Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Italic
| Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Requests for verification
Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.
|
Requests for deletion
Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.
|
Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other namespaces, such as appendices, templates and modules.
|
Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, mergers and splits.
| ||
| Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Discussion of proposed moves, mergers and splits of entries or other pages.
|
Category and label treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's categories or labels, including additions, deletions, renames, mergers and splits.
| ||||
| Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.
| |||||
|
| |||||
| All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5 |
This page is for entries in any Italic language, i.e. Latin, its sister languages (Oscan, Faliscan, etc.), or any Romance language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan, etc.).
- For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.
- For Chinese/Japanese/Korean entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK.
- For entries in a reconstructed language, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction.
- For all other entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.
Scope of this request page:
- In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
- Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
Templates:
{{rfv}}{{rfv-sense}}{{archive-top|rfv}}+{{archive-bottom}}
Shortcut:
See also:
- Criteria for inclusion
- Format for citations
- Standard entry layout
- A list of searchable external archives, useful for finding durably-archived media to quote.
Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.
Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).
Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:
- Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
- Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)
In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.
Recording negative findings: Editors who make a fair effort to find citations but fail to do so should state their negative result on this page (even if it only repeats another editor's negative result).
Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:
- Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
- Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV-failed or RFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.
In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).
Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
2020
[edit]French. Not familiar with this. PUC – 10:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I see a few uses, sometimes hyphenated, but (grammatically) as a singular: [1], [2], [3], [4] (the last one is a mention). In the following case I think it means a head of white hair, so the sense of a white-haired person may be metonymical: [5]. --Lambiam 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Needs citations in the appropriate place. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- The common French expression for silver hair is "poivre et sel" but it's only used as an adjective, not a noun, and neither is "cheveux blancs" used as a noun to designate a white-haired person. 193.54.167.164 14:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Des cheveux poivre et sel (wfw. "pepper and salt hair") means mixed black and white hair, often appearing grey. All-white hair is des cheveux blancs and donner des cheveux blancs à quelqu'un (wfw. "give someone white hair") approximately means "endlessly get on someone's nerves". — Tonymec (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- The common French expression for silver hair is "poivre et sel" but it's only used as an adjective, not a noun, and neither is "cheveux blancs" used as a noun to designate a white-haired person. 193.54.167.164 14:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
2021
[edit]French. Old entry created by me, apparently unattestable. PUC – 11:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@PUC Not sure what qualifies as attestation, but this is a very common expression. There are even more senses than just the softening of an order. "je passe un coup chez le dentiste" (rapidement), "un coup il me croit, un coup il me croit plus" (tantôt... tantôt),... Lots of hits on Google. Sitaron (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
If it's real, we need citations. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
fr:coup sense 12 says it is used as a synonym of "fois" (like here) but the first two (of three) examples given there belong to a more usual (less familiar) level of language than here. The third example, though, is exactly the colloquial use mentioned here, and it is a quotation from a well-known French author: J’ai eu du chagrin de savoir que ton neveu s’était fait refuser aux postes encore un coup. — (Marcel Aymé, La jument verte, Gallimard, 1933, réédition Le Livre de Poche, page 25). — OTOH as a native French speaker I confirm that je passe un coup chez le dentiste or un coup il me croit, un coup il me croit plus do exist, as part of familiar spoken French; a tiny wee bit less familiar (more "standard") would be je passe en vitesse chez le dentiste and tantôt il me croit, tantôt il ne me croit plus. — Tonymec (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @-sche Haute Garonne speaker talking:
- For 'modal' use, common places which first come to mind are these two imperatives:
- "pète un coup" (lit:"fart at once/a little" = "relax")
- "respire un coup" ("take a deep breath"; "will you please calm down")
- used in advices with the underlying "un coup (au moins) avant de..." ("once (at least) before...") and, as for me, often by stressed out people to stressed out people, hence the "will you please...". I guess the current def does quite the job, though as being derivative of the temporal use I feel it should be assigned second place.
- For 'modal' use, common places which first come to mind are these two imperatives:
- Saumache (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
P.S. I took the liberty of adding the example above from fr.wikt at un coup. Passe un coup le sel! instead of Passe le sel, s'il te plaît. is very familiar but it is used in colloquial spoken French. — Tonymec (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Tonymec: Thanks for adding sense 2 and its accompanying quotation. I also found some discussion related to sense 1 at w:fr:Français de Nouvelle-Calédonie#Un coup. Using "un coup" with an order may be especially common in that particular dialect, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist in metropolitan French or other dialects. But what we really need is a durably archived example of such usage. Have you been able to find any? 70.172.194.25 20:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: A durably archived example ? I dont have any, and it might be hard, considering that it is used mostly in spoken rather than written or literary language. Myself, I'm not a New-Caledonian but a Belgian and I would have thought it especially frequent in the "spoken dialect" of Paris but known to different degrees by radiation in most or all of the French language areas. — Tonymec (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Tonymec: Would you say that the use of "un coup" in any of these would count as sense 1? [6] [7] [8]. The problem is that these are all articles by one author in one paper (from Mauritius). And there's also this article on Mauritian French which uses it quite heavily (although we can't cite the latter, because they're technically mentions instead of uses). My methodology to find these was to search for "moi un coup le/la" on Google, hoping that the inclusion of "moi" would tilt the results towards imperatives like "dis-moi", etc., and the inclusion of "le/la" would get adverbial uses of "un coup" instead of cases where "coup" is just acting as a regular noun. But there actually aren't many results. I'm not going out of my way to search for French spoken on remote islands, it's just what seems to pop up when looking for this for whatever reason.
- If this is commonly used in Parisian France, wouldn't it be possible to find a song, TV show, magazine, or something that uses this? 70.172.194.25 08:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: I would count "un coup" as sense 1 if it can be replaced by "s'il te plaît" at the end of the sentence with no change of meaning; I would label it as "familiar" or "colloquial" and also "spoken language". Finding it in a song or magazine, I don't think so. In a TV show or even in a cinema film, I'd say maybe, if the characters are using colloquial spoken language. Teenager characters, maybe. But I wouldn't bet my head on it being easily findable.
- In sense 2 "un coup" can be replaced by "une fois" at the same place in the sentence and I copied a quotation from fr.wikt about that sense. It is also "familiar" or "colloquial" but it has been found at least once in published text. — Tonymec (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: Maybe in some dictionary, but recent dictionaries might be copy-protected (in France, until the 31st of December following the last living author's death plus 70 years) and older ones might be unaware of such a recent evolution in the language. I don't know how far we can make use of the French "exceptions to author's rights" allowing "short citations for use as example or illustration" and "extracts for information" (see fr:w:Droit d'auteur#Exceptions au droit d’auteur with footnotes sending back to the Berne Convention).
- In addition, "moral rights" are in France part of intellectual property rights; they are perpetual and can neither be relinquished nor given over, even by testament ("perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible"): the author, and after him his "natural heirs", cannot avoid exercising them. — Tonymec (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: A durably archived example ? I dont have any, and it might be hard, considering that it is used mostly in spoken rather than written or literary language. Myself, I'm not a New-Caledonian but a Belgian and I would have thought it especially frequent in the "spoken dialect" of Paris but known to different degrees by radiation in most or all of the French language areas. — Tonymec (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- If this were very common colloquial French, I would expect to see more Google results than I do; nonetheless, I do find some hits for "toi un coup le|la", especially on Twitter:
- Mate-toi un coup le best of de Roger Federer sur YouTube, tu vas capter l'idée !
- Bahaha ce tweet de boomer par contre c'est très grave mdrr détend toi un coup la musique évolue et le bon reste. Et puis si ça ne te touche libre à toi de ne pas écouter plutôt que de cracher sans avoir jamais écouté 🤷♀️
- Ptdr vazi toi un coup la suisse un coup portugal un coup Turquie un coup L.A et la Aix-en-Provence 😭 décide toi fdp
- Retournes au #CasBinet et soulages toi un coup la Sophie !
- @reminotta et bois toi un coup le couz ❤.
- Mouille toi un coup la nuque.
- @PUC, Tonymec, can you check whether those are using either of the relevant/RFVed (adverbial) senses of un coup? Colloquial language would be precisely the kind of thing that this vote (which happened after this RFV was started) allowed people to discuss using online cites for... and there are also the cites of "moi un coup le" mentioned above... - -sche (discuss) 16:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hm. In the above examples, "un coup" seems to me like a colloquial synonym of "une fois" but they could also be regiolectic (e.g. colloquial Paris French vs. colloquial Brussels French — I'm Belgian). I would analyze the personal pronoun as a complement or sometimes appositional subject of the verb and "un coup" as a circumstantial complement relating to the whole verbal syntagm and expressing semelfactivity (English "once", "for once" or similar):
- Have a look (wfw. look for yourself) for once at the best of Roger Federer on YouTube, you'll grasp the idea !
- [détends-toiDIR OBJ] ← [un coup], [la musique évolue]
- ParTerreDeRire vas-y, toiSUBJ APPOS, [un coup la Suisse] [un coup Portugal] [un coup Turquie] — ROFL, go ahead, you: one time Switzerland, one time Portugal, one time Turkey… (Even here, I would analyze "un coup" as a frozen adverbial idiom.)
- [soulage-toiDIR OBJ] ← [un coup], [la SophieSUBJ APPOS] — Sophie, relax (for once) !
- [mouille-toi [la nuque]] ← [un coup] (hard to translate) [wetIMPERATIVE 2 P S to_you [the nape]] [for_once]. (The idiomatic meaning escapes me.)
- @-sche Does this answer your question ? — Tonymec (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- If they mean une fois, do you think they demonstrate the existence of sense 2 of un coup (adverbial), or do you think they are better viewed as sense 7 of coup (noun)? - -sche (discuss) 20:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I find it hard to tell apart coup 7, un coup 1 and un coup 2. In Belgian French, une fois (possibly from Dutch eens) is often used colloquially to soften an imperative: fr_BE: Viens une fois ici, nl_NL: Kom eens hier (wfw. "Come once here"), nl_BE: Kom 'ne keer hier, en: Would you mind coming here ? etc. — Note the only example at coup 7 where Encore un coup, which is not obviously joined to anything else in the sentence, is translated by the adverbial clause Once again, — Tonymec (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, OK. I will wait to hear what PUC or other French-speaking editors think, but I wonder if we could combine un coup senses 1 and 2 like this and then consider them cited by the online cites (and the one book cite) ... or alternatively, redirect un coup to coup and add a usage note to coup about the colloquial use of coup sense 7 to soften requests, if that (coup sense 7 rather than un coup) is how people prefer to view these cites ... - -sche (discuss) 22:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I find it hard to tell apart coup 7, un coup 1 and un coup 2. In Belgian French, une fois (possibly from Dutch eens) is often used colloquially to soften an imperative: fr_BE: Viens une fois ici, nl_NL: Kom eens hier (wfw. "Come once here"), nl_BE: Kom 'ne keer hier, en: Would you mind coming here ? etc. — Note the only example at coup 7 where Encore un coup, which is not obviously joined to anything else in the sentence, is translated by the adverbial clause Once again, — Tonymec (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- If they mean une fois, do you think they demonstrate the existence of sense 2 of un coup (adverbial), or do you think they are better viewed as sense 7 of coup (noun)? - -sche (discuss) 20:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hm. In the above examples, "un coup" seems to me like a colloquial synonym of "une fois" but they could also be regiolectic (e.g. colloquial Paris French vs. colloquial Brussels French — I'm Belgian). I would analyze the personal pronoun as a complement or sometimes appositional subject of the verb and "un coup" as a circumstantial complement relating to the whole verbal syntagm and expressing semelfactivity (English "once", "for once" or similar):
Romanian. Rfv-sense "(vulgar, slang) extraordinary, super, excellent". Removed by IP (diff) with the comment "never heard it being used as an adjective, ever; add it back ONLY with a reference". — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Robbie SWE, Bogdan: I found nothing. I'm also not familiar with this use. Fytcha (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's definitely a real slang use, a synonym for pizdos. It's hard to find slang usage online, since it's a colloquial use (and when I google this word, I get only porn sites), but here's one proof of usage: "spectacol pizdă". Bogdan (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I found it used as an adverb in a song: "Suntem tot ceea ce crezi tu că sună foarte pizdă". Catlop (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I tried searching Twitter for spectacol pizd and mašīna pizda, but the only relevant hit I found, "@Deivo_M mm. vēl @naurisfox95 ktko pisās negribot uz egli nākt. edijs ar mby netiks, jo viņam mašīna pizda! ;/", seems to have the opposite meaning, something negative...? I did, however, find two uses of foarte pizdă: "oricum, foarte pizda!", "Seesmic Look e totusi confusing ca interfata :-)). Desi arata foarte pizda pe display mare. Oare pe unul de 2m cum ar arata? :-))" User:Bogdan, can you check if these are the right sense? And perhaps searching genius.com would yield more songs using this? - -sche (discuss) 16:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Tagged by 2003:DE:3728:BF61:3CEF:6BEC:3439:FB55 on 7 June, not listed:
- “for masc. gender.
- L&S has "subst.: vŏlantes, ĭum, comm., the birds", but some other dicts only have f. (logeion -> LaNe: "subst. volantēs, ium en um f (poët.; postklass.)", Georges: "subst., volantēs, ium, f. (sc. bestiae)") and sometimes L&S has guesses, unattested information.”
J3133 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously, it could be masculine or feminine when used as a substantive, depending on the context: (vermes) volantes or aves (volantes). Maybe all attestations happen to refer to feminine animal nouns (aves, columbae) and not to for instance culices or passeres. Do we need such attestations to verify the inherent gender ambivalence? An entirely different issue is whether we should list such obvious nominalizations at all; we do not list a noun powerful, even though its use as a noun is fairly common;[9] and we also do not list an (attestable[10]) noun sense for flagellantes. --Lambiam 11:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
(Notifying workgroup: GianWiki, Metaknowledge, SemperBlotto, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Imetsia): Created by User:SemperBlotto, supposedly an adjective meaning "glove" in a relational/attributive sense. Unlikely to be correct as an adjective ending in -a, and not in any dictionary I can find. Benwing2 (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I can't really find any dictionary supporting the existence of an adjective like guantario, except this, which I believe might've been used as a reference for the Wiktionary entry. There are a couple of usage examples I can find online – either as an adjective or as a noun (an alternative form of guantaio (“glovemaker”)) – but that's all. — GianWiki (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's more likely that wordsense pulled it from Wiktionary. The entry has been around for 7 years. – Jberkel 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Treccani seems to use it (industria guantaria). Also in Google books: from 1937 (industria guantaria), from 1939 (industria guantaria, attività guantaria, produzione guantaria). As for guantario, there's this book (problema guantario), from 2006 (maestro guantario), from 1959 (settore guantario). - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
French. The French Wiktionary entry lists one of the meanings of abeillage as "Élevage des abeilles", i.e. the raising of bees, or beekeeping. However, all of the uses I found online were referring to the other historical senses of the word. If this sense is kept, it should at least perhaps be tagged as rare because it seems the more common translations for beekeeping are apiculture or a multi-word phrase like "élevage des abeilles", "industrie abeillère". 70.175.192.217 18:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Can somebody confirm the gender? This and also Lagopus and λαγώπους give the gender as feminine (the latter offering both masculine and feminine). However, λαγώς and πούς are both masculine, so I can't see how the compound could possibly be feminine. If it really is, something needs to be added to the etymologies to say how this counterintuitive gender has happened. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- As for Lagopus zoologists treat it as being feminine, as can be seen by the species epithets of two of the three species, the other one not being helpful. Lewis and Short asserts Latin lagopus as being feminine. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ancient Greek λαγώπους (lagṓpous) is a nominalization of an adjective meaning hare-footed; compare the adjectives ὀκτώπους (oktṓpous, “eight-footed”) and ἐρυθρόπους (eruthrópous, “red-footed”). For these adjectives, the masculine and feminine forms are the same. The gender of a nominalization will usually be determined on semantic grounds; if seen as a shortening of ὄρνις λαγώπους (órnis lagṓpous, literally “hare-footed bird”), it will inherit the gender of ὄρνις – and thus still can go either way. --Lambiam 11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Oxford Latin Dictionary agrees that lagōpūs (“ptarmigan”) is feminine. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek says that λαγώπους (lagṓpous, “ptarmigan, white partridge”) is masculine (the neuter λαγώπουν (lagṓpoun) is also substantivized and refers to some sort of clover or other trefoil). I'm pretty sure when LSJ says "λαγώ-πους, ποδος, ὁ, ἡ" it means that as an adjective the masculine and feminine have the same form. However, it doesn't look like this word is ever actually used as an adjective meaning "hare-footed". It's only ever used as a masculine noun meaning "ptarmigan, white partridge" and as a neuter noun meaning "clover, trefoil". —Mahāgaja · talk 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Dioscorides[11] and Oribasius[12] use non-neuter λαγώπους (lagṓpous) for the clover. The grammatical gender cannot be discerned from the brief mentions (γνώριμος can be feminine), but Pape gives ἡ λαγώπους as translation of Hasenklee (hare’s-foot clover),[13] and Johann Adolf Erdmann Schmidt gives this as translation of Waldhonig,[14] probably not referencing the substance but a type of clover from which honey is obtained. --Lambiam 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: In your last example, ἡ λαγώπους is actually the translation of Waldhuhn, so it's referring to the bird. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for the correction; I overlooked the -xyz entries. It is somewhat unlikely that the Latin writers borrowing lagōpūs from Greek would have assigned it the feminine gender if they were not following a Greek example. --Lambiam 09:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: In your last example, ἡ λαγώπους is actually the translation of Waldhuhn, so it's referring to the bird. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Dioscorides[11] and Oribasius[12] use non-neuter λαγώπους (lagṓpous) for the clover. The grammatical gender cannot be discerned from the brief mentions (γνώριμος can be feminine), but Pape gives ἡ λαγώπους as translation of Hasenklee (hare’s-foot clover),[13] and Johann Adolf Erdmann Schmidt gives this as translation of Waldhonig,[14] probably not referencing the substance but a type of clover from which honey is obtained. --Lambiam 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Oxford Latin Dictionary agrees that lagōpūs (“ptarmigan”) is feminine. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek says that λαγώπους (lagṓpous, “ptarmigan, white partridge”) is masculine (the neuter λαγώπουν (lagṓpoun) is also substantivized and refers to some sort of clover or other trefoil). I'm pretty sure when LSJ says "λαγώ-πους, ποδος, ὁ, ἡ" it means that as an adjective the masculine and feminine have the same form. However, it doesn't look like this word is ever actually used as an adjective meaning "hare-footed". It's only ever used as a masculine noun meaning "ptarmigan, white partridge" and as a neuter noun meaning "clover, trefoil". —Mahāgaja · talk 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ancient Greek λαγώπους (lagṓpous) is a nominalization of an adjective meaning hare-footed; compare the adjectives ὀκτώπους (oktṓpous, “eight-footed”) and ἐρυθρόπους (eruthrópous, “red-footed”). For these adjectives, the masculine and feminine forms are the same. The gender of a nominalization will usually be determined on semantic grounds; if seen as a shortening of ὄρνις λαγώπους (órnis lagṓpous, literally “hare-footed bird”), it will inherit the gender of ὄρνις – and thus still can go either way. --Lambiam 11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there's also the possibility, that the Latin gender isn't attested, but just assumed on whatever grounds. If that's the case, there maybe should be a usage note explaining the situation and the assumption.
- In Latin dictionaries it's:
- L&S: lăgōpūs, ŏdis, f. - 1. bird, 2. herb
- Gaffiot: lăgōpūs, odis, f. - 1. bird, 2. plant
- Georges: lagōpūs, podis, m. u. f. - 1. m. bird, 2. f. plant
- So they agree, that the herb/plant is feminine. As for sense bird, all three reference works refer to Plinius: Plin. 10, 133 (Plin. 10, 48, 68, § 133). That is, according to edition:
- LacusCurtius: "capitur circa Alpes etiam, ubi et phalacrocoraces, avis Baliarium insularum peculiaris, sicut Alpium pyrrhocorax, luteo rostro niger, et praecipua sapore lagopus. pedes leporino villo nomen hoc dedere cetero candidae, columbarum magnitudine."
- Carolus Mayhoff, 1875: "iam et in Gallia Hispaniaque capitur et per Alpes etiam, ubi et phalacrocoraces, avis Baliarium insularum peculiaris, sicut Alpium pyrrhocorax luteo rostro niger et praecipua sapore lagopus. pedes leporino villo nomen hoc dedere cetero candidae, columbarum magnitudine."
- transl. John Bostock & H. T. Riley, 1855: "It was formerly reckoned among the rare birds, but at the present day it is found in Gallia, Spain, and in the Alps even; which is also the case with the phalacrocorax, a bird peculiar to the Balearic Isles, as the pyrrhocorax, a black bird with a yellow bill, is to the Alps, and the lagopus, which is esteemed for its excellent flavour. This last bird derives its name from its feet, which are covered as it were, with the fur of a hare, the rest of the body being white, and the size of a pigeon." ["last bird" in nominative isn't in the Latin.]
- --16:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Can this form, alleged to be a genitive plural of the Latin adjective memor, be attested, or are we dealing with a so-called non-i-stem variant? --Lambiam 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Template:la-decl-3rd-1E has been retired to a template farm upstate, but I suspect this was the culprit, leading to an erroneous auto-generated entry. @Benwing2 --Lambiam 01:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- A&G mentions the ablative singular of it. --Myrelia (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Might it be that A&G is mistaken: [15]? For some uses of the ablative memore, see [16], [17], and [18]. --Lambiam 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- That looks like Medieval Latin or Anglo-Latin. Georges: "Abl. Sing. bl. memori" = Ablativ Singular bloß memori = ablative singular is only memori. --Myrelia (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- In Wiktionary, Medieval Latin is Latin. So it seems both forms of the ablative can be attested, but only one may be Classical. Still, what about memorium – can this form be attested? --Lambiam 08:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- ML. is Latin, but there should be a qualifier/note.
As for gen. pl.: Can the other, memorum, be attested? Or is it just an assumption, a form generated by an inflection template? Maybe it can by: "hunc crebro ungula pulsu incita nec domini memorum proculcat equorum, Verg. Aen. 12, 533"? --Myrelia (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- ML. is Latin, but there should be a qualifier/note.
- In Wiktionary, Medieval Latin is Latin. So it seems both forms of the ablative can be attested, but only one may be Classical. Still, what about memorium – can this form be attested? --Lambiam 08:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- That looks like Medieval Latin or Anglo-Latin. Georges: "Abl. Sing. bl. memori" = Ablativ Singular bloß memori = ablative singular is only memori. --Myrelia (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Might it be that A&G is mistaken: [15]? For some uses of the ablative memore, see [16], [17], and [18]. --Lambiam 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- A&G mentions the ablative singular of it. --Myrelia (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can find a few instances but I'm not sure they're this. It seems like memorum is more common...? in which case the template in memor needs to be corrected, AFAICT... - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
2022
[edit]Rfv-sense "neighbour". Is this restricted to the biblical sense of neighbour (“a fellow human being”), or is it also used for the literal sense of "person living on adjacent land/house/apartment"?__Gamren (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t think this is specifically biblical. In the Vulgate this translates ὁ πλησίον (ho plēsíon) (“one’s neighbour”) in the Septuagint, a nominalized adverb derived from the adjective πλησίος (plēsíos) meaning near, neighbouring. Latin has the feature of zero-derivation nominalization of adjectives,[19] so perhaps Jerome simply used the nearest Latin equivalent of the Greek adjective as a noun. (Jerome could instead have used vīcīnus (neighbour), also a nominalization of an adjective; we can only guess why he did not do so.) IMO there is hardly a reason to list this separately under the PoS “Noun”. When used as a noun, the term has a spectrum of meanings depending on the different senses of closeness, including “someone living nearby”, but is more likely to mean “next of kin”. --Lambiam 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Are days of the week capitalized in Middle French? --TongcyDai (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Probably made up and probably belongs in RFV, but oh well. It was in a crappy song Pierdeme El Respeto but not much out there. --Vealhurl (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Moved to RFV. Thadh (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
According to the authoritative text 'Rivet & Smith (1979) The Place Names of Roman Britain' (p315), the Latin name is indeclinable. What is the authority for a previous editor stating that 'Condate' follows a Greek-type' declension. If none, then this declension table should be deleted. — This unsigned comment was added by Avitacum (talk • contribs).
- @Avitacum: I moved this from the English requests page (WT:RFVE) to this one. This, that and the other (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. My mistake! Avitacum (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- But well, could be that gender and/or inflection isn't attested.. --16:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Apparently Pliny used etēsiās once, but the Latinate first declension singular is unattested. It's a plurale tantum. This, that and the other (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can find google books:"etesia flabra" and Citations:etesia. - -sche (discuss) 20:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: perfect passive participle of cādō. This PPP is claimed to be indeclinable, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What's more, dictionaries (including TLL) don't mention a PPP for this verb. A supine stem is given, but given how widely-used this verb is, you'd expect to see some kind of reference to the PPP if it existed. This, that and the other (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the idea is that it only occurs in the compound forms of the impersonal passive construction (where the subject is always neuter singular), as shown in the conjugation table on cado. I just tried to search for an actual quotation exhibiting the use of impersonal PPP casum + auxiliary, but I haven't found one yet.--Urszag (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Italian: "(usually humorous, sometimes menacing) Said when someone is unwilling to repeat what they have already said.". I created Citations:Paganini non ripete but I'm not sure the quotations actually support the definition given. 98.170.164.88 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe this? 98.170.164.88 00:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- The citations are all correct. Paganini non ripete is a super-common expression, you can find it in every good Italian dictionary, too. Sartma (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Goldoni and Consolemania quotations do seem to be using it to express unwillingness to repeat something said. Servi is using it for refusal to perform a musical encore, which is the same as the original story. Chirichelli and Odone are using it to refer to things that cannot be repeated because they are unique, etc., the same as what Paganini originally meant; but repetition of speech is not involved. Barbiera requires more context to understand, but I think also falls into this metaphorical category.
