Talk:Lists of English words by country or language of origin

653:

personal or professional usage, and I wonder if that would make the words they use English? You might argue that specialized knowledge is not actually adopted but employed by professional people, but what about religions and their specific vocabulary. For example, tens of millions of people in the English speaking world, and hundreds of millions if we include India, are Muslims who employ a much wider range of words of Arabic origin on a daily basis than what would be found in standard dictionaries or known by the general public. The same is true of Hebrew for Jews, Hindi for Hindus, Budhists, and the like. Are these words to be considered English? If not, why? Is it because of the percentage of the population that use them, and, if such, what would be the criterion quantity? If it is by sheer numbers or percentage, then we must remove words of Hebrew origin that are used by Jews alone for their own religion and add say Hindi for Hinduism with all of its varied facets and source languages. Any idea?

606:

necessarily arbitrary, and almost certainly capricious and inconsistently applied due to the subjective nature of making the decision. For some people, certain words are fully naturalized and for others they are totally foreign. For example, to me "cilantro" is a completely ordinary and natural word and "coriander" an obscure alternative, but for someone from England, "coriander" may be the ordinary word and "cilantro" an exotic Spanish word. It is an ugly and unpleasant debate that can never be decided conclusively on Knowledge (XXG). I think it would be an inadvisable step into a never-ending quagmire of acrimonious debate if we were put Knowledge (XXG) in the place of deciding what is and isn't a fully naturalized English word. I think it is best if we make no attempt to decide that debate and leave it up to the reader. The proposed harm that this would make the lists inaccessible to some readers I think is overstated and minimal. It is easy to browse through a list and skip over unfamiliar terms.

1893:. There is a great deal of overlap here and it appears that there is very little/no annotation with the article, primarily only the header. This article is, for all intents and purposes, "just" a list of lists. As such, I think that this purpose is better served by the category instead of an article. To be clear, I am not suggesting that any of the lists be deleted and I am not suggesting that anything is not encyclopedic. I am suggesting that the header text be copied to the category header and that all of the lists that are in this article that are not currently in the category be added to it. After that, this article could either be deleted or redirect to the Category. Note, I know that some of these articles have been "attacked" in the past and I am not taking any unilateral action here; I'm just (hopefully) starting a conversation. -- 418:

can imagine that you would be interested in accumulating definitive lists of words that come into English from various languages. In my opinion, that could be a very useful resource. However, I think that there is an equally valid goal to be achieved, and that is to make lists of common words of foreign origin that every native English speaker knows, and that most non-native speakers should know. If this list were free of academic terms specific to a few people outside of their own discipline, the list would be much more fun and informative for most readers. I'm afraid that if we attempt to achieve both goals with the same page, then there will be too many genre specific words to be of general use. Although I'm not convinced that Knowledge (XXG) is the right place for definitive lists of etymologies, I propose the following compromises:

430:

have an English word for the object. That does not make the word an English word. If it did, that would mean every item in a foreign language that does not have an English equivalent is an English word. I'm sure that most linguists would not consider it so. What about those difficult untraslatable words? Are all of those also automatically English words? I think there is a difference. And I think that words that fall in the category of "words that we dont have an equivalent for in English so we use the exact word from the foreign language" ought not be included in these pages because of the sheer volume. Any useful information would get lost. This difference is what I mean by "a foreign word that is sometimes used by English speakers".

407:

suggested. I have to go through these lists every few months and delete items that have been added erroneously by people who heard that such-and-such a word is from some language when it turns out not be. It is very tedious looking up each word in Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary and consulting the etymology. The methodologies used by dictionary editors when writing etymologies are very particular in order to ensure they are correct. Folk etymology is common and we must be vigilant in ensuring we do not promulgate folk etymologies as being true. We need to form these pages in such a way that people will be very unlikely to add things without checking first. Perhaps a reference is needed for each word.

399:

believe it can be shown that they enjoy robust usage in monolingual English texts. I don't think there is such a thing as "a foreign word that is sometimes used by English speakers". Those words are borrowed English words. Many monolingual English speakers will be familiar with words like this and if we exclude them from these pages, then they may never learn what language is the source of those words. For example, there are probably many people who are at least vaguely familiar with saris but have no idea what language the word comes from. Even if they know they're from India, they probably don't know from which Indian language. What value is there in excluding the word from

1732:. Disadvantages: no significant disadvantage; because the glossary pages will be able to have everything that the Knowledge (XXG) pages have, including links to Knowledge (XXG) articles. Advantages: everything can be linked in Wiktionary, including words and phrases which would be perpetual red links in Knowledge (XXG) (unless you make an inter-Wiktionary link); also, Wiktionary tends to attract people more fluent with lexicons and languages, and less stray poorly informed individuals, generally speaking. It's rare to have a nationalist in Wiktionary sticking words on a list just to inflate it, as often happens in Knowledge (XXG) (see 913:. No other interpretation of this policy has any kind of consensus. These lists were not just definitions—in fact many of them didn't have definitions, as they only had etymologies. There is no consensus that lists of lexical information do not belong on Knowledge (XXG). The only consensus is that articles that consist only of a simple definition do not belong on Knowledge (XXG). No dictionary that I've ever seen lists words by language of origin, so it would seem that "Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary" policy does not apply here 1772:. The response so far is positive. No one has objected. So it will probably fall to a few Wikipedians to let go of ultra-inclusionist tendencies and realize that this will be better for the word-lists themselves, since having them in Wiktionary will lead to them being more reliable, since Wiktionary has far less contributors per hour; and by percentage, more that are competent with lexicons. Think about it. The word-lists here in Knowledge (XXG) often look like piles of shit, full of errors. 1604:? I don't really care if you delete everything as you please, I truely believe someone else will differ from your standpoint and your deletion will be restored. I don't feel that you get the consensus here. Perhaps a vote is in order. Can you hold off your house-cleaning until you get the consensus? I apologize if this comment appears to be rude, but honestly I think coming in with a shotgun to blow away other people's contribution is even ruder. 610:

work because determining what words every native English speaker knows is an impossible task, and words that "most non-native speakers should know" won't work because Knowledge (XXG) is not in the place of deciding any "shoulds" because that would violate NPOV policy. I don't think that "words that we don't have an equivalent for in English so we use the exact word from the foreign language" is going to cut it either as is a useful criterion. The word

621:

agree with. If you have any suggestions for how to do it using a neutral criterion, I remain open to suggestions. In the meantime, however, I think we should stick to my previously proposed criteria and apply it rigorously. Feel free to remove words that don't meet one of the criteria. Also, feel free to remove words that are marked in dictionaries as "foreign", "alien", or "unnaturalized"). But please leave words like

