CodeCat 15:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said above, different sources have different conventions. McCone and Schrijver do use oi/ou, as well as ɸ. We definitely shouldn't be following different conventions based on whichever source one editor happens to be using; we need conventions of our own that we stick to. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * McCone and Schrijver are 20-30 years old and are very limited in comparison. We wouldn't even use many of the PIE reconstructions. Matasovic is the most comprehensive and up-to-date source, and is thus what is used to cite the entries themselves. --Victar (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they're both still publishing. Matasovic is fine as far as he goes, but there's a lot of stuff (e.g. regarding inflections) that he simply doesn't cover, nor his he infallible. We are perfectly entitled to add words that aren't even in his dictionary, provided they're sourced to other reputable scholars. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think either has revised their phonology of Proto-Celtic since. Matasovic certainly isn't infallible; he isn't some supreme being. =P I'm just saying that when most entries are added, they're based on, if not taken directly from, his dictionary. The only alternative, I know, is from the University of Wales, and it's older, isn't peer reviewed, and isn't published. If you rather use ai/oi, then I'll concede to the majority, but I just don't find the change warranted enough. --Victar (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do think about this? —CodeCat 22:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ɸ and ou/oi. — JohnC5 23:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hah, you need to elaborate more than that (person I only heard of this month). --Victar (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * JohnC5 is a longstanding and trustworthy editor of PIE and Celtic entries, among other things. That you haven't seen him before says more about you, to be honest. —CodeCat 00:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't work at all in the PIE entries, but if I'm not mistaken, JohnC5, with all due respect, has never created a PCelt entry (from what I can see), or edited a entry I've created (until this month). So you can understand my bewilderment. --Victar (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the defense, Code. Here some edits I've made:, , . I'll admit that Celtic has not been an strong interest of mine until recently, but this is partially to do with the lack of infrastructure (templates) and activity in Proto-Celtic until recently. I do frequently reconstruct PC lemmata in PIE entries with the hope that others will come and do the dirty work of fleshing out the PC entries (I do the same with Italic, Germanic, Hellenic, Balto-Slavic, etc.).
 * As to the question at hand, I find it singularly frustrating having to look up whether a particular protolanguage on Wiktionary uses ai or aj every time I point to an entry. The argument about the PC's diphthongs vs PIE vowels followed by resonants I find quite cogent and thus support ai. ɸ vs. f is less important to me.
 * I think Matasović is most useful as an aggregator of reflexes and PC lemmata and less useful as an etymologist. I have found his PIE reconstructions to be often incomplete, speculative, or totally out of line with other reputable scholars. — JohnC5 01:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Same as JohnC5. I wouldn't mind using ⟨f⟩ if /ɸ/ had shifted to it as it did in Germanic, but ⟨ɸ⟩ seems fine. Anglom (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In my personal experience, I tend to skip over an unfamiliar letter when reading, even if the letter is far from unknown to me, it's just "out of place" as it doesn't look like any Latin letter. My instinct to recognise the letter and sound it out in my head is not as strong. In this case, it helps, because the letter went silent later. The same thing also helps with the yers in Slavic. —CodeCat 01:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely support changing entries from /ɸ/ to /f/. --Victar (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the majority has it. CodeCat, could you change over the Gaulish descendants too? Probably need to run a bot to fix all the etymology links in the various descendant entries. --Victar (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll edit the About page and start moving pages now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The only one I'm not moving is since PC didn't have a diphthong *eu. Matasović says maybe this is a reduplication that occurred after the change of ew > ow was complete in PC, but since the word has no known cognates outside Celtic anyway, I don't see why it couldn't be reconstructed . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 * All existing PC pages, and the links to them, now use āu/āi/au/ai/ou/oi. There are probably lots of red links still using the w/y spellings, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Notation revisited 2019
Is there someone reason why we're using and not, as in all PC sources that use phi? -- 22:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it's the IPA symbol. —Rua (mew) 08:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Phonetic transcription ≠ orthographic transcription -- we're not writing *ɸlaːnos either. If I Google search for *φlānos, the standard form of transcription, I don't get . Unless there is any good reason we're not using φ, I'm going to push for moving those entries to be in line with standard transcription. --  16:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care, so long as the symbols are consistent. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 18:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care either, but I wonder what makes Victar so sure that all PC sources that use phi use the Greek character rather than the IPA character. In most fonts, they look identical in print, don't they? —Mahāgaja · talk 17:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * not in their cursive form, which is distinctive, as seen in R:cel:KPV, but also many resources are unicode encoded these days, like R:ine:HCHIEL and Stifter (2012) Old Celtic Languages. -- 18:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * is this something you could do with your bot? put  . --  23:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you're sure that's what you want. DTLHS (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone else has some last minute objections, please. -- 00:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Victar alerted me to this by asking me to search for instances of ɸ in link templates, and my opinion as an outsider is that the published sources ought to use ɸ, which Unicode categorizes as Latin, rather than the Greek character φ. But I don't have any authority and I guess using the Greek character is a good choice practically to allow our entries to be found, since apparently search engines don't treat ɸ as equivalent to φ. — Eru·tuon 22:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We use θ even though it's the same letter used for Greek. -- 23:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's different; Unicode doesn't provide a separate IPA theta from the Greek theta, but it does provide separate phis for IPA and Greek. Anyway, I don't care if we shift, as long as the redirects remain so that people can search for either character. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that. I do think we should continue using the IPA phi, since it's defined as a Latin letter and Proto-Celtic is written in the Latin alphabet, but we should add redirects from forms using the Greek phi, so that people searching using that letter will still find the entries. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a solution. That may work for page titles if you manually create Greek phi versions of each page, but even then, the pages would probably suffer in Google search rankings for just being redirects, if Google indexes them at all. It wouldn't help in the slightest for links within pages. --   13:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 * So could you summarize what the consensus is and what you want me to do, if anything? DTLHS (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point I think the consensus is there isn't a consensus. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the only person left objecting. Can you give an updated rational as to why? -- 13:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because Unicode defines ɸ as a Latin letter, and we write Proto-Celtic in the Latin alphabet. And Wikimedia projects do try to use Unicode characters correctly, even when most other websites don't. For example, we make a concerted effort to use ʻ (U+02BB ) and ʼ (U+02BC ) correctly, even when other websites use ‘ (U+2018	) and ’ (U+2019 ) or even ' (U+0027 ) for them. I seem to recall a lengthy discussion some years back about not using the modifier letters that look like superscript letters for entries where some of the letters are usually written superscript, e.g.  not, because that would be using modifier letters in a way other than they were intended to be used. And ɸ is intended to be used in Latin-alphabet contexts (primarily but not exclusively the IPA), so we should use it there. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And as I pointed out, we also use both θ and β, which are encoded in Unicode as Greek letters, not Latin, so your objection to using Greek within Latin text falls rather flat. ɸ was created with the intention to be used in IPA transcriptions, so saying we're using it as it was "intended to be used" is also not true. I also doubt ₁ ₂ ₃ are being used as "intended", but here we are in PIE using them. -- 14:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And as I pointed out, Unicode hasn't provided a Latin theta or a Latin beta, so we have no choice there. But where we do have a choice, we should take it. If there were a Latin theta or a Latin beta in Unicode, I would be arguing for their use too. And, though this is difficult to prove, I strongly suspect the use of phi in Proto-Celtic reconstructions is derived from the use of phi in IPA, not the use of phi in Greek. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are wrong in that suspicion. See my links above that employ Unicode Greek phi in their PC reconstructions. Greek phi and IPA phi are very distinct in their lowercase form. I've yet to find a single PC reconstruction that use IPA phi. -- 15:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Vote for changing ɸ to φ in Proto-Celtic

 * : If φ is the standard the academic community has chosen to go with, we should follow suit, per both the academic and technical reasons voiced above. -- 14:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * : I'm far from convinced that the scientific community has explicitly chosen to go with φ (Greek phi) as opposed to ɸ (Latin phi) in the first place (i.e. where Greek phi is used in other works, it's probably out of ignorance or apathy rather than an explicit rejection of Latin phi), nor am I convinced that using Greek phi in a Latin-alphabet context is consistent with the principles of Unicode. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've listed sources above that employ Unicode Greek phi in their PC reconstruction, which are distinctive in their lowercase form. I challenge you to demonstrate a single source that uses IPA phi in their PC reconstructions. -- 15:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they don't do it; I said they don't do it deliberately. They pick the Greek phi because they don't care about the difference, not because they've made a conscious decision to avoid the Latin phi. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're using modern Unicode, you have a choice and they made that choice. You're also choosing to make the choice to use IPA phi, which has major technical disadvantages. -- 15:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Nominative singular of dental stems
As of right now, we have a bunch of dental stems with -ts and another bunch with -ss. We should presumably settle on one type and use it everwhere. If I understand the ending -ss correctly, it is the result of assimilation ts > ss, which also occurred in the middle of words, and has parallels in Latin and Greek. However, can we be sure that the gemination was contrastive and/or reconstructable? Is the assimilation itself even reconstructable word-finally, or is it just assumed by analogy with the medial outcome? In Germanic, the original situation is unrecoverable, so we settled for just sticking -z/-s onto the stem as we can, at least, be sure of the ending. —CodeCat 21:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure to what extent a distinctively geminate -ss is provable for PC. Even if the nominative singular of such nouns is attestable in some Continental Celtic language, it's probably spelled with just a single s. But in other cases, e.g., we do show the sound change that a consonant undergoes before the s, so I feel like moving to  might entail moving  to , which is a step I'm not sure I'm ready to take. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there, but what about ? —CodeCat 14:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. (Sorry for the late answer, I only just noticed your response.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I'm fine with either -s or -ss. We can't tell which and -ss seems a bit unlikely, but it does have the advantage of immediately revealing that the word is a dental stem. —CodeCat 13:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