- I'm not disputing that the expression exists with some meaning, but if it's super common hopefully we can find three quotations that are unambiguously using it to refer to refusal to repeat speech. And maybe we should flesh out the non-speech meaning too (something that cannot be repeated because it was improvised, etc.). 98.170.164.88 18:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.
Latin. Described by @Theknightwho as: "Fake participle formed from the fake supine of absentō" (they meant accanō). This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can find this, but I'm not sure it's relevant. - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Created by User:SemperBlotto. Appears to be a nonexistent back-formation based on radioassistenza. Benwing2 (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: It's a real word. Zingarelli has it too. Sartma (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma Thanks. However, we need citations; if it exists, it's rare enough not to be in reverso.net or Google ngrams. Benwing2 (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma All cites in Google Books are from dictionaries. I still think it doesn't exist. Benwing2 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: It is a technical term, so it might not be easy to find, but navigazione radioassistita is something even common people talk about. radioassistere (and servoassistere) are given in all major Italian dictionaries. I'm not interested in any of the fields where those terms might get used more regularly, but still, as a native speaker, I know those words... Reading you writing that they are "nonexistent" is a bit weird. Sartma (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma All cites in Google Books are from dictionaries. I still think it doesn't exist. Benwing2 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma Thanks. However, we need citations; if it exists, it's rare enough not to be in reverso.net or Google ngrams. Benwing2 (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.
French: Apparently this is the name of a former country in Africa. Probably just used by one author and copied elsewhere. Dunderdool (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Googling it throws up a historic map of Senegal. Is this wolof? Theknightwho (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like the country being referred to is the Kingdom of Jolof and its predecessor, the Jolof Empire, which is the same word as Wolof (also Djolof, Yolof, etc.) and which we treat at Wolof#English (sense 3). Although the definition there may be a little misleading, since in the Kingdom period, it was only one of multiple Wolof-speaking states, the others including Waalo and Cayor ([20]). 142.166.21.76 14:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Belongs on WT:RFVN, although FWIW this looks very easily citable in French, and might even pass CFI in other languages like German, Italian, and English. 142.166.21.76 13:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
French. See Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/October#French: se donner le mot. If the term cannot be verified as a synonym of passer le mot, it should perhaps be replaced by a redirect to se donner le mot. --Lambiam 16:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Latin. Taken from Gaffiot. Gaffiot, with du Cange, gives one citation, Tertullian Ad nationes 1.9 "abaliud a maiore defenditur", and apart from various scanos on Google Books it seems to be a hapax. But modern editions of Tertullian do not treat this as a word and instead render the passage "si ab aliquo aliud, a maiore defenditur" (e.g. Borleffs 1954). Von Hartel 1890 already comments, "An die Existenz des Wortes abaliud glaubt heute wohl Niemand" ("nobody today believes in the existence of the word abaliud"), and Schneider 1968 gives the emended sentence and labels abaliud a ghost word. I can't find any reliable source disagreeing with this assessment. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Easily 'attested':
- Tertullianus, Ad nationes [To the nations], lib. 1, cap. 9 – in some editions, e.g. Bibliotheca patrum ecclesiaticorum latinorum selecta. Ad optimorum librorum fidem edita curante E. G. Gersdorf. Vol. IV. Qu. Sept. Flor. Tertulliani opera. Ad optimorum librorum fidem expressa curante E. F. Leopold. Pars I. Libri apologetici., Lipsia, 1839, p. 141:
- Abaliud a maiore defenditur.
- Tertullianus, Ad nationes [To the nations], lib. 1, cap. 9 – in some editions, e.g. Bibliotheca patrum ecclesiaticorum latinorum selecta. Ad optimorum librorum fidem edita curante E. G. Gersdorf. Vol. IV. Qu. Sept. Flor. Tertulliani opera. Ad optimorum librorum fidem expressa curante E. F. Leopold. Pars I. Libri apologetici., Lipsia, 1839, p. 141:
- And also found in dictionaries:
- Add Category:Latin ghost words (done) and a usage note (missing). --Amicus vetus (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Amicus vetus: Please re-read my comment above: the modern consensus is that it is not found in Tertullian, it is an error of manuscript interpretation (and not therefore used in actual Latin).
By definition, it cannot be both a ghost word and attested.(Well, it can, but in this case it doesn't seem to have crept into actual usage anywhere, hence my RFV.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Amicus vetus: Please re-read my comment above: the modern consensus is that it is not found in Tertullian, it is an error of manuscript interpretation (and not therefore used in actual Latin).
- I've read your comment carefully. It's found in Tertullianus -- at least in old editions thereof and an example was provided (and it's different from misprints/typos). That it is an error (scribal error in the manuscript, misreading, wrong conjecture or whatever) doesn't change that. Thus the entry is justified, and an explanatory usage note ('it's a mistake/ghostword' etc.) what is lacking. --Amicus vetus (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Amicus vetus: I think we're arguing at cross-purposes a bit. My point is that if there was never a word abaliud used by Tertullian or anyone else to mean "on the other hand", then our gloss is entirely spurious and should not be listed as a sense (it can be in the etymology, usage notes, or whatever—from elsewhere on this page some people might prefer this to just be a link to an appendix, I don't care too much either way). The only sense listed should, I think, be "alternative form"/scribal corruption of ab aliud. The fact that it is found in older editions of Tertullian does not support listing it as a sense, which is a matter of how the text is interpreted rather than how it is printed—and it's the sense that's being RFV'd here, since I'm not at RFD requesting the entry itself be deleted. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)
Transliterated names and surnames in Portuguese
[edit]Recently, I deleted several transliterated Japanese names and surnames created by a single IP that had little evidence to be in use in Portuguese language and looked like simple copies of the English entries. After a message from @Benwing2, I've gave some thought to this approach, so I'm opening this discussion in order reassess if the deleted should be restored or if the remaining unattested terms in Portuguese surnames from Japanese and Portuguese given names from Japanese should be removed as well. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sarilho1 My sense is that surname entries like this should be kept if they convey some useful info that is specific to the destination language, otherwise deleted. For example, if the surname is common enough to have a fairly fixed pronunciation, and we include that, this counts as "useful info". One example is Fukushima, which has a pronunciation given (maybe because it is also a toponym, and in the news a lot). I would say, on the contrary, that an etymology that is simply copied from the English entry doesn't count as useful info. Basically, we should discourage people from creating entries by just copying the English entry and making automatable changes to get an entry in another language. The intended result of this is that only sufficiently common or well-known surnames from foreign languages (e.g. names of famous Russian composers, in the case of Russian surnames) end up as entries. Otherwise we could end up with endless autogenerated surname entries swamping a given page. Not sure if this explicitly matches with CFI, but probably to the spirit of it. Benwing2 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
2023
[edit]Latin, feminine declension in -os, -oe. The Latin RFV IP wants to add this declension but I see no evidence for it in sources; expected phrases like res adespotos, res adespotoe, oda adespotos etc. look unattested (res adespotae is passably common, and indeed appears in the NLW entry, "quasi res anteà fuerint adespotae"). The form adespotoe looks totally unattested and my immediate searches did not turn up any instance of forms in -os, -orum modifying a feminine noun. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- --04:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- 2nd point, first link, "adespotos" is either agreeing with "impressus", not "Vuittenbergae" (it's not in the genitive), or being used as an adverb (thus -ōs?). Second link, sermo is a masculine noun. Third link (assuming "vita Arist. adespotos" is meant, and it's the vita that's adespotos) may count, although perhaps a rather thin basis. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- (this asked for forms in -os in general, regardless of gender. --06:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC))
Can't find evidence of this being used in (New) Latin texts, although it appears in some Latin-style names for diseases (e.g. retinopathia congenitalis). Maybe just Translingual? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is used in English and German, and appears as a "new Latin" style name, so perhaps this should just be marked as English. Translingual won't account for individual language conjugations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- In German it's capitalised Retinopathia (accusative Retinopathia, not Retinopathiam) as in Retinopathia pigmentosa. So like baby-foot is French and not English, and footing (exercise walking, jogging) is French, Italian, Spanish and not English or Translingual, retinopathia can be English (and also French etc.), and Retinopathia German. See also: Category:Pseudo-loans from Latin by language. --14:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Italian. Also RFV'ing atrovarsi. @Catonif, Sartma Both are these are another wonderful SemperBlotto creation, claimed to be alternative forms of trovare/trovarsi. No references given as to where these terms came from and they are not in any dictionaries. Attempts to Google them produce lots of typos for a trovare/a trovarsi but not much else (and excluding trovare from the search yields no hits). Benwing2 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I placed two quotes, though I normalized at attrovare per the sources and because a- instead of a*- is just an obsolete orthographical practice once greatly used especially by northern authors. The TLIO link shows great use in northern dialects. Hopefully I'll find a third quote in proper Tuscan. Catonif (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Italian. Created by User:SemperBlotto again. This is a dialect word from Neapolitan and Calabrese but I can't find any cites in Italian per se. Benwing2 (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Convert to a normal Neapolitan entry? Nicodene (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Romanian. I found this in DEX, but I havent been able to find it actually in use ... everything I turn up seems to be a dictionary, a list of words, or (in just a few cases) translation of an English-language text . I can't find a pronunciation given anywhere. There may be some French influence, as the definition given in DEX somewhat resembles that for pitchpin in this French dictionary.
I would be willing to count this as a valid use, but not this since the latter is clearly machine-translated. But that is all I could find. —Soap— 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've expanded the entry with another use in a popular novel (albeit somewhat mention-y). I couldn't find any other examples of the term in Romanian texts. Einstein2 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Bogdan You added the Romanian section last year, perhaps you can dig up a third use for this term? Einstein2 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looking into it again, DLR gives another use of the word, so this is possibly cited now. Einstein2 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, if you regularly consult DLR/DA, you’re going to love this: https://dlr1.solirom.ro/ —Biolongvistul (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looking into it again, DLR gives another use of the word, so this is possibly cited now. Einstein2 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do Romanian pitchpine and French pitchpin refer solely to North American pine species? “pitchpin”, in Trésor de la langue française informatisé [Digitized Treasury of the French Language], 2012 says so. DCDuring (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think so, yes, though it's a bit of a mess, since as our own entry indicates, the pitch pine can refer to more than one tree. The DLR dictionary gives only Pinus palustris as the definition, but Wikipedia gives only Pinus rigida. Since the habitats of the two trees dont overlap much, I suspect at one point it was in use in English to describe both species, and that people probably still call Palustris pitch pine today, but as arborists have become more standardized, they ended up going with Rigida as the one true pitch pine. Whereas the foreign dictionaries were probably compiled much earlier.
- Anyway, my Romanian isnt good enough to tell at a glance whether the cite given in the DLR dictionary is good enough to qualify as a use rather than a mention .... I'll trust you all if you say it is, and we can let the word remain listed in our dictionary. And we even got a pronunciation out of it, too. However, without the full context and with my limited skills in the language, I can't say on my own whether the DLR dictionary's cites are really uses in running text or more like "this is what they call a pitchpine" examples. Thanks, —Soap— 18:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- In English, it would not be surprising to me that Pinus rigida was usually the referent for pitch pine, but that the term was also often used for any pine that potentially yielded pitch economically. MW just uses an "especially" for P. rigida. DCDuring (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- You can rest assured it passes. There’s the quotation you found (which is better than you might have realised, as it is a transcription of an actually published text), then there’s quotation #1 from DLR, where it is used without explanation in a technical text, then there are these two occurrences in a forestry magazine. That makes three uses (as opposed to mentions) even if you don’t count DLR quotation #2 (which, as Einstein2 said, is more of a mention/English embedding indeed). Do these need to be on the page itself or does this mere discussion legitimise the entry? —Biolongvistul (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- It would be better if they were in the entry, but we sometimes let users enjoy multiple link chases, if indeed they trouble to look at the talk page (where this discussion should be archived in due course). DCDuring (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This is allegedly a Latin adjective meaning "Maronite", but the main word for that in Latin is definitely Marōnītae (usually found in the plural, like most words ending in -ītae), which I just added. I'm having a hard time figuring out whether "maronitus, -a, -um" actually exists as more than an occasional mistake. I added one citation of "Maronitorum" that I think is not a misprint (but could be interpreted as a grammar error; compare this similar example with -arum), so I guess that qualifies the word for inclusion based on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Limited_Documentation_Languages, but I wanted more eyes on this to check.
Two candidates I found that do seem to be misprints/typos or mistakes: this book refers to "la Grammatica arabica Maronitorum (París, 1616)" but the actual 1616 book seems to use the spelling "-arum"; and an example of "nomen Maronitum" in this book seems to be a mistake for "nomen Maronitarum".
I also found an example of "Colegium Maronitum" used in an English text. Given that "Colegium" seems to be misspelled, I'm not that confident in the Latinity of this. Urszag (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Urszag: I think the best solution is just to tag it as a nonstandard altform of Marōnīta (more common than -ītēs when I checked). Though I'm aware many Latin dictionaries lemmatise demonyms and the like at the plural, given that that singular form is decently attested I think it's unhelpful for Marōnītae to be treated as a plurale tantum. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Old French Etymology 1 "beer". Appears to have been tagged late 2022, but possibly never listed here (?). Leasnam (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- First attestation dates to 1429 per the TLFi and FEW, squarely in the Middle French period and hence a borrowing from Middle Dutch. Nicodene (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Latin. This is apparently a way of writing Ⅿ (“one thousand”), but I'm pretty sure it should be ⅭⅠↃ. Putting brackets around the letter I might be visually similar, but smells like BS. Theknightwho (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Can we delete this already? A lot of the page content seems like it needs moving, though. Polomo47 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDI.
Italian. Only found in personal and place names. (The current definition claims "especially", implying the word would be attestable outside of those, which would make this an RFV problem, but that's contradicted by the onomatology label, so I'm bringing this to RFD.) Very unlikely to have ever been an Italian word in any case, as all the names it is in are Germanic coinages. Catonif (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion: it is a rare poetic word; see here, where it is listed in a vocabulary of poetic words.--37.163.130.70 20:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, moved to RFV (sorry for the confusion. If it isn't clear, see the beginning of the page for explainations of how this works). The example you provide is curious: the glosses (prando together with polve, ritorte, etc.) are clearly about the sonnet in the preceding page (it's not a vocabulary), though in the sonnet, alongside polve and ritorte we find brando, which is widely attested also elsewhere. Looking at the gloss closely, I suspect that P is actually a B that lost its lower belly either in the printing or in the scanning phase, or alternatively a straight-up misprint. Note that even if we were to consider it a voluntary P, it would still not be enough to keep the entry per our criteria of inclusion. Catonif (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Latin. Does not appear to be spelled as one word in reality. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. Is the lemma registered in Portuguese or only occurs in Old Galician-Portuguese? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- [26] [27] [28]
Do these contents help to attest it? SentientBall (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Middle French. Tagged in 2021 but seemingly never listed. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Added a citation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
French: "# cashmere goat (Capra hircus angorensis or Capra hircus laniger)"
No citations present. The subspecies are not recognized by Mammal Species of the World, the Catalog of Life, WP, or Wikispecies. It is my understanding that the goats that are the source of cashmere are breeds that do not have well-defined links to subspecies. DCDuring (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The entry is confused, but that's no reason to post a confused rfv. This page is for verifying usage of a specific term, not goat taxonomy. Let me try to explain the main issues involved:
- First of all, cashmere and angora are types of goat wool named after places in regions where they have historically been produced: cashmere from Kashmir and angora from Ankara. They are each produced by a specific breed of goat. French Wikipedia claims, based on this reference that the Angora breed was introduced to Turkey from Kashmir, and infers that the two breeds are basically the same animal, along with similar goats in places like Tibet. English Wikipedia, based on its own sources, says that the origin of the Angora breed is unknown and treats Angora goats and Cashmere goats as separate breeds, with the Tibetan goats included in the Cashmere goat article.
- As for the taxonomic names: back before the taxonomic treatment of breeds and cultivars was somewhat standardized, it was common practice to assign them to taxonomic ranks like subspecies. I haven't done a very thorough search, but the taxonomic names in question do seem to have been in use (Whether the Angora-specific Capra hircus angorensis is used for Cashmere and Tibetan goats is another question entirely). IMO the entry would be better off without them, since they're obsolete, inaccurate, and misleading.
- Which brings me to what I think is the real issue: there is at least one book that says "La chèvre Cachemire - égalment appelée Chèvre du Tibet", so for at least some people, they're synonyms. The sticky part is determining whether "chèvre du Tibet" is a term for cashmere goats in general, or merely for the goats found in Tibet, which are inferred to be the cashmere goat breed. In other words, would someone use the term "chèvre du Tibet" for a goat in Kashmir or China? To use an analogy, even though people in Brussels and in Paris both speak the same language, would anyone say that Parisians speak Belgian French? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if the RfV caused confusion. I am challenging the definition, at least the part that includes the taxonomy. The taxonomy is probably old, very new, or informal, should the definition prove to be attestable. If there is evidence of usage with these taxa, then it stays. I usually do not challenge entries that at least use current or recent taxonomy, leaving that for others. There is a similar problem with respect to a German entry for Angorawolle. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I did not want to take it on myself to delete the taxonomy and leave the rest, as my skepticism may prove unwarranted. DCDuring (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if the RfV caused confusion. I am challenging the definition, at least the part that includes the taxonomy. The taxonomy is probably old, very new, or informal, should the definition prove to be attestable. If there is evidence of usage with these taxa, then it stays. I usually do not challenge entries that at least use current or recent taxonomy, leaving that for others. There is a similar problem with respect to a German entry for Angorawolle. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. There are currently 192 entries in this category, most of which are not listed here. The tagging was largely done by Sarilho1. I am making this listing so that Portuguese editors can look through and either cite or speedy delete any obvious entries. This, that and the other (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. However, most of the entries are names and surnames. I opened that discussion above some time ago. - Sarilho1 (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Most of the tagged terms seem to be names and surnames that are either pretty common or very common in Brazil. Finding citations for a hundred terms is gonna be quite the tiresome ordeal. MedK1 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
French. PUC – 17:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to exist: "Ce cocktail bière brune, liqueur de café, sucre et demi-expresso est un "after dinner"" [29]; "Que ce soit pour un apéritif en tout début de soirée ou un after dinner, le Bar du TIGRR est un des endroits incontournables du centre du village" [30]. Don't know whether it meets CFI. Equinox ◑ 11:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Old Galician-Portuguese. The entry was just a copy from the Portuguese one. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. Never heard this adjective in Portugal. Portuguese dictionaries don't register it either, so if it is indeed a Portuguese expression, it is at most colloquial. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Sicilian. Originally tagged for speedy deletion with rationale "This entry is mispelled. The semiconsonant j- is widely accepted as a simple i- when derived from Latin nexus pl- and fl-". That may be the case but there is an entry at scn.wikt with several other spelling variants. Ultimateria (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged in 2021 but not listed. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was able to find it here. This was the only case where they weren't trying to just explain what the English term "wishful thinking" means. MedK1 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
vada and vada cheneral
[edit]Aragonese. Aragonario gives vaca as a translation of Spanish huelga, DOA gives vaca and vaga. Santi2222 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- According to the Diccionario Ortografico de l'aragonés (Seguntes la P.O. de l'EFA):
- bada f. ‖ lat. vulg. de batare ‖ cast. rendija; paro laboral; huelga; aburrimiento ‖ cat. badall; aturada laboral; vaga; avorriment
- Im not sure where they got their data from and it's a source that doesn't where it's said or why how many, but nonetheless is a reliable source. Jinengi (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
French. Rfv-sense: "tartan". Weylaway (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. Supposed misspelling of septeto. Some users attempted to mark it as European Portuguese misspelling, however the creator of the entry is a Brazilian Portuguese speaker. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Some users". No comment. I see plenty of hits for "seteto" online, among them something written by a Portuguese teacher. I see it in aulete too. This actually makes me think that not only is it attested enough for CFI, but it's also not a misspelling at all. MedK1 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, some users. You and some IP, which makes it some, not one. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is "septeto" always or usually pronounced with [pt], or can it also be pronounced with just [t]? From what I could see, the 1990 spelling reform alleges that the correctness of "pt" vs "t" in spelling depends on whether the word has [pt] "nas pronúncias cultas da língua", so it doesn't seem possible that "seteto" could be a simple misspelling (unless by just omitting a letter): seems more like an alternative form representing an alternative pronunciation, and whether that pronunciation is stigmatized or unremarkable should be marked in the entry.--Urszag (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- The IP that edited the entry claimed that "p" is never omitted in Brazil. I'm not aware of it happening in Portugal either. It's possible that it occurs, but so far the claims are that it doesn't. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- I meant that "seteto" couldn't be a 'misspelling of septeto' in Brazil because upon saying "septeto" out loud, the tendency would be to say it as "sepiteto"; the P wouldn't be omitted. The only way you'd get "seteto" is if it actually were an alternative form of the word... which does seem to be the case since I could find it in texts by Portuguese teachers and dictionaries alike. MedK1 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- The IP that edited the entry claimed that "p" is never omitted in Brazil. I'm not aware of it happening in Portugal either. It's possible that it occurs, but so far the claims are that it doesn't. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. This is about the 3rd sense. Are we positive this isn't just the 2nd sense but with the word moved to the end of the sentence (perfectly normal in Portuguese)? I'm saying the example sentence for sense #3 means "We could dine together tomorrow then." I added some synonyms to the second sense, and both of them could apply to the 3rd one too. "Podíamos jantar juntos amanhã então" is definitely something I can see myself saying. Is this really something only used only in Southern Brazil? Granted, that's where I'm from, but it sure doesn't feel like a regionalism and I don't think I've ever raised any eyebrows using it in São Paulo or when talking to people from the Northeast. MedK1 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, perhaps I used the wrong template. I'm not questioning whether it's used like that (because it is and I do), but rather if it warrants being listed as a separate sense (I don't think so). MedK1 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Latin protologisms?
[edit]--13:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Tagging for deletion.--Urszag (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Can't find anything in Latin, only other languages (searching for various cases). RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
French. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like BS. PUC – 21:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- @PUC I know nothing about the merits, but this IP geolocates to Tunisia- which does have French-speakers. I suppose there might be local usage that doesn't show up anywhere we can find it. That said, I've seen them editing in languages that they would have no personal experience with, so I wouldn't take their word on anything without independent verification. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Le Poucre" seems to be a surname. Otherwise there's this but I'm not really sure what it means here: https://books.google.com/books?id=1PhNAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA56--Urszag (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Here's some more on it--apparently, the surname is also spelled "Le Poulchre" (which isn't too surprising an alternative spelling): https://books.google.com/books?id=hnVSk04SIdgC&pg=PA453 Still not sure if it's attested as an adjective though.--Urszag (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- There was an edit on the entry that said, in the edit summary, "This rare word is used in Vendée and means "impressive" rather than "beautiful"." This, that and the other (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
French. PUC – 21:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- @PUC I think this is meant to be parallel to ĵ in that it's specific to phonetics as used in France. Theknightwho (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- As noted on Talk:ẑ, Wikipedia (in English and French) offers some other uses of this letter that may be worthy of mentioning in a Translingual section, particularly the Macedonian transliteration (if it indeed caught on in real-world use). This, that and the other (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
French. Nothing on fr.wikt, fr.wikisource. Maybe Canadian French? Jberkel 15:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Cited. —Desacc̱oinṯier 10:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- No challenge. RFV-passed. —Desacc̱oinṯier 08:39, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Sicilian. The spelling is attested in Latin, and the Latin word does descend from Sicilian, the question is whether the spelling can be found in Sicilian running text. @Hyblaeorum as creator. Catonif (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Various 'Latin' terms that are (just?) taxonomic names
[edit]- I can find some attestations of frangula in Latin as a botanical name, but not as an adjective meaning 'fragile'. Daniel Sennert's Epitome naturalis scientiae (1637) includes it in a list: "...Buxus, virga sanguinea, frangula, Evonymus".--Urszag (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Urszag In case you haven't already seen this: in modern taxonomy the name "frangula" goes back to Linnaeus as the specific epithet for what is now Frangula alnus. The reference to "Dod. pempt. 784", evidently refers to this and the following page in Stirpium historiae pemptades sex by Rembert Dodoens. This is the 1616 edition, but it also appears in at least the 1583 on as well. As you can see, it's all in Latin- not "taxonomese", but real Latin. Of course, that has no direct bearing on Latin frangulus. It does discuss names on the top of p.784 and says that this name was in use by others at the time, so an explanation of the name may exist in writing somewhere, and it might be derived from Latin frangō due to brittleness of the wood, as the Wikipedia article on Frangula alnus claims. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
RFV-failed. Adjusting to Translingual.--Urszag (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have deleted the Latin inflections but I have also repurposed actinocarpo (and its inflections) to Portuguese. --kc_kennylau (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Through some research and discussing with @Kc kennylau at Wikt Discord server, I can safely assume actinocarpo is a ghost word, i.e. a term that only exists in dictionaries — and a pretty old aone, one of the earliest mentions is from 1937. Basically, all hits are either from dictionary entries or definitions in some compilation work, I couldn't find any usage example of this word.
