User talk:AugPi/2009

Hi, is there a reason you use {{infl}} instead of this? Conrad.Irwin 16:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, {{nl-noun}} requires me to either specify a diminutive or say that the noun has no diminutive; but often I just prefer to ignore the diminutive altogether, without saying that there isn't one. —AugPi 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Conrad.Irwin 16:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hola, alles goed?

you advised me to archive my talkpage. However, I have no idea how to do that. Could you help me out? Thank you

By the way, do you know the song I was talking about? Adios :D

Mallerd 19:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Goed. Archiving the talkpage is basically a cut-and-paste operation. First, cut the contents of your talkpage and replace them with a link to User talk:Mallerd/Archive 1. Then paste those contents into the page called up by that link.

I found a song called "Angelito vuela" by Don Omar, and I guess that is the one you were talking about. —AugPi 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, I have made some format changes to the section indcated at dee. Information about cognates should really go in the ===Etymology=== section. We really should not be cluttering the definition lines if we can help it. Regards, --Williamsayers79 08:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have gone back and fixed the rest of the Dutch Low Saxon words accordingly. —AugPi 02:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, ik wilde even vertellen dat je heel goede Nederlandse bijdragen levert! :D Ga zo door, groetjes Mallerd 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey AugPi,

If you're having trouble viewing Syriac fonts, may I suggest switching your font settings instead of increasing the font size in templates? There are many fonts out there to choose from (some of which are smaller and harder to read than others, but you can find decent-looking ones if you look hard enough). --334a 05:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have now instead used the {{Syrc}} template much in the same way that, say, {{Deva}} is used in {{hi-noun}}. Also, the {{Syrc}} didn't really specify anything, so I told it to use font size 1.3 em: this is similar to {{Hebr}} using size 1.15 em. Then I looked at several articles in Category:Syriac nouns and found that the inflection line script was now pleasant to behold, certainly more so than with my original edit of <font size=5>...</font>, which was certainly too big (my apology). The inflection line Syriac script is now large enough that I can clearly distinguish individual letters, and, by comparing with the transcription, I can learn (and have been learning) what the individual letters transliterate to. It is far easier for me to learn foreign scripts by browsing dictionary entries with transliterations or transcriptions, than to look at transliteration charts for the alphabets, such as are available in Wikipedia. Hopefully you won't find my latest edits objectionable. By the way, the Syriac script is beautiful IMHO, so hopefully you, or somebody, will add more of such entries. —AugPi 00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert a comment by User:71.197.235.239 on 29 March? DAVilla 07:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC) And then block him!? For constructive edits? For questioning why he was being reverted? DAVilla 08:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I flew off the handle a bit there. It wasn't entirely your fault, but definitely unfortunate. If a newbie asks why he's being reverted, it might be better to answer him, or at least let someone who wants to take the time do so. DAVilla 08:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just now looked at that anon's edit. The anon had not even bothered to sign his message, that is why I was suspicious. From the content of his message, I had assumed that he was some kind of vandal who was already being reverted by other Wiktionarians. —AugPi 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now I just looked at the history of "outgreen". First thing I notice is that User:71.197.235.239 was rolled back twice, by two different users. The second thing I notice is that User:71.197.235.239 was the originator of the "outgreen" article. Then I look at the content of his edits (I say "his", for all I know it could be "hers") and they don't really look like vandalism, so I made the wrong assumption. —AugPi 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I don't doubt that your definition is accurate, but only a skilled mathematician can understand it. I added the cleanup tag because I think we should provide definitions in English, rather than algebraic notation, and that make some degree of sense to the layman. (For this reason we define "subset" as "a set elements element of the other set" and not in pure notation like ⊆.) Do you think you could explain Hausdorff dimension in English? Interested readers can always go to Wikipedia if they want perfectly detailed accuracy. Equinox ◑ 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That is a lot more readable! Equinox ◑ 01:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hej Augpi, in Dutch you pronounce it as "eenentwintigste"; in other words "een en twintigste". The en is often pronounced as ən  :) Adios User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 16:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quick note, instead of "hoe zegt men" it's more usual to say "hoe zeg je". It's not really considered informal, at least not in spoken language :) User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 17:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dankjewel. —AugPi 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

We don't have transliteration entries. As per Wiktionary:About Hindi: "The entry name should always be the Devanagari script - not a transliteration." --EncycloPetey 04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for pointing that out. BTW, that was not a full fledged entry, just a redirect, but I guess that if one is strict enough, it would be considered an entry anyway. —AugPi 04:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, you're right. I had first edited a full-fledged Romanized entry before you flagged it with RfC. —AugPi 04:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