*-sk(y)os, *-sk(y)ā suffix in Proto-Celtic
What can we say about the noun suffix, in PCelt? Does it derive from some possessive PIE suffix? Was it still functioning in PCelt in some capacity? --Victar (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a word that has it. Our PIE entry is at, which would give -esc in Old Irish, -easc in Modern Irish, and masculine -ysg/feminine -esg in Welsh. I'm unaware of any such suffix. Maybe there's something in Continental Celtic, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Words in PCelt? Here are a few:, , , , . --Victar (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * is the only suffix in PIE that I know of containing -sḱ-. Celtic could have formed a secondary suffix from PIE adjectives in (e.g. ) with sigmatic stems or by some outcome of *-kḱ- > *-ksk- > *-sk-, but I'm not familiar with a productive -sḱ- suffix in PIE adjectives, though I could be wrong. — JohnC5 17:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's possible that some originate from the durative/iterative imperfective verb suffix, as in 🇨🇬 (< ) < 🇨🇬, but it's harder with words from noun roots like 🇨🇬. --Victar (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are my best guesses for PCelt reconstructions based on a durative/iterative imperfective verb to a deverbal noun:

 * < <, from
 * < <, from
 * < <, from
 * --Victar (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * --Victar (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

*Koimogenan
What declension class does -an represent here? There's none that I know of other than the neuter -men-stems (like ), but this word lacks the m. —CodeCat 13:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)--Victar (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that too when I moved this page earlier today. Matasović says (whence 🇨🇬) is an archaic neuter n-stem from, but I have trouble believing a masculine name would keep that declension. As ever with Proto-Celtic personal names, I also have to wonder what evidence there is that this name is of Proto-Celtic date. If it isn't attested in Brythonic or Continental Celtic, it may have been coined only in Old Irish. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This just shows how much of a bint you are. UtherPendrogn (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is an issue with many of our Proto-Celtic proper noun entries currently. I doubt all of them existed in Proto-Celtic already. I think a good criterium would be if a name is found in both continental and insular Celtic. —CodeCat 14:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I.E words should only exist if CodeCat approves of them. UtherPendrogn (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem merging this into the OI entry, along with the various others I created with no bilateral cognates to their respective root entries. I'll probably need help with the Brythonic forms though. -- Victar (talk)
 * Does Cóemgen look fine, given we're deleting Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/Koimogenan? Ideally, I could have just used or something, but neither have OI entries. --Victar (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, until someone gets around to creating entries for and . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wondering, should I create the entries like, or should I give the reconstruction on an entry of the attested form? And if I did the latter, the Gaulish attestations are really Gallo-Latin, so should they belong to Latin, with Latin declensions? --Victar (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've actually always been hesitant in creating Gaulish entries because I'm never sure on how enter them. For instance, we have an entry for the attested . We also have the attested prefix form, so we can rather confidently conclude the form . Now is that a reconstruction? To take it a step farther, can we assume that the -uo- is -wo-, simply confined to a limited foreign alphabet, and conclude the form ? Is that a reconstruction? --Victar (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tend to avoid Gaulish too, for precisely the same reason. It can be hard to tell the difference between a word attested as Gaulish and a Gaulish loanword in Latin, especially when it comes to proper nouns like personal names and place names. My inclination is to focus on what's attested and put as much as possible in an etymology section, so rather than creating 🇨🇬, it's probably better to create 🇨🇬 with an etymology section that says something like "From Gaulish, from Proto-Celtic *X + *Y + *Z". As for, is it attested within a Gaulish text, or as a Gaulish word mentioned in a Latin text? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. and  are both from names, from what I understand. --Victar (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then again, I'd create entries for what's attested and put everything else in etymologies. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually feel more comfortable creating reconstructed Gaulish entries than labeling a Latin interpretation of a Gaulish name as Latin, and applying Latin inflection to it. That way I can say hey, this is out best guess, take it as you will. Here are some moves I've done: Katurīxs, Arianrhod, Brangen. Let me know if you see any problems with them before I do the same for the rest I've entered in PCelt. Thanks! --Victar (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They appear in Latin texts, and would presumably be inflected as Latin words. For example, if any of the names appeared in a context that called for a Latin dative, I have no doubt that the Latin ending for the dative would be used, not the Gaulish one. —CodeCat 19:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I was wondering if nouns and adjectives count as attested cognates? For instance 🇨🇬 is perfect cognate for OI segmar ("strong, vigorous"). Is this a pattern of OI forming nouns and adjectives from personal names? --Victar (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If anything, it's the other way around: Gaulish using an ordinary adjective as a personal name. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see is a denoninal adjective suffix in OI, so  is actually unrelated. I'll look into the others I noticed. --Victar (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved all the PCelt personal name entries I created to their highest common form with attested descendants. There are several that UtherPendrogn created which still need moving. --Victar (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this! I also appreciate your marking the redirects for deletion so as to remove any confusion. — JohnC5 18:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm a prolific deleter of my mistakes. ;) --Victar (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you mind checking Uther's too? They do need to be done, even if none of us wants to deal with him. —CodeCat 18:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to, but some just deleting, like Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/Akkalonos and Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/Akkalon. --Victar (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Accalon is attested. Don't suppose you give a fuck. UtherPendrogn (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Attested? Attested in what, Proto-Brythonic, Proto-Celtic? All I see is the Welsh form. --Victar (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You know full well reconstructed languages aren't attested. I've formed a comparative reconstruxisction which is correct. Sorry you don't like that. Oh wait, I'm not. UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We have attested forms of Proto-Brythonic and even pre-Proto-Brythonic. Your reconstruction isn't of concern; the issue is reconstructing given names that may have never existed. --Victar (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What you've done is taken a name attested in one single language and reconstructed it all the way back to Proto-Celtic, but there's no evidence it was in use as a Proto-Celtic name. It's like taking the modern English name and constructing a Latin first name *Riparius from it, regardless of the fact that Riparius wasn't a name in Latin. It's bad linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Proto-Celtic *Akkalonos would have given Welsh *A(c)halon anyway, as voiceless geminates become voiceless fricatives (ie. *katt- > *kaθ > cath). Anglom (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Celtic


text:
fiilari

Noun

 * 1) mood prevalent atmosphere or feeling

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

title: fiilari


text: direktøren

title: direktøren


text: direktører

title: direktører


text:
fiktiivisesti

Adverb

 * 1) fictively in a fictive manner

title: fiktiivisesti


text: direktørene

title: direktørene


text:
fiktiivisyys

Noun

 * 1) fictiveness quality of being fictive

title: fiktiivisyys


text: direktørar

title: direktørar


text:
yiłchʼil

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) he/she is cooking it rare, is undercooking it

Conjugation
.

title: yiłchʼil


text: direktørane

title: direktørane


text: white rabbits

title: white rabbits


text: Category:cy:Bodily fluids

title: Category:cy:Bodily fluids


text:
User talk:Fabgil

consistent
Hi. Synonyms need to be the same part of speech. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 21:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Translations
Please remember to add inside translation tables you create. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Desculpe, mas nao percebeu como esto se faz. Pode dar um exemplo ? Obrigado.
 * Assim: . — Ungoliant (falai) 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Todo bem !
 * Thanks for the translations! --Type56op9 (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Con placer (i amb molt sovint dificultats !)

Subject glosses
Hi! When you add something like this: "# (biochemistry) The transfer of substances..." can you please use a gloss instead: "# The transfer of substances..." This will put the word into the correct category. Equinox ◑ 12:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! OK, I can try this.

Bind
Hello ! I reverted the edit, which was excellently worded, but the sense was transitive. It might be worth considering re-adding as an intransitive sense on a separate line ? Leasnam (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fabgil


text:
unintrospective

Adjective

 * 1) Not introspective.

title: unintrospective


text:
onballer

Noun

 * 1)  Any of the three players (the ruckman, ruck rover, and rover) who usually follow the ball around the ground rather than occupying a fixed position.

title: onballer


text: onballers

title: onballers


text:
antropomorfização

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) anthropomorphisation attribution of human qualities

title: antropomorfização


text:
antropomorfizar

Verb

 * 1) to anthropomorphise attribute human qualities

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to anthropomorphise to attribute human qualities

title: antropomorfizar


text:
antropomorfizável

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) anthropomorphizable capable of being anthropomorphized

title: antropomorfizável


text:
antropomorfose

Noun

 * 1)  anthropomorphosis transformation into a human form

title: antropomorfose


text:
antropométrico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) anthropometric of or relating to anthropometry

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) anthropometric of or relating to anthropometry

title: antropométrico


text:
antroponose

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  anthroponosis spread of disease from humans to animals

title: antroponose


text:
antroponótico

Adjective

 * 1)  anthroponotic relating to anthroponosis

title: antroponótico


text:
pedophobic

Adjective

 * 1)  Having a fear of children.

title: pedophobic


text:
antropopatia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  anthropopathy attribution of human emotions to a god

title: antropopatia


text:
antropopático

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) anthropopathic of or relating to anthropopathy

title: antropopático


text:
antroposofista

Noun

 * 1)  anthroposophist (proponent of anthroposophy)

title: antroposofista


text:
antropossemiótica

Etymology 1
From.