- My guess is that someone wanted to explain what the specific epithet actinocarpus meant in scientific names and made a calque along the way, as both actino- (actinomorfo) and carpo (mesocarpo) exist in these kind of compounds in Portuguese. The etymology of all these is a mess too, but that's for another day. Trooper57 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
RFV-failed. Adjusting to Translingual.--Urszag (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
All seem to have been created just because of the taxonomic names. Urszag (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- And that's a problem because? DCDuring (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just a regular RFV. As I view it, and I've seen other editors agree in the past, a taxonomic name by itself doesn't count as a usage of a word in the Latin language. Therefore, we should either verify that these have been used in Latin or move them to Translingual.--Urszag (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd really be OK with just moving them to Translingual. I doubt that we have many readers or Latin botanical species descriptions coming to Wiktionary for help and not finding them under Translingual. There are plenty that are real Latin, but compound ones like all but lycioides of these four are very rarely 'real' Latin. And I wouldn't argue about something ending in -oides either. I don't know about frangulus, but it was not an arbitrary sign: I'm sure it was intended to mean something based on some vintage of Latin and/or its morphology. DCDuring (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! While I suspected they might not be attested as 'real' Latin, for some of them I'm genuinely uncertain about if uses in Latin exist, so if they do, I'd like to know about it. I think I'll try to follow up on the lead found by Chuck Entz for frangulus and do more of my own searches for the others before moving any of these.--Urszag (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd really be OK with just moving them to Translingual. I doubt that we have many readers or Latin botanical species descriptions coming to Wiktionary for help and not finding them under Translingual. There are plenty that are real Latin, but compound ones like all but lycioides of these four are very rarely 'real' Latin. And I wouldn't argue about something ending in -oides either. I don't know about frangulus, but it was not an arbitrary sign: I'm sure it was intended to mean something based on some vintage of Latin and/or its morphology. DCDuring (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just a regular RFV. As I view it, and I've seen other editors agree in the past, a taxonomic name by itself doesn't count as a usage of a word in the Latin language. Therefore, we should either verify that these have been used in Latin or move them to Translingual.--Urszag (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Latin. @VGPaleontologist. See also: Talk:albifrons. --08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
French. Never heard this. PUC – 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Checking Google Books, there are a few 19th-century recordings, however, they mostly refer to a type of shot in pool:
- Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture inventaire raisonné des notions générale les plus indispensable à tous
- Dictionnaire national, ou: Dictionnaire universel de la langue française
- Les jeux de la jeunesse
- The Royal Phraseological English-French, French-English Dictionary
- Dictionnaire historique d'argot (only non-billiard example I could find), also cited here
- I would suggest rewriting the entry as doesn't appear to be a synonym of coup bas. Sidenote: I found usages of "coup de bas en haut" / "coup de poing de bas en haut" as a translation of "uppercut". Io Katai (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
French. Brand of cubed cheese snack. I'm not convinced there is significant generic usage. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Theknightwho has now added the English version apericube which seems equally uncommon... Equinox ◑ 19:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Equinox I’ve definitely heard the English form used (albeit rarely). Theknightwho (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: Maybe you have, but you need to find citations and prove generic usage. You may have just heard everyday talk of a trademark like "let's get another of those Babybels, they are good on crackers". Equinox ◑ 02:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
(Discussion moved here from Talk:adventurus.)
Couldn't find this word used at all, Searched PHI and [Perseus] . Theoretically it could be the future active participle of adveniō, though I was unable to find it used that way. The word you are looking for is likely either periculi (trials or perils), iter (journey), or cursus (travels/race). I believe it would be best if we removed the noun form from this definition.
Kiwiroo (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Edit: Adding in a search through the dictionaries I have on hand:
Cassell's Latin Dictionary (→ISBN) Not Found
The New College Latin & English Dictionary (→ISBN) Not Found
Kiwiroo (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- In addition this supposed noun is in the wrong gender; it should rather be adventūra, which is in fact attested as a borrowing from one or more Romance descendants of Vulgar Latin *adventūra.
- I would imagine that the assumption of an *adventūrus resulted from a misinterpretation of the etymology of the English adventure, that is, 'from Latin adventurus' could be read as implying the existence of such a noun in Latin.
- It appears that @TheMouseAvenger, who added the noun, has been inactive since 2018. Nicodene (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
French. PUC – 16:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be in RFD for being SOP? MedK1 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which definition of cheval means "foolish"? DCDuring (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024
[edit]Catalan. Created by Wonderfool several years ago. Not in any dictionary. This is definitely a possible internationalism but if so we need attestations. Benwing2 (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I searched through all the catalan diccionaries that are listed in the catalan reference templates, and they only attest "intersecar"; the only hit I got was this in Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (Ctrl+F "intersec" - four hits). If it exists it was probably modeled after the noun, like the English and Portuguese equivalents. I think it's safe to delete, I'll even create the proper one under intersecar. Sérgio Santos (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Failed as WF-op. Verb forms need deleting. —User:Vealhurl (talk 09:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "(colloquial) to own; to defeat; to overwhelm". Tagged by MedK1 but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "(derogatory) upstart; nouveau riche" and the corresponding adjective. Tagged by Sarilho1 but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Aromanian. Tagged by Super Dromaeosaurus (talk • contribs) ("I have not been able to find proof of this being the Aromanian name for the city, it might be original research or a hoax") but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: a female screw. I looked through the links at the bottom of the entry and found a few Latin texts with this word, but I couldnt find anything in which any sense other than the literal ones would be the most natural interpretation. Im skeptical that there is a sexual meaning that would be used three times in Latin in order to pass through RFV. One-off sexual innuendos might be there, but that's not CFI-compliant. It's also possible that the originating author misread something, or was copying from a source who had, and that the word actually means a literal female screw (search hardware sites etc), but Im not sure Roman carpenters even had screws, let alone the less common female form. —Soap— 15:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Number of citations: "For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate [...]. For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate [...]".
- Latin is not a WT:WDL. Regardless of considering it extinct (which Early, Old, Classical, Late, Medieval and Vulgar Latin are) or alive (New Latin; Church Latin), 1 source is sufficient.
- But feel free, to consider using {{lb|la|rare}} or {{LDL-sense}} (cp. {{LDL}}).
- As for a source, L&S has: "The female screw, Plin. 18, 31, 74, § 317.". Georges, which is younger and often better than L&S, has: "b) rugae, der Schraubengang, die Schraubenmutter (griech. περικόχλιον), Plin. 18, 317." (i.e. in plural). Gaffiot translates it as écrou.
- You're welcome. --08:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
February 2024
[edit]Latin. --10:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to make this request. We have sēdēs listed as an i-stem, and so the genitive plural is given as sēdium. However, my textbook claims this word to be a consonantal-stem of the 3rd declension, which would have a genitive plural sēdum. German Wiktionary lists the non-i form instead; Latin Wiktionary actually lists both (and notable doesn't include the accusative plural variant sēdīs which we list). If this is indeed a case where variation occurs, we should probably include note of that and in what contexts/language stages this is the case. Could someone please verify? Helrasincke (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is indeed the right place to request verification of inflected forms of Latin words. It looks like this is discussed by other dictionaries. Lewis and Short says "gen. plur. sedum, Cic. Sest. 20, acc. to Prisc. p. 771 P.: sedium, from form sedis, Liv. 5, 42 Drak. N. cr.; Vell. 2, 109, 3)". The doctoral thesis Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin, by András Cser (2016) suggests that consonant-stem inflection would be expected overall, saying that third-declension words with the nominative singular ending -ēs "do not show other i-stem forms apart from GENPLUR nubium and cladium (the latter varying with consonant-stem cladum; no GENPLUR forms attested for fames at all). In Latin historical linguistics -ēs is known as a typical feminine i-stem ending for the NOMSING originally" (page 126). I'll take a look for what other attestations might be found.--Urszag (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Latin. It's essentially synonymous with carmen, and so it seems suspicious that it has the same nominative/accusative plural form carmina. Is it a medieval/Late Latin backformation, or a backformation in the mind of a modern editor? No other dictionary I have seen lists it. Urszag (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised this has lasted sixteen years. It is without a doubt the result of an editor's unfamiliarity with the language. There's of course nothing like this in any Latin dictionary, and searching forms like carminum brings up sentences where that is clearly genitive plural (=carmen); carminō doesn't bring up any sort of dative or ablative singular (only the verb carminō); etc. Nicodene (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's been edited now with an example of "carminorum"; I also saw some other examples of that form. The question though is whether this actually implies a second-declension singular "carminum, carmini", or if it is best interpreted as a heteroclitic form (like vāsōrum and various post-classical genitive plurals in -ōrum).--Urszag (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am relieved that there is nothing in the Catalogue of Life that uses this. DCDuring (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's been edited now with an example of "carminorum"; I also saw some other examples of that form. The question though is whether this actually implies a second-declension singular "carminum, carmini", or if it is best interpreted as a heteroclitic form (like vāsōrum and various post-classical genitive plurals in -ōrum).--Urszag (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
French. Rfv-sense: "shaped like that of a crow or raven". Seems like a weird definition and Wiktionnaire doesn't have it. I added "corvine" and made the previous definition a gloss. If it's citable, it may simple mean "related to crows or ravens". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- The adjectival sense is noted in the GD "2. Corbin, adj., de corbeau : Le genre corbin." (Corbin, adj. 'of crows': the crow genus). However, when I looked at the referenced work L'Histoire de la nature des oyseaux (book 6, chapter 5), the original phrase is actually "C'est la plus petite de toute les especes du genre Corbin" (It's the smallest of all species in the genus Corbin), which doesn't support the adjectival sense. I would suggest removing it. Io Katai (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Tagged by Nicodene with reason "Is this actually attested in the sense that underlies the Romance outcomes?" This, that and the other (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is on the entry's maker, namely @LatinGuy87.
- - Nicodene (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Galician. Rfv-sense: "where, whereby". The quote from 1264 was moved to Old Galician-Portuguese.
Tagged by MedK1 but not listed - please remember to list your RFVs as soon as you tag them!! This, that and the other (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Previous discussions archived at "Talk:E=mc²" established that only the following idiomatic sense should be kept in English: "A formulation or realization that captures a profound thought in simple terms." Is there are corresponding idiomatic sense in French? — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- The French version of the page cites two examples where it's used in the idiomatic sense of "simple, yet genius principle". There was also an RfD requested in 2013 on the French Wiktionary, but it was kept due to the idiomatic usage. That said, searching Google for idiomatic instances of "le E=MC2 du/de" or "le E=mc² de/du" turns up maybe only 22 unique results and of possessive forms like "Mon/son/etc. E=MC2" gives 3 or 4 results.
- You could say it fails WT:ATTEST as it doesn't have widespread usage and you'll be hard-pressed to find enough citations from durably archived media. Io Katai (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
March 2024
[edit]All entries in Category:Australian Italian
[edit]Created by an Australian IP who has no clue what they are doing. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This entry seems unattested, see Hesperus where the latter is in no way adjectival according to Charlton T. Lewis and other sources. Adjectival forms formed from the stem are either Hesperius or Hesperis, both in all caps.
Responding to the above request (not sure how to do this - I'm not a regular contributor): I can't speak to whether "hesperus" was used as an adjective in classical or ecclesiastical Latin, but it is used as an adjective in botanical Latin. For example, there is a plant species whose name is Parietaria hespera.
- There are about 330 names of accepted non-extinct species at Catalogue of Life with forms of hesperus as (sub)specific epithet. About 50% more with names that are unaccepted or for extinct species. I'm guessing that the meaning is usually "western" for these. DCDuring (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't know about that ! But the real issue is the entry not being referenced as being of New-Latin usage and also being used in etymology headings (english Hesperus) when it's derivatives are uppercase-only and seems itself to be.
- I've noticed the same thing with Camena/camena which shows perhaps a common problem on wiktionary about not uppercasing latin entries that should in fact be upercassed. I'll check on that and do the changes accordingly concerning the Hesperus paradigms. Though I'd rather leave hesperus to someone else as I usually don't deal with new latin stuff. Saumache (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- For most such terms we have entries for both upper- and lower-case forms. The lowercase form is usually attestable as New Latin or "Translingual" in the names of species. We haven't spent too much time on the matter because there is neither much interest nor consensus among contributors. In the case of hesperus, it is easy to attest to its wide and continued use in scientific Latin with the meaning "western". I am not sure about other meanings, nor about use in other vintages of Latin, though "Italian" might be in use or have been used in Ecclesiastical Latin. I don't understand the implications of or evidence attesting the "relational" definition "evening", specifically why it differs in semantics or syntax from attributive use of a noun in English. Is it just that the term is inflected by gender? Or is it just a tradition among Latin scholars or certain Latin scholars? DCDuring (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you meant. I'm sorry to ask but do you know how latin adjectives work? Hesperus is strictly a masculine noun and new latin hesperus (apparently) only an adjective. A proper (as not New Latin) latin adjectival form of Hesperus would be Hesperius, suffixed with -ius and thus inflected in gender, case and number according to what it qualifies. But again I probably misunderstood what you wrote. I do think the entry should be cleared up and added a new latin lb tag to avoid confusion and for correctness' sake. Saumache (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be surprised to find that it was hesperius rather tahn hesperus in all Latins, eg, Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin. In any event, resolution requires citations.
- BTW, how do you think we should present the etymology of the 107 accepted genera of extant organisms? Are they likely derived from Hesperus (Latin), hesperus (Latin or Translingual), or hesper- (Translingual)? All three seem like possibilities. DCDuring (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm quite ignorant regarding new latin word-creation so I don't have anything to compare this exemple to. Each way you propose seem likely, though I maintain lowercase+adjective hesperus is quite aberrant and can't find any quote supporting it. It may just be a rethinking of the word from some scientist who didn't know his latin well enough (hardly credible) or may be a common thing to create new latin specific adjectives from former noun stems (it's for you to tell me if you know better). Either way hesperus is not incorrect if used in scientific context, just a completely different word which again should not be confused for the other and given its new latin/translingual tag. Saumache (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you meant. I'm sorry to ask but do you know how latin adjectives work? Hesperus is strictly a masculine noun and new latin hesperus (apparently) only an adjective. A proper (as not New Latin) latin adjectival form of Hesperus would be Hesperius, suffixed with -ius and thus inflected in gender, case and number according to what it qualifies. But again I probably misunderstood what you wrote. I do think the entry should be cleared up and added a new latin lb tag to avoid confusion and for correctness' sake. Saumache (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- For most such terms we have entries for both upper- and lower-case forms. The lowercase form is usually attestable as New Latin or "Translingual" in the names of species. We haven't spent too much time on the matter because there is neither much interest nor consensus among contributors. In the case of hesperus, it is easy to attest to its wide and continued use in scientific Latin with the meaning "western". I am not sure about other meanings, nor about use in other vintages of Latin, though "Italian" might be in use or have been used in Ecclesiastical Latin. I don't understand the implications of or evidence attesting the "relational" definition "evening", specifically why it differs in semantics or syntax from attributive use of a noun in English. Is it just that the term is inflected by gender? Or is it just a tradition among Latin scholars or certain Latin scholars? DCDuring (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
French. Rfv-sense: asteroid. Einstein2 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
April 2024
[edit]Mirandese.
Mirandese Wikipedia has this at Ourganizaçon de las Naciones Ounidas, and I can't find much of anything at this spelling- but there's not a lot out there. Pinging @Ultimateria, who knows more about this language than I do. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz: I don't remember which sources I used to use for Mirandese but I can't find them anymore. Attesting anything in this language will be difficult. Ultimateria (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- In some articles (Nuoba Iorque, Die Anternacional de la Lhéngua Mai, Burro de Miranda) the Mirandese Wikipedia spells this Naçones Ounidas. --Lambiam 07:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
[edit]Latin. Rfv-sense: nonsense, bullshit. Every dictionary I've checked only seems to list the mouse droppings sense. Weylaway (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Rudi Laschenkohl Can you verify this sense? Weylaway (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged but not listed. Ultimateria (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I view this exactly as another eye-dialect–spelling for Caipira "vermelho". Less common than "vermeio", but it shows some social media results, for what that's worth. Polomo47 (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
French. PUC – 09:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Latin protologisms once again?
[edit]--20:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
[edit]Latin protologisms once again? (2)
[edit]gender stuff
[edit]- cisgenus n in cisgender
non binarium n in non-binarytransgener in transgendertransvestitus m, transvestitor m, transvestitrix f, transvestitrum n in cross-dresser
--09:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Romance languages
[edit]lingua Arpitanica f, arpitanica f in Franco-ProvençalLatin translations of langue d'oïl, Astur-Leonese, Aragonese, Extremaduran, Mirandese, Galician, Piedmontese, French, Valencian, Catalan, Portuguese
--09:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
--05:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Attested as a whole word? Or is this assumed based on Old Latin ceip-? — 2600:4808:9C31:F400:78F8:25D1:580F:9F12 21:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- L&S: "cippus (cīpus), i, m.".
- But it's without source, and not in Georges, Gaffiot, just L and DMLBS at [31].
- [32] (old) mentions a source: "cippus, auch cipus geschrieben z. B. Gram. lat. IV p. 574, 7 u. Var. bei Hor. sat. 1, 8, 12". Horatius' text can be found at [33]. This old ed. (1520) has it with cipus. (1864) gives cipus as varia lectio. So both can be mentioned in the entry:
- occuring in quite old eds. (which, of course, can be of lower quality)
- appearing in some old manuscript and being a varia lectio (likely of lesser quality/accuracy/etc.)
- --10:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Latin. --2003:DE:3717:71AC:A1D3:7211:AD2D:387E 06:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Move to illei per source. Not problematic for Romance derivatives, due to the regular change of /ae/ > /ɛ/. Kwékwlos (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
French. Tagged but not listed. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit]Latin. Domus is currently listed with three possible dative singular forms: domuī, domō, domū. The first two are attestable, but is the third? It seems most grammars of Latin don't list it. Hypothetically, it might be possible, given what Gellius says about Caesar's argument based on analogy for using -ū rather than -uī in the dative singular of all fourth-declension words: "C. etiam Caesar, gravis auctor linguae Latinae, in Anticatone, “unius,” inquit, “arrogantiae, superbiae dominatuque.” Item In Dolabellam actionis I. lib. I.: “Isti, quorum in aedibus fanisque posita et honori 9erant et ornatu.” In libris quoque analogicis omnia istiusmodi sine “i” littera dicenda censet." But it's not clear to me how far Caesar's prescriptions were ever put into practice (even by himself). Anyway, if "domu" is unattested in this use it seems better to omit it, so as to avoid confusing learners about the declension of an already tricky noun.--Urszag (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Georges: "Dat. archaist. domo (Corp. inscr. Lat. 3, 6463. Cato r.r. 134, 2. Hor. ep. 1, 10, 13) u. domu (Corp. inscr. Lat. 3, 231 u. 5, 1220), klass. domui:" with reference to Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum (see e.g. [34]). --05:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Italian. Imetsia (talk (more)) 23:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
French. PUC – 17:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- autres pays, autres coutumes would be expected here Phacromallus (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The latter is easily attested,[35][36][37] as is autre pays, autres coutumes.[38][39][40] --Lambiam 12:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- We do have an entry for autre pays, autres mœurs (and of course autres temps, autres mœurs). --Lambiam 17:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit]French, uncountable noun. Jberkel 15:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- French doesn't really have uncountable nouns. Nothing in GBooks but there are examples on the wider web. Moreover, haschich has a plural given. I'm inclined to keep. This, that and the other (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- web references only won't do it, though. I don't find anything in gbooks searching for "les haschs" or "des haschs". Jberkel 08:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese.
- Seems "emirato" is in Priberam, and "Emiratos Árabes Unidos" inInfopédia. Although, the Portuguese Wikipedia page says the name is used "wrongly" because it isn't in VOLP... doesn't seem like a misspelling, but maybe proscribed? Polomo47 (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Lewis and Short says "public talker of nonsense, a comically formed name, Plaut. Pers. 4, 6, 21 (703) Ritschl N. cr." This blog post suggests the form is "possibly completely conjectural". If it is a conjecture, we should at least give some context of who proposed it and why.--Urszag (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- WT:FICTION? Cp. Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion discussion. (Though Callidamates, Misargyrides, Philolaches and maybe others exist as well.) --22:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some of Plautus's character names make it as taxa, but the Catalogue of Life doesn't have this one. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC).
September 2024
[edit]Portuguese. Tagged by Sarilho1 in November 2022 but not listed. I think it's attestable, given Google readily shows many articles correcting the misspelling. Polomo47 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Sicilian. Seemlingly a hypercorrected protologism for actual partugallu. Sicilian dd corresponds to Italian ll in inherited words, though it is not the case for recent loans such as this one. (The word first surfaced in Italian itself in the late 18th century.) Catonif (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged by Sarilho1 in May 2023 but not listed. Polomo47 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is this really necessary? [41]. Theknightwho (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just listing it for bookkeeping. As for whether it really should be added... it's indeed a surname, yeah, but do people other than the musician really have it?
- It seems a lot of other languages do list Mozart — even though, for some entries, the only sense listed is the musician (I don't think that's allowed?) — so I guess it probably makes sense to have it in Portuguese too. Polomo47 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think for names of famous people, it makes sense to have entries in multiple languages even if the last name isn't actually used by native speakers of that language, simply because the pronunciations will vary from language to language. It's not always predictable. For instance, the English pronunciation of "Einstein" is typically /ˈaɪnstaɪn/, but in French its more commonly /ˈaɪnʃtaɪn/. In more inflected languages, these names can also have additional forms that are not found in the source language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: "genitive plural of pus". I suspect this noun actually isn't used in the plural, at least not in Classical Latin.--Urszag (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
October 2024
[edit]Sicilian. Rationale: "This entry is mispelled, because slight similarities it has with Sicilian which lead to an italianized writing system. The actual form is de-sonorized: cuntatinu". Ultimateria (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Sicilian. Rationale: "This entry is mispelled. The initial ⟨i-⟩ is always a semiconsonant ⟨j-⟩." Ultimateria (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Portuguese.
google:"Senhore"&"Sr.e" show it's used. For example, here and here. The ordinal indicator ᵉ is used here and here for Srᵉ. Web-julio (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Latin. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Latin. It looks like Priscian mentions this form, but are there examples of it actually being used?--Urszag (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Same. @Jeaucques Quœure. --07:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- This and catholicior are both cited, by the way. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
November 2024
[edit]Sicilian. Ultimateria (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Cites sent to me by Trooper57:
- Corea
- Koreia
- Koréia
- Polomo47 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC).
December 2024
[edit]Portuguese. Tagged for RFD by MedK1 a year ago but not listed. Etymological h’s were removed at the same time accent marks (like ê) were added. Polomo47 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe keep, as it's a somewhat common misspelling in mistranslations. Davi6596 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Just remembered this spelling is actually valid as prescribed by the 1931 Orthographic Agreement. Will change categorization accordingly.- For now, though, I'd like to see this misspelling in CFI-compliant quotations (which may be found in 1931-orthography texts). I think such modern "mistranslations" are never used in actual prose, and definitely not by anyone with a hint of knowledge of the language. Polomo47 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Unusual (i.e., rare or nonstandard) use of diacritics pre-reform. Should be hard to find in 3 independent sources. Polomo47 (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I found it as a misspelling. Davi6596 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like this was the normal spelling for a bunch of 1600s official documents... Probably worth keeping as obsolete, then. Let's see. Polomo47 (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- So, this is actually pretty noteworthy. Now that I’ve read more 16–1700s texts, I’ve indeed noticed that many of them use ⟨`⟩ instead of ⟨´⟩ and, for that matter, the sequence ⟨aõ⟩ instead of ⟨ão⟩ (this one lasted up to the mid 1800s). Though it’s kind of a clutter, I think we should make entries for these, yeah... Maybe the grave vs. acute could be reasoned... @Trooper57, MedK1 (god, do I love pinging!) Polomo47 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- wtf I didn't reply. Sorry about that. But at the same time, I don't really know what to do. Do we really want versions with ` for every accented word? We already have accentless versions too, don't we? Or are graves only for oxytones and they didn't coexist with the accentless forms? Hm... MedK1 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am under the impression these graves are from the 18th century at most, and only in oxytones; spellings with graves coexisted with those with acutes. In the same period, paroxytones and proparoxytones were usually unaccented, but I’m not sure if the rare accented ones also used graves, or just acutes. And do we want an entry in ⟨-aõ⟩ for all of the words in ⟨-ão⟩... — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 19:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not completely sure I'd miss them if they were gone. It'd save us a lot of work with pt-pre-reform and whatnot, that's for sure... MedK1 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am under the impression these graves are from the 18th century at most, and only in oxytones; spellings with graves coexisted with those with acutes. In the same period, paroxytones and proparoxytones were usually unaccented, but I’m not sure if the rare accented ones also used graves, or just acutes. And do we want an entry in ⟨-aõ⟩ for all of the words in ⟨-ão⟩... — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 19:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- wtf I didn't reply. Sorry about that. But at the same time, I don't really know what to do. Do we really want versions with ` for every accented word? We already have accentless versions too, don't we? Or are graves only for oxytones and they didn't coexist with the accentless forms? Hm... MedK1 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. I expect Achilles instead of this, because that would be the proper etymological spelling. Polomo47 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cited Achiles (and this suffices for calcanhar de Achiles) Polomo47 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was able to find a few people or businesses named "Aquilles", but no actual cite of it as the Greek figure. I'm thinking it's a case like "Fellipe" or "Thiago". In my old dictionaries, I'm able to find "Achilles", but not either of the other ones. We might want to fail Aquilles or otherwise change it to 'a male given name'. MedK1 (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Not a differential accent, so what is it? Polomo47 (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Could not find 1930s sites in memoria.bn.gov.br, not any cites in bndigital.bnportugal.gov.pt. For that matter, aplicativo is just as rare in the former, within the same time period. Polomo47 (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Latin. There already is ningit and the references for 'ningo' either point to 'ningit' (Lewis and Short) or simply don't give 'ningo' (Gaffiot). So should those 1sg. quotation forms exist at all when they at most occur in some dictionaries? Exarchus (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I changed 'ningo' to 'alternative form of ningit' and removed the Gaffiot reference, but there's still the question whether these pages should exist at all, given that ningit is given as 'impersonal verb'. There apparently exists a page for pluo, saying this verb takes a subject, but is this attested for "to snow"? Exarchus (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am of the view that this is the situation where a hard redirect could be used, as it's very plausible for someone to read "ningit" in a text and think that they should look it up under "ningo". This, that and the other (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then you're hoping no other language will show up having 'ningo' or 'ninguo'. Li Niha has 'ningo' redirecting to 'ingo', apparently 'ningo' is a mutated case marking form. Exarchus (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had to deal with this situation at consum. This, that and the other (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Then you're hoping no other language will show up having 'ningo' or 'ninguo'. Li Niha has 'ningo' redirecting to 'ingo', apparently 'ningo' is a mutated case marking form. Exarchus (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am of the view that this is the situation where a hard redirect could be used, as it's very plausible for someone to read "ningit" in a text and think that they should look it up under "ningo". This, that and the other (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- êle and elle were indeed used. [42]; [43]. I know a source mentioning "êlle", however I tried to access and it's gone. LIrala (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, êle was widely used between 1911–1945 or 1943–1971, while elle was used prior to 1911 or 1943. Accented spellings like êlle would've been a rarer form that I'm working on deleting via this RfM. Would appreciate your input there, by the way. Also here, another RfM for which your input would be good. Polomo47 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- This post mentions it, but the cited links don't work. LIrala (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed neither of those counts for attestation. That second article also makes me want to end humanity. Polomo47 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- This post mentions it, but the cited links don't work. LIrala (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, êle was widely used between 1911–1945 or 1943–1971, while elle was used prior to 1911 or 1943. Accented spellings like êlle would've been a rarer form that I'm working on deleting via this RfM. Would appreciate your input there, by the way. Also here, another RfM for which your input would be good. Polomo47 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @JnpoJuwan explain-se! Polomo47 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- some people do use, not sure what do I have to explain. Juwan (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd never seen it used anywhere, but a quick Google search tells me that yup, some wackos do use it. MedK1 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
French. Converted from speedy request. – Svārtava (tɕ) 08:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Isn't this Old Galician-Portuguese? Current quotation is from the 14th century, and thus OGP. Polomo47 (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The term is from OGP and is practically unused in modern-day Portuguese (we should defo make the OGP entry). But it still shows up in plenty of fixed expressions, linked at the bottom. So we can't just delete the page. Or can we? MedK1 (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be great if we could actually have the entries to begin with. Regardless, I think we cannot keep the definition as it is if the word cannot be attested outside of the expression — we’d need to change it to “Only used in...” Polomo47 (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
RetractedChanged to RFV-sense, actually. Polomo47 (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Spanish. Added by User:Type56op9 (aka User:Wonderfool) in 2015. Likely misspelling of sénior. Benwing2 (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- According to Spanish Wiktionary, it is an antiquated (possibly meaning outdated or obsolete, I'm not exactly sure, but regardless existent) courtesy vocative:
- Singular senior / Plural seniors
- Vocativo de cortesía que se antepone al nombre, apellido o tratamiento de una persona.