897:, it might be lost to Knowledge (XXG)/Wiktionary forever. Further, the category method on Wiktionary makes browsing these lists difficult. To find the etymology of a word you have click on the word in the category list and then read the etymology. When all the words and etymologies were on one page, then the etymologies could be easily compared. This move to Wiktionary has demonstrably weakened Knowledge (XXG) . 160: 209: 188: 98: 1480:. Clearly, that is what these articles constitute. Also, there was a very clear consensus against these sorts of articles during the List_of_English_words_of_Latin_origin VfD. However, I doubt that there is anything that myself or others can say that will resolve this issue here. I propose a consensus-building discussion, such as the recent ones for Local Politicians and Maltese Nobility. 33: 88: 64: 965:— If clicking on a hyperlink in a list to find more information is hard, then wikis are not for you. And it is incorrect to imply that this is any different to how things were when these dictionaries were at Knowledge (XXG), since in many cases they too were just lists of hyperlinks. On Wiktionary, of course, what is linked to can, and indeed 1708:) said "I think all such lists should be removed from Knowledge (XXG)" (to paraphrase). I tend to agree. The only argument against this that I deemed acceptable was that in Wiktionary, it would be done by categories, rather than a list on a page, permitting text. But that's not the only option. These are such long accepted pages as 947:— That's deliberate. Much of that etymological information was, to put it kindly, dubious at best. Several different dictionaries had conflicting etymologies, other etymologies were disputed, and practically no-one cited any references at all. Moreover, in a number of cases what Knowledge (XXG) had was downright worse than the 837:— Incorrect. There are separate categories for the language words and for the loaned words. Given that only a couple of the derived words categories even extend over more than one page-worth (200 words) at present, with several not even having as many as 10 words in them as yet, I have to ask which categories you 2023:

If you've got reliable citations, that'd be good. The difficulty is finding reliable evidence that it's Occitan or Catalan rather than any other Romance language that gave it to English (the absence of a cognate in another living Romance language isn't enough, as it may have been present in an older

1542:

As Gwalla suggests, this information does belong in Wiktionary rather than here. The Wiki foundation and its volunteers are putting loads of information on the web, but for information to be useful it must be locatable. The distinction between the various projects (Pedia, Tionary, Travel, Source etc)

1434:

page. My opinion: these articles were created when there were no categories and no easy interewiki references. Now these lists of totally unrelated words seem spurious. Good articles about the ways how foreign words entered English from the respective languages are of course welcome. So, even while I

605:

If we adopt your proposal, then the problem becomes one of deciding at what point has a word been naturalized. Borrowing is a continuous process and there is bound to be a large group of words where it is unclear whether it is a borrowing or a naturalized word. If we were to pick a point, it would be

295:

I realize it's daunting, but will someone get started on the Greek words? Usually they come indirectly through other languages like Latin or French. Here's a start: emphasis, scene, music, pedagogy, euphonium, sybil, xiphoid, larynx, partridge (from perdix), bible, circle, cosmos, synagogue, chyme,

1568:

handle the listing of words. For example the article on French influences on English mentions the invasion of Normandy but could also mention that French was used for law and governance and by nobility, and so most English words related to justice come from Old French (e.g.curfew, debt, just) , and

644:

The criteria I use restricts the selection to words that occur in English dictionaries and that are commonly used in English texts. English dictionaries are large but finite. There are many millions of words in other languages that can't be translated by a single word, but not all those words appear

417:

About the "English word vs. Foreign word" issue, I think there are two paths that these articles can take, and I imagine we make different judgements about which words belong because we each see the articles developing towards different goals. I noticed that you are a linguist, and because of this I

309:

These lists ideally ought to contain words that are used in daily speech by native English speakers as a part of English, such as "kindergarten". It is possible that they also contain words listed in English dictionaries that are not commonly used as a part of English, such as "xiphoid" in the above

2201:

Comment (from the Discussion about the deletion). I have no opinion on the merits of this particular article, but am wondering why it is the only one AfD'd from the whole Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 16:17

2137:

Ok, looks like you're right as far as the Finnish loanword article! Still, the Italian language has contributed some words to English like biscotti, amaretto, ciabatta, cappuccino, neutrino, influenza, torso, panini, parmesan, gelato, etc. etc. I think from the amount of words that it's contributed

1794:

Er, sorry if I offend you by saying this or something but I think that a list like this seems to be very helpful in the encyclopedia. If you don't think that this list barely fulfills the purpose to inform people of the words imported from other languages, why not edit it and make it better instead

1783:

To rephrase: would you rather have shitty lists in Knowledge (XXG) that are barely reliable (thus, barely fulfilling their purpose to inform us of the actual words deriving from a certain language), or let go of them and simply go to Wiktionary (via upcoming links in this article) to Lexicons which

1749:

For me, it's not quite a matter of getting these lists out of the way; rather, I'm on Wiktionary a lot lately and having these lists in Wiktionary is having them in the right place, where they will be overseen by more qualified people, on average. Also, it can only improve the "work-place ethic" in

1616:

Consolidate the lists for languages which have provided very few loan words to English. Example: there are very few loan words from ancient Egyptian. You would have guessed that, probably, but its of some interest to know that the word "bark" (as in a type of sailing ship) may be derived from the

1530:

Also, I note that some of the lists were deleted without actually moving the information first, and that was "explained" by saying that the etymologies didn't have references. If you think something is dubious, bring it up on the talk page, but don't just delete it without comment. Deleting content

636:

It seems as if your solution is to be fully inclusive, nevermind the issues I mentioned relating to how this would mean that under your definition, any word without a direct English translation would then become an English word. As a clarification, would you please indicate whether this is what you

620:

I understand the urge that is drawing you to want to divide up these lists in the way you propose. However, I don't think there is any reasonably neutral way to do it. I considered age of borrowing and frequency of occurrence in a Google search, but neither of those ways gave results that you would

609:

I am curious how you determine that a word of foreign origin is a common word or not. What neutral criterion do you propose we use to divide up the words? I think that "common words of foreign origin that every native English speaker knows, and that most non-native speakers should know" will never

2250:

It was a pretty stupid of them to delete that article. I voted to Keep it, but alas, common sense doesn't always win the day, it all up to the opinions of whatever random group shows up to comment in AFDs and any personal bias of the closing administrator. You can take this to deletion review if

1526:

invented to ensure that all linguistic or vaguely lexicographic information be forever excised from Knowledge (XXG). Relying on the "Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary" policy to support the removal of articles that are not described by that policy is bogus. Until the policy says "Knowledge (XXG)

398:

If a word can be robustly shown to meet all three of these criteria, then I think it's fair to say that the word is a fully naturalized English word. I disagree with your conclusion that words like "sari" and "barrio" should not be included. It is true that they are fairly recent borrowings, but I

2169:

As has been said, none of these lists is encyclopedic. An article based around categories and types of loanwords might be more successful. EG. Most Italian loanwords are the names of foodstuffs particular to Italy or otherwise associated with Italy.(citation needed) And whether the majority of

1501:

I honestly don't see why there has been serious resistance to the idea that this should be in Wiktionary rather than Knowledge (XXG). It's not like Wiktionary is a euphemism for "The circular file" or anything like that. It's just a different webspace. The information wouldn't be going away, just

987:

instead of debating the minutiae of the definitions of individual words – something not appropriate to Knowledge (XXG) – and by increasing the number of cross references to Wiktionary) and Wiktionary (by increasing its stock of words by some several hundred, so far, increasing the number of cross

429:

I don't agree with you that words such as sari and barrio fit into the English language the same way as words like kindergarten and cheetah. We use words like sari or dashiki because we have no English equivalent of those words. They are foreign words that English speakers use because they do not

712:

article. I followed the links to the wiki dictionaries. These dictionaries do not show these words as loan words in the English language, over there, these words are just drown among all other words in each language. The individual dictionary entries do not replace the function of the lists.