Noun

 * 1)  anthroposemiotics study of human communication

title: antropossemiótica


text:
antropossemiótico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  anthroposemiotic of or relating to anthroposemiotics

title: antropossemiótico


text:
antroposófico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  anthroposophic of or relating to anthroposophy

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  anthroposophic

title: antroposófico


text:
antropotomia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) anthropotomy anatomy or dissection of the human body

title: antropotomia


text:
antropotomista

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) anthropotomical pertaining to anthropotomy

title: antropotomista


text:
antropotopónimo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) anthropotoponym placename derived from the name of a person

title: antropotopónimo


text:
antropozoonose

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  anthropozoonosis disease transmitted between animals and humans

title: antropozoonose


text:
antropófilo

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) anthropophilic preferring humans to other animals

title: antropófilo


text:
antropólito

Noun

 * 1)  anthropolite petrification of the human body

title: antropólito


text:
antropómetro

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) anthropometer device used to measure parts of the body

title: antropómetro


text:
apendectomia

Noun

 * 1)  appendectomy surgical removal of the appendix

title: apendectomia


text:
arcano sem nome

Noun

 * 1) death tarot card

title: arcano sem nome


text:
asseguração

Noun

 * 1) assurance the act of assuring

title: asseguração


text:
matriarchically

Adverb

 * 1) matriarchally

title: matriarchically


text:
ethnolinguistically

Adverb

 * 1) In terms of, or by means of, ethnolinguistics.

title: ethnolinguistically


text:
Capsella bursa-pastoris

Hypernyms

 * - order; - family;  - tribe; Capsella - genus

title: Capsella bursa-pastoris


text:
autopolinização

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  self pollination

title: autopolinização


text: betinha

title: betinha


text:
biblioclasta

Adjective

 * 1) biblioclastic destroying books

Noun

 * 1) biblioclast one who destroys books

title: biblioclasta


text:
biblioclepta

Noun

 * 1) biblioklept a person who steals books

title: biblioclepta


text:
bibliodrama

Noun

 * 1) Bibliodrama the acting of stories from the Bible

title: bibliodrama


text:
bibliofobia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) bibliophobia fear or dislike of books

title: bibliofobia


text:
bibliofílico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) bibliophilic having or pertaining to bibliophilia

title: bibliofílico


text:
bibliológico

Etymology
From.

Pronunciation

Adjective

 * 1) bibliological relating to bibliology

title: bibliológico


text:
bibliomancia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) bibliomancy divination by interpreting a passage from a book

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) bibliomancy divination by interpreting a passage from a book

title: bibliomancia


text:
bibliomaníaco

Etymology
From or.

Adjective

 * 1) bibliomaniacal obsessed with books

Noun

 * 1) bibliomaniac person who is obsessed with owning valuable books

title: bibliomaníaco


text:
bibliométrico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) bibliometric of or relating to bibliometrics

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) bibliometric

title: bibliométrico


text:
biblioterapêutico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) bibliotherapeutic relating to bibliotherapy

title: biblioterapêutico


text:
bibliógrafo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) bibliographer

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) bibliographer person who compiles bibliographies

Noun

 * 1) bibliographer person who compiles bibliographies

title: bibliógrafo


text:
bibliólatra

Noun

 * 1) bibliolater worshipper of books

title: bibliólatra


text: støtta

title: støtta


text:
bibliótafo

Noun

 * 1)  bibliotaph one who hides books and keeps them from use

title: bibliótafo


text:
arlwy

Noun

 * 1) preparation
 * 2) provisions

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) preparation
 * 2) provisions

title: arlwy


text: støtten

title: støtten


text:
bicho de sete cabeças

Etymology
From 🇰🇲. lit. 'seven-headed beast'.

Noun

 * 1)  rocket science, brain surgery anything overly complex

title: bicho de sete cabeças


text: støtter

title: støtter


text: støttene

title: støttene


text:
støtt

Adverb

 * 1) all the time, frequently

title: støtt


text:
hrǫnn

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) wave, billow
 * 2) surge, mass

title: hrǫnn


text:
Talk:microfractionator

RFD discussion: September 2014
Either bizarre spam, or a very poor attempt at a definition that leaves one none the wiser for having read it. Vorziblix (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedied as no usable content given. It looks like it must be an item of lab equipment. Apparently they're so used to working with them that they skipped the definition and went straight to explaining what microfractionators are used for and the considerations affecting how you use them- which belong in some kind of a manual, not in a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Added an actual definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:microfractionator


text:
Talk:cordifolia

RFD discussion: September–October 2014
Latin. This seems to be the wrong lemma as one can find cordifolius, cordifolium, and other non-feminine forms. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it says so it claims to be a lemma. Of course the Translingual isn't redundant to the Latin because they're different languages (well, of course it's a bit more complicated than that). Renard Migrant (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have the correct lemma at [[cordifolius]]. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel like that's either an RFV or a speedy delete issue, then! Try speedy deleting it and seeing what happens. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would delete the Latin lemma entry and replace it with a Latin inflected form entry; I would delete unattested putative inflected forms of it such as cordifoliis. I speak no Latin, so no boldface "delete" from me. I don't see how feminine form can be the lemma of a Latin adjective. Is User:SemperBlotto of a different view? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dan. Don't literally delete anything, just convert it to a form-of entry. (And don't forget the ablative feminine singular and the nominative/accusative neuter plural!) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't speak definitively for SB, but, as I understand it, he generally favors having entries of some kind, rather than having a strong view about something being Latin or Translingual. He has sought my opinion, but at a time when I had even less definite views than now. I have come to favor having Latin entries for anything that inflects for gender like an adjective, even though my knowledge is limited to use in specific epithets, ie, almost always in the nominative.
 * I am trying to make sense out of specific epithets generally. If my decisions about Latin vs Translingual or about which PoS a genitive-only noun form should have, there should be ways of correcting them en masse. We haven't been able to come to agreement on these things at any stage AFAICT, certainly not while I've been here. DCDuring TALK 21:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have no evidence that some of these adjectives, putatively Latin, have been used in other than the nominative case, I do not want to add other forms at this time. I would like to add the feminine and neuter nominative only for now, preferably using the automatic Java-based gadget, which, however, doesn't seem to work from the inflection-line templates. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I would convert it to a Latin inflected form entry, too. Lmaltier (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ per consensus: converted to form-of entry. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Rfd discussion: September-December 2014
Translingual. This should not be a lemma, which would be cordifolius.

As forms of cordifolius appear inflected in scientific Latin running text, it also doesn't seem best considered a Translingual term. DCDuring TALK 00:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: full names are translingual, genus names too. But cordifolia is only Latin. Lmaltier (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:cordifolia


text:
Talk:mackinaw jacket

RFD discussion: August–September 2014
Also mackinaw coat. A jacket (coat) made from mackinaw. Entry content is encyclopaedic. Compare "denim jacket", "woollen jumper", etc. Equinox ◑ 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, about as straightforward as it gets. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Delete both per nom. bd2412 T 02:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 17:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * An example of geographic/institutional bias, IMO. I just don't care enough to fight the trend. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You could have commented in the discussion earlier. It has been open for three weeks, and no one said anything after the first week had passed. We had three editors favoring deletion and none offering any defense. It seemed apparent that no one cared to keep this. bd2412 T 18:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I chose not to. One vote would not have mattered. This way the bias is more clearly displayed. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:mackinaw jacket


