Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/September

It says: "The use for a religious leader is colloquial as a means of respect. There is no official title." I don't quite understand this. Could it be made more clear and helpful? Equinox ◑ 02:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's trying to say that being Sheik So-and-so is not a formal office like being Cardinal Jones or Father/Reverend Smith (where you have to be ordained and can be defrocked) but an honorific anybody can use. I agree the current wording is unclear, but I'm not sure how to clarify it. - -sche (discuss) 02:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These two words are listed as alternates of each other in the alternative forms section, but their definition doesn't at all utilize {{alternative form of}}. What's up with that? Is it because they represent different pronunciations as opposed to just being different spellings? MedK1 (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MedK1: Yes, in theory only one form should be the main form, but not all entries here respect that. When you find such instances, you can make one form the "main form" (usually the oldest / most complete, here tiburón), and then link to it with {{alternative form of}}.– Jberkel 08:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was contemplating the unsatisfactory discussions about the meaning of the noun 'cobble' (or even its verb form) and my mind runs to 'bble' suffixes that imply units in a state of decoherence, an aggregate of like components: stubble, rubble, rabble, kibble, pebble, nibble, babble, bubble, nubble...and shifting to an unvoiced consonant, stipple, scrapple, dapple, tipple (coal), apple, etc. Cobble in this sense might have indicated a surface regardless of the material, and a cobbled pavement of smooth stones, cobblestone, would have been a specific example of the form.

Just mulling things over but I aleady like this direction better than anything I've read anywhere. Lanquestrian (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past 4 days someone editing from several Saudi Arabian IP addresses made a whole lot of changes to entries on this page, including something about Old English inheritance of this Christian term from Proto-West Germanic, which was utter hogwash. I reverted all of it, but I suspect that some of the worst nonsense may be due to confusion about language codes and templates. The usual sources I would consult for some of the languages in question don't cover proper nouns, so I have no way to tell what, if anything, might be salvageable (or at least plausible).

I would appreciate it if those who know something about medieval northwestern Europe would take a look. Pinging a few names that come to mind: @Hazarasp, Mahagaja, Mnemosientje, Leasnam, Nicodene. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far I see in the Japanese 中国 entry, I don't see the significant difference between the etymology 1 and etymology 2 entries as it share the same etymology and pronunciation. Is it better to be merged as one etymology? Thanks. Xbypass (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the parts have the same origin, but in the first etymology, they were already combined as the name of China, which was borrowed as a single term. In the second etymology the parts were borrowed individually, then combined in Japanese. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've been doing this on other pages too .... see 草鞋 for an extreme example. Its possible that there is a good reason for this, though I wouldnt know .... if different modern pronunciations indicate subsequent reborrowings of the same compound, then I suppose we could consider them to be separate etymologies and maybe even separate words, but maybe there is a more technical reason why we split them up. —Soap— 13:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: Japanese 草鞋, note that this spelling has seven distinct pronunciations, with differences in derivation, meaning, usage, etc. I don't think these can be merged easily without making a mess of an entry. As other examples of single spellings with multiple readings, see also 柄 and 生.
• Re: Japanese 中国, it is much as Chuck describes -- one sense ("China") came into Japanese as an integral whole, borrowed in toto from Chinese. The other sense ("the Chūgoku region of Japan") may well be a coinage in Japanese based on the Middle Chinese components, deriving from the underlying spelling sense of "middle of the country", as mentioned here in the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten, in sense section [2]. Further down that same page at Kotobank, we have the Daijisen entry, which explicitly breaks out the two senses into two separate derivation sections. My local copies of Daijirin and Kōjien split things up similarly.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this one. The main entry terramare and its alt terramara are both frequently used countably (e.g. "two different terramares"), and I've updated them to show this. But this one is called a proper noun and has a capital letter! Equinox ◑ 23:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by Wikipedia's article, w:Terramare culture, it looks like the uppercase Terramare is the name for the ancient technology complex or culture that produced the lowercase terramares. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Jberkel, Svjatysberega, Cpt.Guapo, Munmula, Koavf, Sarilho1 Do any of you happen to know of a good online source for Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation? The only one I've found is the Collins Portuguese-English dictionary, and I don't totally trust it. None of the major online monolingual Brazilian Portuguese dictionaries I know of (e.g. Michaelis, Aulete, Dicio) list pronunciations. For European Portuguese, Infopedia lists IPA pronunciations and Priberam has partial pronunciation info. In this case I was looking to verify the existing pronunciation for governo that lists the first vowel as both /o/ and /u/, and e.g. to know whether the version with /u/ is found in dictionaries or is just an informal Carioca pronunciation or something (Collins lists only /o/). Benwing2 (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At под (pod) it is claimed (without usage examples) that it can mean ‘used for’, taking the instrumental in this sense. However, at ru:под, the only section describing this and illustrating this sense seems to be:

указывает на предмет, для хранения, размещения, нахождения которого что-либо предназначено, используется

◆ Участок под строительство.