652:

One question I have relates to the same topic, but with view to a specific criterion. Many English speaking individulas and groups are members of certain religions, affiliations or specialized fields of knowledge. By deduction, they must employ a much wider selelction of foriegn words in their

1563:

It is appropriate to move these lists to wiktionary, as they are not encyclopedic information. I think that this particular article could be deleted and re-worked using categories or anther wikipedia organising tool. The lists listed in this page could be improved by including more encyclopedic

917:. There is no solid policy that you can point to that indicates that these lists of etymologies do not belong on Knowledge (XXG). The Latin origin words article was deleted because its scope was too large, not because it doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG). In fact, several of the delete comments 406:

I want to note that I think that carefully maintaining these lists is indeed important; however, removing words that are debatably English is not the kind of maintenance that is sorely needed. What is needed is for people to check whether or not the words actually are borrowed from the language

1521:

linguistic knowledge, which must be relegated to the Wiktionary ghetto. The two projects are separate; I see no reason why there can't be overlap. The "Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary" policy was devised because people were creating articles on a single word whose content was nothing but a

818:

article should never have existed. First: With the existence of categories, there's almost never a reason to have a lists of lists, especially one such as this where there was nothing in the article beyond the hyperlinks themselves. (The article as it stood was only a hair off being a speedy

711:

I don't understand the rationale behind the posted notice at the top. These lists are not dictionary entries. The definitions of these words are not the purpose of the articles. The compilation of the lists, the ability to see all these words in their own catagory is the main purpose of the

1595:

Can you add a user page to introduce yourself to the rest of the wikipedian communicty? You seems to represent the authority in the wikipedia. Looks like you can decide everything because you said so. I have been contributing to Knowledge (XXG) for a few years and you are probably the most

330:

No need to be rude about it. I think you definitely understand what I'm trying to say here. Clearly there are English speakers in India. I'm not even going to argue about this - Please, if you try I'm sure you will understand what I mean when I say that English is not the native language of

1232:

words are excluded, and that all of the other parts of dictionary entries – namely pronunciations, etymologies, translations, citations, inflections, and the like – are fair game, and that it's thus all right to have a list of words with their etymologies, or their translations, or their

1450:

has just edited all of the articles putting the dictionaries, that have already been excised in favour of Wiktionary, back in to Knowledge (XXG), and deleting the proto-encyclopaedia articles pointing to the Wiktionary categories that were put in their place to grow. And what's the

819:

deletion candidate.) Second: The title is incorrect, both for the reasons given above relating to "list of English words" and for the additional reason that "international" is highly misleading, given that in several cases the loaning has been done within the same country (such as

1116:

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that lists of minutiae are not appropriate for the content of Knowledge (XXG) articles. There are hundreds of such lists and the consensus for their existence can be demonstrated by the many times they have been listed on VfD and

453:

a "foreign phrase". I will concede that if outside authorities like major English dictionaries are willing to label things like that as foreign, then we should be willing to note that, and even make editorial decisions based on that. I am willing to forego inclusion of

304:

I think there needs to be some discussion to determine what we want these articles to be so that we can work towards standardization. What follows is are my opinions about what types of words belong. Please comment so that we can reach some sort of working standard.

1095:. If you want to, as above, talk at length about what the inclusion criteria for dictionaries should be (and the fact that this is practically the only other thing talked about on this page is a giant red flag in itself) then feel free to contribute to 1030:

in the first place. (It didn't get to be official policy out of thin air.) There's an overwhelming consensus that comes up time and again for dictionary definition articles to be deleted, and there was an overwhelming consensus that came up for two of

1569:

English words from French generally denote a higher style (compare ask and inquire). The wikipedia article on French words could then include just a link to it's sister article on wiktionary, which lists words of French origin. Pvt_Parts 24 July 2008

2046:

Yes, but French is in that list, and French is the 2nd biggest foreign contributor to English. Maybe the Romance languages besides French put together? I think that would be a good idea considering there are only two words in the romanian section...

1543:

is very clear, and there is rarely a reason for them to overlap. Since the words mentioned in all these articles are already in Wiktionary (at least most of them are), the information here would merge far better with that already present there.

1137:

apply to these articles because they are not lists of definitions. They are lists of etymologies. Show me the policy that says that Knowledge (XXG) articles are not lists of etymologies. Until you can do that, these articles should stay.

657:

I think the general criterion used by dictionaries is if the word enjoys robust usage outside of its area of borrowing. That is, if a word used by Hindus is used robustly by non-Hindus as well, then it gets added to a dictionary. Hence,

565:(< 100,000). If you narrow the search by looking only for cases where the word is being used in its normal sense in an English sentence, you get similar results: a Google search for the phrase "wear a sari" returns over 3700 results 313:

Words that should not be included are foreign words that are sometimes used by English speakers, such as "barrio". This also includes words like "sari" which refers to an item natively found in a culture that does not natively speak

787:. It's parochial in the extreme to think that English is the only language to which words have been loaned. As was pointed out in the VFD discussion, many of the words from Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, and so forth have been loaned to 1642: 601:

The lack of a good, neutral criterion is the fundamental problem with your proposal. Unfortunately, there is no definitive point at which a word ceases being an unnaturalized borrowing and it becomes a naturalized English word.

2082: 1814: 645:

in English dictionaries and are used by English speakers. We shouldn't confuse "words that have been borrowed into English" with "words that potentially could be borrowed into English". They're two different sets of words.

2210:

This list came to my attention because it was linked from another AfD. I'd be happy to vote to delete any other mini-dictionary lists. And I certainly have nothing against Italy. Borock (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1371: 1416: 751: 743: 900:

I am dubious about what essentially amounts to the removal of these articles from Knowledge (XXG) because I think it isn't supported by precedent. It should be noted that "Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary" does

932:

The way the lists were earlier was that they were lists of English words, which had origin (whether proximate, ultimate, or otherwise) in some other language. Specifically, the lists only included words that were

988:

references to Knowledge (XXG), increasing its stock of language categorizations, and demonstrating by example the power to construct arbitrary dictionaries that the categorization mechanism that Wiktionary has)

754:

only by doing to that article what I'm now doing and have done to the others here, namely removing the dictionaries from the encyclopaedia and putting them in the dictionary where they belong, leaving room for

422:

Sections are created in the articles for each language for common words(such as "kindergarten"), a category for academic terms, and another catch all category for other terms (or perhaps no catch all category).

2206:

I've taken a look at a handful. Quite a few I tagged as potentially not notable, needing references or needing more references. I encourage you to do the same. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

500:

Exclude or separate out words that are infrequently used by measuring the number of Google hits for that word, either by itself or in a short phrase that ensures it is being used in English in the meaning in

2251:

you want. That administrator had other decisions of his reversed at deletion review, and I think they might've taken away his administrative powers. Not sure. He hasn't edited Knowledge (XXG) in a year.