text:
Talk:후사를 부탁하다

RFD discussion: September 2014
Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They seem idiomatic and Lemming principle may be applicable. E.g. 후사를 부탁하다. Weak keep for now. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But you can say 후사를 맡기다, etc. We should explain them in 후사. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm struggling a bit to understand the change in the meaning in both phrases. Besides, I think Lemming is a good principle. Even if 후사를 맡기다 were easy to understand from its parts, it's included in a reputable dictionary. The other phrase 달라고 부탁하다 is only included as a translation from English, though: 부탁하다%E2%80%8E 달라고 부탁하다 @Naver. I have added a usage note in 후사, just listing all translations from 후사를 부탁하다, in case it gets deleted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Also: 간곡히 부탁하다, 노래부르다, 아침을먹다, 사람이군다. Wyang (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep for 노래부르다, 아침을먹다, 사람이군다. They are solid words (no space), even if with predictable meanings.
 * Admittedly, verbs can be attached to nouns without a space and can also be written separately, can be broken up, e.g. (I was going to create it) can be spelled as  or . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * hada verbs/adjectives are different from these. The individual parts in these titles can be replaced with lots of others, eg. 밥을먹다 (incorrect spacing too), 녀석이군다, 남편이군다, 이름부르다, 값부르다. Wyang (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To make it easier to process RFD's, maybe Idioms_that_survived_RFD should be applied for the correctly spelled verbs, even if there are variants with other basic verbs or spacing (only for those that have the same spelling and spacing in dictionaries, such as Naver od Daum)? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved 사람이군다 to 군요. For the rest, it should be noted that spaces are really commonly omitted in Korean. Especially 아침을먹다 should be speedy deleted because it contains the particle 을 and therefore it cannot be a single word. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm changing my vote to only keep entries, for which there is an entry in Naver dictionary. So, still keep for 후사를 부탁하다 (did "aftermath" change its meaning?), 간곡히 부탁하다 and 노래부르다. The verb 노래부르다 ("to sing a song") seems similar to 춤추다 ("to dance a dance"). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * husareul butakhada is a literal translation of Chinese 託付後事, which is sum of parts (same as Japanese equivalent: 後事を託する). Furthermore, there are three arguments in favour of their deletion: 1) Korean-Korean dictionaries should be consulted when deciding whether something potentially sum of parts should be included or not. I have yet to find such a K-K dictionary that includes these items. 2) Spaces are commonly omitted in Korean, non-orthographically. Both north and south orthographic rules dictate that verbs formed from (its substantative noun + the cognate verb root) are considered lemmas and are written without spaces in between. Hence 춤추다, 꿈꾸다, 숨쉬다, 잠자다, 짐지다, 셈세다, 뜸뜨다, but 노래 부르다, 이름 부르다. 3) The individual components in these words can be replaced by many other words. Apart from 간곡히 부탁하다, one can also say 간곡히 타이르다, 간곡히 말리다, 간곡히 말하다, 간곡히 빌다; apart from 후사를 부탁하다, one can also say 후사를 맡기다, 일을 부탁하다. Wyang (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. You both presented good arguments and you both have good knowledge of Korean. I concede my failure and agree to the deletion. :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, then, please strike ( cross out ) your "Keep" vote(s). Cheers! bd2412 T 13:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Keep, since from looking at 후사를 부탁하다, the sum of parts claim is incomprehensible to me: comparing the etymology "From 후사 (hosa), aftermath + 를 (reul), object suffix + 부탁하다 (butak-hada), request" with the definitions given does not yield sum of partness. Part of the problem is that 후사를 (the 1st component of the allegged sum of parts) is now a redlink. This nomination should take care to explain the sum of parts claim, on a per entry basis. I might think that I should better not vote, since I speak no Korean, but I think the nomination should provide an explanation detailed enough to make the sum of parts claim at least plausible to those who speak no Korean, especially since there are not Koreans around to weigh in instead of non-Korean speakers. Furthermore, "and others" appearing in the heading of the nomination is not an acceptable RFD nomination, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since 를 is a particle, we don’t have an entry for 후사를. That is a basic knowledge of Korean. If you know Japanese, you can consider it to be exactly like を. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If 후사를 부탁하다 were kept, then the header would need to change to 후사를 부탁하다. Could you explain Polansky's other concern about the meaning of 후사를 부탁하다, how it means what it means from its parts? I don't understand it too. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted per consensus among Korean editors. Wyang (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no native Korean speakers in this discussion. And consensus is not being sought among select group of editors. You have failed to address my concerns: 후사를 부탁하다 does not look like sum of parts from its etymology, and no one has explained why it should be so considered. The discussion in this thread fails standards of transparency, clarity and rationality. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Dan, Shinji has added definitions to 후사 - "matter from now on, matter after that" and provided a usage example to 부탁하다 - 후사를 부탁해요 - "I’ll leave the matter to you.". I agree that some terms not on the current RFD should be considered separately, e.g. 노래부르다 "to sing/chant a song". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:후사를 부탁하다


text:
Talk:SMSA

RFD discussion: September 2014
I have found no evidence of this term's existence. It appears to be a user-created neologism. —JohnC5 (Talk 18:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be right, but that would be a question for WT:RFV.
 * Also SMSA means or meant Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, since 1960 officially called MSA, . DCDuring TALK 19:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See WT:RFV. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck as already at WT:RFV, User:JohnC5 not familiar with Wiktionary practices and therefore does not know that SMSA will be deleted if it fails RFV. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September 2014–April 2015
"(humorous, slang) a very long SMS message" Was at WT:RFD. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:SMSA


text:
Talk:hahahaha

RFD discussion: October 2014
Tagged but not listed. I'd imagine quite simply we don't need every number of 'ha' syllables on this. With hmm we use redirects like hmmmmm redirects to it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn we just had a vote on how to deal with these types of entries. Per that vote, redirect to hahaha. bd2412 T 13:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It says "[t]he above treatment may be overriden by consensus" so I guess we still need to discuss it to check there isn't a consensus to do something else. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but absent consensus to the contrary, this should be redirected. I would also presume that it could be speedily redirected in accordance with the rule, and an editor disputing that course of action would then need to obtain consensus against it. bd2412 T 15:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Do wut the vote says. Also, force WF to cite anything he creates with an edit summary of "hmmm"  Equinox ◑ 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Redirected per Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables (also at WT:CFI) and consensus above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:hahahaha


text:
Talk:Extenuation

RFD discussion: September–October 2014
Delete this, entered on the basis that English previously capitalized nouns. This could even be speedied per previous practice, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Delete as creator. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

 * RFD deleted; the creator agreed to deletion, and the entry was deleted by Angr on 28 September 2014. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Extenuation


text:
Talk:eʼelyaa

RFD discussion: October 2014
Tagged but not listed. Rationale is "incorrect (but Hippocrene indicates it means photograph, and Yellowhair says it means scenery; in Saad Ahaah Sinil.A Navajo-English Dictionary by Martha Austin and Regina Lynch, it means picture or photograph. It should be corrected if necessary, but not deleted)". Renard Migrant (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominator says do not delete the entry. Hmm. Move to de-tag immediately. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I've converted it to an RFC. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Cleaned up. —Stephen (Talk) 09:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck (not an rfd mater). Renard Migrant (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:eʼelyaa


text:
Talk:אונטערשטראײַכן

RFD discussion: October 2014
Tagged but not listed. I have no idea why. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like a misspelling (and probably not a common one) of . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Embryomystic does this reasonably often (that is, misspell things in languages he's not very familiar with). Renard Migrant (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, le orecchie mi cornano. What does 'reasonably often' mean, if you don't mind? embryomystic (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not make this personal. Embryo, can I go ahead and delete this? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a little nudge to say 'please create less wrong entries'. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedied. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:אונטערשטראײַכן


text:
Talk:vasabio

RFD discussion: October 2014
Very nice. Wyang (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedied, and the contributor blocked for adding nonsense/gibberish. The "I unleash a dog for purpose of attack" sense is more than enough proof that this is utter BS. If there were any doubt, the correct venue would be rfv, since the issue is whether this is a real Latin word. It looks like there may be the potential for a legitimate Esperanto entry, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't jump on any entry that pops up, but I don't find the Esperanto entry citable online; there's a dictionary and a grammar that mention it in Google Books, and an off-Usenet mention on Google Groups. There's a few uses on the web, but barely enough to cite it if we accepted them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:vasabio


text: støttet

title: støttet


text:
hræn

Etymology
From, from , from.

Noun

 * 1) wave, billow
 * 2) flood, sea

title: hræn


text: støttende

title: støttende


text:
Thread:User talk:Kephir/Having an e-mail address

Hi. Thanks for being a voice of sanity around here, at least as far as I'm concerned. Why are you not mailable (Special:EmailUser/Kephir)? Administrators suggests we have to do this, though I am not sure how often it matters to anyone.


text:
Talk:of Koranic proportions

RFV discussion: December 2013–September 2014

 * Header was: of quranic proportions

Zero hits in Books or Groups, one cite in the entry is clearly a one-off play on "of bliblical proportions", while the other has "of epic, Biblical and Quranic proportions", and neither meets CFI. However nice it might be to have matching sets of everything on Wiktionary for every religion, the truth is that some figures of speech are only associated with one or two of them, and CFI goes by usage, not by some equal time/space rule. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Like i said on my talk page, Arabic transliterations are difficult to work with because of the large amount of transliterations. The word Quran is especially difficult since it has about half a dozen transliterations. but i have added some citations despite transliteration differences. I think its fine as it is. Pass a Method (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The citations look good to me. Maybe the page should be moved to of Koranic proportions, since that seems to be the spelling that's attested. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. let's keep it as it is. If you look at the Google Ngram stats, the most common transliterations tend to change and it is different for each topic. Pass a Method (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Koranic" should count toward attestation of "Quranic". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do; it's the same word just a different spelling. I admit it's a tricky one and I don't think there's a policy on it. It's an excellent example of whether WT:CFI just doesn't mention it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sidestepping that issue, all of the citations that seem durable use Koranic, so the entry should be moved. And the definition should be trimmed, since it does seem to be just a rare variation/play on of Biblical proportions. - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 * If this passes, I'm RFDing it as SOP. --WikiTiki89 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Debatable, one citation is "of Biblical and Koranic proportions" which could be considered neither one idiom nor the other but a separate one, and two of the citations are by the same author in the same year. Counting them as one citation gets us down to two citations, which isn't enough. How about Usenet? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What are we going to do about this? The Borman and Pendleton cites are good, but the 1989 one uses “of Biblical or Koranic proportions”. Should it count? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're referring merely to the phrasing of it, ehhh, I guess phrasing like that is OK. Compare the citations mentioned below, in re pecker mill, which speak of "pecker, cog, and water mills". However, I'm not convinced that the citation is using an idiomatic sense, as opposed to straightforwardly observing that near-simultaneous epidemics, wars and famines constitute plagues on the scale of those seen in the Bible and Quran, where various nations are described as being plagued with epidemics, wars and famines. - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Passed, although I think that if this was any sort of idiomatic expression, we wouldn't be arguing over whether a sort-of-close usage should count as a usage for CFI. bd2412 T 13:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:of Koranic proportions


text:
Talk:nakba

RFV discussion: July–August 2014
RFV on the English section. There are currently two items in the English section:
 * 1) Alternative spelling of Nakba.
 * 2) A catastrophe; an event that results in great loss, sorrow, and misery. (Added in .)

For the proper noun sense, I ask for attestation of this capitalization.