- Uso: anticuado
- Sinónimo: señor.
- Vocativo de cortesía que se antepone al nombre, apellido o tratamiento de una persona.
- Translation:
- Singular senior / Plural seniors
- Courtesy vocative that is placed before a person's name, surname or title
- Usage: antiquated
- Synonym: señor
- Courtesy vocative that is placed before a person's name, surname or title
- Since I'm not sure about the exact extent that anticuado implies here, I have marked it as "dated or obsolete", since some I have seen some entries labeled as such
- ~ JGHFunRun (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It may also be used by Spanish speakers in the US due to English influence. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Seems to have use spelled separately, as guard rail, and it’s that spelling that’s listed at the Portuguese Wikipedia. Does the hyphenated spelling also occur? Polomo47 (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged en masse by @Sarilho1 in March 2023 but not listed. One of the few worthwhile tags of the bunch. Polomo47 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
January 2025
[edit]Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. I expect n'aquelle, naquelle. Polomo47 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't attest them. "naquêle" is considered wrong per the 1931 agreement, too. The same goes for daquêle, which we should probably add into this RFV. MedK1 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Let's give these some time and then fail them all. MedK1 (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. I think this is a poetic form spelled of'recer. Polomo47 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this one. Though there are many hits for it online, none of them point towards it being an archaic form. I'm actually thinking whoever wrote it as "archaic" meant to say "obsolete" since 'archaic' spellings are by and large etymological/hellenic. You'd expect offerecer.
- Most instances for ofrecer are in otherwise already badly-spelled texts or from messages on social media like Reddit by non-native speakers. Maybe it could still be a dialectal form? I haven't been able to confirm that for sure.
- The form doesn't exist in OGP (per our references) and doesn't show up in Pero Vaz de Caminha's letter either (only words beginning in of- are what we'd now write as oficiar); so it really doesn't appear to be "obsolete" either. MedK1 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
French. Rfv-sense 2: "eggcorn". PUC – 11:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Created by User:Masonthelime, who has been known to make up entries in the past. It's in Lewis and Short but not in Gaffiot, which makes me very suspicious that it's a mistake. To make things worse, User:Masonthelime added a bizarre perfect tense autumnēsit that almost certainly is complete garbage, and forgot the long vowel in -ēsc- in the verb conjugation, which propagated out to the non-lemma forms he created using the accelerator mechanism. @Urszag. Benwing2 (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing in Brepols Library of Latin Texts for anything commencing autumne... except autumne itself. This, that and the other (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lewis and Short cites Martianus Capella, who is given by some editions as having "autumnascit". Latin is a LDL, so we don't necessarily need more than one citation. The question would be whether Lewis and Short is citing an attested manuscript reading. I think the answer may be "yes": the footnotes in this edition (which gives "autumnescit" in the main page text) suggests that "autumnascit" is an emendation proposed by Grotius. I think it makes sense for us to include both forms, marked as alternative forms (I'm not sure which should be selected as the main form). I'm not sure though; the "-escit" version isn't listed in the critical apparatus of this edition, but is mentioned here.--Urszag (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the macron (-ēsc-). If this fails, autumnēscēns (“approaching autumn”) and its forms should also be deleted, but if not, I do not know whether it needs to be verified separately. J3133 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I can find (apparently) two cites (from the 17- and 1800s) of autumnescens. - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- The number of works (google books:"autumnescit") which interpret Capella as having autumnescit makes me think it makes sense to mention it, if not by having an entry then at least by mentioning in a usage note in the -a- entry that some people read the word (in Capella) as autumnescit instead. - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
French. Tagged by @197.31.143.99. Binarystep (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: Cranefly. Is this legit? None of the dictionaries back it up. MedK1 (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- irregular or not, people use it that way too. LIrala (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- @MedK1: This one is a bit tricky. Craneflies look a lot like big mosquitos with very long legs (in the UK, they're known as daddy-longlegs), so it may not always be clear without context which is referred to. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- In fact, the word melga is used both to refer to mosquitos and crane flies. There is even the widespread belief that mosquitos and crane flies are the same species, just different sizes. - Sarilho1 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. RfV-sense Etymology 1: (rare, prescriptive) Alternative form of autópsia.
This is how the definition is now worded after my changes. This is for a prescriptive pronunciation (and therefore spelling) of the word as something like IPA(key): /ˌaw.tuˈpsi.ɐ/, compare how Ciberdúvidas describes it happening with necrópsia / necropsia.
The problem: this form should be basically unseen in modern times, and prior to the first spelling reforms both forms would've most often been spelled the same.
Audio pronunciations with stress on the /i/ may prove a better source of attestation. Polomo47 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Latin. I only found examples of Thyias, Thyiad-.--Urszag (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- In English that spelling is abundantly citable from Google Scholar, which might offer some clues relevant to a search for this term in Latin, eg, Thyia plicata. DCDuring (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DCDuring: The genus is named after Ancient Greek θυία (thuía). Ancient Greek υ (u) is transliterated in earlier Latin loans as "u", but later loans as "y". Intervocalic Ancient Greek ι (i) could be either a vowel or a semivowel (assuming it has the accent for orthographic reasons), the latter of which could be spelled in Latin as a "j", which might explain the variation in spelling.
- That said, the capitalized proper noun is from a different word, probably Ancient Greek θυιάς (thuiás), which L&S defines as "inspired, possessed woman, esp. Bacchante", or perhaps related to Ancient Greek Θυῖα (Thuîa), which L&S defines as "festival of Dionysus at Elis". If I had to guess, I would say that they all come from some word for fragrant smoke or incense, as would the Ancient Greek ξύλον θύινον (xúlon thúinon) in the book of Revelations, which the Latin Vulgate translates as lignum thȳinum. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't advancing Thyia plicata as a taxon. I thought it was just a phrase in what seemed like a non-taxonomic article.
- FWIW, taxonomically, Thyia is a subgenus of genus Pedionis of cicadellids and thyia is used as a specific epithet for several insect species. thuia is less used, once related to Thuja. The Catalogue of Life has only one species in the subgenus, Pedionis (Thyia) thyia. There are other more remotely derived taxa, but we have already diverged from the matter at hand. DCDuring (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. I've seen -e terminations and -@ as well. Every mention of -x that I've come across was from a non-native though (see the infamous Latinx).
While trying to attest them, "moçx" returned like two hits repeated ad infinitum, and "meninx" returned the English word, singular of meninges. Do these pass CFI? MedK1 (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- meninx
- https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-62025281 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Nneiwgres (2.4 mi), see https://www.locus.ufv.br/bitstream/123456789/30826/1/texto%20completo.pdf
- https://lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/handle/10183/255346/001163239.pdf?sequence=1
- https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/lil/article/download/8660785/27348
- https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/opiniao/artigos/meninx-e-histeria-de-genero-8wxtq5yxqluawa4pnemyqb67i/
- moçx
- https://repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/46657/1/2019_art_dcantunes.pdf
- https://tede.ufrrj.br/jspui/bitstream/jspui/4278/2/2017%20-%20Carolina%20Pereira%20Peres.pdf
- https://portal.uern.br/patu/dlv/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/05/Debora-Caroline-Pereira-Silva.pdf
- http://www.revistaversalete.ufpr.br/edicoes/vol3-04/26AionRoloff.pdf
- LIrala (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can someone fix the template
{{-a-o-x}}so these aren't added in Category:English terms suffixed with -x (gender-neutral)? Adding "-a-o-x|pt" doesn't work, neither for Spanish (I think it used to work before). LIrala (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)- J3133 LIrala (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- @LIrala: Fixed; as stated in the documentation,
{{-a-o-x}}takes two parameters (the first for the language section of -x, the second for the category, hence{{-a-o-x|pt|pt}}). I could make it take one parameter for both, but it was implemented this way by @WordyAndNerdy. J3133 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)- Looks like I jerry-rigged this three years ago to get it to automatically add entries like goddex etc. to Category:English terms suffixed with -x (gender-neutral). There weren't entries for Spanish terms with the -x suffix at the time, so I guess trying to implement functionality for multiple languages wasn't an issue (and was obviously beyond my noodling)? Thanks for fixing this! WordyAndNerdy (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- @LIrala: Fixed; as stated in the documentation,
- J3133 LIrala (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can someone fix the template
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "to haggle". I've never heard it and it seems to only show up in two European dictionaries, so I've marked it with the Portugal label. Can we verify whether or not it's a w:fictitious entry? MedK1 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
February 2025
[edit]Latin neologisms for superhero and antihero. Added by @TheWikipedian1250. Theknightwho (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Latin. For the Hebrew letter qoph. The Vulgate has coph, and Latin words almost never end in f, even when they're indeclinable. Theknightwho (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Sicilian. Rationale was "Sicilian languages do not use masculine nouns to call trees". Ultimateria (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. I can see capitalized uses of Translingual Bougainvillea in running Portuguese text. Polomo47 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- As a start, one can check this page. It's a rare use that's neither capitalized nor italicized, and it also spells things weirdly. I might just argue, if three citations are found, that this hasn't been lexicalized. I wonder if RfD is more suitable... Polomo47 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Spanish. WT says it means Sicyases sanguineus, but DRAE says it's a synonym for rape (Lophiidae). DRAE describes it as having an "enormous, round, flat head", which in my opinion fits more with Lophiidae. Numberguy6 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
March 2025
[edit]Italian. Rfv-sense: archaic form of leggero
leggère is supposedly an archaic form of leggero (“light”, adjective) with its same inflections: leggera f sg, leggeri m pl, leggere f pl.
I was only able to find this word in the Olivetti[1] further reading. That Olivetti entry has an incorrect pronunciation (The pronunciation of lèggere (verb).)
Other dictionaries don't mention this archaic form.
However Garzanti[2], Hoepli[3], and DOP[4] mention the spelling leggiere, that would be pronounced IPA(key): /ledˈd͡ʒɛ.re/ like leggère. Olivetti also has an entry for this word, but calls it a "literary form" of leggero rather than an "archaic form".[5]
DOP[4] says that archaic leggiere can be used as either m sg or f sg, and there is also leggieri that can be used as either m sg or m pl.
Does the leggere spelling mentioned by Olivetti[1] actually exist? Is it different from leggiere?
References:
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 “leggère2” in Dizionario Italiano Olivetti, Olivetti Media Communication
- ^ “leggiere” in garzantilinguistica.it – Garzanti Linguistica, De Agostini Scuola Spa
- ^ “leggiere” in Aldo Gabrielli, Grandi Dizionario Italiano (Hoepli)
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 “leggero” in Bruno Migliorini et al., Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia, Rai Eri, 2025
- ^ “leggiere” in Dizionario Italiano Olivetti, Olivetti Media Communication
Emanuele6 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
furficicchiu
[edit]Sicilian. I can't find any attestation of the word outside of a singular forum post from 2014, including checking Google Books. Aika77 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Italian.
The ne is pleonastic if you specify [di something]. The ne sounds redundant in this example: you would only use it, maybe, for emphasis in a conversation. ("right dislocation")
- A Giovanni, non gli frega niente di quello
- Giovanni doesn't care one bit about that
- A Giovanni, non gliene frega niente[,] di quello
- Giovanni doesn't care one bit about that
Also, except in some cases (e.g. conditionals/questions) where you can get away with specifying the "someone" only with [a someone], for example:
- dovrebbe fregarne qualcosa a me?
- should I care one bit about it?
- dovrebbe fregarmene qualcosa?
- should I care one bit about it?
- dovrebbe fregarmi qualcosa?
- should I care one bit?
- dovrebbe fregare qualcosa a me?
- should I care one bit?
..I think, in most cases, it is still necessary to use the dative clitic (gli) to make the sentence work even if it should be made redundant by [a someone] (a Giovanni) being specified explicitly.
Also, you almost never actually use fregarne as infinitive for this meaning. You either use fregare with a dative and optionally ne: fregarmi, fregarmene, fregarti, fregartene, fregargli, fregarle, fregargliene, fregarci, fregarcene, fregarvi, fregarvene; or fregare with proclitic pronouns.
I think these senses of fregarne should be moved to fregare#Italian since the ne is not strictly required. And maybe something should be done about these kinds of idiomatic verb meanings that, optionally, strongly require dative clitics.
o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
April 2025
[edit]Portuguese. Rfv-sense: mistake, blunder.
This sense sounds unnatural to me, and it was added by a non-native speaker. Protegmatic (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
RFV-failed. MedK1 (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)- I went and looked at the entry again and somehow just now noticed there's an use case and everything: this seems perfectly natural to me. Looking up "pontapé na gramática" nets you loads of results; it can't stand in for any mistake, but it does stand in for a mistake in the sense you're kicking grammar to the curb by butchering everything or something. I'd actually claim it's an easy pass... MedK1 (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
- Priberam also lists "perda, dano, contratempo, azar", so maybe the image is a grammatical accident. Jberkel 15:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: Noun sense: the height
Added by Wilhelmlux. Also added an unformatted reference url. - Amgine/ t·e 19:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Old Latin. Gaffiot + Lewis & Short give this, but later works don't and {{R:ine:LIPP|page=592|vol=2}} says the attestation is dubious and doesn't prove long vowel in uls. Already discussed here by Rozwadowski in 1894. @Mellohi! Exarchus (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think we should keep the entry, so that we can inform readers about the hypothesis and about evaluations of it by other scholars. I don't think we should keep the length marking on ūls.--Urszag (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
French. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 00:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Here's what I could find:
- pernuiter and pernocter in Middle French (Dictionnaire du Moyen Français (DMF))
- parnuitier in Old French (Dictionnaire Étymologique de l'Ancien Français (DEAF))
- pernocter in Old French (Godefroy, Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française et de tous ses dialectes du IXe au XVe siècle (GDF))
- parnuiter (parniter, parnuter, parnuitier) in Norman (Anglo-Norman Dictionary (AND))
- pernoctare (pernuytar) (W. von Wartburg, Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes (FEW))
- These forms are considered obsolete in modern French but all fit the expected French reflexes of pernocto, whereas *parnuire does not. I couldn't find any attestations for that form nor entries in any French dictionary. Io Katai (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Very good work. Agreed on all points. Nicodene (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- These forms are considered obsolete in modern French but all fit the expected French reflexes of pernocto, whereas *parnuire does not. I couldn't find any attestations for that form nor entries in any French dictionary. Io Katai (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Latin. 1sg. is given as 'apiō' by de Vaan and others. None of the quotations indicate the need for a lemma 'apō'. Exarchus (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Likewise, I did not see any attested forms that point to apo, apere rather than apio, apere. I moved over just about everything to apiō, but should apō be outright deleted now or retained and marked as a ghost word, since some dictionaries list it? Also, should we have an inflection table for apiō? Given its scanty attestation, I'm inclined to say it is better to omit it, but I dunno if others agree.--Urszag (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense 2: a beastmaster. Presumably not the video-game senses (Romans weren't big gamers) therefore needs to be the 3rd sense, "a fierce wrestler", distinct from the other Latin sense of one who fights with animals. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4936:1531:AACE:AD57 19:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Old Galician-Portuguese. Williams ("From Latin to Portuguese", 1962) cites the Old Portuguese form of verme as vermem, not vermen. Williams also gives an incompatible etymology for the ending, writing "These nouns generally adopted the masculine ending in the Vulgar Latin of the Spanish territory: nōmen > *nōmĭnem > Sp. nombre. Inasmuch as the ending -ĭnem did not spread in the Vulgar Latin of the Portuguese territory, it is not likely that OPtg. vermem came from a V. L. *vermĭnem nor that OPtg. vimem came from a V. L. *vimĭnem. The spelling vimẽe (FM, II, Glossary) is of no significance as unaccented single vowels were often written double in this document (FM, I, xxv). Nor is it likely that Ptg. sangue came from the Latin masculine form sanguĭnem through an OPtg. *sanguẽ. See Comp, 116. For vermem, see § 96, 2 and for vimem, see § 77 B."; at §96, 2, Willams writes "A nasal consonant ending a group sometimes nasalized the following vowel as an initial consonant did: vermem > verme > vermem (old) ; *remussicare (for re-mussitāre) > remusgar > resmugar > resmungar (cf. Nascentes)." I do see "vermen" listed by Meyer-Lübke. I also found a book that seems to say it can be found in the Cantigas de Santa Maria ("un vermen a semella") but I'm unsure whether that's some kind of normalization, as another book seems to say the spelling is "uˈmẽ": I can find both spellings online (vermen, uermẽ). --Urszag (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Nicodene Thanks for adding the quotation; would you be able to comment on my concerns about whether this is actually an attestation of the spelling "vermen"? I see that Wiktionary:Old Galician-Portuguese entry guidelines says "Tildes being used to represent nasal vowels followed by another vowel should not be normalised. Spellings whose tilde is used as an abbreviation of n (such as cõ for con and lĩnage for linnage) should be included as abbreviations, with the unabbreviated form lemmatised (even if not attested)", but I don't understand whether this falls under that point, since it doesn't explain how to determine if the tilde is an abbreviation of n. Based on the example "con", should I understand that the convention on Wiktionary is to normalize the spelling of word-final nasal vowels in OGP as vowel + "-n"? That's OK I guess, although I would find tilde a more natural convention for that function. @MedK1, Stríðsdrengur, Froaringus --Urszag (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Funnily enough I hadn’t looked at this thread when I added the quotation. That would’ve saved me the trouble of tracking it down.
- It seems the original manuscripts do in fact have ⟨u̕mẽ⟩:
- 1 (left column, line 24)
- 2 (p 142, left column, line 3)
- As for Williams’ examples, I’m not sure why they couldn’t just as well be explained by a development like hominem > omẽe~ome > homem~home? Nicodene (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, the source is (Old) Galician, and in other coetaneous Galician works the spelling appear to be uermẽe / vermẽe (homẽe, virgẽe, etc), later verme, home, virge.
- http://ilg.usc.gal/xelmirez/xelmirez.php?pescuda=+%5Bvu%5Derm%5Be%E1%BA%BD%5D&corpus=historico Froaringus (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting, thank you. Using this resource I have tracked down a manuscript example with plural ⟨v̕me͡es⟩ (source: page 37, line 5). Also worth mentioning are the numerous attestations of nomẽes ‛names’. These disyllabic endings are clearly of the *[-menes] type.
- There are also, it should be mentioned, various modern words with final -em (< *[-ene]) yet without a preceding nasal consonant: ferrugem, fuligem, jovem, ordem.
- Nicodene (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Actually, in Galician most of these are written (and pronounced) without the nasal: ferruxe, feluxe, xove, orde (but dialectally you can also find ferruxen, xoven, virxen, pronounced with a final /ŋ/ which also usually nasalise the vowel).
- On the form of the word, I understand that ⟨u̕mẽ⟩ should be edited as vermen, but I think that the "standard" form of the word for the 13th century should be the trisyllabic vermẽe. Maybe they used ⟨u̕mẽ⟩ instead because of syllable count or something? Otherwise, maybe bisyllabic renditions of this word, or these kind of words, were already common by the 13th century. Froaringus (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Apparently this cantiga has a ten syllable count for each verse; the verse is "e tiroull'end un vermen a semella": e - ti - rou - llen - dun - ver - men a - se - me - lla. That implies, I think, that here the tilde is not an abbreviation, and that the word should be edited as in "e tiroull'end un vermẽ a semella", so that "mẽ a" counts as a single syllable. But I'm not particularly knowledgeable on this subject, so maybe I'm totally wrong. Froaringus (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Interestingly, in the search results that you shared, it appears the singular is consistently disyllabic and the plural consistently trisyllabic.
- I wonder if it started the same way as alternations like casal~casais < *[kaˈzale~kaˈzales], with an early loss of *[-e] in the singular and then later loss of intervocalic [l] and [n] leading to various allomorphic shenanigans. Nicodene (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Nicodene: Wow. You're right. I was assuming that spellings such as vermẽe (elsewhere) implied it was trisyllabic, but it's not: in the Cantigas de Santa Maria vermen, home, omage / omagen, virgen, etc, usually have one less syllable than their plurals vermẽes, homẽes (but sometimes homes), omagẽes (sometimes omages): http://www.cantigasdesantamaria.com/concordance/
- On the syllabic count, I was wrong: if a verse ends in an unstressed syllable, this syllable don't counts, so vermen must end in a consonant: e - ti - rou - llen - dun - ver - men - a - se - me - (lla): http://www.cantigasdesantamaria.com/csm/69/44 Froaringus (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Where I wrote "so vermen must end in a consonant", I should have wrote "so maybe vermen must end in a consonant", because I'm not sure at all. Froaringus (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Gotérrez 2016 offers some interesting data/analysis on the subject. Nicodene (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Where I wrote "so vermen must end in a consonant", I should have wrote "so maybe vermen must end in a consonant", because I'm not sure at all. Froaringus (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Apparently this cantiga has a ten syllable count for each verse; the verse is "e tiroull'end un vermen a semella": e - ti - rou - llen - dun - ver - men a - se - me - lla. That implies, I think, that here the tilde is not an abbreviation, and that the word should be edited as in "e tiroull'end un vermẽ a semella", so that "mẽ a" counts as a single syllable. But I'm not particularly knowledgeable on this subject, so maybe I'm totally wrong. Froaringus (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
May 2025
[edit]Latin, for the plural forms.--Urszag (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Edit for more context: I initially started this RFV based on my suspicion that the invariant "echō" plural forms recently added to the default declension pattern for words of this type were just a theoretical generalization from the singular. After now reading the linked source, I see that the situation is more complicated, so I'm not sure this RFV was really the best reaction. In any case, over the next few days I'll be trying to add citations for the Latin forms.--Urszag (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Other dictionaries and grammars say the genitive plural of venter is always ventrium; if ventrum has been used postclassically with this sense, citations and a label should be added. Googling, I see some examples where "ventrum" is used for "ventrem", either as a typo or (accidental?) 3rd-to-2nd declension shift.--Urszag (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- RFV failed. Relabeled as a misspelling of "ventrem".--Urszag (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- The quote for this entry is in English. Wtf? Are there any in Latin? MedK1 (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Urszag Concerning your ping... It was a Latin phrase/word in an English language work. Normally, those actually go under the English L2 despite it being a sentence in Latin. This is especially true in cases where it'd be SOP in Latin but not so in other languages. pro bono, habeas corpus, in medias res.
- We have a cite of English partus sequitur ventrum under the Latin L2, hence my 'what on Earth?'