1331: 1517:

I honestly don't see why there is such a serious push to remove anything vaguely linguistically-related from Knowledge (XXG), as though Knowledge (XXG) were to be a repository of all human knowledge

493:. The reason is because there isn't any qualitative criterion that can be used in a neutral way to divide up these lists in the way you desire. I had two ideas for ways to divide up the borrowings: 1087:, where you'll be very welcome for any contribution that you can provide. If you want to, as above on this very talk page, have long arguments about what the criteria are for categorizing words, 310:

comment, although this begins to get into a gray area where it is harder to tell whether the word is actually English, or whether it is a foreign word that is sometimes used by English speakers.

1740:

anyway. What remains is for the Wiktionary Lexicons to be approved in Wiktionary, and for Wikipedians to agree (consensus/majority) with allowing Wiktionary to do it, if Wiktionary accepts.

1311: 1306: 360:. I have proposed the following three-part test to determine whether we can call a word an "English word". No one seems to have disagreed with it when I have invoked it. It is as follows: 414:

Nohat, I am very sorry that people make mistakes by substituting folk etymology for a quick etymology check with a dictionary. I am with you in trying to prevent that from happening.

1885:. I am about to suggest something; if you read it hurriedly you could panic, but if you read it carefully I think you will see that I mean no harm. I came across both this article ( 799:

that the words are loaned to. The whole idea of looking at this as "words loaned to English" is wrong. One should consider this in terms of the language that the words are loaned

425:

Or, two pages are created for each language, one being the list common English words from a foreign language, and the other being a definitive list of words from a foreign language.

1133:

mean that information about lexical minutiae does not belong on Knowledge (XXG). The second paragraph of that policy ("Knowledge (XXG) articles are not lists of definitions") does

1152:– i.e. dictionaries — that is the problem, not that they are minutiae. Other people have stated this, and so does policy. I'm implementing the consensus that has been reached to 969:, be a full dictionary definition (complete with etymologies, translations, definitions, alternate spellings, and inflections), whereas on Knowledge (XXG) that is exactly what 371:

Foreign words and phrases are common in English texts. Does that make them English? The phrase "c'est la vie" is common in English texts. I'd say it certainly isn't English.

983:— Rubbish. There's no evidence for that at all. There's clear evidence that it has demonstrably strengthened both Knowledge (XXG) (by forcing people to concentrate upon 1890: 2294: 2223:

As of may 2013 the "List of English words of Korean origin" has NOT been deleted. So only the Italian list remains erased after 2 years. WHY? May be this is a kind of

1882: 144: 150: 1886: 1721: 1670: 1456: 1341: 666:. The distinction is difficult to crack I think, and our best bet is not to try to make any conclusions ourselves, but to just report what dictionary editors do. 169: 74: 1926:

No, but I personally don't see why it shouldn't stay. It's relevant to the subject, and adds a little humor to an otherwise (in my opinion) rather dry website.

296:

thyme, orchestra, Christ, meter, kilogram, dram, Celtic, sarcasm, sarcophagus, microbe, biology, arachnophobia... See, it's all the coolest English words! --NG

2055: 1728:, and rather than link Knowledge (XXG) lists, it will link Wiktionary glossaries (as yet uncreated), and the lists will be redirected (not even deleted) to 1376: 1798:

Also, why is the list of Italian loanwords gone? I mean, if you have a list of two loanwords from Romanian why not a far bigger list of Italian loanwords?

1228:

upon this point except for a deliberate and contrived misunderstanding of policy to the effect that only the parts of dictionary entries that specifically

1897: 1552: 529:

only go back to 1852. So the length of borrowing criterion, regardless of what arbitrary cutoff is set, doesn't divide the words in the way you desire.

485:

are given no such special marking in either OED or M-W and I am thus much less amenable to the decision to exclude them or separate them from words like

1674: 2309: 2138:

it should have an article. As for the "dictionary-esque list" that got deleted , I mean that could be changed into a better article.... could it not?

1321: 1795:

of proposing a deletion on the entire list? Moving something like this to Wiktionary is a good idea, though... eh this is still a good list to have.

738:

And its specific remit is to list translations and etymologies of words. If you want to see what happens to lists of words, notice the overwhelming

263: 120: 2289: 1638: 2051: 1733: 1436: 1838: 1346: 2304: 2299: 1282:

to be more explicit that these articles are to be excluded? If it's an obvious application of the policy, then no one will contest the change.

467: 1096: 2319: 2214:

Here is the next one: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of English words of Korean origin. Borock (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

1701: 1183: 866:

The problem here is that whole lists have been deleted, but much of the etymological information wasn't copied to Wiktionary. For example, a

533: 459: 253: 1393: 1351: 1326: 587:

is not. English is a world-wide language, used by people in every country, and that kind of Western bias has no place on Knowledge (XXG).

111: 69: 1006:"Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary" has the very narrow meaning that Knowledge (XXG) articles themselves shouldn't be just definitions 855:, which are clearly pointed to here, do, and do so completely. A list of words in Knowledge (XXG) is a category of words in Wiktionary. 2324: 2235: 2139: 2064: 2009: 1927: 1799: 930:

not only are all of these articles incorrectly titled as "list of words", they are incorrectly titled for being "list of English words".

921:

that they support the inclusion of such lists where the size of the list is relatively small. I move that all these lists be restored.

617:

I don't believe there is such a criterion, which is why I don't believe we should adopt a policy of dividing up the words in this way.

229: 1576: 1769: 1016:

clear on the point that Knowledge (XXG) articles are not "lists of such definitions". It has those exact words, even. In boldface.

2314: 1201: 1146:

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that lists of minutiae are not appropriate for the content of Knowledge (XXG) articles.

1059:— Rubbish. This must be at least the twentieth time, including the great big yellow notices on the articles, that I've pointed to 677:

Hi all, this is a very old discussion but it is well written and relevant to a debate that recently started on New Zealand articles

1522:

definition of that word, with no possibility of enlargement. The policy was implemented to discourage that type of article. It was

726:

Every single one of these lists is either a list of translations of words, a translation dictionary, or a list of etymologies, an

1909: 1682: 1463:

reinstated the dictionary definition magnets, and - Lo! - another dictionary definition was attracted within less than 4 hours.

1148:— I've no idea where you're getting that from. I've clearly and repeatedly stated that it is the fact that these are lists of 1073:— Which, as several others have pointed out, was quite simply the wrong approach, and why the articles were incorrectly titled. 17: 1336: 1057:

There is no solid policy that you can point to that indicates that these lists of etymologies do not belong on Knowledge (XXG).

2274: 2243: 2182: 2147: 2120: 2094: 2072: 2041: 2017: 2003: 1969: 1954: 1935: 1921: 1869: 1859: 1845: 1826: 1807: 1788: 1776: 1762: 1744: 1689: 1655: 1624: 1584: 1361: 697: 44: 1381: 803:. Not only are all of these articles incorrectly titled as "list of words", they are incorrectly titled for being "list of 225: 221: 216: 193: 1729: 1725: 374:

A good example is the word "ergo". I imagine you and I have different ideas about whether it is an English or a Latin word.

400: 759:

to grow in their place. Had I done nothing, pretty much all of these articles would be on their way to deletion by now.

1617:

ancient egyptian word for boat (via Greek writers), and the name "Susannah" is said to be of ancient Egyptian origin.---

1431: 2008:

oooh! that sounds good, but I don't have the authority to allow you to do that.... but that sounds like a great idea!