◆ Оставить участок под картофель.

◆ Отвести помещение под музей.

◆ Приспособить ящик под стол.

◆ Тумбочка под телевизор.

◆ Земля под хлеб.

◆ Готовый под посев.

◆ Маленькую комнату отвели под спальню.

◆ Участок решено отдать под строительство бассейна.

◆ Эта корзина под картошку.

If I am not mistaken these are all accusative, and moreover, in the section of en:под devoted to the accusative we find:

1. for, suitable as

   уча́сток под строи́тельство ― učástok pod stroítelʹstvo ― land for construction

which matches the first example at ru:под. Am I right in thinking the sense under the instrumental is an error and should be scrapped? And might we perhaps copy a few of the other usage examples from ru:под? PJTraill (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PJTraill:: Yes. As it does not have any example to make sense out of it for me as a native speaker, and contradicts that other gloss. Fay Freak (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak: Thanks for the confirmation; I have edited the page as I suggested, but commented out two usage examples whose translation (from DeepL) I was unsure about. PJTraill (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr: This entry lists two pronunciations, [a̠ʑi] and [ɾ]. Is the second one, with no vowels, correct? - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the talk page of the person who added that, you'll see a post from me titled "Huh?". My guess is they thought they were supplying some kind of technical parameter, though there might be misreading of references involved. The likelihood of actual correct content is very low... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As Chuck notes, the second one is a typo at best. This mistaken pronunciation shows up in this edit from 2020-02-25 by Dingo1234555 (talk • contribs). This particular entry was not on my watchlist, and thus I haven't seen this before.

I'll see about reworking the entry tomorrow (it is late here and I should probably get some sleep ;) ). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People whose native language is Salar and trying to make a standart written language do not use the letter x, considering it unnecessary. Because the letters k and q are read like x if they are at the end of the syllable or at middle of the word. In other words, when I write oqa, it will be read as oxa, since there is no other word for oqa due to phonology. Or when I type damaq it won't be confused with another word due to phonology. Likewise ehmek is the same. Already as q/k when the sound starts at the beginning of a syllable, such as başqa, qara. Considering that the Salars also do not use this letter, I am in favor of writing the sounds x as q and k. BurakD53 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, Ma Wei (2014) writes both IPA /q/ and /qʰ/ with q, while Lin Lianyun writes IPA /q/ with g and /qʰ/ with q. Ma Wei gave the letter g only for IPA /k/, and there are no Turkic words with the letter g containing back vowels in this way. That's why I think the /q/ sound should be written with the letter g. It will not be confused with /k/ because that sound is only used in front vowels. BurakD53 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allahverdi Verdizade, @Thadh What do you guys think? BurakD53 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BurakD53: Is there any literature already written in the language? I think we should generally stick to orthographies actually in use within the community instead of going by scientific writing systems. Time is another important factor: Are the Salar speakers moving towards omitting <x> since this year, or has this been proposed for the last decennium? In the former case I would wait with implimenting any unused, new orthography, in the latter case I would definitely switch to the newer writing system. Thadh (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are, but there is no an exact one. Everybody use different alphabet even in academia. But people mostly i chatted via WeChat write gölik (cow) instead of gölix(but pronunciation is gölix of course). There is a video on [www.youtube.com/flTNalVRLwk|YouTube] but i think it has mistakes and it is not academic. For example; academics describe it oxuş but it writes oğuş. k doesn't turn into ğ in Oghuz including the Salar. If so, why do researchers write that it's oxu-/oxa- and oxuş. BurakD53 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it played in the US, the UK, or both? Demon says "(card games) A type of solitaire card game in the United States", but demon says "(UK, card games) A form of patience (known as Canfield in the US)." (Are they really two different forms of solitaire/patience distinguished by capitalization? Seems unlikely.) - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's what looks to be a helpful usage note on Eigentum, but the phrasing of it is not clear and I can't quite make sense of it. I'm tempted to correct it, but I worry that would generate mistakes, since the usage is clearly complex and technical. Can anyone clarify? Here's what it says at the moment:

Eigentum is:

(uncountable) the right of one to in general do as he will with a corporeal object and exclude others from it

(countable) such an object

Usage note: Common translations of the term are ownership and property, however it is important to note that the restricted usage does not allow for it to be used with the same objects as these terms are in English and an equivalent usage is barely even idiomatic colloquially. The meaning range of these terms is that of Inhaberschaft and Vermögen respectively. Property law practically translates as Sachenrecht but the latter has a more limited compass, concerning the rights towards corporeal objects (Sache), and in that context Eigentum is the most archetypical right.