What is the lemma for this verb? You've categorized both entries as a verb "form", which is usually the category we use for a non-lemma form. --EncycloPetey 03:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The lemma is esar, which I shall have to add. —AugPi 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've created this category for Ido. Family words are basic entries for any language, and I find that having them together in a category often reminds me of words I need to add. --EncycloPetey 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. —AugPi 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

When you've finished adding the days of the week, could you please add the Ido units of time to this appendix? --EncycloPetey 04:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have done so, and then I noticed that Esperanto is missing (though I am not "sponsoring" it). —AugPi 04:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't that long ago that I realized Galician was missing too. --EncycloPetey 04:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I need you help with it. Thank you Steel Blade 20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I fixed the inflection line. —AugPi 21:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Steel Blade 21:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anyways, can delete a certain user's user talk? Thank you. I know the username. Steel Blade 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Technically, I can do that, but I am not sure what you mean. Whose user talk? —AugPi 21:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dekoshu's. Steel Blade 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please make this into a proper entry. What relationship does it have to the mentioned word? 50 Xylophone Players talk 10:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is a separable particle of "teloorgaan". It probably relates etymologically to "teleur" which is a separable particle of "teleurstellen". —AugPi 02:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

In the vast majority of cases, Dutch separable verbs are a compound of a preposition followed by a verb. In this case, "teloor" is not a preposition. This is pretty irregular for Dutch, so it threw me off. There does need to be some sort of redirect though, from "teloor" to "teloorgaan". I hope that my last edit to "teloor" is sufficiently explanatory; it is not a synonym for "teloorgaan". Instead, whenever "teloor" appears in a sentence, it will be followed sometime later (within the same sentence) by "gaan". That is why I claim that it is a particle which modifies "gaan" 's meaning. —AugPi 02:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Should there be a level 3 header, above the definition, which says "Particle"? And should it be categorized in Category:Dutch particles? In other words, whereas right now I mean it to be just a redirect, should it be (in your opinion) a full-fledged article? —AugPi 02:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I undid a bunch of your edits, because you marked them as strong while they have clearly irregular features. I explained a bit in the edit summary of each one. But essentially it comes down to this: a regular strong verb has only a vowel change, no other special features such as consonants appearing and disappearing in some forms. Furthermore, even if a verb has no strange features, it still only belongs to one of the 7 'default' classes if its vowel pattern matches up. This is not the case for komen in class 4 for example since it shows the vowel sequence oo-a-aa-o rather than ee-a-aa-o like class 4 is supposed to. Strong verbs that have only a vowel change, yet do not adhere to the vowel pattern of any of the 7 classes should be placed in Category:Dutch non-standard strong verbs with {{nl-verb-strong|i}}. An example is helpen which has e-ie-ie-o rather than e-o-o-o like class 3, or x-ie-ie-x like class 7 (with x being the same vowel in both cases).

By the way, I am aware of the fact that historically, most of the verbs you edited WERE strong verbs. I know for example that komen was originally kwemen and that zien was originally sehen like German, with a h/g change that appears in other verbs (such as slaan, as well as s/r like in vriezen). However, I don't think the use of historical categories is very useful for the modern-day visitor/Dutch learner, who will be coming to this site with the expectation that they can easily get an idea of the grammar using the definitions provided. Someone who sees komen listed as a class 4 strong verb would expect its forms to adhere to those of other class 4 strong verbs, while in fact they do not. I therefore think they are best marked as irregular, in the interest of warning users that those verbs have nonstandard features that must be memorised. --CodeCat 09:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will not bother your last edits. The reason I had reverted to listing them as strong verbs was because that is how the nl.wikt lists them. However, while I was doing the reversion, I noticed that nl.wikt lists wezen as a strong verb whereas, looking at its conjugation pattern, it looks like an irregular verb to me. That is when I realized that you might be right. —AugPi 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info and the code string. Unsigned comment by Zhividya.