1661:

I just came across that article. There are only a few English words of Romanian origin as far as I know, not counting

1366: 1125:

for many examples. The fact that there is another project Wiktionary which might contain this same information is not

598:

is your own intuition, something which I hope we both agree doesn't make for a very consistent or neutral criterion.

1216:, it also says "Many dictionaries also provide word derivations, histories, or etymologies" in the Knowledge (XXG) 2090: 1977: 1965: 1950: 1822: 1356: 1200:— An etymology is simply a part of a dictionary entry. You don't even need to look at the "Etymology" section of 1122: 681: 905:

mean "Knowledge (XXG) articles should not contain information that you might find in a dictionary". It has the

678: 1709: 1678: 50: 2239: 1931: 820: 2143: 2068: 2013: 1837:

Here is a look, just started. It will have everything the Wiki article has (except for the errors) and more:

1803: 1580: 1255:. If you don't understand the word "dictionary" in "Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary", then please read 1224:

seen a dictionary that lists etymologies for words at some point in your life. I don't see how there can be

1156:

and have the dictionaries in Wiktionary, where they belong. Your blanket reversions are counter to policy.

792: 727: 693: 590:

After performing this analysis, I came to the conclusion that the only thing that makes them different from

2231: 2060: 1572: 2108: 474:

is a phrase, not a word) for the very reason that dictionaries mark them as "foreign" or "unnaturalized".

2086: 1961: 1946: 1842: 1818: 1785: 1773: 1759: 1741: 1686: 1084: 894: 871: 321:

Last time I checked, English was an official language of India and the native language of many Indians.

119:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2178: 2116: 2037: 1913: 1412: 1316: 1107:, rather than lobbying for the continued capability to do such business in entirely the wrong place. 1669:, and so on, which would be long. I would rather have the list redirected, and a link in this page ( 352:

The criteria for whether or not a word is "English" varies. This topic has come up before. See e.g.

1894: 1960:

I have checked and a category already exists on Wiktionary, so now I don't think there should be.

1446:

This isn't just an article title dispute, though. It's an article content dispute also. Note that

1083:— I suggest instead that you get yourself an account at Wiktionary, and get yourself over to its 1198:

apply to these articles because they are not lists of definitions. They are lists of etymologies.

689: 353: 103: 1220:

article. Using your very own "I've never seen a dictionary" argument, I point out that you've

1998: 1650: 1621: 1186:

is right there. How many more times must I point out the elephant in the centre of the room?

773:. If you want to see all of the words in a category all together in a list, go to Wiktionary. 1129:

reason that they shouldn't exist here. The "Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary" policy does

2252: 1989: 1985: 1705: 1510: 767:

the ability to see all these words in their own catagory is the main purpose of the article.

1908:

I just noticed a quote before the lead in the article. Is this standard article procedure?

1279: 1248: 1060: 1027: 1009: 770: 731: 637:

intend? If not, how would you adjust your recommendations to keep this from being the case?

2174: 2112: 2033: 1917: 1605: 713: 569: 1024:

There is no consensus that lists of lexical information do not belong on Knowledge (XXG).

998:— There's ample precedent. What did you think that the transwiki system was all about? 2030:

On a related topic, shouldn't there be some grouping of the Romance languages together?

1245:

Show me the policy that says that Knowledge (XXG) articles are not lists of etymologies.

2224: 1481: 824: 497:

Exclude or separate out words that were borrowed recently (say within 50 or 100 years).

1641:

for deletion, and I thought people here might be interested. The deletion debate here

1256: 568:

but a similar search for the phrase "wear a cummerbund" returns less than 300 results

2283: 1712:

which lists words on one page and can allow text, though text would belong more in a

1556: 1544: 1440: 1408: 1401: 638: 431: 346: 2050:

Also, why was the Italian loanword section deleted? Additionally, couldn't we merge

1213: 1091:. If you want to, as above, talk in detail about the etymologies of certain words, 566: 1993: 1866: 1856: 1855:

We still need a list of words with Danish origin. There are quite a few of them. --

1751: 1737: 1666: 1646: 1618: 1596:

Big-brother type wikipedian I've encountered. Is the moniker Uncle-G derived from

1464: 1420: 1260: 1238: 1187: 1157: 1108: 1074: 1064: 1050: 1040: 1017: 999: 989: 974: 956: 856: 842: 828: 808: 774: 760: 685: 893:

does not contain this information, and unless someone digs through the history of

1430:

Since there are unconciliable opinions, I suggest to move this discussion to the

1400:; they are regular articles that discuss particular parts of English vocabulary. 2170:

Latinate words came via French or directly from Latin (citation needed) etc etc.

1506: 1503: 963:

To find the etymology of a word you have click on the word in the category list.

781:

These dictionaries do not show these words as loan words in the English language

357: 116: 1049:. — That's false. Wiktionary does. And you've just said that you've seen it. 97: 1643:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/List_of_English_words_of_Romanian_origin

1536: 1460: 1447: 1386: 1283: 1217: 1139: 938: 922: 667: 646: 630: 449:

the || symbol, indicating "not naturalized, alien", and Merriam-Webster calls

408: 322: 159: 93: 2083:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of English words of Italian origin

1815:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of English words of Italian origin

835:

over there, these words are just drown among all other words in each language

563: 1597: 403:? How does it improve Knowledge (XXG) to delete that valuable information? 208: 187: 1758:; if you want to fiddle with placing words on a list, go to Wiktionary :-) 1419:

as being worth a long hard look at because it, too, belongs in Wiktionary.

849:

The individual dictionary entries do not replace the function of the lists.

1784:

will be more reliable and will not have any drawbacks to them whatsoever?

887: 1662: 1565: 1417:

Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/List of English words of Greek origin

1071:

The way the lists were earlier was that they were lists of English words

769:— Then the article is not encyclopaedic, and should be deleted. Again: 752:

Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/List of English words of Greek origin

744:

Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/List of English words of Latin origin

342:

Words that can't be found in English dictionaries ought not be included.

2173:

But that would be a big job and would require very reliable citations.

1755: 1713: 1372:

list of words having different meanings in British and American English

1101:

Wiktionary is there for exactly this sort of business, and welcomes it.

556: 87: 63: 2027:

I'm not aware of any clear candidate word other than "troubadour".

1047:

No dictionary that I've ever seen lists words by language of origin

559:

2,000,000) exceeds by more than 20 to 1 the number of hits for vs.

1717: 1601: 532:

Criterion 2 fails similarly. For example, you removed "sari" from

1736:'s edit history, for example). These lists are barely fit for an 1039:. Please pay attention to the evidence staring you in the face. 981:

This move to Wiktionary has demonstrably weakened Knowledge (XXG)

878:

on it, with an indication that that it comes from the Dutch word

583:

is associated with a Western cultural construct (the tuxedo) and

1754:, like maybe, even, contribute a paragraph of text to an actual 1103:

Concentrate your efforts in a project where what you want to do

945:

much of the etymological information wasn't copied to Wiktionary

384:

Is the word used by people who don't speak the foreign language?