The sole quotation currently provided for the 2nd sense is a mention, IMHO ('For Muslims, the capture in 1967 of the Temple Mount (Harem al— Sharif to them) stands as a nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe.”'). Searches: --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The following quotations now present in the entry are mentions rather than uses, IMHO: --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For Muslims, the capture in 1967 of the Temple Mount (Harem al— Sharif to them) stands as a nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe.”
 * While a "nakba" referred to an invasion by an alien (non-Muslim) power, often accompanied by mass looting, destruction, and population uprooting [...]
 * Our President is admitting that the war has been a nakba, a setback. 'I take full personal responsibility.' 'But not for long,' murmurs Mahmoud, in whose company I am watching this ultra-dramatic moment.
 * At the ceremony to donate the funds, Rafik Husseini, an aide to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, referred to what happened in New Orleans as a nakba. (Italics in the original.)
 * Al-Quds, the largest Palestinian daily, described the collapse of Baghdad as a nakba (catastrophe). "This is not going to be the last nakba," it said in an editorial.

 * "The capture in 1967 of the Temple Mount (Harem al— Sharif to them) stands as a nakba", "Our President is admitting that the war has been a nakba, a setback", and "This is not going to be the last nakba" look like uses to me. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the 1st one, with the important part highlighted by me in italics: "[...] the capture in 1967 of the Temple Mount (Harem al— Sharif to them) stands as a nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe.”. The sentence is explicit about referring to nakba as an Arabic word, not an English one; and it immediately provides the meaning, so the reader does not need to know the meaning of "nakba" (indeed, most readers don't).
 * For the 2nd one: The president is probably an Arabic speaker, and the book uses a romanization of an Arabic word, immediately stating the meaning of the word to the reader after a comma. Such a provision of meaning after a comma is IMHO a good telltale mark that the quotation cannot be reliably understood to be using the word to convey meaning.
 * For the 3rd quotation, when one takes the sentence mentioned by you alone, it really looks like use. But the sentence is immediately preceded by a sentence introducing the Arabic word "nakba". To me, seeing this as a use is questionable, while not as unequivocal as the other quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Re the common-noun sense "a catastrophe": I share Dan's misivings about the citations which are currently in the entry. The 2013 citation makes clear that it is merely mentioning nakba, not only by its phrasing, but also by italicizing the term as an occurrence of a foreign word, not an English word. (Whoever typed the citations up in the entry did a sloppy job of it, because they didn't reproduce this italicization, and they didn't sort the quotations by date.) Likewise, the 1995 is a mention, and although the cited edition of the work (Societal transition to democracy in Mauritania) doesn't italicize the term, other editions do (e.g. Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Arab World). The 2014 is another mention, both in its phrasing and in that it italicizes the term. The 2003 citation is questionable, for the reasons Dan outlines. The 1998 citation, on the other hand, looks solid, and I have placed one other citation which I think it valid at Citations:nakba; notably, it uses the plural. Re the "alternative capitalization" sense: in trying to cite the common-noun sense, I came across enough citations of lowercase "nakba" meaning "the Nakba" that I think I can cite it. I'll see... - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I have moved the questionable citations out of the entry and into the citations page, leaving the one citation I thought was good and adding two more. - -sche (discuss) 17:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Both senses are now cited, I think. - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:nakba


text:
Talk:shutter shades

RFV discussion: May–June 2014

 * 1950 Popular Mechanics - photographic equipment for taking double exposures.
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=vtgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA132&dq=%22shutter+shade%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jnNkU8PRH9HpoAS4t4H4BA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAA
 * 1953 Modern Metals, volume 9 - window awning with fixed louvers.
 * https://encrypted.google.com/books?id=A1U4AQAAIAAJ&q=%22shutter+shade%22&dq=%22shutter+shade%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jnNkU8PRH9HpoAS4t4H4BA&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBg

I am only disputing the characterization of this as solely a plural noun. - Amgine/t·e 05:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither of those represent a singular form of the sunglasses sense that's currently in the entry, and so they do not call its status as plural-only into question. If either example turned out to be attestable, the definitions would belong at "shutter shade," not "shutter shades." This is a matter for WT:REE, not RFV. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See shades for an example. It looks to me like shutter shade might be SOP, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The photographic equipment is fairly specific, rather than SOP, as it does not describe its actual purpose (film 'shading'.) The awning use I have no clews about. Obviously either might be used as a plural, while the sunglasses sense would not (thus my contesting the plural only for the term, not .) - Amgine/t·e 20:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "the sunglasses sense would not" "be used as a plural".
 * Of course it can. In this regard it inherits the properties of glasses:.
 * One can say "These glasses are cool" referring either to a single pair of eyeglasses or, say, all those in a display case.
 * Did you mean something other than my interpretation of what you said? DCDuring TALK 20:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 * If you look at shades, you'll see there's a plural-only sense and a plural-of sense. As Cloudcuckoolander was saying, you just need to add the plural-of sense to make it parallel to that entry, which wouldn't require doing anything to the existing sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I've removed the RFV tag since this was, as noted, not an RFV matter. If you create [[shutter shade]] you can restore [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=shutter_shades&oldid=27156443 this version] of the page and voila... - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:shutter shades


text:
Talk:tiberoon

RFV discussion: July–August 2014
Suspicious; b.g.c gives hundreds of hits, but only capitalised in geographical names, and only a handful from the twentieth century. Only one hit for "tiberoons", meaning a shark species. — Keφr 17:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a hoax but still better to give it 30 days if there's the slightest chance it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:tiberoon


text:
Talk:PodAd

RFV discussion: July–September 2014
This doesn't even appear to exist, let alone be durably citable. Having said that, seems to be a Polish term of some kind (not in our entry), making searching quite difficult. This, that and the other (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The creation edit summary says it all: (INTRODUCTION OF THE "PODAD"). This was added as a Wikipedia entry by a user whose only other surviving contribution there was adding a bunch of advertising copy to the entry for PowerSchool. Since podcasts were only invented a decade ago, filtering for books from 2004 or later brought it down to manageable size, and there was basically nothing- a couple of scannos for "iPodAds" in an example spreadsheet in books about MS Excel. I found only one hit on groups: here, and it's kind of equivocal. I can't be 100% sure that I checked everything, but it doesn't look good for the entry- which looks to me like an attempt to hype a commercial venture that got interwikied to us before anyone got around to deleting it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest we speedily delete it. —msh210℠ (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. The Wordnik site appears to have discussed this word, but they often look at neologisms. It seems to be only an Internet brand name. Equinox ◑ 21:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:PodAd


text:
Talk:dei gratia

RFV discussion: August 2014
Why do we spell this with minuscule "d"? All other dictionaries in Onelook have chosen to capitalize it and so have about 90 % of books that I could find in BGC. Shouldn't the various names of God (Lord, Almighty, Our Father, God Almighty..) always be capitalized in English? --Hekaheka (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What matters is actual usage, so the 9-to-1 preference you found at BGC counts for much more than what other dictionaries say and what we feel "should be capitalized in English". In other words, yes, this should be moved to Dei gratia. (Note that Deo volente is already capitalized.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it is used with a capital letter, then that's how it should be. In any case, "dei" should be capitalized because it is referring to God, with a capital "g." Princeps linguae (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether or not dei is referring to God, we should capitalize it as per the sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:dei gratia


text:
Talk:Sophrosyne

RFV discussion: August–September 2014
Rfv-sense "(poetic) humility" for Sophrosyne. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Note: Same editor has added similar "poetic" senses to some other Greek gods. Equinox ◑ 02:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Same editor using a large number of IPs has added vast mountains of crap to a large number of entries on mythology, magic, etc.- not to mention Japanese and Chinese entries in general. I'll see if I can go through their edits from today and get rid of at least some of the nonsense and trivial clutter. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't know about poetic, but there does appear to be a distinction between Sophrosyne the entity and sophrosyne the virtue (which, contra the sense at Sophrosyne, seems to have canonically been "temperance" or "restraint" (although I have also seen a cite contrasting sophrosyne against hubris, in the context of Nietzsche), and is correctly defined at small-s sophrosyne). I would suggest deleting this third sense of Sophrosyne and linking in small-s sophrosyne as a derived term. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the derivation is the other way around: the goddess is named after the virtue. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I've just blocked the same lunatic about 10 times in 5 minutes. I suppose there's nothing that can be done about this, by us or Wikimedia? Equinox ◑ 02:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We can add a filter for the word "asteroid"... It's the only thing I can think of that might do anything. --WikiTiki89 14:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

RFV Failed The sense in question is deleted. Barklestork (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August–September 2014
Rfv of the sense.

The existence of the goddess has been called into question by. The sense was based on the Wikipedia article, which got its information about the goddess from www.theoi.com, which interpreted passages speaking of personified virtues as referring to actual goddesses. Since this is an English entry, the issue of whether a Greek goddess exists is secondary to whether there's any evidence meeting the requirements of WT:CFI that English speakers have used the word with this meaning. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

RFV failed The sense in question was deleted. Barklestork (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sophrosyne


text:
Talk:xenta-

RFV discussion: August–September 2014
Without regard to the format, does this prefix even exist? --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not one of the official SI prefixes at any rate. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Apparently an Internet invention by one "André Joyce": the most useful page I could find was this one which identifies it as one of many "bogus" made-up prefixes. We could speedily delete it. Equinox ◑ 19:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:xenta-


text:
Talk:head wedgie

RFV discussion: September 2014
The descriptive condition of having a catchy melody that you keep singing and singing. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Speedied again. We don't have enough legitimate contributors that we can waste time on this kind of thing, where people have even written "coined by ___ in 2012" and nobody has used it since. Ungoliant, be more deletionist :) Equinox ◑ 00:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, that right there is something I never thought I’d hear! — Ungoliant (falai) 01:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Act now and you can own your very own Head Wedgie for just $19.99! -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:head wedgie


text:
Talk:antizionism

RFV discussion: October 2014
Is this spelling, with no hyphen a small "z", attested per WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done! (check the cite page for evidence) Zeggazo (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some published examples attested too:, , . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

 * RFV passed: beautifully cited at Citations:antizionism. Thank you, Angr. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:antizionism


text:
Talk:arbeide

RFV discussion: September 2014
The only thing that needs confirmation is the gender of the noun. Donnanz (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I found the answer in the Norsk Wiktionary, so I have deleted the rfv. Donnanz (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:arbeide


text:
Talk:ಮತ್ತು

RFV discussion: October 2014
Kannada conjunction meaning "and". Is this attested per WT:ATTEST in use, using three quotations given Kannada is listed at Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages?