You're welcome. —AugPi 02:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to remove the category Category:Dutch weak verbs from {{Template:nl-verb-weak}} for maintenance purposes (see my user page for info). However, since your most recent edit to the template I can no longer get the category to update itself. Even after commenting out the category from the template, and even doing several 'nonsense' edits to the template in order to somehow trigger an update, the category page still shows those pages as being in that category, even though they are not. This is a problem for me as I am using the listing of the category as a to-do list for entries that still lack the {{Template:nl-verb-weak}} template. Do you have any idea what's going on and why the category page doesn't list its contents correctly? --CodeCat 22:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oww, I'm sorry! I didn't know why that was commented out. Yes, you're right, something weird is going on with the Category:Dutch weak verbs, and no, I don't know what is causing it. —AugPi 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I left a message about this in Wiktionary:Grease pit, to which User:Robert Ullmann posted an answer. What I understand is, that it is going to take some time for the database to update the contents of the category. —AugPi 02:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The imperative of zijn is ben, the first person singular form, as is usual for any verb. wees is the imperative of a synonymous verb, wezen, but is more frequently used than ben (though not exclusively). This verb shares its past tense forms with zijn, but no longer has distinct present tense forms other than the imperative and infinitive. Originally it was a regular class 5 strong verb, with an s/r alternation similar to vriezen and verliezen. It had a full present tense: ik wees, jij weest, hij weest, wij wezen. Its past participle was gewezen. --CodeCat 20:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see. Should my last imp= edits be removed then? But I am having trouble with something else: I am trying to have an optional 6th parameter for the singular subjunctive (the plural subjunctive is obsolete in modern Dutch, I am told). In the old templates I noticed that a 6th parameter was/is often used with the -n removed from the pagename/infinitive. This should be for an extra line under the line for the imperative, but I am finding it practically impossible to add an extra line optionally, depending on whether {{{6|}}} has content or not. Do you think that this subjunctive issue is worth considering? —AugPi 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, imp= turned out to be very useful just now, when I went to edit wezen. See for yourself. ;) And the subjunctive form would definitely be useful, as it would show forms like zij and ware, even if they are archaic in use. However, there isn't just one subjunctive form; the subjunctive is completely parallel with the indicative, and has a present and a past tense. The subjunctive is distinct only in the singular, and is formed by adding the ending -e to the stem. The plural is like the indicative, and adds -en. However, regular weak verbs already have an -e suffix so the past subjunctive is not distinct for these verbs at all, and is identical to the indicative. Nevertheless, to show all this information reliably, you'd have to add two rows: one for singular and another for plural. Or you could another two columns to the right of the table (though keep in mind there is no subjunctive participle). --CodeCat 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

nl:aanbreken/vervoeging Now that I am trying to do this more systematically at nl.wikt I'm running into the wonderful complexities of Dutch verbs. Aanbreken e.g. has two meanings, in one as de dag brak aan (morning has broken) it is an ergative verb. But it can also mean opening up a bottle, can, supply etc, then it is transitive. That means that "aangebroken zijn" can either be the perfect of the active (ergative) or the perfect of the transitive passive... In the transitive case the aux active is hebben.

I'm not sure how to put that into a table without a lot of repetition, so I used a reference note instead. Not elegant I know.... I'd appreciate your thoughts, because I'm sure that particularly for English speakers our usage of the auxiliary zijn must be very confusing. Is my table of any use?

Upon reading CodeCat's contention above that the imperative of zijn is 'ben' I must admit that I have never seen that before. I'd like to see a quotation. Preferably 20th century. His contention that the subjunctive has a full set of forms in both present and past is perhaps defensible for Middle Dutch (<1500). Modern Dutch has less subjunctives than modern English...

Jcwf 02:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind your use of footnotes in the conjugation table of aanbreken. In fact, I used footnotes in my Latin conjugation templates before they were later overhauled by other user(s); see, for example, http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Template:la-conj-1st&oldid=646119 . As far as zijn as auxiliary being confusing, I don't think it's that confusing, though if I were to speak in Dutch, I don't know if I would always know to use it in the right places instead of hebben. I remember that not long ago I found myself using conjugated forms of "to be" as an auxiliaries for some past participles (in English) for the sake of playing with words (in an analogy with Dutch). For English ergative verbs, this can be done grammatically correctly, for example "The lamp is broken" means almost the same as "The lamp has broken", and it doesn't take much to imagine that "The lamp is broken" actually means "The lamp has broken", likewise "dawn is broken" could be construed to mean "dawn has broken" with the meaning of "break" as in "at the break of dawn".