{{attention}}call. MedK1 (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)- I feel this is very important. (Notifying workgroup: Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, Benwing2, Lambiam, Mnemosientje, Nicodene, Sartma, Al-Muqanna, SinaSabet28, Theknightwho, Imbricitor, Urszag, Graearms): . MedK1 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- @MedK1 Why is this important? It seems fairly minor to me. The quote "in English" contains a Latin phrase within it that demonstrates the misspelling of ventrem as ventrum so it seems reasonable to use it. Benwing2 (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- My comment right above the ping kind of directly answers this. It's not Latin, it's a cite of English partus sequitur ventrum. Per how we treat pro bono and others, this should be an English term. It's in the wrong L2 altogether!! MedK1 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- @MedK1 I added another citation (iratum ventrum in Van der Weerd 1959) that is not in an English word and is not in any kind of set phrase. Fundamentally, I think it makes most sense to attest this here since it is simply a misspelling of the Latin word ventrem which can occur by chance in any term where that word occurs. It might make sense to create an entry for the correctly spelled partus sequitur ventrem as an English phrase (although does every Latin term used in law really deserve an English entry?); I don't think partus sequitur ventrum should ever be anything but a red link. I'll just remove the Latin entry altogether; I'm aware that officially, "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included", and this isn't really common and is plausibly a typo, so I probably shouldn't have added the misspelling sense. I personally feel that it may be useful to sometimes explicitly have entries for misspellings that could be confused for a real word/form, but that isn't something I had a solid basis for.--Urszag (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Urszag I think an argument could be made for treating Latin legal and medical terms as Translingual except where they're obviously integrated into English syntax and morphology. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- That’s what I say. Though it is challenging for editors to assess if they are English-only, which may or may not lead to a term being Translingual anyways, as translingual-in-idea. I had mentioned in previous discussions 19th-century names of the disease bejel, some of the “translingual” translations of which were only ever used by Germans. Fay Freak (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Urszag I think an argument could be made for treating Latin legal and medical terms as Translingual except where they're obviously integrated into English syntax and morphology. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- “How we treat pro bono and others” may not be right. You know how en.Wiktionary started as a monolingual dictionary and due to the extent of coverage those old ones ended up the least correctly formatted, and there are still not the best templates for Translingual other than taxonomy. In the capacity of lawyers and not philologists, the Anglo lawyers don't know whether their terminology is international law, Roman law or the consequent ius commune in Europe – nothing against Box16 recently creating this entry as English, he surely had no time to learn comparative law, and the Usonians also have the most expensive country for education.
- In these cases it is more appropriate to create translingual entries, and I converted ius cogens / ius dispositivum to it since it is brooked in other languages and it is stilted to have separate sections for an obvious foreign term. Then again English is so teeming with foreignisms and has so unintuitive an orthography that people unlearned (to a degree I know not, as a non-native) to have this category of obvious foreign terms.
- But incompetent misspellings – a particular consequence of the English “traditional” pronunciation slackness – don't make an entry, it’s the risk you take if you try to appear to be smart by using exotic words, and there is no way we can have a Latin misspelling attested from English texts unless the term found in the English texts should indeed be neither under English nor Translingual but Latin. So Urszag correctly deleted the “Latin” with English quote. Fay Freak (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- FWIW, the Catalogue of Life has but one taxon using ventrum: †Eocyclostomiceras ventrum Chen, 1983 (also †Eocyclostomiceras subventrum. Apparently it just refers to the presumed "underside" of the fossil specimen. It may have to do with the positioning of the siphuncle of this cephalopod. DCDuring (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- @MedK1 I added another citation (iratum ventrum in Van der Weerd 1959) that is not in an English word and is not in any kind of set phrase. Fundamentally, I think it makes most sense to attest this here since it is simply a misspelling of the Latin word ventrem which can occur by chance in any term where that word occurs. It might make sense to create an entry for the correctly spelled partus sequitur ventrem as an English phrase (although does every Latin term used in law really deserve an English entry?); I don't think partus sequitur ventrum should ever be anything but a red link. I'll just remove the Latin entry altogether; I'm aware that officially, "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included", and this isn't really common and is plausibly a typo, so I probably shouldn't have added the misspelling sense. I personally feel that it may be useful to sometimes explicitly have entries for misspellings that could be confused for a real word/form, but that isn't something I had a solid basis for.--Urszag (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- My comment right above the ping kind of directly answers this. It's not Latin, it's a cite of English partus sequitur ventrum. Per how we treat pro bono and others, this should be an English term. It's in the wrong L2 altogether!! MedK1 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- @MedK1 Why is this important? It seems fairly minor to me. The quote "in English" contains a Latin phrase within it that demonstrates the misspelling of ventrem as ventrum so it seems reasonable to use it. Benwing2 (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- I feel this is very important. (Notifying workgroup: Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, Benwing2, Lambiam, Mnemosientje, Nicodene, Sartma, Al-Muqanna, SinaSabet28, Theknightwho, Imbricitor, Urszag, Graearms): . MedK1 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Praenomina were highly restricted and women often didn't have one. Wikipedia has an entry for w:Claudia Marcella, which indicates this occurred as an cognomen of the Claudia gens: I wonder if that sense was mislabeled.--Urszag (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. It undoubtedly can be used as a gentilic name.--Urszag (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Doesn't appear on Wikipedia's list of feminine praenomina.--Urszag (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Doesn't appear on Wikipedia's list of feminine praenomina.--Urszag (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Doesn't appear on Wikipedia's list of feminine praenomina.--Urszag (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Doesn't appear on Wikipedia's list of feminine praenomina.--Urszag (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Doesn't appear on Wikipedia's list of feminine praenomina. The legendary w:Verginia seems to be a family name, since she's the daughter of Lucius Verginius.--Urszag (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
June 2025
[edit]Italian. prudemmo, pruderai, pruderei, pruderemmo, pruderemo, prudereste, pruderesti, pruderete, pruderò, prudessi, prudessimo, prudeste, prudesti, prudete, prudevamo, prudevate, prudevi, prudevo, prudi, prudiate, prudo
I don't think this verb is ever used as anything other than third-person in dative constructions.
It is defective of past participle; DOP says it is third-person only; Treccani and Garzanti don't say it explicitly, but only show third-person examples, and conjugations. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- It seems that e.g. "prudevo" can be found on Google Books in some books
- Here are all the four results found:
- 1876, Bollettino del Club Alpino Italiano[44], volume 10, number 25:
- […] e prudevo dal desiderio di arrampicarmi […]
- […] and I prudevo from the desire to climb […]
- 2007, Cristina Ali Farah, Madre piccola[47], →ISBN:
- […] più andava avanti con i racconti […] più prudevo di nervosismo.
- […] the more he continued telling his tales […] the more I prudevo of nervousness.
- Except maybe for the second one
prudevo eccome
for which I cannot see more context on Google Books, its use seems to be similar to English itch sense 2. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC) - FWIW, Garzanti updated its website, and now the entry I linked explicitly mentions the non-third-person past historic inflections in its headword. Emanuele6 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. One of those automated creations from a while back. I wonder how to find this — likely an obsolete spelling. Polomo47 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I believe I've found it. However, I couldn't get Ctrl+F to find it when actually getting into the page. MedK1 (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- @MedK1 The text you found in the Google result's preview was generated from page 17 of that document (count 6 lines below the H initial); the actual text spells this word with a circumflex "î":
[…] , & hum Cadî, ou Juiz da ſua ley, que […]
Emanuele6 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- @MedK1 The text you found in the Google result's preview was generated from page 17 of that document (count 6 lines below the H initial); the actual text spells this word with a circumflex "î":
Italian. Rfv-sense: to return, come back
Does this really exist? I cannot find it in other dictionaries.
I only know tornarsene.
The only case in which you can, maybe, say mi torno that I can think of is tornarsi a prendere ...: mi torno a prendere ...; example found in the wild:
- Quasi quasi mi torno a prendere il W5000[48]
- I am thinking about going back to get the W5000
- (literally, “Almost almost for myself I return to take the W5000”)
But I think, the reflexive here applies to prendere ("I take for myself"), not to tornare: it is just an equivalent form of tornare a prendersi, torno a prendermi. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe this definition is supposed to be e.g. (si torna a scuola ― [roughly] It's time to go back to school (literally, “one returns to school”)) which is just tornare + (indefinite) si; not a reflexive. Emanuele6 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
But I think, the reflexive here applies to prendere (“I take for myself”), not to tornare […]
I.e. the use of mi torno in that quotation is a result of w:clitic climbing, not a use of the RfVed sense. Emanuele6 (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Italian. Compound of past participle avuto (“had”) + dative clitic gli (“to him(/them/her)”).
I don't understand how this combination can exist:
I think e.g. gli ho can only occur followed by a past participle to form a compound tense, e.g. gli ho detto ― I (have) told him.
I don't think it is possible to form a "compound past participle" with past participle "avuto" as auxiliary (*avutogli detto), and I cannot think of any use of avere meant as "to have" that can accept a dative, so I cannot think of a way to use this avutogli. Emanuele6 (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- P.S. it is currently misclassified as "verb form" instead of past participle, so fix that if it passes rfv. Emanuele6 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Emanuele6 I don't know much about Italian, but I suspect the term may appear here:
- [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Graearms (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Graearms Four of your links are quite clearly avuto gli (literally “ […] had(past participle) the(definite article m pl) […] ”).
- But [3] is interesting:
- Lutero, avutogli lungamente riguardo o compassione, e celiato sulla sua pretesa di «camminar sopra le ova senza schiacciarle», e ripetutogli che «lo Spirito santo non è scettico», al fine gli lanciò una lettera delle sue, e ripetute ingiurie cordiali (I).
- Italian avere riguardo (literally “to have regard”) means to care about something or someone, but you would not normally use it with "a someone", so I wouldn't expect a dative to work there: "per ...", "di ...", or avutone would work. To make a comparison with English, it's like saying "I had him respect" (as in "I payed him respect") instead of "I had respect for him" or "I had respect of him".
- As expected you cannot find many use of "avergli riguardo": on Google Books, "gli ho riguardo" and "gli ho avuto riguardo" both yield only one result each:
- Il Gondoliere [The Gondolier][49] (in Italian), volume ANNO SECONDO, number 1, 1834, page 66: “[…] chiunque trovo in casa altrui bene accetto, io gli ho riguardo […]”
- Lodovico Dolce, transl. (1508–1568), Le orazioni di Marco Tullio Cicerone, tradotte da m. Lodovico Dolce[50] (in Italian), published 1727, Parte 2, page 347, translation of The orations by Cicero (in Latin): “[…] per questo gli ho avuto riguardo […]”
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Emanuele6 (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- (Notifying workgroup: Benwing2, GianWiki, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma, Catonif, Trimpulot): Delete? Use these three quotations to create a lemma for avere riguardo [(archaic) with dative]? Am I missing something and there are some contexts in which avutogli (or generally avergli with avere not used as auxiliary) still makes sense? Emanuele6 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Sicilian. Rationale was "This entry is a creole blend of Italian "giorno" and Sicilian "jornu"." Ultimateria (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Any time you have a regional language dominated by a related language which is the national standard, things get messy. It looks like interpreting results is going to be tricky.
- I wonder how Sicilian ghiornu figures into this: both are said to be alternative forms of Sicilian jornu in different environments. Also, the two senses are redundant, since Sicilian jornu has the same definition as the first sense. If we get rid of the first sense, that might mean we would have to look for jornu / [+nasal] giornu / [+vowel] ghiornu to verify this. I would also note the existence of Sicilian bon giornu. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
And other linked pages like tunnelli and tunnelle. It could be a cross-wiki vandalism (all interwikis are recent creations by new user or IPs). I search on dictionaries online and I found nothing. Otourly (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I found it used as a gloss in James & Grassi (1893), which at least suggests it is not vandalism. Also mentioned in a 1926 journal article. There appear to be actual uses in the results on Google Books but I have not access to them. —Desacc̱oinṯier 20:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. I see the first usually spelled xenônio, and the second I don’t see at all. Polomo47 (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
July 2025
[edit]Latin. This is claimed to be an (unattested) nominative of attested Greek accusative elacatena, but the quote from Festus seems to show that elacatena is the nominative. L&S meanwhile have a quote from Pliny that is supposed to attest a Greek plural elacatenes, but this quote (even per L&S) is dubious. The quote here: [51] has ictinus, iulis instead. Benwing2 (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- The Festus quote doesn't seem to be a complete sentence: rather, it's a gloss of a particular word (taken from I don't know where). I don't see a reason why the accusative singular would not be possible here: compare " Elinguem sine lingua", where "elinguem" is obviously accusative singular. By the way, the template isn't linking consistently to the right page on archive.org for me when I click the links on elacaten and vespillo; is there some bug in how the url is being formatted for Template:RQ:Paul.Fest.?--Urszag (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- I support Urszag’s argument. It worked like that, in other glossaries as well. There is also some propensity for it with respect to accusativus cum infinitivo. Fay Freak (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
August 2025
[edit]Portuguese. Tagged, but not listed, by User:Protegmatic. I’ll try to attest this. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 14:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think we list it backwards, the lemma should be getuliar. Trooper57 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. I am suspicious of sense 1 because it seems like the kind of thing dictionaries would have, but they don’t; and suspicious of sense 2 because Aulete lists it as being capitalized. I plan to attest it myself (later), but tagging either way. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 14:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, Aulete says it's only sometimes capitalized. MedK1 (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Spanish. Rfv-sense: a noun-forming suffix that is the "female equivalent of -ino".
The only Spanish female equivalent noun that we currently categorize in Category:Spanish terms suffixed with -ina is filipina, but I think it may make more sense to view this as a nominalization/substantivization of the feminine adjective form filipina, rather than as the product of distinct suffixation (Felipe + -ina).
The same probably applies generally to nouns ending in -ina in Spanish female equivalent nouns that are equivalents of nouns denoting a male that end in -ino (unless there are some exceptions I've missed).
Also, the entry for -ino/-ina in the Real Academia Española's dictionary doesn't appear to have a sense directly corresponding to this one.
See also the discussion at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2025/August#Label_"female_equivalent", which provided the impetus for this Rfv. Voltaigne (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- This should be at WT:RFDI tbh. MedK1 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
African Romance. loki piper pake orator locus ispes dilectus carus bita akina. Created by @Pescavelho. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 19:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- That all falls under the category of ‘Latin’. Nicodene (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
I can't find any reference for Latin cramum. Was prehaps the entire article created by mistake instead of cremum? --Grufo (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- As I mentioned on Latin Wikipedia – Disputatio:Cremor § Cramum an cremum? – it seems that cramum/cremum are hapax legomena from a single poem by Venantius Fortunatus. As David Morgan writes,
Cramum nullo in lexico inveni, sive antiquae sive mediae Latinitatis, nisi in Alberti Blaise priore; usurpatum est Venantio Fortunato uno in loco; ambigitur tam de vocabuli significatu quam de modo scribendi (cramum an crama), ut accidere solet in ἅπαξ λεγόμενοις. Memorant etiam Ernout-Meillet et Walde-Hoffman, eundem Fortunati locum afferentes. Hoc pseudolexidion, ut ita dicam, Saravici videntur in medium proposuisse etymologis fisi quibusdam, qui illinc vocabulum Gallicum crème deducunt. At haec etymologia plus quam dubia est; ab OED non accipitur, iure quidem, quando crama ex mutationum phoneticarum normis in sermone Gallico vigentibus necessario, ni fallor, craime dedisset (ita aime ab ama[t], haim ab hamo); scribebatur autem medio aevo cresme, quod vocabulum chrismate exortum videtur, ut exponitur apud OED aliosque.”
- Therefore both cramum and cremum should be treated as dubious, and only cremor should be treated as the attested (classical) Latin word for “cream”. --Grufo (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Latin interjection. Mayrhofer calls this a ghost word at {{R:sa:KEWA|head=dhik|page=102|vol=2}}. Walde & Hofmann call it a wrong conjecture in a text of Plautus. But maybe there are (much) later attestations. Exarchus (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
September 2025
[edit]Spanish. Calque from English, name of a book? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 23:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- This is an ancient term, calqued from Occitan. See gay science. Jberkel 08:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "to wash down". Maybe the creator meant sense 3? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 18:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Creator in question is @Daniel Carrero. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 18:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- I can see it as a subsense of sense 1. MedK1 (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Latin. RFV for the singular forms, tenebra (nominative and vocative singulars), tenebrae (genitive and dative singulars), tenebram (accusative singular), and tenebrā (ablative singular). 0DF (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- AFAICT the singular is very easily attested in medieval and later Latin. this quotes John Duns' Quaestiones Metaphysicae II 2-3,80 as containing the lines visus videt tenebram and phantasia imaginatur tenebram, this reproduces Lauge Olaf Nielsen, Petri Aureoli Quaestio ⁊ Quodlibeti (The Quodlibet of Peter Auriol), "sed actualem poterit, sicut et caelum recipit lumen et tenebram"; "quod removeat tenebram a domo, nisi aperiat prohibens lucem, scilicet fenestram, et lux ipsa removet tenebram, ita in potestate"; [52]; "Et cum ego frater resisterem ei de praedicta tenebra et non intelligerem.", "Exemplum secundi de Deo qui dicitur tenebra et caligo per superexcessum.", etc. (Cited.) But it seems unlikely that we should repeat the definitions in both places; probably the singular can just be defined as the "singular of" the main (plural) entry(?). - -sche (discuss) 16:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- @-sche: Thank you. Should we have it as a soft-redirecting Mediaeval-form entry? If so, is tenebra uncountable? 0DF (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've soft-redirected it using
{{singular of}}. I left the descendants tables (each entry has one, with different descendants); if anyone wants to merge them (and perhaps qualify forms by whether they are, or are from, the singular or plural?), I leave that to them. - -sche (discuss) 06:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've soft-redirected it using
- @-sche: OK. And I've made it singulare tantum. 0DF (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- ...why? The plural exists; is there evidence that the plural and singular don't coexist? The results at e.g. google books:"tenebra" "tenebrae" "et" suggests it at least sometimes functions as a regular (inflecting) word, like darkness. - -sche (discuss) 05:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- @-sche: Well, because all this word's senses (with the possible exception of “prison, dungeon”, of which I'm a little sceptical) are uncountable, primâ facie. That said, I found a genuine plural use of tenebrae to mean “darknesses” by Leibniz. Then I thought I'd found a comparable plural use of tenebra in a Persian–Latin dictionary; however, given that that dictionary uses tenebrae and tenebrarum elsewhere in that entry, that tenebrae occurs nine times in the work, and that tenebra never occurs (the OCR thinks it does once, but that's because tenebrarum occurs hyphenated across a line break as tenebra-rum on page 555/1), I'm inclined to think that Vullers simply erred in using the wrong numeral (cardinal instead of distributive), meaning to write trinae tenebrae. So it appears that tenebrae can be used countably, albeit rarely. The question is, does that countable usage carry over to tenebra? It would be reasonable to expect that it would, but we should verify that it does before asserting that it does. I don't see such usage amongst the first page of hits for that Google Books search, only uncountable uses in the sense “darkness”, employing tenebra and/or tenebrae to convey it indiscriminately. 0DF (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- As long as it's defined as "singular of [plural]", then (to me, at least) it makes no sense to say it doesn't have a plural. Even if it were redefined as "synonym of [plural]" instead, given that sufficient texts use both forms together, it still seems nonsensical (to me) to posit that we're dealing with a singular-only noun and a plural-only noun that merely look like—but are somehow not—each other's singular and plural, in the texts where they co-occur. From my perspective, this is RFV-passed as it stands (revision), but let's ping the Latin workgroup for input: (Notifying workgroup: Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, Benwing2, Lambiam, Mnemosientje, Nicodene, Sartma, Al-Muqanna, SinaSabet28, Theknightwho, Imbricitor, Urszag, Graearms): . - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @-sche I think it depends on the semantics. If a word and its formal plural exist but mean the same thing (i.e. the formal plural does not mean the plural of the corresponding formal singular), then you have a singulare tantum and a plurale tantum that are synonyms of each other, not a singular-plural pair. If the formal plural can either be a synonym of the formal singular or mean the plural of the formal singular, then I would posit you have to have two POS entries, one of which is a plurale tantum noun and the other is a plural noun form. (An example where this occurs in English is "glasses", which can either be a plurale tantum meaning "eyeglasses/spectacles" or the plural of "glass" in its countable senses.) It doesn't trouble me to have both a singulare tantum and a plurale tantum that look like a singular-plural pair; this is a common situation due to the way plurale tantum nouns evolve (e.g. "glasses" = spectacles evolved from "glasses" = plural of "glass"). Benwing2 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @-sche @0DF In this case, lemmatise at the plural, but include the singular in the table and put a usage note explaining the nuance.
- On a related note, simply putting "singular of" is not ideal for tenebra. It's the nominative singular, so if we're not going to lemmatise at it, then we at least need to be accurate about its morphology. Theknightwho (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- As long as it's defined as "singular of [plural]", then (to me, at least) it makes no sense to say it doesn't have a plural. Even if it were redefined as "synonym of [plural]" instead, given that sufficient texts use both forms together, it still seems nonsensical (to me) to posit that we're dealing with a singular-only noun and a plural-only noun that merely look like—but are somehow not—each other's singular and plural, in the texts where they co-occur. From my perspective, this is RFV-passed as it stands (revision), but let's ping the Latin workgroup for input: (Notifying workgroup: Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, Benwing2, Lambiam, Mnemosientje, Nicodene, Sartma, Al-Muqanna, SinaSabet28, Theknightwho, Imbricitor, Urszag, Graearms): . - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- I stand corrected, and also now realize that some of the works which use both tenebra and tenebrae, google books:"tenebra est" "tenebrae sunt" / google books:"est tenebra" "sunt tenebrae", are using tenebrae as the dative/genitive rather than plural ("...in se ipso tenebrae sunt...", ""tenebra+est"+"tenebrae+sunt"&dq="tenebra+est"+"tenebrae+sunt"&printsec=frontcover ...in qua tenebrae sunt..."), and some of the ones I can find that do clearly use both sg. and pl., e.g. "haec tenebra" "hae tenebrae", are doing so in giving multiple readings of the same line. But what do y'all make of this (a) and this (b)? - -sche (discuss) 17:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would add that there are examples of the singular forms "tenebra" and "tenebram" in the Patrilogia Latina database (25 and 5, respectively). E.g.,
- Aldhelmus Schireburnensis, "Epistola ad acircium, sive liber de septenario...":
- "Da exempla ad amphibrachym pertinentia.--M. Haec sunt nomina primae declinationis, eamdem pedis regulam astipulantia, ut corona, carina, lacerna, acerva, acerra, arena, arista, papilla, mamilla, capella, catena, popina, culina, amurca, tabella, querela, locusta, marisca, rubeta, pharetra, camina, sagitta, loquela, medulla, medella, taberna, caverna, caterva, latebra, tenebra."
- Given the relative rarity of the form and the general opinion that it's erroneous, I think the current solution of marking "tenebra" as the singular of the usual "tenebrae" works well and the RFV can be removed. 3charles3 (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Patrologia Latina, of course... 3charles3 (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
guardaraglio and its synonyms
[edit]guardaraglio, guardrail, guardavia, guidovia, guardastrada. Italian words which I have not spotted uses of; RFV per the discussion with DanielParoliere at User talk:Surjection#Some rare Italian words doesn't exist or are invented. This is a trial balloon for the larger set of words discussed there; if these fail and seem to have been made-up by various authors in early decades and never caught on, we need to RFV other words from that set; if it seems like User:DanielParoliere himself made-up non-existent words, feel free to close the RFV and deal with the words more speedily as far as I am concerned. - -sche (discuss) 16:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- Guardavia is included in these dictionaries ([53], [54], [55], [56], [57]), sicurvia in these ones ([58], [59], [60], [61]), guardastrada is included in one dictionary ([62]) and guidovia is a Helvetism included only in this Swiss site in Italian ([63]) and these are all correct. The words guardavia and sicurvia are sometimes used in technical-bureaucratic contexts, and guidovia is used sometimes on Swiss websites in Italian, such as RSI or Ticinonline, especially in road accidents' contexts, happened in Ticino or Grisons' cantons, in Switzerland. Exists also a rare Italian song called Guardavia, sung by Mal di mare in 2020, that you can find on the web ([64]). And the word guardastrada is only used in the phrase La lamiera ondulata per i manufatti tubolari metallici e per le barriere guardastrada. I didn't find a dictionary which is included guardaraglio. What do you think? DanielParoliere (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm; if a word is used (not just mentioned in a dictionary as a word that exists, but used in running text, e.g. in a news article about a car crash or roadwork, or in an ordinance about how roads are to be constructed, etc) by three or more people (over more than one year), it can be included, even if it is rare or regional (in which case, it can be
{{label}}ed as such). On the other hand, if an Italian word only appears in dictionaries but is not used, it doesn't meet WT:ATTEST. - -sche (discuss) 16:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)- Also I didn't find a dictionary which are included the words guardaraile and guardarailo (used jokingly by the famous Genoese comedian Maurizio Lastrico: [65]). DanielParoliere (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm; if a word is used (not just mentioned in a dictionary as a word that exists, but used in running text, e.g. in a news article about a car crash or roadwork, or in an ordinance about how roads are to be constructed, etc) by three or more people (over more than one year), it can be included, even if it is rare or regional (in which case, it can be
October 2025
[edit]Middle French. The oldest mention in a French text seems to be in d'Abbeville (1614, four years after the cut date), and we're considering it as an Old Tupi attestation in mani'oka. Trooper57 (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Catalan.
This seems to be an error caused by ignorance of the difference between Catalan and Old Catalan, as shown by the listing of an Old French descendant (as I understand it, modern Catalan didn't develop from Old Catalan until after Old French had already developed into Middle French). This seems to be from a misreading of the American Heritage Dictionary entry linked to at English orchil, which clearly states this is Old Catalan. There are similar errors scattered throughout the etymologies of related terms, along with a general sloppiness with language codes and other details. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
French. Is/was this -ou- spelling actually used? French wikipedia appears to exclusively use "Tokugawa". Horse Battery (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Battery: Yes. See [66], [67], [68], and [69]. 0DF (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged by @Sarilho1 in 2022, but not listed. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 18:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
French+PortugueseVealhurl (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Latin. There are serious problems with this entry. This word, to my knowledge at the moment (admittedly not exhaustively deep, but I looked through the major dictionaries) is not attested in Roman Latin, even very late Roman Latin. It is probably not even attested in Medieval Latin. Where is it attested? Sources say, in Ptolemy's Greek, as Καρπάτης ὄρος. This word in Greek is not even plural: it is singular. For that matter, mountain ranges in Latin could be routinely named in the singular, like the Appennīnus. But maybe the Greek name transmits a Latin form close to its pronunciation. In any case, the problem is that the word is apparently not even attested in Roman era Latin and, if it is not, it must be marked as reconstructed and speculative for that era. The only attested Latin proper name for those mountains I could currently find was "Alpes Bastarnicae". Draco argenteus (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Italian. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Italian. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Other dictionaries give the perfect and supine stem as lacking. I find no hits for perfect forms starting with praecul* in Latin corpora.--Urszag (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Urszag I was able to find the perfect passive participle in Statius and an attested perfect form in a Medieval Latin text. I'm fairly convinced that the form praeculī is completely erroneous, as the perfect stem should be praecellu-, as indicated by excelluī. If so, then we would have to delete all of the existing pages for the non-lemma perfect forms of the verb. Graearms (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Spanish internet slang for "despicable person". (The other sense is &lit so the entry should be deleted if this sense fails.) Ultimateria (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. ununnilium
I found this while looking for Portuguese words spelled with nn:
intitle:/.*nn.*/ incategory:"Portuguese lemmas" -incategory:"Portuguese forms superseded in 1943" -incategory:"Portuguese forms superseded in 1911" -incategory:"Portuguese obsolete forms"
This entry seemed suspicious.