However, I tried to attest multiple randomly picked items from Category:Kannada lemmas, and failed. Does our attestation process really work well for Kannada? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe Kannada should be considered an LDL rather than a WDL. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How did you test them, and what words were they? There should be inflection templates; if you want to try different forms, that might work. In any case, "ಮತ್ತು" is definitely a word. All it takes is a Google search (or a search in Google Books), and there are plenty of results, or is there some other attestation process a word needs to meet for inclusion that I'm not aware of? Here: attestations. Also, if you want to check, it's on the Kannada Wiktionary. Princeps linguae (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Dan does not explain what the problem was. You just need to search for the word on Google Books] and select the sentences that you want. Google tries to convert the images of Kannada text to true Kannada text, but makes mistakes. I think you will need to look at the sentences and type them yourself. —Stephen (Talk) 13:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Sorry about that. [|This] is a link to a book with "ಇರುವೆ ಮತ್ತು ಆನೆ"--a story titled "The Ant and the Elephant." Here, there is "ನಮ್ಮ ಕಾಲದ ಮತ್ತು ನಮ್ಮ ವರ್ಗದ ಜನ ಅನುಭವಿಸುವ ಭಾವಗಳು ಬಹಳ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ವಿವಿಧವೆಂದು ನಾವು ಭಾವಿಸುತ್ತೇವೆ" ("The lives that people of our time and of our class experience are very important, and we understand so much.") Finally: "ಪುರಾಣಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಕಾವ್ಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ 'ಹರಿವಂಶಂ' ಮತ್ತು 'ಶೂದ್ರಕಂ'...ಈ ಕೆಲವು ಕೃತಿಗಳಿಂದ ಪ್ರಯೋಗಗಳನ್ನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿರುವುದು ವಿದಿತವಾಗಿದೆ." ("'Harivansham' and 'Shudrakam' in the Puranas and kavya poems...: from these few songs accepting these usages becomes permissible.") Princeps linguae (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Added the cites to Citations:ಮತ್ತು. —Stephen (Talk) 19:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * According to https://www.shabdkosh.com/dictionary/kannada-english is an adverb ( afterwards, again , anew ) and a verb ( repeat) too, with multiple usage examples.

"ಈ ವರ್ಷಾಂತ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾವು ಮತ್ತೆ ಅವರನ್ನು ಭಾರತಕ್ಕೆ ಸ್ವಾಗತಿಸಲು ಎದಿರು ನೋಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇವೆ. We look forward to welcoming her in India again later this year." Did the language has changed since 2014? Flāvidus (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:ಮತ್ತು


text:
Talk:Konzentrazionslager

RFV discussion: October 2014
I can only find this in English and Italian, never in German, as a [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Konzentrationslager%2CKonzentrazionslager&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CKonzentrationslager%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CKonzentrazionslager%3B%2Cc0 vanishingly rare] misspelling of Konzentrationslager. Possibly created in error? - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a clear error. The creator does not claim even a basic knowledge of German in their Babel listing > speedy delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedied. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Konzentrazionslager


text:
Talk:fapper

RFV discussion: October 2014
Allegedly English for "masturbator". There are three quotations in the entry but they do not attest the meaning, AFAICT. Take the 1st one: "leave the rest for the direct market and all us continuity-porn fappers": how do you know "fapper" does not mean "watcher"? The 2nd one is almost entirely worthless for meaning extraction, IMHO: "Best I could do. Z (just doin' my part for the happy fappers)". The 3rd one appears to use the word to mean something else, but I am not sure: "We need to store the robot with latex tubes out of the pumps (or else they become 'fappers', even after a few weeks". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I also find the third quote confusing, but I think the first and second are acceptable citations. The etymology of fapper (fap + -er) might help convince you that its use in the first and second does indeed mean "masturbator". The context of the second quote is also relevant—it seems to be a discussion of a celebrity sex video.
 * In any case, I've added three more quotations that are clearer. Hopefully they should be sufficient. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 * (after edit conflict) I think attestation should work without reference to etymology or surface morphology. One should be able to assign meaning by looking at the sentence after replacing the word being attested with "X". So the first sentence would be "leave the rest for the direct market and all us continuity-porn X"; from this I need to be able to tell the meaning of X. Otherwise, you are using the attesting quotations not so much to attest the meaning of the term (which you have already guessed from the morphology) as to show the term is actually used in some meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's silly. No English reader of the sentences "A rook or a queen can move horizontally. Queens are more powerful pieces then rooks.", no matter how ignorant of chess, will fail to understand what "queens" and "rooks" refer to. If you know the verb "to fap", then "fapper" is obvious and should be taken in consideration when reading cites.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Later: The quotations you have added are good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 * RFV passed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:fapper


text:
Talk:æcirn

RFV discussion: October 2014
User claims he or she created this based on a request and didn't do any research to confirm the request was accurate. suggests it's a synonym of in Old English. Even a Google Web search only finds references to an Old English word 'æcirn'. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 * As this is an Old English listing, this request is no longer valid, unless you are requesting verification for an English listing that complements the already existing Old English one. I'd suggest changing the verification tag to æcirn (and, to match the tag on the actual page, that tag as well). WikiWinters (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's been speedy deleted, I don't object to that, no, not at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The rfv template is the only thing left in the entry with an "en" language code. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it should have been deleted along with the English. Striking, I can't imagine anyone would object to this. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:æcirn


text:
untyrannic

Adjective

 * 1) Not tyrannic.

title: untyrannic


text:
backie

Noun

 * 1)  A ride on the back of a bicycle or motorbike.

title: backie


text: backies

title: backies


text:
bioantropologia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) bioanthropology biological anthropology

title: bioantropologia


text:
bioantropológico

Adjective

 * 1) bioanthropological of or relating to bioanthropology

title: bioantropológico


text: Category:wlm:Weapons

title: Category:wlm:Weapons


text: Category:wlm:Military

title: Category:wlm:Military


text: Category:wlm:Tools

title: Category:wlm:Tools


text: Category:wlm:Hunting

title: Category:wlm:Hunting


text: Category:wlm:Technology

title: Category:wlm:Technology


text: Category:wlm:Human behaviour

title: Category:wlm:Human behaviour


text: Category:wlm:Human activity

title: Category:wlm:Human activity


text: tribars

title: tribars


text: arueu

title: arueu


text: Category:Middle Welsh noun forms

title: Category:Middle Welsh noun forms


text:
hærnflota

Noun

 * 1) boat

title: hærnflota


text:
illumination problem

Etymology
🇰🇲

Noun

 * 1)  A mathematical problem, asking whether a room with mirrored walls can always be illuminated by a single-point light source, allowing for repeated reflection of light off the mirrored walls. It was solved in 1958: there are such rooms that cannot be thus illuminated.

title: illumination problem


text:
arwyd

Etymology
From (compare 🇨🇬), from, from.

Noun

 * 1) sign visible indication
 * 2) signal

title: arwyd


text: haier

title: haier


text: ぼっちゃん

title: ぼっちゃん


text: haiene

title: haiene


text:
tensor product

Noun

 * 1)  The most general bilinear operation in various contexts (as with vectors, matrices, tensors, vector spaces, algebras, topological vector spaces, modules, and so on), denoted by ⊗.
 * Linear Transformations on Tensor Products of Vector Spaces
 * [...]
 * Proposition 16. Let V and W be finite dimensional vector spaces over the field F with bases $$v_1, ..., v_n$$ and $$w_1, ..., w_m$$ respectively. Then $$V \otimes_F W$$ is a vector space over F of dimension nm with basis $$v_i \otimes w_j$$, $$1 \le i \le n$$ and $$1 \le j \le m$$.
 * [The tensor product] $$U\otimes V$$ is the span of $$\{u\otimes v : u \in U, v \in V\}$$   modulo the relations    $$\begin{cases} \cdot \ u \otimes (v + v') = u \otimes v + u \otimes v' \\ \cdot \ (u + u') \otimes v = u \otimes v + u' \otimes v \\ \cdot \ (\lambda u) \otimes v = \lambda (u \otimes v) = u \otimes (\lambda v)\end{cases}$$
 * [The tensor product] $$U\otimes V$$ is the span of $$\{u\otimes v : u \in U, v \in V\}$$   modulo the relations    $$\begin{cases} \cdot \ u \otimes (v + v') = u \otimes v + u \otimes v' \\ \cdot \ (u + u') \otimes v = u \otimes v + u' \otimes v \\ \cdot \ (\lambda u) \otimes v = \lambda (u \otimes v) = u \otimes (\lambda v)\end{cases}$$
 * [The tensor product] $$U\otimes V$$ is the span of $$\{u\otimes v : u \in U, v \in V\}$$   modulo the relations    $$\begin{cases} \cdot \ u \otimes (v + v') = u \otimes v + u \otimes v' \\ \cdot \ (u + u') \otimes v = u \otimes v + u' \otimes v \\ \cdot \ (\lambda u) \otimes v = \lambda (u \otimes v) = u \otimes (\lambda v)\end{cases}$$

Usage notes

 * The ⊗ symbol can be read out as “tensor”.