Though the understanding of the occurrence of the term in Art. 14 GG is effectively equal to that of Vermögen, the legal usage nonetheless is narrowed down to this specific civil law meaning, and it is but in the field of business administration, perhaps under influence of English-language publications and disregard to native tradition, that every legal attribution (Zuordnung) can be Eigentum. But terms like geistiges Eigentum (“intellectual property”), perfectly legal terminology in English as property more broadly refers to various attributions of rights, are strictly translationese and a misnomer and do not occur in the internal legal systems of the German-speaking countries (but as a comparative law and international law term).

Furius (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Talk:negligence per se illuminating. - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Furius: I might have added that it is literally the definition in § 903 S. 1 BGB, ”Sache” being a corporeal object standing in § 90 BGB, but the terminology has not been newly introduced with the German Civil Code so applies to other (neighbouring and previous) legal systems.

I should have added something about the hypernym dingliches Recht, as I imagine that my formulation that Eigentum is ”the most archetypical right” makes up a large part of what is not clear to you; the other part being the lack of examples of how Vermögen and property are broader; see about this w:de:Property law (England und Wales), and note my entry Gegenstand. I tried not to make it even longer by being more specific or adding examples.

We should make use of the space we have though to compete with print dictionaries that in listing translations fail to demarcate, precisely outlining the dogmatic basis, why or when a translation between two languages can or must be with a different term than in another context.

This is one of these terms where one must be thus careful, for excellent translation; if for instance in English we read something about brand owners, it is very wrong to translate it as Markeneigentümer—which exists, but -sche will note that it is not legal literature, which uses Markeninhaber; while conversely Eigentümer, when it is applied in legal writing (only with the described restricted meaning), in lack of a specific term in English technically translates with a hypernym by putting it as owner. If in legal writing you read Eigentümer, Besitzer, Inhaber, it always is a specific statement within their dogmatics, while in the general press it is probably not. So I have answered why all translates as “owner” but why they are different—they are not synonyms. Fay Freak (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this makes it clearer, but there are still some bits that I don't understand:

1. Why is the translation of "property law" mentioned?
2. What does "most archetypal right" mean?
3. When it says "the understanding of the occurrence of the term", whose understanding is it referring to?
4. What is a "legal attribution"?
5. Is there a reliable source for the claim that the usage in business administration is due to English publications and disregard of German tradition or is this personal speculation? (I'd be inclined to cut this anyway as the reason for the difference is not really important in a "usage note")
6. By "perfectly legal terminology" do you mean "terminology that is permitted by law" or "normal terminology in a legal context"?

It would be splendid if you could provide secondary citations for these assertions. Furius (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Furius: 1.&2. As Eigentum and property may be encountered as mutual translations, but technically it is only the right to do anything with a corporeal object, but the law concerning corporeal objects is called Sachenrecht, while “property law” is broader. You should read that passage together with the definition in the entry.

3. Any understanding in practice, as the Federal Constitutional Court has broadened the constitutional right of Art. 14 GG thus far; actually it is even more than that, since the basic rights concern what positions government is allowed to take from a private individual. For example, if a neighbour actions against the Building permit of his neighbour, he may be in the right by reason that due to the particular situation of his land plot giving him a favourable view he is situationsberechtigt and thus the authority issuing his neighbour the building permit was not allowed to do so, pursuant to this constitutional right of the neighbour. But whether “negative” or “ideal” immissions violate the private-law Eigentum is disputed and usually denied. In any case we have a different understanding here of a private-law Eigentum against everyone and a basic right against government of the same name, also of a different place in the hierarchy of norms, by a different legislator.

4. Any subjective right or legal position or whatever laymen mean with their inexact language, it is vague and I don't have an overview what non-jurists think when using their terms, they just give it a shot, so I try to describe it more vaguely.