I checked the Portuguese Wikipedia page on this chemical element, and w:pt:Darmstádtio#Nomes provisórios[permalink] contraddicts it—Após sua descoberta foi denominado provisoriamente de "Ununílio" ("Ununnilium" em inglês) pela IUPAC (nome sistemático).
—saying the temporary name, in Portuguese, was actually ununílio with one n.
For historical context, w:Darmstadtium#Naming[permalink] says that the provisional name ununnilium was first recommended in 1979, while darmstadtium was officialised in 2003.
o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm. It's listed in Infopédia, so I can buy that it's a European form like connosco and comummente. Did anybody ever use it, though...? MedK1 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
November 2025
[edit]Catalan. Note the 1920s dates on the two existing cites (for two different senses). Ultimateria (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Papiamentu. Created in 2008 meaning "Nazi", the content was moved and overwitten on the entry bisawelo "great-grandfather" in 2018 and this page now redirects to English Nazi. Catonif (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Well, it existing as a redirect does not make much sense at least. Emanuele6 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment .... it was created in 2018, from what i can see, and by a very careless editor. he seems to have found his way out of here before he got blocked ... so many of his edits were cleaning up his own mistakes. —Soap— 16:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Italian. to pick on someone
I have never heard this, also it doesn't say whether it is transitive or uses con/a/... so I don't know how it's supposed to be used. Emanuele6 (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, @Catonif! Do you think this could perhaps be a Romanesco form of avercela actually meaning "to hold a grudge" (not "to pick on") rather than a reflexive use of avere?
- si mentions that se is used, notably in Romanesco, in place of standard Italian ci; though only for the 1PL reflexive/reciprocal sense, not for the ci used in avercela. Emanuele6 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, not Romanesco. Added by SemperBlotto, probably a misbracketing of whatever more common expression I can't think of. Safe to go. Catonif (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, I've found something interesting on the Treccani dictionary entry for avere. aversela is used in the expression aversela a male (literally “to have oneself it à la badly”), which I can confirm exists and is actually reflexive (I am pretty sure I have heard it a couple times); however, it is not used on its own without a male as far as I know, and it still does not mean "to pick on", it means something like "to feel offended/wronged". Treccani also mentions an aversene a male alternative form with the same meaning, using ne rather than la, which I have not heard.
- “avére2”, in Vocabolario Treccani on line (in Italian), Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana, 2026
- I've found nothing supporting this "to pick on" definition Emanuele6 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. The word does appears uncommon, and the few results on Google seem to have very varied meaning. I believe the current definition is incorrect. Ping creator @Fy Javan. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 15:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I tried to make it more generic than simply to mate or to idolize. However, there is an obscene definition as well. Fy Javan (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Ping creator @Zisn1234. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 15:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like it's a European thing. It's the prescribed way of spelling it there according to Ciberdúvidas and I was able to find a few hits for it in a couple of Portuguese forums.
- I'm not too positive it passes CFI though. Maybe for Galician? Spanish? French? There's way more hits for those last 2 than for Portuguese. I believe it has to do with the number of people in each place. Being that Brazil doesn't use it... there's 10mil people in Portugal, 2mil people in Galicia and way more than that in, say, France. MedK1 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Trooper57 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
December 2025
[edit]Portuguese. Was this ever legit? Is this an old misspelling? I'm somewhat able to attest "pessôa"... MedK1 (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Derived terms get zero hits, with main forms I'm not qualified to say whether the hits I get are valid or not. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- have added 3 bibliographic citations (Gruson 1835, Jacobi 1825, Pacht 1850) to the entry. They are valid Latin sources. Please review and remove the RFV tag.Quantum0000 (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Quantum0000 Can you move the citations underneath the relevant definition(s) and put
#*before them to mark them as quotations (rather than putting them in a separate Quotations section, which is deprecated)? Also, two of the three citations you give are actually mentions rather than uses, because they are giving definitions rather than using the word in context. Can you convert at least one of the citations to a use? Presumably you just need to look a bit later in the same text for a use of the word in context. Benwing2 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)- Sorry for I am just a noob in it I just try to put the new Latin words with declarations and macrons with a large time to check it out.Actually I saw this usage in a dictionary it said that it is come from this new Latin.Maybe I need help or just try to find the evidence that this word has existed Quantum0000 (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Surjection@Benwing2 Plz help me to check if there’s something I need to improve!!Thank you Quantum0000 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for I am just a noob in it I just try to put the new Latin words with declarations and macrons with a large time to check it out.Actually I saw this usage in a dictionary it said that it is come from this new Latin.Maybe I need help or just try to find the evidence that this word has existed Quantum0000 (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Quantum0000 Can you move the citations underneath the relevant definition(s) and put
- @Surjection @Benwing2 Perhaps not the right place: this user had forged citations for cruciārius, beware. Saumache (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I checked this and the quote is indeed fake - I've imposed a block, there is zero tolerance for this kind of fabrication. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Un-passed. The provided quote may not be real. Further work required. This, that and the other (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Spanish.
Seeking cites in running text in Spanish. All I see is people writing in English saying things like "printear isnt a word?" or copies and snippets of a ZDNet article written 25 years ago saying that Any Day Now these creeping Anglicisms are going to become everyday Spanish. I also looked for printeado and other forms which i'd figured would be more common and would eliminate the news-article false positives. In fact Im actually surprised that this word hasnt caught on even a little bit, so maybe I'm missing something. Thanks, —Soap— 16:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
- Here is a convenience link to the ZDNet story, since I just realized it's hard to turn up even when searching Google for zdnet printear. —Soap— 16:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. I couldn't find any mention to it outside dictionaries. Trooper57 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- "Antigo" usually means OGP, so I checked
{{R:roa-opt:CX}},{{R:roa-opt:DDGM}}and {{{R:roa-opt:UC}}. No mention of it anywhere; I couldn't find it through Google either. Seems pretty safely fake. w:Fictitious entry? MedK1 (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)- I looked in the 1891 Caldas Aulete and it’s nowhere to be found there (not even under ceuropão). Maybe from a later edition. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 09:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I just checked, it's also in VOLP?? Where did this come from. Trooper57 (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- It really is, in the 1933 version; it’s not found in the 1914 (3rd edition) one, nor in the 1943 version for some reason. So, if the Aulete dictionary hypothetically made it up, it would’ve been in the dictionary’s 1925 edition (which is supposed to be public domain!). Can anyone find it? I remember looking once. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 18:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Georgics 4.169
- I've gone ahead and fixed the error. Graearms (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense:
Cicero, Laelius de Amicitia (De Amicitia). https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/amic.shtml
Latin: cum isdem ad calcem, ut dicitur, pervenire.
English: “to reach the finish line with those same people, as the saying goes.”
Portuguese. There's a bunch of other weird ones too like fê and lê, but at least those are labelled as belonging to the NE region. What gives? Are these real? MedK1 (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- These are all real in the Northeast as far as I’m aware. Lá no meu sertão... — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Houaiss also has them, BTW. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 23:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
French: "pachyptiles, of genus Pachyptila." In current French does this normally have an initial capital? DCDuring (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: sense 1, larceny. Afaik, "latrocínio" requires the victim to be murdered, not just threatened. It's robbing + killing. Even informally, I've never seen anyone use it differently. MedK1 (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. One of the plural forms of vulcão. It's always mentioned in grammar websites[70] but I couldn't find it in any dictionary besides Estraviz[71] (which I think is supposed to be Galician?). VOC only lists vulcãos and vulcões[72] with a note that vulcãos is only ever found in Brazilian dicionãrios[sic]. Trooper57 (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Latin. Intransitive verb meaning "to clear one's throat". The passive forms should be removed. This, that and the other (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Ping @Saumache. This, that and the other (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- This verb is only attested once in the active and intransitive, but we find ex(s)creatur pituita and excreatum (see ambitransitive excreo), so the passive pp screatus "spat out by hawking" is always possible. Saumache (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I suspected something like that might be possible. I would still get rid of the passive forms of screō - to me the ex- is what gives exscreō its transitive force, much like cough vs cough up in English - but I'll let others weigh in on that matter. If kept, screātus needs a much better definition than the incomprehensible "hawked". This, that and the other (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- This verb is only attested once in the active and intransitive, but we find ex(s)creatur pituita and excreatum (see ambitransitive excreo), so the passive pp screatus "spat out by hawking" is always possible. Saumache (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: jeans. Seems like it's used in Portugal. I get loads of hits from looking up "minhas gafas", including from books. Also: [73][74] MedK1 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Thinking this is a folk etymology. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 21:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's a bit tougher to judge when the etymology's not on the page at all. Looking around, I was able to find people online claiming it's a portmanteau of "bisbilhotar" and "olhar", and someone else — more credible imo — saying it has to do with Galician and Portuguese avesulhar,[75], which does show up in Galician dictionaries.[76][77]
- We could always claim "Uncertain." before presenting everything if you're really doubtful about these hypotheses... but what I'm uncertain about tbh is why this is here in RFV rather than in the Etymology scriptorium 😅 I mean, you're not questioning the actual verb, right? MedK1 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I am. I mean that, as I see it, this is only said to exist as the origin of bizoiar, which would make that a pronunciation spelling. But I don’t believe it is. There’s nothing really saying anything about it other than that Facebook page you linked (which I’d also seen a few months ago). Hence the RfV. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 02:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv two etymologies (which, yes, I added).
Etymology 2: "Indian unhusked rice". s:pt:Hobson-Jobson/N quotes this book, but I can’t find anything the original text. And might this be Indo-Portuguese?
Etymology 3: "an old French coin". I think this is outright made up.
Both definitions are mentioned to explain the spelling nêle around the 1940s or 50s. like here. The word nele was already found in the 1943 Orthographic Vocabulary, though its meaning is not listed. The 1933 version doesn’t have it, so a dictionary from around then probably listed it. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 06:50, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Latin. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- I find a whole page of Latin texts for the search term
"bisecuit"on Google Books, date range before 1855. I just don't want to quote 17th–18th-century mathematics treatises I don't understand anyway right now. Fay Freak (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
mi, as a reduced form of mira#Catalan
[edit]Catalan. Rfv-sense:
The imperative form {{m|ca|mira}} can reduce to {{m|ca|mi}} in colloquial speech when one or more clitic pronouns are attached to the end of the verb.
A usage note on mira#Catalan, added in Jul 2022, tagged as Eh? in which dialect of Catalan would be that?
in Sep 2023. —Fish bowl (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- There's an entry with sources at mi#Catalan. The Optimot seems to be the main source classifying it as colloquial without any mention of dialects. The other two references are specific to the Algherese dialect though. Io Katai (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
January 2026
[edit]Portuguese. Rfv-sense: I saw it in Michaelis but I've never encountered it in books or elsewhere. MedK1 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Romanian. Recently added IP entry; didn't find this in DEX at least. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Latin. Do we have any unambiguous attestations (e.g. in record type) with the zigzag? I would expect p᷒đc̃m or pꝰđc̃m. @Theknightwho —Desacc̱oinṯier 14:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Sicilian, supposedly meaning opium poppy. Several languages we list in the opium poppy t-box have phrases literally meaning "sleep poppy" or "sleep flower", but "sleep zucchini" seems far out of reach of reasonable semantic shifts unless it was some sort of ironic coinage whose double meaning is opaque to us, in which case I'd at least expect there to also be a phrase something like paparina 'i sonnu from which this was derived. I couldnt find any evidence that this phrase exists, so I wonder if it may have been a mistake. The creator has been inactive lately. Thanks, —Soap— 17:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: aluminosilicate. Tagged but not listed. It's in a dictionary, but I suspect the meaning might be a type of aluminosilicate known for a red or pink color, and that therefore if this passes RFV we might need to also rewrite the meaning. I did some looking around in English, figuring that if Portuguese has rosita we might have rosite with the same meaning (compare kyanite ~ cianita), in which case we could also list this in English, but I couldnt find anything. —Soap— 20:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
A common name for the fruit in Spanish and English, but I can't easily attest it in Portuguese. The dictionaries that properly label it say it's from RS, but v~bergamota is the most used term by far according to South Brazil's linguistic atlas[78] — in fact, a single use is attested in that map (as mandarinha) in, guess what, Foz do Iguaçu. Trooper57 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've found a partial attestation online as "laranja mandarina".[79] Trooper57 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Latin. Rationale was "not attested". Ultimateria (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- saliō has no inflectional supine stem per se, only supine stem detivatives. See “salio2”, in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879), A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Saumache (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Attested in at least Late Latin (Priscian). Nicodene (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Is a gloss enough? I don't know the actual policy, but I thought it didn't count as genuine attestation. Saumache (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Attested in at least Late Latin (Priscian). Nicodene (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Can't find anything other than that gloss, even in modern texts. We have accepted glosses (e.g. Appendix Probi), although I don't really like this one because it seems to be akin to an ancient "verb table" and offers only a weak inference that the term was in use, in contrast to Appendix Probi from which a much stronger inference can be drawn. This, that and the other (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Italian. until the cows come home
This doesn't really mean until the cows come home; it's more like "to your heart's content"/"(for) as much as you want" (literally, “how much it seems to you”): it is a time frame (or quantity) YOU decide, not general like until the cows come home, and it exists also with other datives e.g. quanto gli pare (“to his heart's content”).
It is indeed a common construction (with all datives not just ti/Le...), but should it be considered SOP? If it is not SOP, the definition should still be changed, and perhaps the page should be moved to quanto pare/quanto pare a. Emanuele6 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- There is also a stronger version with e piace; e.g. quanto mi pare e piace ― as much as I want (literally, “however much/long seems [good] to me and pleases me”). Emanuele6 (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- It is not really specific to quanto (“however much”) either:
- Delete and move to a sense in parere (verb)? Emanuele6 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Italian. Inflections of past participle funzionato:
- funzionata:
feminine singular of funzionato
- funzionate:
feminine plural of funzionato
- funzionati:
masculine plural of funzionato
I am puzzled; funzionare (“to work; to function”) is an intransitive verb using avere as auxiliary so these forms should not exist (cfr. Talk:peccata#RFV discussion: June–October 2025); there are no matches for funzionata, and funzionati on Treccani.it.
However, I think funzionare is sometimes heard with essere rather than avere in this sense; I don't know if that's dialectal though.
On the Italian Wikipedia (after correcting two typos w:it:Special:Diff/149143137, w:it:Special:Diff/149143209), there are:
32 matches for "funzionati" w:it:Special:Search/"funzionati"- “Nisekoi - False Love[permalink]”, in Wikipedia (in Italian), 29 January 2026: “Quando però prova a chiedergli se sarebbero mai funzionati come coppia vera lui risponde di no […]”
- “Crisi della replicazione[permalink]”, in Wikipedia (in Italian), 29 January 2026: “il 50% di aver solamente riportato studi che “sono funzionati” in una serie di studi condotti”
“Battaglia di Pyongtaek[permalink]”, in Wikipedia (in Italian), 29 January 2026: “Infatti, molte delle armi in dotazione erano mal funzionate e i proiettili erano pochi.” (it used to say 'funzionati', but the agreement was wrong; I temporarily "corrected" it changing it to 'funzionate' w:it:Special:Diff/149143771)[EDIT: comparing with the Italian WikiBooks article on roughly the same topic which had a similar typo b:it:Special:Diff/488261, I think this was actually, probably supposed to be malfunzionanti rather than a past tense of this verb]
- 2 matches for "funzionata" w:it:Special:Search/"funzionata"
- “Episodi di Maledetti scarafaggi (prima stagione)[permalink]”, in Wikipedia (in Italian), 29 January 2026: “Una volta che è funzionata, pensa di eliminare agli Scarafaggi in modo da vivere in pace.”
- “Trino[permalink]”, in Wikipedia (in Italian), 29 January 2026: “Nel territorio comunale opera anche la centrale idroelettica San Martino funzionata dall'Associazione di Irrigazione Ovest Sesia.”
Except for the last one, those are all indeed uses of funzionare in the "to work (out); to function" sense with essere (rather than avere):
- sarebbero mai funzionati ← avrebbero mai funzionato
- sono funzionati ← hanno funzionato
erano mal funzionate ← avevano mal funzionato- è funzionata ← ha funzionato
The last one is a different sense: it is something like "this hydroelectric plant funzionata(*which is functioned) by this association"; so used to form the passive of a transitive sense.
The Treccani dictionary entry for funzionare mentions a sense that is something like, of e.g. a priest, to perform a funzione (“service”, literally “function”). (this is still intransitive, though; it does not explicitly say it can be used transitively, and it only shows examples of intransitive use)
- “funzionare”, in Vocabolario Treccani on line (in Italian), Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana, 2026
As far as I can tell, Treccani doesn't really mention anything that could mean that transitive sense, which I assume is meant as "SUBJECT is responsible for OBJECT's operation", so that may be a complete misuse of the verb. Emanuele6 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Some relevant web results:
- 2023 post on the "curscate" Italian grammar forum asking whether funzionare may be used with essere rather than avere in e.g. «non è funzionato»; the only response they got was a simple "No, funzionare always wants avere" by an administrator. https://www.achyra.org/cruscate/viewtopic.php?t=9258
- 2013 Treccani Q&A question "I would like to know whether «il venditore ci assicurò che l'auto sarebbe funzionata perfettamente!» is correct"; again, the response is basically a plain "No, it is not. «avrebbe funzionato»" without much elaboration https://www.treccani.it/magazine/lingua_italiana/domande_e_risposte/grammatica/grammatica_420.html
- The use of essere for the "to work; to function" intransitive sense is definitely proscribed, it seems; is it relevant enough to be mentioned, and save funzionata and funzionati from deletion as proscribed forms in case the transitive sense of the last example also fails verification? Emanuele6 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Copying what @GianWiki did in peccata's RFV, I've also tried to free search these forms on GDLI.it: no matches for funzionati, and funzionate, one match for funzionata in funzionismo's etymology section, which is actually a scanno for funzionista:
- “funzionismo”, in Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, volume 6 fio–graul, UTET, 1970, page 468
- While at it, checking the GDLI entry for funzionare, there is no transitive sense and the only auxiliary mentioned is avere; additionally, I also consulted my physical copy of lo Zanichelli (2017), and nothing there either:
- “funzionare”, in Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, volume 6 fio–graul, UTET, 1970, page 467
- Nicola Zingarelli (2016), lo Zingarelli 2017, Vocabolario della lingua italiana (in Italian), Zanichelli, →ISBN, page 951
- I guess what is left to decide is whether the occasional, proscribed use of funzionare with essere is relevant enough to be worth a mention, and whether that can justify keeping [[funzionata]], and [[funzionati]].
- Additionally, giving the benefit of the doubt, whether the transitive use of the verb in
Trino on the Italian WikipediaWikipedia it exists as a neologism. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Emanuele6 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- The "funzionata" in that article seems to be a fairly recent (not even two years old w:it:Special:Diff/137932699) addition by @GMRoss2006; ping just in case w:it:Discussioni utente:GMRoss2006#funzionata = operata?. Emanuele6 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- The Italian Wikipedia user remove the use of the "word" funzionata replacing it with gestita, 19 days ago. w:it:Special:Diff/151570280. Emanuele6 (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- The "funzionata" in that article seems to be a fairly recent (not even two years old w:it:Special:Diff/137932699) addition by @GMRoss2006; ping just in case w:it:Discussioni utente:GMRoss2006#funzionata = operata?. Emanuele6 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFM.
Latin. Diabeticorum in Bullosis diabeticorum is genitive plural of diabeticus. Diabeticorus doesnt exist, I think. Suryaratha03 (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC
February 2026
[edit]Dalmatian. The spelling seems to be always blank in all works I have at my disposal. I cannot confirm many of these "regularly-Italianate" spellings, like iualb in place of jualb, even though they don't look implausible. Catonif (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- I found one occurrence of iualb, but checking avidly the cited source I still cannot confirm blanc, and understandibly so as the reference was simply carried over from the attested spelling: diff, diff. The feminine plural **blance, supposedly but rather improbably standing for blanke (I expect **blanche in a coherent system), along with the regularisation of the feminine singular **blanka on the k-entry, leads me to believe the change was not made with too much attention to these details. Pinging @Aearthrise in hope of an explanation. Catonif (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Sicilian. Rationale was "the proper entry for this voice is donni di notti. This page can be deleted because unreliable". Ultimateria (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Latin. In the chemical sense. The two sources listed are unrelated to it. I tried (not thoroughly) some searches on GB with it alongside various common Latin words, could not find the word in running Latin text. 1886 is also quite recent, I think we stopped writing science in Latin that around the beginning of that century. Catonif (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- As for timing, Latin was used in zoology into the late 19th century. Hermann Loew often started species descriptions with a paragraph of Latin and continued in German. He may have thought the Latin summary to be obligatory. This rule was never codified. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I know botanists who have had to ask Latinists for help for official description of newly discovered species. According to w:Botanical Latin, this stopped being obligatory only in 2011, and now English is allowed alongside it. As amusing as it is, it doesn't have much to do with chemistry. Catonif (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Catonif (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
March 2026
[edit]Old Galician-Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "stupid, uncouth". I've only found the figurative sense with zevron. Trooper57 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Mostly Spanish use. Either way, mostly restricted to social media. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 00:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Only in Fernão Mendes Pinto? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 01:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Polomo: it's mentioned in other works but they all point back to Peregrinação. Trooper57 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- That may or may not be "independent" under WT:ATTEST... — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 01:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Word of the Day getting deleted lol. Trooper57 (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- That may or may not be "independent" under WT:ATTEST... — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 01:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. @Polomo have you found anything else? Trooper57 (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
- I could swear I looked into this word at some point; I thought I edited the entry with some quotes, but it seems not.
- The “independent” part of WT:ATTEST only excludes “verbatim or non-verbatim” quoting. Uses like this one would therefore satisfy WT:ATTEST.
- I’ll add the quotes I thought I’d found tomorrow, and then we can make a more informed decision. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 01:51, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Latin. Tagged but not listed over a year ago with the comment correct Late Latin form is rheubarbarum, is this New Latin, an alternative or reformed on italian (also seen in rhabarbarate ? needs exemples
. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese, etymology 2. I think it's just a weird misspelling of surucucu. Trooper57 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "to agree to carry out (a service or a task) against payment of an established amount". — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 14:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Latin. Tagged but not listed over two years ago with the comment Reference has ".. DANAPRIS (Δάναπρις: ..), ..", indicating it could be Greek, and not in any of the dicts at https://logeion.uchicago.edu/Danapris (while https://logeion.uchicago.edu/Δάναπρις gives one result)
. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- It can be found in Google books, e.g. "Danaprim" here.--Urszag (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
April 2026
[edit]French. Cf. the RFVs of them as English. They are mentioned in moule au beurre d'arachide; cite them or remove the mention of them... - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Pinging creator @Ovey 56.
I'm having difficulty to attest this. Trooper57 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. not found in any major dictionary. no clear hits on search engines. possible mistaken form of hidroterapeuta. Juwan 🕊️🌈 11:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- not sure if there are other terms with the form terapista. Juwan 🕊️🌈 11:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Added by Sarilho1 (talk • contribs) but not created.
Kinda hard to attest due to homography, but they killed one yesteday [80]. Trooper57 (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
- This one obviously exists. I can't believe we're still dealing with Sarilho's proper name RFVs for names that are obviously real. I wonder if we can just mass-remove those RFV templates using IBGE as a source? MedK1 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- RFV-passed. Trooper57 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
This term looks to be extraordinarily rare and likely comes from Spanish Wikipedia. There are no hits on Google News nor on Google Books, and it's not in any dictionaries that aren't Wiktionary mirrors. There are 0 hits in the RAE's XXI corpus nor in their historical corpus. I see some hits for "pibe motoserrucho" but it doesn't seem to relate at all to this. I also see some hits that are just a reproduction of the first paragraph of the Spanish Wikipedia page. AG202 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. As part of the expression "à for de" or, possibly, "a for de".
It is probably supposed to be the same as Italian a mo' di, mo'.
This was added by User:Polomo as a masculine noun (not labelled archaic) with a {{only used in|pt|à for de}} definition in Special:Diff/83679019 probably copying from infopédia:for (which labels the expression archaic, not just the word itself) and/or priberam:for (which does not), which were added to further reading with the same edit.
I've already asked about the word's gender in User talk:Polomo#"à for de" gender[permalink] given that the use of Portuguese à (in place of for example ao or a) implies that this for is feminine rather than masculine.