Meronyms

 * (if the tensor product is between algebraic structures)

Translations

 * Estonian: tensorkorrutis
 * Finnish: tensoritulo
 * French:
 * German: Tensorprodukt
 * Japanese: テンソル積
 * Romanian: produs tensorial

title: tensor product


text: tensor products

title: tensor products


text:
Thread:User talk:Kephir/Having an e-mail address/reply

Good to know I am succeeding at something (in at least one person's eyes…)

I just never bothered to set up an address under this identity. Main problem being the choice of provider. I am not very enthusiastic about having a Google account, and I have used up most other viable alternatives already. It does bite me from time to time (like when I am unable to participate in Bugzilla), but not to the point of me doing anything about it.

Oh well. You need it for anything? The quasi-policy by itself does not bother me too much. (Is there any policy besides WT:ELE that we treat seriously here?)


text:
Thread:User talk:Kephir/Having an e-mail address/reply (2)

Ah, not the reason I expected! I mainly find myself annoyed by systems that *don't* accept e-mail and require something else (e.g. Facebook or other proprietary non-standard system). If you're genuinely having trouble finding a free (throwaway or otherwise) mail account then you're welcome to have one on one of my domains; I've had some of them for about 15 years now, scarily enough, so they tend to stay around.

I don't need it for anything but I had considered sending you an e-mail :) Lucky escape.


text:
uhelbredelig

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) incurable

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) incurable

title: uhelbredelig


text:
bioantropólogo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) bioanthropologist specialist in bioanthropology

title: bioantropólogo


text:
bolacha-da-praia

Etymology
lit. 'beach cookie'. The dead, dried individuals found on beaches are hard and similar in shape to a biscuit.

Noun

 * 1) sand dollar any echinoderm of the order Clypeasteroida

title: bolacha-da-praia


text:
braquiador

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  that practices brachiation

Noun

 * 1) brachiator creature that moves by means of brachiation

title: braquiador


text:
braquialgia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  brachialgia pain in the arm

title: braquialgia


text: uhelbredelige

title: uhelbredelige


text:
braquiação

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  brachiation movement by swinging arms between holds

title: braquiação


text:
braquicefalia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  brachycephaly condition wherein the skull is flattened

title: braquicefalia


text:
braquicefalídeo

Noun

 * 1)  brachycephalid any member of the

title: braquicefalídeo


text:
braquicefálico

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) brachycephalic having a head that is short from front to back

title: braquicefálico


text:
braquicéfalo

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) brachycephalic having a head that is short from front to back

Adjective

 * 1) brachycephalic having a head that is short from front to back

title: braquicéfalo


text:
braquidactilia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  brachydactyly abnormal shortness of the fingers or toes

title: braquidactilia


text:
braquifacial

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  brachyfacial having a short face

title: braquifacial


text:
braquilogia

Etymology
From, from , from +.

Noun

 * 1) brachyology abbreviated expression

title: braquilogia


text:
braquio-

Prefix

 * 1) brachio- relating to the arm

Prefix

 * 1) brachio- relating to the arm

title: braquio-


text:
braquiodonte

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) brachydont having low-crowned, short teeth

title: braquiodonte


text:
braquioníquia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) brachyonychia condition in which the end of the thumb is widened and flattened

title: braquioníquia


text:
braquiterapia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) brachytherapy type of radiotherapy

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) brachytherapy

title: braquiterapia


text:
braquiópode

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) brachiopod any of the many marine invertebrates of the phylum

title: braquiópode


text:
braquíptero

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  brachypterous having short wings

Adjective

 * 1) brachypterous

title: braquíptero


text:
canibalesco

Adjective

 * 1) cannibalistic tending toward cannibalism

title: canibalesco


text:
fiksuus

Noun

 * 1) cleverness, smartness, sharpness

title: fiksuus


text:
caruma

Noun

 * 1) pine needle leaf of a pine tree

title: caruma


text:
celofane

Noun

 * 1) cellophane transparent plastic film

title: celofane


text:
clave de sol

Noun

 * 1)  G clef

Noun

 * 1)  treble clef

title: clave de sol


text:
coexistência

Noun

 * 1) coexistence the condition of multiple things existing together

title: coexistência


text:
coletivização

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) collectivisation the act of collectivising

title: coletivização


text:
coroinha

Noun

 * 1) altar boy boy serving as an acolyte in certain forms of Christianity

title: coroinha


text: fiksummin

title: fiksummin


text: fiksuimmin

title: fiksuimmin


text:
filantrooppisesti

Adverb

 * 1) philanthropically

title: filantrooppisesti


text:
double dactyl

Etymology
Coined by poets Anthony Hecht and Paul Pascal; compound of.

Noun

 * 1) A short, usually humorous poem with eight lines in dactylic meter; a higgledy-piggledy.

title: double dactyl


text:
filantrooppisuus

Noun

 * 1) The state of being philanthropic.

title: filantrooppisuus


text: double-dactyl

title: double-dactyl


text:
aerohydrous

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Composed of or containing air and water.

title: aerohydrous


text:
democratização

Noun

 * 1) democratisation the introduction of democracy

title: democratização


text:
deliciar

Verb

 * 1) to delight to give pleasure to

title: deliciar


text:
descriminalização

Noun

 * 1)  acquittal
 * 2) decriminalization the act of making something no longer a crime

title: descriminalização


text:
desestabilização

Noun

 * 1) destabilization the act of making something unstable

title: desestabilização


text:
aeromantic

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Pertaining to or of the nature of aeromancy.

title: aeromantic


text: aeromantick

title: aeromantick


text:
ensinar a missa ao padre

Verb

 * 1) teach grandma how to suck eggs to attempt to teach an expert

title: ensinar a missa ao padre


text:
ensinar a missa ao vigário

Verb

 * 1) teach grandma how to suck eggs to attempt to teach an expert

title: ensinar a missa ao vigário


text:
espalhar-se como um rastilho de pólvora

Verb

 * 1)  to spread like wildfire

title: espalhar-se como um rastilho de pólvora


text:
deferência

Noun

 * 1) deference great respect

title: deferência


text:
delusão

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) delusion state of being deluded or misled

title: delusão


text:
ditafone

Noun

 * 1) dictation machine sound recording device

title: ditafone


text: Category:Middle Irish compound terms

title: Category:Middle Irish compound terms


text: Category:mga:Canids

title: Category:mga:Canids


text:
filantropinismi

Etymology
(see 🇨🇬). Contains the suffix.

Noun

 * 1)  philanthropinism 19th century education system originating in Germany

title: filantropinismi


text: philanthropism

title: philanthropism


text: Category:mga:Mammals

title: Category:mga:Mammals


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/grimmaną

Etymology
From Pre-Germanic or, from , likely from.

Verb

 * 1) to rage, roar, be angry

Descendants

 * (Only attested in the passive grimmask)
 * (Only attested in the passive grimmask)

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/grimmaną


text:
aeroscepsy

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1)  The ability to perceive the state of the atmosphere.

title: aeroscepsy


text:
Category:Species entry using missing Evenki specific epithet

Here are entries, presumed to be for taxonomic species names, that are missing entries or L2 sections for the species name, deemed to be Evenki.

__HIDDENCAT__


text: Category:be:Grammatical cases

title: Category:be:Grammatical cases


text: Category:be:Grammar

title: Category:be:Grammar


text: Category:be:Linguistics

title: Category:be:Linguistics


text:
aerosiderolite

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) A meteorite containing both stone and iron.

title: aerosiderolite


text: aerosiderolites

title: aerosiderolites


text:
fodjonglør

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) antipodist

title: fodjonglør


text: jonglørs

title: jonglørs


text: jonglørens

title: jonglørens


text: jonglørers

title: jonglørers


text: jonglørernes

title: jonglørernes


text: fodjongløren

title: fodjongløren


text: fodjonglører

title: fodjonglører


text: fodjonglørerne

title: fodjonglørerne


text: fodjonglørs

title: fodjonglørs


text: fodjonglørens

title: fodjonglørens


text: fodjonglørers

title: fodjonglørers


text: fodjonglørernes

title: fodjonglørernes


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Autocannons are not machine guns/reply (15)

Are you pulling my leg?

One definition of "car" could be "a vehicle used for transportation" while usage could be "Jane drove the car to the store."


text:
subdiscussion

Noun

 * 1) A secondary or subsidiary discussion.

title: subdiscussion


text: subdiscussions

title: subdiscussions


text:
徒步

Verb

 * 1) to go on foot; to walk
 * 2)  to hike; to bushwalk
 * 1)  to hike; to bushwalk

Noun

 * 1)  common people
 * 2)  infantry

title: 徒步


text:
antipodiste

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) antipodist

title: antipodiste


text: antipodistes

title: antipodistes


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Autocannons are not machine guns/reply (16)

Of course, but when you say that sentence, you're using the word "car" and intend it to mean something specific. That's its definition; it's what people mean when they say it.