5. It does not claim, it states the possibility (perhaps). Though for fact this happen as translationese, in business unacquaintedness with legal distinctions must play a role, too. How do you otherwise explain it? Nobody would make this mistake even under foreign influence if acquainted, it is just the question how far it would be natural in non-legal to employ the terms more correctly than they are under foreign influence which we can only hypothetically subtract (as the economics students really read a lot of English stuff and whole systems are translated, while the jurists have all from a native tradition). But I am reformulating this to leave less questions in that direction and give more to the actual points.

6. The law does not prescribe particular terms so the answer can only be the latter, but there is no complete dichotomy either, since if law is the subject of the science then the law does not permit is not to use its terminology.

I have edited the usage note to make the points more comprehensible, Furius, still questions? I am not going to give you an apparatus on in rem rights and the public-law rights concerned. Any textbook bearing Sachenrecht in its name and any legal commentary on the German Basic Law will bring you further. Fay Freak (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the phrasing of the note remains a little obscure, but thanks to your efforts here, I think I understand well enough to have a crack at dealing with that tomorrow. Furius (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reported by pgimeno in irc (irc://irc.libera.chat/wiktionary), the definitions of condescending and patronizing, and possibly further conjugations, are recursive. This was brought up in 2010 at Talk:condescending#Recursive Definition, but possibly never addressed? - Amgine/ ^t·e 21:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that we currently claim a plural form "progresses" at the main entry, but there is no noun sense at "progresses". Could someone take a look at this? Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Dickens citation, "as near as a toucher" probably doesn't mean "as near as a person who touches". Which sense should it really be under? The bowls ball/jack thing, I suspect. Equinox ◑ 22:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unique to Dickens. This book of similes and this book on Leeds English provide other examples of this expression being used.

• {{R:Dictionary of Modern Slang}} provides the explanation that it originated as a phrase used by jarveys: [1], but I don't know how reliable that is.
• {{R:EDD}} glosses this sense as "A little; a jot; a close hit or miss.", and treats it as distinct from the bowls sense: [2].
• According to this other dictionary, there's also a phrase "a near toucher", which means "a close shave".

Extra note: I don't know how much this helps, but it's possible that "as near as a snapper" was also used similarly; there aren't many search results though. 98.170.164.88 22:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A male given name. But apparently nobody has this name except for O. J. Simpson...? Equinox ◑ 15:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's not literally the only one, but it is pretty rare. On Wikipedia/Wikidata there's also Orenthal O'Neal and Orenthal Tucker. 98.170.164.88 03:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that the Russian translation of paucal as паука́льный (paukálʹnyj) is actually correct, but ru:паукальный makes me slightly doubtful, as it defines it as мно́жественный (mnóžestvennyj), which seems to lack the meaning of “few”, being defined as «имеющийся в большом количестве, проявляющийся в различных формах, видах». Is one of these incorrect, and if so, is someone available to fix it? I am sorry not to ask this at ru:Викисловарь:Лингвистические и лексикографические вопросы; I considered it, but felt my Russian was not really up to it. PJTraill (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. паука́льный (paukálʹnyj) is given for the noun, while no Russian translation is given for the adjective. PJTraill (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This term is a translation of the adjective (the noun would be translated as "паука́льное число́", an SOP phrase). ru.wikt is incorrect with its definition, it definitely means "paucal", not "plural". Thadh (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• dialectal: glime

The word glime seems to have mainly been used in the Isle of Man and Scotland according to various hits on Google Books though Wright’s dialect dictionary has it listed, with various spellings, as also used in most of Northern England[3]. A OneLook dictionary search has this word listed in both Collins and Merriam-Webster and provides example sentences at the bottom and one of them even depicts gypsies in Wales using the word. If we create this entry it perhaps should be marked as obsolete as well as dialect though. Another sense, meaning ‘the mucus of horses or cattle’ seems to be a dictionary-only term.

There are several uses of glime to mean something like mate/pal/homie in AAVE to be found by searching for song lyrics at genius.com and some instances where it seems to be used as a verb, perhaps meaning ‘be stylish’ such as the following [4]. Urban Dictionary lists style as well as homie as a meaning, which might explain this, but that’s obviously an unreliable source.

Also one dictionary defines glime as a specialist hydrological term for a type of ice[5]. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Carolian (talk • subpages • history • edit • watch)

For reference, I have collected a few quotations over the past couple of centuries at w:User talk:Drmies#Writers' tip. It is well attested, there being much more than those few, that I've selected, to be had. It seems appropriate that Wiktionary give it an entry in short order, and beat the paper dictionaries to the punch. Neither Merriam-Webster nor Cambridge Dictionaries on-line had it when I checked earlier today. Uncle G (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]