As a possible explanation, I proposed that, perhaps, given that this "for" is supposedly a borrowing from French that is used exclusively in this expression according to Wiktionary, the entire expression may be spelt in French using French à (equivalent to Portuguese a) and French de (cfr. English à la). If the entire expression is indeed an unadapted borrowing from French, the spelling could also be explained by the fact that in European Portuguese, unlike Brazilian Portuguese, a (/ɐ/) and à (/a/) are not homophones: "à" may be spelt that way to make the pronunciation closer to French. (I don't know how this expression is pronounced in Portugal vs Brazil, nor whether it is even used at all)
Polomo concluded that probably "à for de" was a typo in these two dictionaries, also given the fact that Michaelis:for (which does not label the expression archaic) spells it "a for de" and changed the definition to {{only used in|pt|a for de}}. (n.b. the final dictionary in further reading, Aulete:for, does not mention the expression, it only says that it is an archaic word for "fashion")
It may be true that the correct spelling is actually "a for de", but having to guess the spelling of this expression feels a bit silly. Also, is the expression actually archaic as noted by Infopédia (but not Wiktionary) or is it still used? It would be nice to have some quotations with this expressions, however it is spelt.
Emanuele6 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
May 2026
[edit]French.
Noun
- A right fist
This has been a bit of a moving target: while it's retained the same definition and POS throughout, it's been changed from English to Jersey Norman to French. Because it's defined as a noun and none of the languages in question capitalize those, I moved it to lower case for now.
As for the term itself: there doesn't seem to be any usage as a noun- attestation seems to be as a surname along the same lines as Poindexter. I suspect the entry is really sort of a free-floating etymology snippet that the creator had no clue what to do with. For one thing, if you ignore the fact that it has no space in it, I would call it SOP as defined: poing + destre. There are indeed Google Books hits for "poing destre".
As far as I can tell, there's really no evidence for this in its current (nor any previous) state, but it might be salvageable back at uppercase with a proper-noun POS and definition as a surname. The main challenge would be deciding what language to call it. Either that, or make a lowercase (spaced) phrase out of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Italian. (Notifying workgroup: Benwing2, GianWiki, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma, Catonif, Trimpulot):
Labelled "regional" by @GianWiki in 2017 Special:Diff/47691963 heavily implying that cocomero is the standard term; further labelled "northern Italian" by @Embryomystic in 2020 Special:Diff/78929476.
If anguria really is not the common term, and it is but a regional, northern Italian term, for me, this really begs the question of whether "watermelon flavoured" products solds in supermarket are localised everywhere else in Italy. Is that really so?
Based on my experience, I'd think it should be uncontroversial to anyone buying groceries that the term anguria is by far the most commonly used, while cocomero is hardly ever seen, especially in such contexts. https://www.amazon.it/HARIBO-Haribo-CARAMELLE-ANGURIA-175g/dp/B07SC1HQKW/
How exactly is "anguria" regional? Emanuele6 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- Traditional standard Italian has cocomero, cf. https://accademiadellacrusca.it/it/consulenza/alcune-varianti-di-nomi-di-frutti/121. In everyday language we say almost exclusively cocomero, but as time progresses anguria is increasingly common in "official" contexts (e.g. supermarket labels) even down here as hypercorrection because people often perceive cocomero as the regional form. We can change the label of anguria to "originally regional". We could even add a usage note that explains this. The most educated here in Rome are aware of this and will actively proscribe anguria, but its spread does not seem to decline. Catonif (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- Treccani also confirms anguria being regional ([81]) but widespread.
- Trimpulot (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant because I live in the area the term anguria supposedly originally belong to, but, if I may add, even when I was a kid, here most kids won't know that cocomero is supposed to be a synonym of "anguria", and will only have heard it as a euphemism... (that wiktionary does not define) And even people who know its meaning would never actually use it for its literal meaning. After all, one would never see it used that way even at the supermarket!
- More on topic, while I do know that cocomero is the native term, I have hardly ever seen it actually used, as you said, "officially", and cocomero, I'd say, in practice is more universally percieved as the regional term. I guess I am taking the liberty of assuming that products are in fact not localised as "gusto cocomero" elsewhere.
- I think it is fine to leave cocomero unlabelled anyway, but to me it seems nonsensical to label anguria "regional" as was done in 2017 and, further, as "northern Italian" (at most, "originally"). Emanuele6 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- I propose the label "originally northern Italian" and the following usage note:
- The term anguria, traditionally considered regional,[ref Treccani] is increasingly being used beyond its traditional area of use, especially in the written language, due to popular perception of cocomero being the less formal synonym.
- For reference, cocomero is still the main form: ngrams. By the way, I notice we're in RFV. These issues are best handled at the WT:Tea room. Catonif (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- We are discussing the removal of seeming factually incorrect information on the page, RFV clearly makes more sense; and this discussion should be archived in the page's talk page as precedent for anyone who tries to pull adding these labels off in the future. Otherwise a discussion is pointless. Emanuele6 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- So what do you think of the proposed solution? Catonif (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- Please trust me when I say that the only term is "anguria" and "cocomero" is an obtuse, humourous and euphemistic term never seriously heard, and, indeed, never seriously read; you are way more qualified to take these decisions if you actually encounter earnest uses of the word "cocomero".
- "originally northern Italian" makes sense as the "northern Italian" part can be backed up by dictionaries, and the usage notes seem good. I think one should will be defined as
{{synonym of}}the other: which one will be the main entry, and whether we want to label "cocomero"{{lb|it|now|regional}}as I perceive to be the case, should not be my decision as, I guess, I am biased. Emanuele6 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)- Change made. Catonif (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- So what do you think of the proposed solution? Catonif (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- We are discussing the removal of seeming factually incorrect information on the page, RFV clearly makes more sense; and this discussion should be archived in the page's talk page as precedent for anyone who tries to pull adding these labels off in the future. Otherwise a discussion is pointless. Emanuele6 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- I propose the label "originally northern Italian" and the following usage note:
- I grew up in the province of Venice, and cocomero there meant cucumber. Decades later I still find it weird when I read or hear cocomero for anguria (despite knowing it's supposed to be the "standard" word for it). — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 07:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Seems to be a misspelling of nome, which is actually attested in the Latin script. Graearms (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
RfV-failed. Has sat uncited for months. Graearms (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Italian. {{synonym of|it|ciò}}
Added by @Saumache in Special:Diff/89504136 approximatively 3 months ago.
Clearly wrong, right?
il che is current: "il che significa...", also see the quotation I've added yesterday in risalente that happens to contain it, from a show that aired for the first time yesterday.
che preceded by a masculine singular definite article is the prosentence version of relative pronoun che (“that”), describing the sentence that immediately precedes it incidentally; similar to which+3SG in English. "which is true", "which makes it ...", "which means ...", ....
It is wrong to say that il there is a synonym of ciò n (“this”), and given Italian's sister languages usage of this construction very much misleading.
While in Spanish and Portuguese, que plus the neuter/masculine-singular definite article results in Portuguese o que, Spanish lo que (“that which; what”), which in Italian would be ciò che with il che not working in that sense, in Italian it has a completely different meaning as described above. il che (the entire thing) could at most, perhaps, be considered a synonym of (e) ciò (“(and) this”) "and this is true", "and this makes it...", "and this means...", ...
Also note that this il che is a pronoun-conjunction just che except that it is actually a prosentence, and thus e.g. "e il che" does not make much sense as it would not make sense to say *"he picked a ball and which was blue, not one and that was red". You only use it either following the sentence it is modifying or another modifier applied to it, or at the very start of the sentence in a dialogue referring to what was just said.
If, by chance, a similar French word combination comes to @Saumache's mind, I'd be interested in hearing it; I was looking for similar conjunctions in other languages yesterday when I brought up my risalente quotation in the WT:WG:pt chat.
What do we do about this entry? Change the definition and move to che? To a new il che? I am the one who is completely wrong and the il in the Decameron quotation used in the page actually means ciò just like o (que) in Portuguese somehow?
Emanuele6 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- I would create il che. I agree that quote was misinterpreted. Catonif (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- I must have translated the whole "il che" as "ciò" or mismatched it with French ce que, thanks for patrolling my edits.
- French does have formal/literary constructions more closely paralleling English "the which" (pro-noun, not pro-sentence) in French lequel (literally "the which", though it arose from an interrogative/indefinite): "un événement, lequel on voyait venir de loin" (=que); note its use as subject is restricted, it might work in heavier syntaxes along with il "un événement terrible, lequel s'il advenait, etc." or "un événement lequel, s'il advient, etc." (=qui). We otherwise use ce que, demonstrative-based (ciò, che...).
- Let's create il che since we have Spanish lo que. Saumache (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response! Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish also have Italian il quale, Spanish el cual, Portuguese o qual as an inflecting slightly more formal equivalent to the Italian che, Spanish, Portuguese, and French que, or French qui relative pronoun-conjuction.
- To clarify, in Italian, as I assume also in French, one has to use ciò che or quel che (ce que/ce qui) (alternatively, quello m sg also doubles as neuter) for "that which"/"what", and another non-neuter demonstrative + che for "the one which". However, Spanish lo n (definite article) and any Portuguese article is also an option before "que" for this usage; in Portuguese, one can even say for example a de Luca (“Luca's [one f sg]”, literally “the of Luca”), os na cozinha (literally “the in the kitchen”) with a preposition, which would require using a demonstrative like quello in Italian quella di Luca, quelli in(/nella) cucina.
- This is why the current ciò definition can be very misleading, and is almost believable: Portuguese o m sg (“the”) can actually mean ciò before que or a preposition!
- Italian's il che as the neuter or prosentence version of che (“that”, pronoun-conjunction) is somewhat unique, I guess. Emanuele6 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Italian. Romanesco phrase.
Added by an anonymous user, however only kept after passing @User:Catonif's review, as far as I am aware.
Supposedly spelt "a le" rather than alle, also with explicit
{{it-pr|a le tàcche a le tàcche}} IPA(key): /a le ˈtak.ke a le ˈtak.ke/ pronunciation provided.
Can this be verified? Emanuele6 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- Is it like, the vocative a rather than the preposition, perhaps? If so, shouldn't that be stressed? Emanuele6 (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- The form is valid and attested. Roman pronounces la as /°la/, and alla as /ala/ (and same for plural). These pronunciations are also recognised as standard by Canepari. A simple Google search would have shown you various attestations. Must I waste more of my time? Catonif (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- I am rereviewing the pages you already reviewed, because you asked me to... You did see you managed to miss various edits by this user who broke or miscategorised pages (I guess it happens), you even sent me thanks, no? While reviewing, you also missed something like il che[permalink] that should have immediately stuck out as wrong; I guess you weren't as thorough as you thought.
- If you don't want to verify the entry, I guess it won't be verified by you.
- Your explanation for the pronunciation is just as logical saying that it can also be pronounced IPA(key): /a‿l.le ˈtak.ke a le ˈtak.ke/ or IPA(key): /a‿l.le ˈtak.ke a‿l.le ˈtak.ke/ or that "a le tacche alle tacche" or "alle tacche alle tacche" are a valid spelling, though. You keep making these "everything goes" explanations. Emanuele6 (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- And here your implication is supposed to be that "a" in the expression is actually the preposition, and not the vocative prefix which Canepari has as IPA(key): /a/°; how was I supposed to know that? It is not mention anywhere on the page and, if it is the preposition, regardless of how one may pronounce it differently (hopefully the fact that perchè is a mispelling is uncontroversial), the correct spelling is "alle tacche alle tacche (given the only existing definition for tacca/tacche, and the fact that this RFV is but a waste of your time, as the entry is good as is, literally “to the notches, to the notches”)". Emanuele6 (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- The form is valid and attested. Roman pronounces la as /°la/, and alla as /ala/ (and same for plural). These pronunciations are also recognised as standard by Canepari. A simple Google search would have shown you various attestations. Must I waste more of my time? Catonif (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Fala. Aside from a mention in the English Wikipedia, I couldn't find any uses (all hits seem to be misspellings of Spanish península). Santi2222 (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Not an actually attested Old Latin word; I can't find anything on the EDCS database at least. This is really just a reconstruction created to justify one possible etymology of numen. In fact, here it is (p. 150) being treated as a reconstruction. This page should be speedily deleted. Graearms (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC) There are sources on the page numen that do mention this term, potentially satisfying the single mention/use requirement for Latin entries.[1][2] However, these are not genuine Old Latin attestations, but rather later archaicizing forms. Graearms (talk)
- ^ Erasmus, Desiderius, Collected Works of Erasmus University of Toronto Press, 1985, p. 415
- ^ Riccioli, Giovanni Battista, Prosodia Bononiensis Reformata, Typis Seminarii Patavii, 1714, p. 47
Portuguese. Added by Sarilho1 (talk • contribs) but not created. Trooper57 (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
June 2026
[edit]Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "CD". Was the word compacto ever used in reference to CDs? I feel this would have caused confusion, given the earlier sense meaning a 7-inch record. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 17:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
French. Probably just misspellings of frangin, frangine. Jberkel 07:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
July 2026
[edit]Italian. Past participle of splendere with inflections splenduto (feminine splenduta, masculine plural splenduti, feminine plural splendute)
In modern usage, Italian splendere (“to shine”) is generally considered defective and lacks a past participle.
Wiktionary has an entry for past participle (rare) splenduto based on this 2009-03-31 Accademia della Crusca article [1] that mentions that splenduto is rare and conceived only by some dictionaries
(I was not able to find any dictionary actually mentioning splenduto in its splendere entry or having a dedicated entry for splenduto).
AdC, however, never mentions whether splendere is avere- or essere-auxiliary in that article, despite it being crucial information necessary in order to actually use the past participle given that Italian splendere is only intransitive:
- Attributive usage of intransitive verbs' past participles (e.g. in this case "splenduto" = "that shone") is only allowed with essere-auxiliary verbs, and disallowed with avere-auxiliary verbs.
- One has to know the verb's auxiliary in order to use the past participle to form compound tenses
There are many websites and online posts repeating that splenduto exists as a rare form based on that AdC article, but none I have found mention its auxiliary, making that information pretty much useless.
The Italian grammar and language forum Cruscate in its «Splenduto» thread provides some quotation with splenduto, as the compound tenses of this verb did see some use mostly in the 1800s. All of its quotations are using splendere as avere-auxiliary.
Given that splendere is avere-auxiliary, (rare) splenduto can only be used invariably to form compound tenses, and splenduta f sg, splenduti m pl, splendute f pl, for which Wiktionary has entries that have been automatically generated, are not possible. Cfr. Talk:peccata#RFV discussion: June–October 2025
Emanuele6 (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- RfV-failed. avere-auxiliary, intransitive, no inflections. Emanuele6 (talk 12:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Terribly sorry to mention this only now, I should have noticed this sooner. But the verb is indeed attested in older works with essere as its auxiliary, see Citations:splenduta, Citations:splenduti, Citations:splendute, much like risplendere. Catonif (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't get a notification for this because @Catonif did not ping me.
- Rfv-resolved, interesting. Entries will be updated to say that splendere is both avere- and essere-auxiliary. Emanuele6 (talk 22:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- Terribly sorry to mention this only now, I should have noticed this sooner. But the verb is indeed attested in older works with essere as its auxiliary, see Citations:splenduta, Citations:splenduti, Citations:splendute, much like risplendere. Catonif (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Latin. The Latin Wikipedia article says it's a protologism coined by them. Trooper57 (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- Vatican uses Trinitatis et Tobagi [82]. Trooper57 (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: the right hand or foot
The linked Priberam:destra and Aulete:destra only say it means "right hand"; and so do Michaelis:destra and Infopédia:destra→Infopédia:dextra
Does it actually also mean "right foot"? pé (“foot”) is masculine unlike mão (“hand”), which is feminine like destra; so, that seems weird.
This definition used to be just the right hand
: a Brazilian IP added the or foot
part in a 2016 edit Special:Diff/40546046.
Emanuele6 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Adding sestra (“the left hand or foot”) to this RFV. The same IP who added "or foot" to destra in 2016, created this entry (which did not exist before) 1 minute later defining it as such.
- They also defined it as
female equivalent of sestro
which does not make much sense given that sestro is not defined as a noun describing people. - That part was probably copied from destra, which is also defined as the female equivalent of destro meaning right-hand man. Emanuele6 (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've only seen it used this way in football, specifically in "de destra".[83] Trooper57 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- FWIW it is also used in Italian football terminology, but "right foot", "right-foot kick" would be destro given that piede m, calcio m/colpo m/tiro m are all masculine; also in other context, e.g. "a right-hand punch" would be a destro because pugno m is masculine, etc.
- But in Italian destro literally means "right" (adjective for the direction), so that is different from Portuguese. Emanuele6 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: brazil nut tree. I've added this sense because it's in all dictionaries, but I can't attest it. Sounds goofy anyway, castanha-do-pará is the nut, the tree is called castanheira. Trooper57 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- "Castanha-do-pará" as the tree seems legit to me actually. I seem to find more results for "muda de castanha-do-pará" than for "muda de maçã". I agree it sounds weird, but to be fair I'm very very far away from Pará. MedK1 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: Noun: alien
This seems wrong; the only noun senses I have found in dictionaries are:
- singular-only: "o alheio" → that which belongs to others
- plural-only: "os alheios" → people with whom one is not related.
This definition was added by @User:SemperBlotto on 2013-04-19 Special:Diff/20185211.
Emanuele6 (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Plurals of vena porta
[edit]Spanish. plural of vena porta
.
@User:Sucdemagrana in May 2019 created [[vena porta]] with Catalan, Italian, and Spanish definitions Special:Diff/53186657, explicitly using Catalan venes portes, Italian vene porte, and Spanish venas portas as plurals.
@User:DTLHS's User:NadandoBot then also created a page for the Spanish plural in July 2019. [[venas portas]] Special:Diff/53702766
The Italian plural intuitively seems wrong to me, and indeed it appears it is actually supposed to be Italian vene porta as it can also be seen in w:it:vena porta[permalink].
It seems the Spanish plural is wrong as well: it should be venas porta. Emanuele6 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Catalan. venes portes, used in the entry for Catalan vena porta as plural.
[[vena porta]] was created by @User:Sucdemagrana in May 2019 with Catalan, Italian, and Spanish definitions Special:Diff/53186657, explicitly using Catalan venes portes, Italian vene porte, and Spanish venas portas as plurals.
The Italian plural intuitively seems wrong to me, and indeed it appears it is actually supposed to be Italian vene porta as it can also be seen in w:it:vena porta[permalink].
I would think that the Catalan plural should be venes porta as well. Emanuele6 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
French. veines portes, used in the entry for French veine porte as plural.
Added by @User:PUC in 2023 with default plural, so perhaps unintentionally. Special:Diff/75554939
I think the plural should rather be veines porte with porte uninflected: I see no reason why it should inflect.
Compare Italian vena porta sg, vene porta pl, Romanian venă portă sg, vene portă pl, etc. Emanuele6 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. veias portas, used in the entry for Portuguese veia porta as the first of two options for plural: plural veias portas or veias porta
.
Added by @User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV in 2014 Special:Diff/31724524; originally, explicitly with only veias portas as plural, then also adding veias porta as alternative right after.
I think the correct plural should be veias porta with porta uninflected: I see no reason why it should inflect.
Compare Italian vena porta sg, vene porta pl, Romanian venă portă sg, vene portă pl, etc. Emanuele6 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe veias portas is actual correct in Portuguese, since that in Portuguese porta is also the relational adjective for veia porta, unlike in the other language in which it is not an adjective. (in Italian the adjective would be portale, for example; porta is not an adjective)
- In Portuguese, if the correct plural were veias porta, this term should be spelt veia-porta→veias-porta; so maybe, veias porta should even be considered incorrect/nonstandard in Portuguese. Emanuele6 (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Regarding Portuguese, I get lots of hits when looking up "veias portas" on Google. They seem to be from reputable sources and to me, "veias portas" is the only intuitive plural. When this was brought up on Discord initially, I even got the impression that the complaint was regarding "veias porta", which I actually can't justify at all. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. The closest I can think of is some logic akin to that of palavras-chave, but terms like that require hyphens. I don't understand at all why "porta" wouldn't or shouldn't inflect.
- On Discord, Emanuele mentioned the logic behind the -s-less form could be due to seeing "porta" (since it can mean "veia porta" on its own), which isn't really the case in Portuguese... but even if it were, you'd use "artérias aortas" rather than "artérias aorta". I feel the -s-less form needs a label of some sort like nonstandard or proscribed... but it seems like academics have used it, so it can't be the former, and apparently we're the only ones on the internet who have discussed this so far, so it can't be the latter either.
- Maybe we should ask Ciberdúvidas? MedK1 (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Emanuele mentioned the logic behind the -s-less form could be due to seeing "porta" (since it can mean "veia porta" on its own),which isn't really the case in Portuguese
I was actually trying to say the opposite: I was talking about Portuguese there, not other languages, in which as far as I am aware it does not mean that. I was saying that since porta is an adjective too in Portuguese, it may be inflecting because of that.- I got that from Priberam:porta 11. in which it is mentioned that "porta" is a noun and relational adjective for veia porta; I looked at that because Ungoliant mentioned porta as synonym of veia porta so I was looking for confirmation.
- In Italian, that would be portale, while porta would not be an adjective nor mean vena porta on its own.
- Incidentally, note that hyphens are not used in Italian, you normally just juxtapose. Emanuele6 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- For example, the case of Italian vena porta to me intuitively seemed analogous to that of Italian cane guida sg, cani guida pl (see w:it:Cane guida, «I cani guida, conosciuti anche come cani per non vedenti, sono cani da assistenza utilizzati […] »).
- According to Wiktionary, In Portuguese, that would be cão-guia with a hyphen and either cães-guia or cães-guias as plural; although, Wiktionary also lists cão guia, cães guia, and cães guias as valid spellings per Ungoliant.
- Italian cani guide does not make sense to me, and sounds improbable. Emanuele6 (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- The hyphenated spelling is the only correct form. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 05:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- porta in this term might behave like padrão (a noun that can act as modifier), as in configuração padrão. Except that padrão (for me) preferably doesn’t inflect, so it’s kind of the opposite. I’m not sure what the reason is for e.g. norma-padrão to be hyphenated (it might follow a different logic? maybe padrão is not a modifier there?), but that also has two plurals normas-padrão and normas-padrões according to VOLP, as could be expected. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 05:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Latin cadaverivorus
[edit]Not found in Logeion and no quotes or citations. Pinging page creator @Zhnka. Graearms (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Attested in New Latin. Saumache (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- I found it in many outcomes when searching the internet (e.g. http://www.lateinlexikon.com/lexicon_latinum_hodiernum_01_ab.pdf). I forgot to label it as New Latin. I don't think there will be more problems then. Can I remove the "rfv"? Zhnka (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- You may remove it, though you could go a step further and add attestations using
{{quote-book}}. Saumache (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC) - I've added a quote and removed the rfv. Graearms (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- You may remove it, though you could go a step further and add attestations using
Latin. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- I tried scouring some social media sites to see if anyone was using it and found nothing. I'm inclined to suggests that this entry should just be speedily deleted. Graearms (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "former unit of currency used in Spain and its colonies". Is the plural reais correct? — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 02:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: the time of thirty minutes past any particular hour. Are you sure this is true, @Davi6596? The corresponding sense in English is used like the half-hour. I don’t think this exists in a similar way in Portuguese – googling "anunciou a meia hora" showed translations from English. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 04:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Trooper57 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- “juru”, in Dicionário Infopédia da Língua Portuguesa (in Portuguese), Porto: Porto Editora, 2003–2026
- → Entry with no defintion
- “juru”, in Dicionário Priberam da Língua Portuguesa (in Portuguese), Lisbon: Priberam, 2008–2026
- “juru”, in Dicionário Aulete Digital (in Portuguese), Rio de Janeiro: Lexikon Editora Digital, 2008–2026
- “juru”, in Michaelis Dicionário Brasileiro da Língua Portuguesa (in Portuguese), São Paulo: Editora Melhoramentos, 2015–2026, →ISBN
- “juru”, in Dicionário Infopédia da Língua Portuguesa (in Portuguese), Porto: Porto Editora, 2003–2026
- So here are three dictionaries claiming it is a term from "parrot" (one not in the cleanest of ways), but none claiming it means "Paraguayan" as Special:Contributions/~2026-42426-33 does. Emanuele6 (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- If we assume Aulete typoed "ajuru" as "ajurur", Aulete:ajuru² is a term used to describe the Ajurú indigenous people, belonging to the north-east of the Brazilian state of Rondônia, and their Tupian language, also known as Wayoró per Wikipedia.
- However, Rondônia is quite far from Paraguay. Emanuele6 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think they mixed up papagaio and paraguaio I just realized 😭 Trooper57 (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- I also thought about that earlier! That may actually be what happened. 😭 Emanuele6 (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think they mixed up papagaio and paraguaio I just realized 😭 Trooper57 (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Resolved. Please check the entry to see if it’s to your satisfaction. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 12:19, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
August 2026
[edit]Italian. The offending edit was performed by User:~2025-37581-79, one of the many alternative account of a now currently-blocked vandal (only a few infractions though, don't tell me otherwise!) User:~2026-20489-99, whom our @User:Catonif personally outright claims he thinks is @User:Giorgio Patrizi Special:PermaLink/90755128#c-Catonif-20260512202700-Emanuele6-20260505232300. (incidentally, it was not Catonif who blocked this user; I am just surprised as you are about someone daring to do such a thing to them)
They changed {{it-pr|dóppo}} in this page to {{it-pr|dòppo}} (to reiterate, removing the former); in spite of all dictionaries I have looked at claiming the pronunciation being "dóppo", including the linked further reading.
I even happen to know that loZingarelli 2017 only mentions dóppo in spite of its mentioning also dòpo as alternative pronunciation.
- Nicola Zingarelli (2016), “♦dópo o (-ò-) o †dóppo”, in lo Zingarelli 2017, Vocabolario della lingua italiana (in Italian), Zanichelli, →ISBN, page 737
I know this because today I wanted to add dopo's common adjectival usage to Wiktionary's entry, after noticing it was missing and realising that it was not possible to use Portuguese depois in the same way, so I made the decision to read a dictionary first. Then to be greeted by broken links in the page's etymology section added by yet another alt: User:~2026-33131-15, which somehow managed to not be blocked and remain active.