In this case, when people say "cannon", they sometimes mean something that could also be described by the word "autocannon". So in that sense they are synonyms. Therefore, one of the definitions of "cannon" is "autocannon".


text:
trecken

Etymology
From, from , from. Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 (whence 🇨🇬).

Verb

 * 1)  to pull, to draw
 * 2)  to manage, to have the strength for
 * 3)  to migrate

Etymology
From, from.

Verb

 * 1)  to pull or draw to oneself
 * 2)  to go to another place

title: trecken


text:
aface

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1)  In face; in front.

title: aface


text: Category:da:Microbiology

title: Category:da:Microbiology


text: Category:nb:Microbiology

title: Category:nb:Microbiology


text: Category:nn:Microbiology

title: Category:nn:Microbiology


text:
affabulatory

Adjective

 * 1)  Having a moral or morals.

title: affabulatory


text: bakterierne

title: bakterierne


text: bakteriernes

title: bakteriernes


text:
Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Autocannons are not machine guns/reply (17)

But CodeCat's examples are unlike either of yours- I think you're reanalyzing things without realizing it. A definition is just a tool for presenting a meaning- it doesn't determine meaning, unless it's adopted by users of the language. As for the meanings themselves, they can't exist independently of usage. Any language is a negotiation between those who use it: everyone may have a different idea of what a term means, but only those meanings that are understood by the one producing and the one receiving will work: I may be convinced that German means extraterrestrials with three ears, but if I use it that way, no one will understand me, and if I try to assign that meaning to what others say, I won't understand them. The way this negotiation works is through usage. At one time, an earlier form of hound was a general term for any dog, but at some point, it became restricted to a particular type of dog, and the earlier form of dog became the general term. The kind of things CodeCat is talking about are hidden parts of the meaning that may, at some point, become explicit and thus part of what you would call the definition. Even now, people tend to use qualifiers for any type of milk that's not from a cow: goat's milk, mother's milk, etc. That's a sign that things are already heading in that direction.


text:
affatuate

Etymology
From +, active perfect participle of.

Verb

 * 1)  To infatuate.

title: affatuate


text: affatuates

title: affatuates


text: affatuating

title: affatuating


text:
affectated

Etymology
From, perfect passive participle of.

Adjective

 * 1)  affected

title: affectated


text:
ventoza

Adjective

 * 1) windy, gusty

title: ventoza


text:
Citations:ναζιραῖος

 * ante 132 BC, Ἡ Μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, (AD 400–440), Κριταί 13:5:
 * ὅτι ἰδοὺ σὺ ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξεις καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν καὶ οὐκ ἀναβήσεται σίδηρος ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἡγιασμένον ναζιραῖον ἔσται τῷ θεῷ τὸ παιδάριον ἐκ τῆς γαστρός καὶ αὐτὸς ἄρξεται σῴζειν τὸν Ισραηλ ἐκ χειρὸς ἀλλοφύλων
 * ibidem, Κριταί 13:7:
 * καὶ εἶπέν μοι ἰδοὺ σὺ ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξεις καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν καὶ νῦν μὴ πίῃς οἶνον καὶ σικερα καὶ μὴ φάγῃς πᾶσαν ἀκαθαρσίαν ὅτι ναζιραῖον θεοῦ ἔσται τὸ παιδάριον ἀπὸ τῆς γαστρὸς ἕως ἡμέρας θανάτου αὐτοῦ
 * ibidem, Κριταί 16:17:
 * καὶ ἀπήγγειλεν αὐτῇ πάντα τὰ ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ ξυρὸν οὐκ ἀναβήσεται ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν μου ὅτι ναζιραῖος θεοῦ ἐγώ εἰμι ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ ἐὰν ξυρήσωμαι ἀποστήσεται ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἡ ἰσχύς μου καὶ ἀσθενήσω καὶ ἔσομαι κατὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους
 * ibidem, all four great uncial codices (AD 325–450), Αʹ Μακκαβαῖων 3:49:
 * καὶ ἤνεγκαν τὰ ἱμάτια τῆς ἱερωσύνης καὶ τὰ πρωτογενήματα καὶ τὰς δεκάτας καὶ ἤγειραν τοὺς ναζιραίους οἳ ἐπλήρωσαν τὰς ἡμέρας
 * ibidem, Θρῆνοι Ἰερεμίου 4:7:
 * ἐκαθαριώθησαν ναζιραῖοι αὐτῆς ὑπὲρ χιόνα ἔλαμψαν ὑπὲρ γάλα ἐπυρρώθησαν ὑπὲρ λίθους σαπφείρου τὸ ἀπόσπασμα αὐτῶν

title: Citations:ναζιραῖος


text:
ναζιραῖος

Etymology
Borrowed from, perhaps from.

Adjective

 * 1)  consecrated in the Nazarite vows

Noun

 * 1)  a Nazarite

title: ναζιραῖος


text:
affectious

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  affectionate

title: affectious


text:
torentatre

Adverb

 * 1) torrentially

title: torentatre


text:
kombinebla

Adjective

 * 1) combinable

title: kombinebla


text:
affectual

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Pertaining to or consisting in disposition or desire.

title: affectual


text:
affectuously

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1)  In an affectuous manner; passionately.

title: affectuously


text:
e. g.

Adverb

 * 1) exemplī grātiā (for example)

Synonyms

 * (exempli causa)

title: e. g.


text:
affeeble

Etymology
From, from , , from + , from. See feeble.

Verb

 * 1)  To enfeeble.

title: affeeble


text: affeebles

title: affeebles


text: affeebling

title: affeebling


text: affeebled

title: affeebled


text: ἄβυσσα

title: ἄβυσσα


text: ròcais

title: ròcais


text:
man-made fiber

Noun

 * 1) A fiber which is either synthetic or a natural fiber whose chemical composition, structure, and properties are significantly modified during the manufacturing process.

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Danish:
 * Finnish:

title: man-made fiber


text:
ναζειραῖος

Etymology
From, perhaps from.

Adjective

 * 1)  consecrated in the Nazarite vows

Noun

 * 1)  a Nazarite

title: ναζειραῖος


text:
tekokuitu

Noun

 * 1) man-made fiber

title: tekokuitu


text:
filamenttilanka

Noun

 * 1) filament thread sewing thread spun of continuous filaments of man-made fiber, usually polyester

title: filamenttilanka


text: 小畑

title: 小畑


text: 杉村

title: 杉村


text: 江崎

title: 江崎


text:
諏訪

Verb

 * 1)  to consult; to seek advice; to solicit an opinion

Etymology 2
.

title: 諏訪


text: Category:Japanese terms spelled with 諏

title: Category:Japanese terms spelled with 諏


text: 藤木

title: 藤木


text: 木田

title: 木田


text: 阪本

title: 阪本


text: 江川

title: 江川


text: 小宮

title: 小宮


text: uile-bhéistean

title: uile-bhéistean


text: 山上

title: 山上


text: 井川

title: 井川


text: intercalants

title: intercalants


text:
bòcan

Noun

 * 1) apparition, ghost, spectre, spirit, sprite
 * 2) (hob)goblin
 * 3) larva

title: bòcan


text:
bocan

Noun

 * 1)  stork

Noun

 * 1) small buck

Noun

 * 1) (tether-)stake
 * 2) crook(ed staff)
 * 3) hindrance

title: bocan


text: Category:Kabardian letters

title: Category:Kabardian letters


text: Category:Kabardian symbols

title: Category:Kabardian symbols


text: bocain

title: bocain


text: bocanan

title: bocanan


text:
forewrite

Etymology
From, from , equivalent to.

Verb

 * 1)  To write beforehand; write in advance.
 * 2) * 1907, The Manhattan Quarterly:
 * Especially in our condition of mixed life in this, our beloved country, you can act and react upon the neighbor by the personal influence of your moral conduct, builded on faith; and no pen can forewrite the incalculable benefit you may confer upon the civic, intellectual, domestic and religious experience of your day.
 * 1) * 1907, The Manhattan Quarterly:
 * Especially in our condition of mixed life in this, our beloved country, you can act and react upon the neighbor by the personal influence of your moral conduct, builded on faith; and no pen can forewrite the incalculable benefit you may confer upon the civic, intellectual, domestic and religious experience of your day.

title: forewrite


text:
Aletrium

Etymology
There is no agreed upon etymology. Indo-European, Semitic, and Etruscan origins have been suggested.

title: Aletrium


text:
forewritten

Etymology
From, , equivalent to.

Adjective

 * 1) Written beforehand or in advance.

title: forewritten


text:
រះមុខ

Etymology
🇰🇲

Noun

 * 1) the diacritical mark visarga (ះ ), which represents a syllable-final [h] sound

Verb

 * 1) to write the visarga

title: រះមុខ


text:
bòcadh

Noun

 * 1) eruption, blister, swelling
 * 2) frown
 * 1) frown

title: bòcadh


text:
bocadh

Noun

 * 1) skipping
 * 2) discussion
 * 1) discussion

title: bocadh


text:
bòc

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) bloat, inflate, puff
 * 2) rise, surge, swell
 * 3) swell, blister; grow turgid
 * 4) inflame

Noun

 * 1) pimple, pustule

title: bòc


text:
Aletrinas

Etymology
From, from.

Adjective

 * 1) Of or belonging to

title: Aletrinas


text: bòcain

title: bòcain


text:
bodach ròcais

Noun

 * 1) scarecrow

title: bodach ròcais


text:
taigh nam bòcan

Noun

 * 1) haunted house

title: taigh nam bòcan