18:

Talk:Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin

1704:(the article was subsequently deleted), some dude from Brazil ( 1551:

By Starblind's suggestion, I've added a consensus talk page at

1332:

list of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names

579:? If so, on what basis? The only reason I can think of is that 1233:

pronunciations – a dictionary – in Knowledge (XXG) as long as

909:

meaning that Knowledge (XXG) articles themselves shouldn't be

26: 1026:— Yes, there is. There is the consensus that brought about 521:. Criterion 1 falls apart easily: the OED has quotations for 1750:

Knowledge (XXG): if you're in Knowledge (XXG), do something

1377:

list of words meaning outsider, foreigner or "not one of us"

158: 2085:. 2) I don't think Finnish is a Scandinavian language. -- 1347:

list of archaic English words and their modern equivalents

1312:

list of British English words not used in American English

1307:

list of American English words not used in British English

1278:

applies to these articles, then why don't you try editing

228:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 1527:

does not include lists of etymologies", the lists stay.

1478:

An alphabetical list of words often defined or translated

364:

Does the word occur in English texts with any regularity?

1204:

to see this. Not only does it say "a free multilingual

1677:

which I plan on starting, just as there is for example

1407:

That's a trifle disingenuous, both for the reason that

867: 841:

to come to the conclusion that anything was "drowned".

1531:

without explanation is something which is definitely

445:

is a Latin word. The Oxford English Dictionary gives

1720:. My proposal (not necessarily in this order): move 1566:

http://en.wiktionary.org/Category:French_derivations

536:

but not "cummerbund". Google searches for the words

115:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1415:was one of the articles that I explicitly noted in 505:Neither criterion, however, succeeds in separating 1089:every category at Wiktionary has its own talk page 149:This article has not yet received a rating on the 1984:What about adding a new list of English words of 1891:Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin 1097:Wiktionary:Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion 680:Any comments are welcome, here or there. Pinging 1435:have been an active creator and defender of the 722:— Indeed the lists are not dictionary entries. 1945:Is there one of these, or should there be one? 571:. Given this, would you still defend including 381:Is it listed in any major English dictionaries? 1976:List of English words of Catalan and Occitan ( 1887:Lists of English words of international origin 1722:Lists of English words of international origin 1671:Lists of English words of international origin 1553:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion_policy/Lists of words 1457:Talk:List of English words of Norwegian origin 1342:list of Puerto Rican phrases, words and slangs 1166:— False. There are not. There are lists of 1093:every word at Wiktionary has its own talk page 791:of languages. Indeed, in many cases, such as 783:— Correct. They show the words as loanwords 1182:. Lists of words fail VFD. The evidence of 8: 2197:Why only the "Italian List" has been erased? 1941:List of English words of Anglo-Saxon origin? 1770:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Lexicons: A Proposal 1202:Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Entry layout explained 1392:And I would say that some of them, such as 220:, an attempt to structure and organize all 1683:Wiktionary:Appendix:1000 basic Dutch words 1439:, I no longer see its utility as a list. 182: 58: 32: 30: 1459:with another suggested dictionary entry. 1337:list of Norfuk words and English meanings 1322:list of English words with disputed usage 1194:The second paragraph of that policy does 629:, that robustly meet all three criteria. 1675:Lexicon:English words of Romanian origin 1639:List of English words of Romanian origin 1362:list of frequently misused English words 1081:I move that all these lists be restored. 224:. If you wish to help, please visit the 2295:Unknown-importance Linguistics articles 1839:Lexicon:English terms of Persian origin 1734:List of English words of Persian origin 1564:information and allowing pages such as 1437:List of English words of Russian origin 1382:list of words of disputed pronunciation 1274:If you're so convinced that the policy 1035:articles to be deleted, which actually 720:These lists are not dictionary entries. 525:dating back to 1591 and quotations for 184: 129:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linguistics 60: 2150:The IP from earlier in the section.... 1768:In Wiktionary, I made the proposal at 928:Also, I take issue with the statement 468:list of English words of French origin 1730:English words of international origin 1726:English words of international origin 1702:List of English words of Latin origin 1455:that happens? Someone comes along to 1184:List of English words of Latin origin 614:would meet it. It just doesn't work. 534:list of English words of Hindi origin 460:list of English words of Latin origin 7: 1394:List of English words without rhymes 1352:list of borrowed words in Indonesian 1327:list of English words without rhymes 401:list of English wods of Hindi origin 391:This is the most important criteria. 214:This article is within the scope of 109:This article is within the scope of 1411:points out and that, for starters, 771:Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary 732:Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary 300:Clarification of Intent of Articles 49:It is of interest to the following 2024:form of another Romance language. 1535:supported by consensus of policy. 1396:, have wrong titles: they are not 1105:is the primary goal of the project 25: 1710:Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Dutch index 1679:Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Dutch index 748:wholesale deletion of the article 552:. The raw hit count for the word 238:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Lists 2310:WikiProject Linguistics articles 1881:Please, let me first start with 1367:list of two-letter English words 1237:there are no definitions given. 1164:There are hundreds of such lists 548:is a much more common word than 207: 186: 132:Template:WikiProject Linguistics 96: 86: 62: 31: 2290:List-Class Linguistics articles 1432:Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves 1037:resulted in the deletion of one 996:it isn't supported by precedent 853:categories of directory entries 470:(notwithstanding the fact that 258:This article has been rated as 1625:23:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC) 985:writing encyclopaedia articles 1: 2305:Etymology Task Force articles 2300:List-Class etymology articles 2183:00:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC) 2148:18:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC) 2121:09:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 2095:05:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 2073:02:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 2042:14:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 2018:02:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 1970:19:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 1955:22:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC) 1870:16:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 1827:05:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 1808:02:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 1763:21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 1745:20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 1690:20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 1357:list of fictional curse words 1123:Knowledge (XXG):list of lists 222:list pages on Knowledge (XXG) 167:This article is supported by 123:and see a list of open tasks. 2320:Low-importance List articles 1656:01:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC) 1612:Suggestion for you linguists 1472:Roget's Thesaurus defines a 1899:19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 1212:" right at the very top of 750:. I've turned the tide on 724:The items on the lists are. 698:00:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC) 2341: 2325:WikiProject Lists articles 1936:22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 1922:06:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1860:13:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 1833:How it looks in Wiktionary 477:However, I note that both 264:project's importance scale 241:Template:WikiProject Lists 151:project's importance scale 2004:15:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 1846:02:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC) 1789:01:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC) 1777:01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC) 1608:21:58, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC) 1585:11:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 1547:09:23, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC) 716:00:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC) 649:22:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) 641:20:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) 633:01:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) 434:23:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 411:18:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 349:17:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 325:18:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 257: 202: 166: 148: 81: 57: 2315:List-Class List articles 2275:17:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC) 2244:23:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC) 1630:AfD - Romanian loanwords 1559:09:23, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC) 1539:02:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1496:22:05, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC) 1443:20:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1389:20:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1142:19:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) 941:04:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1865:Go ahead and start it! 1513:02:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1467:11:17, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC) 1423:11:09, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC) 1404:21:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1286:18:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1263:20:04, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 1241:20:04, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 1190:20:04, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 1160:20:04, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 1111:18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 1077:18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 1067:18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 1053:18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 1043:18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 1020:18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 1002:18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 992:18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 977:18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 959:18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 925:04:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) 859:03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 845:03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 831:03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 821:words of Bengali origin 811:03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 793:words of Nahuatl origin 777:03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 763:03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) 728:etymological dictionary 670:19:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) 441:is a French phrase and 112:WikiProject Linguistics 1226:any confusion whatever 757:encyclopaedia articles 163: 39:This article is rated 1257:Wiktionary:dictionary 895:Words of Dutch origin 888:Wiktionary entry for 886:. Unfortunately, the 872:Words of Dutch origin 797:it isn't even English 162: 43:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 1992:(Provençal) origin? 1591:Who are you Uncle G? 1413:list of Dacian words 1317:list of Dacian words 1214:Wiktionary:Main Page 682:Giantflightlessbirds 170:Etymology Task Force 135:Linguistics articles 2109:Knowledge (XXG).org 746:and the subsequent 1150:dictionary entries 839:actually looked at 706:List != dictionary 354:Talk:Salsa (sauce) 164: 104:Linguistics portal 45:content assessment 2234:comment added by 2063:comment added by 2002: 1653: 1587: 1575:comment added by 1482:Andrew Lenahan - 951:etymologies that 919:specifically note 278: 277: 274: 273: 270: 269: 217:WikiProject Lists 181: 180: 177: 176: 16:(Redirected from 2332: 2271: 2268: 2265: 2262: 2259: 2256: 2246: 2087:Michael Bednarek 2075: 1996: 1978:Occitano-Romance 1962:Count Truthstein 1947:Count Truthstein 1819:Michael Bednarek 1706:User:JoaoRicardo 1673:) can direct to 1651: 1570: 1494: 1491: 1488: 1485: 1222:almost certainly 1174:, but there are 1127:in and of itself 955:at Wiktionary. 