They seem to have made this pronunciation change in order to support, months later, their unsourced (dare I say, possibly made-up; either that or plagiarism, right?) claim, added using the aforementioned alt, about the very common IPA(key): /ˈdɔpo/ pronunciation of dopo (/ˈdopo/) supposedly probably deriving from doppo which they claim being pronounced IPA(key): /ˈdɔppo/, not IPA(key): /ˈdoppo/. Special:Diff/91214883 The open pronunciation is probably after the variant doppo.
.
What does Wiktionary want to do about this claim up for verification, the user's decision to remove the standard pronunciation prescribed by dictionaries, and the unsourced -ò- pronunciation added supporting the claim made, by the same person on a different account, in dopo's etymology section?
Emanuele6 (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- The form dòppo is evidenced by the AIS. I removed the open vowel claim from dopo's etymology. Catonif (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- And that makes it OK to add that pronunciation specifically to the pronunciation section as you did? It does not seem to me that it should. Emanuele6 (talk 04:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, on the other hand, it's not OK to delete sourced information (diff). Revert yourself. Catonif (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Why can you add IPA(key): /ˈdɔp.po/, while not adding IPA(key): /ˈdɔp.pu/ also present in the AIS map you added to further reading? Emanuele6 (talk 08:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Sure thing! Feel free. Catonif (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- You say it is so, but I don't believe it is so as I already said. Emanuele6 (talk 08:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- How come? Is this not prescriptivism? Catonif (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please point to the relevant Wiktionary policy. Or declare yourself automatically right per Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2026/August#Official_explanation_regarding_block, so at least I can know what is going on. Emanuele6 (talk 09:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- The relevant policy is WT:NOT #2, granted it is poorly worded. Catonif (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- How is that relevant with regard to you taking a random pronunciation from an AIS map and adding it to the pronunciation section of an entry? Emanuele6 (talk 09:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Because from what I understand you do not want to list it because it's not "standard", but this is irrelevant to its inclusion, I had explicitly marked the pronunciation as "dialectal". Why should it not be listed? Catonif (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- I still do not get what should allow you to pick a random pronunciation from the AIS map for "dopo cena", and selectively add it to the pronunciation section of doppo as if it is a dialectal pronunciation only going off that, even if it is done in the manner in which you did it, which to be clear is:
- I still do not get what should allow you to pick a random pronunciation from the AIS map for "dopo cena", and selectively add it to the pronunciation section of doppo as if it is a dialectal pronunciation only going off that, even if it is done in the manner in which you did it, which to be clear is:
- Because from what I understand you do not want to list it because it's not "standard", but this is irrelevant to its inclusion, I had explicitly marked the pronunciation as "dialectal". Why should it not be listed? Catonif (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- How is that relevant with regard to you taking a random pronunciation from an AIS map and adding it to the pronunciation section of an entry? Emanuele6 (talk 09:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- The relevant policy is WT:NOT #2, granted it is poorly worded. Catonif (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please point to the relevant Wiktionary policy. Or declare yourself automatically right per Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2026/August#Official_explanation_regarding_block, so at least I can know what is going on. Emanuele6 (talk 09:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- How come? Is this not prescriptivism? Catonif (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- You say it is so, but I don't believe it is so as I already said. Emanuele6 (talk 08:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Sure thing! Feel free. Catonif (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Why can you add IPA(key): /ˈdɔp.po/, while not adding IPA(key): /ˈdɔp.pu/ also present in the AIS map you added to further reading? Emanuele6 (talk 08:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, on the other hand, it's not OK to delete sourced information (diff). Revert yourself. Catonif (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- And that makes it OK to add that pronunciation specifically to the pronunciation section as you did? It does not seem to me that it should. Emanuele6 (talk 04:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- (Notifying workgroup: Benwing2, GianWiki, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma, Catonif, Trimpulot): Emanuele6 (talk 16:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- The manner in which I did, to be clearer, is
{{it-pr|dóppo<pre:{{a|it|obsolete|now|dialectal}}>|dòppo<pre:{{a|it|dialectal}}>}}. If the problem is that just the AIS is not enough, I added some quotes which attest the open vowel dialectally, luckily they wrote those accents out. I would also cite the LEI, but the volume that contains post has yet to come out. Catonif (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC) - Considering that the AIS pronunciations of dopo cena are apparently meant to illustrate the pronunciation of variations for both cena and dopo (as evidenced by them being found under the two separate entries cena and dopo), it doesn't seem strange to me that one could use it as a reference to add a dialectal pronunciation, especially since it was marked as such.
Also, it's rather unclear what the issue here is actually supposed to be: adding data backed up by valid sources is pretty much the core of this project. As for "Why add this form and not this other one?", I don't understand what the point of the question is. Do you mean there should've been more dialectal pronunciations added? Please elaborate on what you think the problem is. GianWiki (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)- @GianWiki I don't get why any pronunciation on an AIS map should be a "dialectal" or "now dialectal" pronunciation, which was the only justification given by @Catonif, and was also said about IPA(key): /ˈdɔp.pu/.
- It is not like "dopo" is pronounced like something that one would sensibly transcribe as IPA(key): /ˈdob/, /ˈdɔp/, /ˈdɔ.pʊ/, /ˈdo.pu/ as shown on the map, around here: a transcription for the common pronunciation that would make sense would be IPA(key): /ˈdɔ.po/.
- The quotations added with the "dòppo" spelling are even older than the AIS map.
- How is a IPA(key): /ˈdɔp.po/ transcription labelled "dialectal"/"now dialectal" supposed to be interpreted? Emanuele6 (talk 15:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- You list all those pronunciations as if we'd agree they shouldn't be listed, but in fact all dialects should be documented. The monosyllabic forms in particular seem to be above the Massa-Senigallia line, but all the others rightly fall within Italian. The -u forms should rather be listed under dopu and doppu in my opinion. Meanwhile, though in Rome we mostly say dòpo now (though dòppo still exist: 2021), the form is documented in Orvieto by AIS (and they still say it: 2004, 2020) which also lists Tagliacozzo, and outside of AIS also found in Castiglione in Teverina (dictionary), as well as all the dialects which don't have the luck of being digitised and indexed by search engines. Catonif (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- I listed those pronunciations because those are the ones that are supposedly local to me, as I said…
- Taking pronunciations from AIS maps and blinding adding them, labelling them "now dialectal", as phonemic transcriptions hardly seems like documenting dialects, and I don't see what it has to do with being descriptive. Emanuele6 (talk 19:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is not clear what is still troubling you. I changed "obsolete, now dialectal" to "obsolete or dialectal" since that "now" appeared to bother you. Besides that I don't understand how you can call my actions blind after all the sources provided. Can I put the pronunciation back? Catonif (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- You list all those pronunciations as if we'd agree they shouldn't be listed, but in fact all dialects should be documented. The monosyllabic forms in particular seem to be above the Massa-Senigallia line, but all the others rightly fall within Italian. The -u forms should rather be listed under dopu and doppu in my opinion. Meanwhile, though in Rome we mostly say dòpo now (though dòppo still exist: 2021), the form is documented in Orvieto by AIS (and they still say it: 2004, 2020) which also lists Tagliacozzo, and outside of AIS also found in Castiglione in Teverina (dictionary), as well as all the dialects which don't have the luck of being digitised and indexed by search engines. Catonif (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- The manner in which I did, to be clearer, is
- (Notifying workgroup: Benwing2, GianWiki, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma, Catonif, Trimpulot): Emanuele6 (talk 16:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- do i have a say in this, for i am italian and roman and i know how my dialect works? ~2026-33131-15 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Requested in 2021 by @User:Sarilho1 Special:Diff/64980635 without creating a discussion.
Reason given: I only know of "sse"; that's also the one mentioned in Wikipédia
Link to wikipedia: w:pt:sse → w:pt:Se e somente se
Currently mentioned as synonym in Portuguese sse, and as a translation of English iff.
Portuguese se e somente se mentions as only synonym SSS in uppercase (there is no Portuguese entry for SSS).
Mildly (barely even) related discussion: Talk:sii#"sii" is the Spanish equivalent of the English iff from 2010. (please take a look if you want, especially if you are a native Spanish speaker)
Emanuele6 (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Mauritian Creole. Alt spelling that's not found in the source that's given. Ultimateria (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Mauritian Creole. Alt spelling not found in the source that was given. Ultimateria (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Mauritian Creole meaning "uncle", from Hindi. I'm only seeing mamou and mame. Ultimateria (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- RFV-failed sense. Ultimateria (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Mauritian Creole. Not seeing these anywhere; all dictionaries give pares for "laziness", "lazy", and "lazy person". Ultimateria (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Latin. Usually used in the plural; there's no citation yet showing the use of a unique nominative form "mammal" as opposed to the adjective form, mammale. The latter form is attested as a noun in the Corpus Corporum corpus ("quando Mammale aliquod totalem habitum »exlernum« pisciformem induit, uti observatur in balaenis", Frank, Carolus, Philosophia naturalis (1949)). The noun animal has a syncopated nominative singular form but that does not make it safe to assume other words referring to specific groups of animals will take the same endings when used as nouns.--Urszag (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Latin. As with mammal, the supplied citation doesn't demonstrate the use of a syncopated nominative singular form for the noun, as opposed to using marsupiale, the same form as the adjective.--Urszag (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Mauritian Creole. RFV-sense all noun senses: plus, addition, benefit, advantage. Ultimateria (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Mauritian Creole. Rfv-sense: "amused, entertained". I would expect this to be amize, but the dictionaries don't even have that as an adjective. Ultimateria (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- 2nd person commenting for the people count. o/ Emanuele6 (talk 04:32, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Latin. Nominated by User:Graearms. Rationale was "This word simply does not exist. Nothing appears in EDCS and nothing on Logeion either. Looking through the page history, it clearly shows that this page was created it error when a user moved aivom here, presumably so as to conform to their idea of Old Latin spelling". Ultimateria (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Proper noun: Big Brother
Created by @User:Veeatrix on 2026-08-11.
English Big Brother has no "Proper noun" definition, so this definition does not make sense. (the 1984 character failed RfV in 2014 Talk:Big_Brother#RFV_discussion:_April–July_2014)
Grande Irmão is listed as translation of the following senses of noun Big Brother:
unwarranted and invasive government surveillance
authority representing oppressive control
Are those translations correct? Should it be redefined as Noun or just deleted?
o/ Emanuele6 (talk 03:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- A proper noun sense would fail RFD. Using corpusdoportugues.org, I’ve found a few citations that are equivalent to the English term’s noun senses (I looked specifically for uses in articles that did not reference 1984 or the Big Brother show, which would be examples of proper noun uses with a different definition). — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 21:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
Spanish. Proper noun: Big Brother
Created on 2015-03-21 by a @User:Wonderfool alt. (ping @User:Vealhurl)
English Big Brother has no "Proper noun" definition, so this definition does not make sense. (the 1984 character failed RfV in 2014 Talk:Big_Brother#RFV_discussion:_April–July_2014)
Gran Hermano is listed as translation of the following senses of noun Big Brother:
unwarranted and invasive government surveillance
authority representing oppressive control
Are those translations correct? Should it be redefined as Noun or just deleted?
o/ Emanuele6 (talk 03:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
Struck. Changed to noun, not an RFV issue. —User:Vealhurl (talk 09:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)- Unstruck. Does it actually exist as noun though? 😭 Emanuele6 (talk 09:08, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Sure, it's mega-common. So trivially citeable that I'm not citing it. —User:Vealhurl (talk 19:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Unstruck. Does it actually exist as noun though? 😭 Emanuele6 (talk 09:08, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Considering it's uppercase, shouldn't Spanish, English and French all have it as a proper noun? MedK1 (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- Proper nouns aren’t defined by capitalization. We have a page somewhere that says this explicitly, but it's also mentioned at WT:NAMES and Appendix:Glossary#proper noun. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 19:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Early Medieval Latin (was Medieval Latin).
This entry has many Romance inherited descendants such as Italian pipita and Portuguese pevide.
Treccani:pipita says that the Italian term is inherited from unattested *pipīta.
Wiktionary seems to consider pīpīta attested solely based on its inclusion in a Latin-Greek glossary:
The aforementioned glossary seems to be the du Cange; here is its pipita entry. (note, without macrons)
As far as I understand, that glossary is dated no earlier than 1600 (du Cange was born in 1610), so that would not really make it attested in Early Medieval or Medieval Latin.
o/ Emanuele6 (talk 03:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Other Italian pipita etymologies:
- “pipita”, in Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, volume 13 perf–po, UTET, 1986, pages 538—539
From Late Latin pipīta, per Classical Latin pituīta (compare pituita), for its stringy look
.
- Nicola Zingarelli (2016), “pipita”, in lo Zingarelli 2017, Vocabolario della lingua italiana (in Italian), Zanichelli, →ISBN, page 1706
From Late Latin pipīta(m), per Classical Latin pituīta(m) (Italian pituita), for its stringy loop. First attested in Italian: before 1320
.
- “pipita”, in Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, volume 13 perf–po, UTET, 1986, pages 538—539
- Some Portuguese pevide etymologies:
- “pevide”, in Dicionário Infopédia da Língua Portuguesa (in Portuguese), Porto: Porto Editora, 2003–2026
From Vulgar Latin *pipīta-, per pituīta- (Portuguese mucosidade, pituíta)
- “pevide”, in Dicionário Priberam da Língua Portuguesa (in Portuguese), Lisbon: Priberam, 2008–2026
- “pevide”, in Michaelis Dicionário Brasileiro da Língua Portuguesa (in Portuguese), São Paulo: Editora Melhoramentos, 2015–2026, →ISBN
Vulgar Latin alteration of pituitam
.
- “pevide”, in Dicionário Infopédia da Língua Portuguesa (in Portuguese), Porto: Porto Editora, 2003–2026
- Emanuele6 (talk 11:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- The date of Du Cange's publication is not the date of the gloss. When Du Cange says "Κόρυζα, in Gloss. Lat. Græc.", it is saying that the term is attested in a prior Latin-Greek glossary: the source abbreviated as "Gloss. Lat. Græc.". This might be the one mentioned by Lindsay in this article.--Urszag (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. That is good to know. Emanuele6 (talk 20:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- The date of Du Cange's publication is not the date of the gloss. When Du Cange says "Κόρυζα, in Gloss. Lat. Græc.", it is saying that the term is attested in a prior Latin-Greek glossary: the source abbreviated as "Gloss. Lat. Græc.". This might be the one mentioned by Lindsay in this article.--Urszag (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: Adjective: easy-peasy
Added on 2016-03-09: Special:Diff/37533389.
There is no doubt that ser moleza is used in this sense, however I was wondering if the Adjective POS is actually correct.
For example, I don't think one could say "um serviço moleza", "um serviço não moleza", "algo moleza", "algo não moleza", etc.
I think this could just be an uncountable noun.
It is also used to mean "easy" uncountably, albeit as part of a double entendre, in the phrase quer moleza, senta no pudim, for example, and there it cannot be seem as an adjective.
If it really cannot be used like that, I propose moving it to an uncountable noun sense; the gloss could be something like smooth sailing.
o/ Emanuele6 (talk 05:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- True enough, I find "serviço moleza" to be a little odd (não moleza even more so), but I think it can be used that way. MedK1 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- That's even more hilarious than "ser moleza" already is! Emanuele6 (talk 16:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Galician. I couldn't attest it nor find it in any dictionaries besides Estraviz. MedK1 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
September 2026
[edit]Romanian: "steel". There is a DEX entry, but it means something different. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Arguablynotalex — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 17:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Spanish. Rfv-sense:
the sense "commodity", not attested in the RAE, cannot find any other evidence of this meaning — This unsigned comment was added by ~2026-49195-08 (talk).
Spanish.
The "very" sense is correct. The other definition given "apocopic form of mucho" may be appropriate for the etymology section but in the modern language "muy" and "mucho" are distinct words and not different forms of the same word. — This unsigned comment was added by ~2026-49195-08 (talk).
No quotes or citations. Pinging @Regnaeus, the page creator. Graearms (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
French. Likely made up by the TA who added it. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. Not in any French dictionary, and I couldn't find any good examples online. Io Katai (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Alternative form of Portuguese alumina (“alumina; aluminium oxide”).
Created by @User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV on 2015-08-11 Special:Diff/33812718.
Emanuele6 (talk 08:59, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as Ungoliantslop. Trooper57 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- My brief search came up empty. This could be an old form in some way, but accents only appeared in the mid 20th-century, so we could never know. No dictionary recognizes it, and it doesn’t seem to exist modernly either. So delete. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 23:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. I changed it to pre-reform spelling, but realized just now this would be pronounced [uˈza]. It was actually spelled ussá back in the day.
Added by Stríðsdrengur. Trooper57 (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
October 2026
[edit]Italian. Sense: “(colloquial) pronunciation spelling of non”. Removed out of process today by @PIcchiettoderoma. J3133 (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- the correct spelling is n', not 'n, because it's non getting elided as n(on), in the same way per becomes p' and con > c'. PIcchiettoderoma (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- @PIcchiettoderoma: Because non, unlike per and con, begins and ends with the same letter, it can also be analyzed as (no)n if it is attested (which is the purpose of this RfV). J3133 (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- nobody can attest the logic inside the brain reducing non to n, whether is it cutting off the first two sounds, the last two sounds, or simply sincopating the o and merging the two n's (which is possible, as sometimes the particle geminates by itself: in the sentence "a le vorte nn'abbasta", "sometimes it's not enough", with a doubled n although vorte doesn't trigger any doubling. i hence suppose it stems from n(o)n becoming a syllabic n). but for example, in rome, where this elision is mostly used and is probably where it was born and/or popularised, we have this process: nun lo so ("idk") > nullo so (nl > ll) > nu lo so (ll lenites to l. compare quelo for quello, inteligente for intelligente) [and further: > noo so (u_o assimilates to o_o) > no so (the long vowel shortens)]. we can argue that for the same logic for which con lo > cóllo > co lo, and per la > pélla > pe la, and then co > c', pe > p', and ne ("of it", which is already a full form) becomes n', nu becomes n' as well. in neapolitan, for example, they treat con and non similarly: con becomes co and then cu (and it triggers gemin.), and non becomes nun, and then nu (trigg. gem. as well, sometimes). they say cu mme, cu tte (with me, with you), and also nu (v)veco, nu (s)sento (ion see, ion hear). you could argue that many vernaculars show rather a reduction of non~nun to on~un, for example: florentine un(n), calabrian on, sicilian unn. then, since all these vernaculars tend to elide initial vowels when followed by a nasal (importante > mportante), it's likely un(n)~on turns into 'n by this logic. anyways, people today (besides simply omitting the apostrophes, for example writing ne pe me instead of n'è pe me, "it aint for me") tend to write n' instead of 'n (which is perceived very old fashioned AND proscribable. PIcchiettoderoma (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- @PIcchiettoderoma: We are attesting 'n here, not “the logic inside the brain reducing non”. Note that we remove entries or senses by process (RfD or RfV), if you were unaware. J3133 (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- alr dude PIcchiettoderoma (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- @PIcchiettoderoma: The relevant policies are Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion and Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines. If you have removed content in any other entries, those edits should also be reverted and the disputed sense or entry added to RfV. J3133 (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- yeah nah i just happened to remove a bunch of request for verification for things that are like mate, i am the source and i know what i’m writin, i know about the matter i’m editing far more than any other past scholar and pseudo ones (which are the majority, for example, in the field of the roman dialect), because i read em all and i am from rome myself, and know about surrounding varieties and romance langs in general. so yes idk, maybe you take a look PIcchiettoderoma (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I looked through your edits and didn’t find anything else involving RfV. But if you have removed content or the RfV tag from entries out of process (perhaps while logged out), that’s not okay. If something exists, then it ought to be attestable; and if it doesn’t, an RfV will show it isn’t. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- yeah no i did it with the other acc thats been banned so alr PIcchiettoderoma (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I looked through your edits and didn’t find anything else involving RfV. But if you have removed content or the RfV tag from entries out of process (perhaps while logged out), that’s not okay. If something exists, then it ought to be attestable; and if it doesn’t, an RfV will show it isn’t. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 16:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- yeah nah i just happened to remove a bunch of request for verification for things that are like mate, i am the source and i know what i’m writin, i know about the matter i’m editing far more than any other past scholar and pseudo ones (which are the majority, for example, in the field of the roman dialect), because i read em all and i am from rome myself, and know about surrounding varieties and romance langs in general. so yes idk, maybe you take a look PIcchiettoderoma (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- @PIcchiettoderoma: The relevant policies are Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion and Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines. If you have removed content in any other entries, those edits should also be reverted and the disputed sense or entry added to RfV. J3133 (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- alr dude PIcchiettoderoma (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- @PIcchiettoderoma: We are attesting 'n here, not “the logic inside the brain reducing non”. Note that we remove entries or senses by process (RfD or RfV), if you were unaware. J3133 (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- nobody can attest the logic inside the brain reducing non to n, whether is it cutting off the first two sounds, the last two sounds, or simply sincopating the o and merging the two n's (which is possible, as sometimes the particle geminates by itself: in the sentence "a le vorte nn'abbasta", "sometimes it's not enough", with a doubled n although vorte doesn't trigger any doubling. i hence suppose it stems from n(o)n becoming a syllabic n). but for example, in rome, where this elision is mostly used and is probably where it was born and/or popularised, we have this process: nun lo so ("idk") > nullo so (nl > ll) > nu lo so (ll lenites to l. compare quelo for quello, inteligente for intelligente) [and further: > noo so (u_o assimilates to o_o) > no so (the long vowel shortens)]. we can argue that for the same logic for which con lo > cóllo > co lo, and per la > pélla > pe la, and then co > c', pe > p', and ne ("of it", which is already a full form) becomes n', nu becomes n' as well. in neapolitan, for example, they treat con and non similarly: con becomes co and then cu (and it triggers gemin.), and non becomes nun, and then nu (trigg. gem. as well, sometimes). they say cu mme, cu tte (with me, with you), and also nu (v)veco, nu (s)sento (ion see, ion hear). you could argue that many vernaculars show rather a reduction of non~nun to on~un, for example: florentine un(n), calabrian on, sicilian unn. then, since all these vernaculars tend to elide initial vowels when followed by a nasal (importante > mportante), it's likely un(n)~on turns into 'n by this logic. anyways, people today (besides simply omitting the apostrophes, for example writing ne pe me instead of n'è pe me, "it aint for me") tend to write n' instead of 'n (which is perceived very old fashioned AND proscribable. PIcchiettoderoma (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- @PIcchiettoderoma: Because non, unlike per and con, begins and ends with the same letter, it can also be analyzed as (no)n if it is attested (which is the purpose of this RfV). J3133 (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Only in Spanish? Probably Ungoliantslop like alúmina. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 11:26, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. This is Old Galician-Portuguese and as far as I know not attested in modern Portuguese (i.e., after the year 1500). I removed the following mistaken Etymology section.
Borrowed of Old Galician-Portuguese res, from the nominative of Latin rēs (“thing, property”). Cognate with Aragonese, Asturian, Catalan, Spanish, and Galician res.
Ping creator @Fernando Almada Roque — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 17:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. I was going to say this is a rare synonym of isapostólico, but it seems even that isn’t really attestable. Created by @~2026-53860-30 — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 19:23, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Spanish. Is this attestestable? I can only find other unrelated regional senses. --[Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 21:04, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Italian. Barely present online, not found in dictionaries. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 09:25, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Italian. Same as above. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 09:31, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Latin. Lurker 320698738032 (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. That's the stage name of singer José Lima Sobrinho, not a given name. I don't think there's anyone called "Chitãozinho". Trooper57 (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed not, according to the 2022 Brazilian census. I wonder why Navarro decided to include that in his dictionary. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 23:03, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese.
Portuguese.
French. Originally marked for speedy as an uncommon misspelling, seems like it should formally go through process. Vininn126 (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Michif. I can find a couple of Facebook posts about it, but nothing durably archived. Thadh (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged by Sarilho1. Pinging @MedK1, Stríðsdrengur, OweOwnAwe. Jacaguoçãrana (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
- Easily attestable after a quick Google search. MedK1 (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- It's not a bad idea to add quotes, though. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 13:18, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Spanish. English failed RFV. Ultimateria (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete, there's Appendix:Minecraft/netherite for that. Trooper57 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Adding netherita. Ping creator @Randomcanarian for their opinion on whether these can satisfy WT:FICTION (I wouldn’t think so). — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 17:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Latin. Rationale was "I could not find this exact form in any dictionary hosted by Logeion". Ultimateria (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Saumache: while this edit is not without merit, it didn't follow an ideal process. It's better to avoid as much as possible copy-pasting content, because if the page is deleted, you'll have removed all of the attribution for prior edits. If a move is warranted, it would be better to flag the non-lemma page lautumiae for deletion and then perform a move of lautumia to the newly freed lautumiae.--Urszag (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- I see one mention in a Medieval Latin grammatical work via Corpus Corporum: . Hugutius Pisanus, Derivationes (1160) lists "hec latumia" and "hec lautumia" as a derivative of the word "laos". The word itself seems pretty rare, though ("lautumiae", "lautumias", "lautumiis", while attested, have fewer than a hundred hits together). I can see an argument for using either the attested plural or the unattested singular as the lemma.--Urszag (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- I never thought about what you said regarding copy-pasting.
- I would prioritize classical forms.
- I would lemmatize a term as a plurale tantum if it is chiefly attested used so.
- Saumache (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Latin. I found no examples of this accusative singular form.--Urszag (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Does it really exist outside the expresion de bom-tom? French only has de bon ton. Trooper57 (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- I've just found hits for em alto e bom tom, which is like an eggcorn of em alto e bom som. Trooper57 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Portuguese. Ungoliantslop. Trooper57 (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
- From UPAs + anti- + ar, literally, “anti-air emergency care units”. — Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ · 14:12, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
French. Does this spelling coexist with annélide? ‑‑Lambiam 11:31, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
French. Looks like a bogus spelling, with a nonsensical etymology to boot. PUC – 19:45, 3 November 2026 (UTC)