911:just definitions 868:previous version 823:being loaned to 785:to all languages 292: 291: 287: 246: 245: 242: 239: 236: 211: 204: 203: 198: 190: 183: 137: 136: 133: 130: 127: 106: 101: 100: 90: 83: 82: 77: 66: 59: 42: 36: 35: 34: 27: 21: 2340: 2339: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2280: 2279: 2269: 2266: 2263: 2260: 2257: 2254: 2229: 2199: 2107:2)According to 2058: 1982: 1943: 1906: 1898:_Category": --> 1879: 1853: 1835: 1700:In the RfC for 1698: 1632: 1614: 1593: 1492: 1489: 1486: 1483: 1453:very next thing 1235:we don't inhale 937:English words. 708: 302: 293: 289: 285: 283: 282: 243: 240: 237: 234: 233: 196: 134: 131: 128: 125: 124: 102: 95: 72: 40: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2338: 2336: 2328: 2327: 2322: 2317: 2312: 2307: 2302: 2297: 2292: 2282: 2281: 2278: 2277: 2225:Antiitalianism 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2198: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2171: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2111:it's not. ;-) 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 1981: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1942: 1939: 1905: 1902: 1895:After Midnight 1878: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1852: 1849: 1834: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1792: 1791: 1780: 1779: 1697: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1631: 1628: 1613: 1610: 1592: 1589: 1561: 1560: 1515: 1514: 1498: 1497: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1405: 1384: 1379: 1374: 1369: 1364: 1359: 1354: 1349: 1344: 1339: 1334: 1329: 1324: 1319: 1314: 1309: 1304: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1242: 1191: 1170:, and list of 1161: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1078: 1068: 1054: 1044: 1021: 1003: 993: 978: 960: 926: 898: 882:, which means 863: 862: 861: 860: 846: 832: 825:Indian English 812: 778: 764: 736:Wiktionary is. 707: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 672: 671: 575:but excluding 503: 502: 498: 427: 426: 423: 397: 395: 394: 393: 392: 386: 385: 382: 378: 377: 376: 375: 372: 366: 365: 344: 343: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 316: 315: 311: 301: 298: 281: 279: 276: 275: 272: 271: 268: 267: 260:Low-importance 256: 250: 249: 247: 212: 200: 199: 197:Low‑importance 191: 179: 178: 175: 174: 165: 155: 154: 147: 141: 140: 138: 121:the discussion 108: 107: 91: 79: 78: 67: 55: 54: 48: 37: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2337: 2326: 2323: 2321: 2318: 2316: 2313: 2311: 2308: 2306: 2303: 2301: 2298: 2296: 2293: 2291: 2288: 2287: 2285: 2276: 2273: 2272: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2236:98.64.242.206 2233: 2228: 2226: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2208: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2196: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2140:173.79.68.101 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2065:173.79.68.101 2062: 2057: 2053: 2048: 2044: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2028: 2025: 2021: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010:173.79.68.101 2006: 2005: 2000: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1940: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1928:74.227.223.23 1924: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1903: 1901: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1875: 1871: 1868: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1858: 1850: 1848: 1847: 1844: 1843:Alexander 007 1840: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1800:173.79.68.101 1796: 1790: 1787: 1786:Alexander 007 1782: 1781: 1778: 1775: 1774:Alexander 007 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1761: 1760:Alexander 007 1757: 1753: 1747: 1746: 1743: 1742:Alexander 007 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1695: 1691: 1688: 1687:Alexander 007 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1654: 1652:(squirt ink?) 1648: 1644: 1640: 1635: 1629: 1627: 1626: 1623: 1620: 1611: 1609: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1590: 1588: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1567: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1546: 1540: 1538: 1534: 1528: 1525: 1520: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1449: 1445: 1444: 1442: 1438: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1390: 1388: 1385: 1383: 1380: 1378: 1375: 1373: 1370: 1368: 1365: 1363: 1360: 1358: 1355: 1353: 1350: 1348: 1345: 1343: 1340: 1338: 1335: 1333: 1330: 1328: 1325: 1323: 1320: 1318: 1315: 1313: 1310: 1308: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1293: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1243: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1197: 1192: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1162: 1159: 1155: 1154:follow policy 1151: 1147: 1144: 1143: 1141: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1121:deleted. See 1120: 1115: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1079: 1076: 1072: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1055: 1052: 1048: 1045: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1029: 1025: 1022: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1004: 1001: 997: 994: 991: 986: 982: 979: 976: 973:be the case. 972: 968: 964: 961: 958: 954: 950: 946: 943: 942: 940: 936: 931: 927: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 904: 899: 896: 892: 891: 885: 881: 877: 874:had the word 873: 869: 865: 864: 858: 854: 850: 847: 844: 840: 836: 833: 830: 826: 822: 817: 813: 810: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 779: 776: 772: 768: 765: 762: 758: 753: 749: 745: 742:consensus at 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 718: 717: 715: 710: 709: 705: 699: 695: 691: 690:Roger 8 Roger 687: 683: 679: 676: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 661: 656: 655: 654: 650: 648: 642: 640: 634: 632: 628: 624: 618: 615: 613: 607: 603: 599: 597: 593: 588: 586: 582: 578: 574: 570: 567: 564: 562: 557: 555: 551: 547: 543: 539: 535: 530: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 499: 496: 495: 494: 492: 488: 484: 480: 475: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 452: 448: 444: 440: 435: 433: 424: 421: 420: 419: 415: 412: 410: 404: 402: 390: 389: 388: 387: 383: 380: 379: 373: 370: 369: 368: 367: 363: 362: 361: 359: 355: 350: 348: 341: 340: 329: 328: 327: 326: 324: 320: 319: 318: 317: 312: 308: 307: 306: 299: 297: 288: 280: 265: 261: 255: 252: 251: 248: 244:List articles 231: 227: 223: 219: 218: 213: 210: 206: 205: 201: 195: 192: 189: 185: 172: 171: 161: 157: 156: 152: 146: 143: 142: 139: 122: 118: 114: 113: 105: 99: 94: 92: 89: 85: 84: 80: 76: 71: 68: 65: 61: 56: 52: 46: 38: 29: 28: 19: 2253: 2230:— Preceding 2222: 2221: 2200: 2059:— Preceding 2049: 2045: 2032: 2029: 2026: 2022: 2007: 1983: 1944: 1925: 1907: 1880: 1876:List --: --> 1854: 1836: 1797: 1793: 1752:encyclopedic 1748: 1738:encyclopedia 1699: 1667:anthroponyms 1637:I've put up 1636: 1633: 1615: 1594: 1577:210.84.33.14 1562: 1541: 1532: 1529: 1523: 1518: 1516: 1477: 1473: 1452: 1397: 1300: 1296: 1275: 1252: 1244: 1234: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1209: 1205: 1195: 1193: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1118: 1104: 1100: 1092: 1088: 1080: 1070: 1056: 1046: 1036: 1032: 1023: 1013: 1005: 995: 984: 980: 970: 966: 962: 953:already were 952: 948: 944: 935:demonstrably 934: 929: 918: 914: 910: 906: 902: 889: 883: 879: 875: 852: 848: 838: 834: 815: 804: 800: 796: 788: 784: 780: 766: 756: 747: 739: 735: 723: 719: 663: 659: 651: 643: 635: 626: 622: 619: 616: 612:kindergarden 611: 608: 604: 600: 595: 592:kindergarten 591: 589: 584: 580: 576: 572: 560: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 531: 527:kindergarten 526: 522: 519:kindergarten 518: 514: 510: 506: 504: 491:kindergarten 490: 486: 482: 478: 476: 472:c'est la vie 471: 464:c'est la vie 463: 455: 451:c'est la vie 450: 446: 442: 439:c'est la vie 438: 436: 428: 416: 413: 405: 396: 351: 345: 303: 294: 259: 226:project page 215: 168: 110: 51:WikiProjects 1889:) and also 1883:don't panic 1634:Hello all, 1571:—Preceding 1295:"there are 1210:etymologies 1008:— Wrong. 915:on its face 907:very narrow 358:Talk:Hangul 126:Linguistics 117:linguistics 70:Linguistics 2284:Categories 2175:Prof Wrong 2113:Prof Wrong 2034:Prof Wrong 1910:GlobeGores 1606:Kowloonese 1474:dictionary 1218:dictionary 1206:dictionary 971:should not 851:— But the 714:Kowloonese 581:cummerbund 573:cummerbund 561:cummerbund 550:cummerbund 544:show that 542:cummerbund 437:Certainly 230:discussion 41:List-class 1918:user page 1914:talk page 1810:An IP :D 1716:, not an 1598:Uncle Sam 1299:lists of 1276:obviously 1178:lists of 501:question. 75:Etymology 2232:unsigned 2061:unsigned 1999:xarrades 1980:) origin 1877:Category 1696:Proposal 1663:toponyms 1573:unsigned 1557:Radiant! 1545:Radiant! 1502:moving. 1441:Mikkalai 1409:Mikkalai 1402:Mikkalai 1085:tea room 949:existing 807:words". 662:but not 639:Tritium6 432:Tritium6 347:Tritium6 314:English. 1990:Occitan 1986:Catalan 1867:惑乱分からん 1857:Sangild 1756:article 1714:lexicon 1647:Squiddy 1465:Uncle G 1421:Uncle G 1261:Uncle G 1251:. Yet 1239:Uncle G 1188:Uncle G 1158:Uncle G 1109:Uncle G 1075:Uncle G 1065:Uncle G 1051:Uncle G 1041:Uncle G 1018:Uncle G 1000:Uncle G 990:Uncle G 975:Uncle G 957:Uncle G 857:Uncle G 843:Uncle G 829:Uncle G 809:Uncle G 805:English 775:Uncle G 761:Uncle G 686:Pelagic 596:cheetah 515:cheetah 487:cheetah 262:on the 2202:(UTC) 2020:An IP 1904:Quote? 1851:Danish 1622:(talk) 1519:except 1507:Gwalla 1280:WP:WIN 1249:WP:WIN 1230:define 1208:with 1172:topics 1061:WP:WIN 1028:WP:WIN 1010:WP:WIN 967:should 740:delete 623:barrio 558:(: --> 511:barrio 483:barrio 331:India. 284:": --> 47:scale. 2270:Focus 2054:with 1994:Jɑυмe 1817:. -- 1718:index 1602:G-men 1537:Nohat 1461:Nohat 1448:Nohat 1398:lists 1387:Nohat 1301:words 1284:Nohat 1253:again 1180:words 1168:terms 1140:Nohat 1033:these 939:Nohat 923:Nohat 884:hello 789:a lot 668:Nohat 664:bindi 647:Nohat 631:Nohat 513:from 409:Nohat 323:Nohat 235:Lists 194:Lists 2240:talk 2227:? BD 2179:talk 2144:talk 2117:talk 2091:talk 2069:talk 2056:this 2052:this 2038:talk 2014:talk 1988:and 1966:talk 1951:talk 1932:talk 1823:talk 1804:talk 1645:. -- 1600:and 1581:talk 1511:Talk 1014:very 890:ahoy 876:ahoy 816:this 814:And 801:from 694:talk 684:and 660:sari 627:sari 625:and 594:and 585:sari 577:sari 554:sari 546:sari 540:and 538:sari 523:sari 517:and 509:and 507:sari 489:and 481:and 479:sari 462:and 456:ergo 447:ergo 443:ergo 356:and 286:edit 2081:1) 1724:to 1619:CH 1533:not 1524:NOT 1490:bli 1476:as 1297:not 1196:not 1176:not 1135:not 1131:not 1119:not 1063:. 1012:is 903:not 880:hoi 870:of 827:). 734:. 730:. 466:on 458:on 254:Low 145:??? 2286:: 2242:) 2181:) 2146:) 2119:) 2093:) 2071:) 2040:) 2016:) 1968:) 1953:) 1934:) 1920:) 1916:| 1841:. 1825:) 1806:) 1685:. 1681:, 1665:, 1649:| 1583:) 1555:. 1509:| 1505:— 1493:nd 1487:ar 1484:St 1259:. 1247:— 1099:. 795:, 696:) 688:. 73:: 2267:m 2264:a 2261:e 2258:r 2255:D 2238:( 2177:( 2142:( 2115:( 2089:( 2067:( 2036:( 2012:( 2001:) 1997:( 1964:( 1949:( 1930:( 1912:( 1821:( 1802:( 1579:( 1303:" 692:( 290:] 266:. 232:. 173:. 153:. 53:: 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index