Dutch grammar is comparatively quite simple: the conjugation tables of Dutch are significantly simpler than other languages. But looking at the conjugation table for zijn in the Latin Wiktionary and then in nl.wikt shows that there might be more complexity than what the conjugation tables in the English or Swedish Wiktionaries are letting on. For example, for the case of zijn, the conjugation for u is the same in the plural as for the singular, and for je it is the same as for u, and not the same as for jou or jullie. Then there is the conjugation for gij and ge, which breaks the mold. But then I looked at nl.wikt's conjugation of lopen and saw that it was "back to normal", i.e. the same as en.wikt's or sv.wikt's, without having different forms coming out of the woodwork.

Concerning the imperative of zijn, I looked up the phrase "wees goed" on a search engine and found two sentences in which wees is used imperatively: "Wees goed tegen je ouders" (Be good to(wards) your parents) and "Wees goed, wees veilig, en geniet van uw tijd" (Be good, be safe, and enjoy your time). When I looked the phrase "ben goed" I did not find instances in which it appeared to be used imperatively. So I will probably change the imperative of zijn back to wees, even though wees is, considered strictly, a form of wezen. This problem arises because zijn and wezen are like Siamese twins: they cannot be "untangled apart", they have ended up with conjoined forms in their conjugation tables. I think CodeCat was trying (at least subconsciously) to untangle zijn and wezen apart. If an English speaker comes across a table which says that "ben" is the imperative of "zijn", such English speaker might be wrongly tempted to use "ben" as the imperative of zijn in actual speech or writing, so it would be better to have "wees" in the table instead. I think what CodeCat really means is that, morphologically, ben should be the imperative of zijn, even if such use is "muted", i.e. never actually used that way. Instead, the imperative of "wezen" is used, which semantically corresponds to the imperative of zijn, so one might as well consider it the imperative of zijn. To insist that the imperative of zijn is ben would only make sense for a regular verb, but we already know that zijn is irregular...

Considering the subjunctive, I have been considering getting rid of the "subjunctive plural" line in the conjugation table, since it only repeats forms which are already elsewhere in the table. If one knows that the subjunctive plural is the same as the indicative plural, one really doesn't need that extra line in the table. So instead of that line, there should be a note in Wiktionary:About_Dutch which says that "subjunctive plural" was not mentioned in the conjugation tables because it has the same form(s) as the indicative plural. The 6th parameter should be more or less required, just like it is in nl.wikt and sv.wikt, and the 7th parameter should remain optional. The old table for zijn listed two forms of the subjunctive: apparently one is present subjunctive and the other past subjunctive, so the 7th parameter can be useful, if at least for backward compatibility with what was already there. Anyway, there is a Dutch Grammar website which says that subjunctive plural isn't used much at all in modern Dutch, so that is another reason for getting rid of the "subjunctive plural" line. There should be a note in Wiktionary:About_Dutch which would say that, in the conjugation tables, by "subjunctive" is actually meant the "subjunctive singular" which is the only form really used in modern Dutch. —AugPi 13:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just spotted this so I figured I'd join in the fun. ;) About the imperative of zijn, I guess you are right that semantically it and wezen are the same thing so there is little point in trying to pry them apart. However, you also have to consider the intuition behind a language. Speakers perceive certain patterns in the language, and tend to adjust forms they perceive as 'different' to fit with those patterns. Dutch speakers would undoubtedly realise that the imperative is always the same as the 1st singular form, so this is the 'pattern'. The different form in this case is wees, which has managed to survive so far because of the existence of a parallel (though defective) verb wezen. However, language intuition and the desire to regularise anomalous forms can be a strong thing, and this causes ben to be used as the imperative next to wees. While wees is considered as 'standard', you'd be surprised how often ben crops up in everyday speech, simply because of its perceived regularity compared to wees. I've heard plenty of people say ben op tijd, for example. So it would make sense to list it, even if only as a secondary form.

Then there is the gij-form, which does indeed present a problem. The problem is that the verb forms in Dutch are not aligned along grammatical person or number, but rather determined by the pronoun. gij, u and jij are grammatically all 2nd person singular (or plural for gij and u), but the verb forms are potentially different for all three. This isn't much of an issue, as long as the table lists them on those grounds. However, this creates a lot of redundancy as most verbs have identical forms for all of these (as well as for hij), and is only of real benefit for some verbs. So we have to decide whether to list the forms per pronoun (and potentially list the same form many times) or come up with another solution. --CodeCat 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The superlative is bruutst, not brutest. can't help it

Greetings

Jcwf 23:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I had noticed that mistake just now too. —AugPi 05:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've been looking at the changes you made to {{nl-adj}} but I can't figure out what they're for. It seems that it just skips displaying the comparative and superlative altogether if you set the comparative to *. Why not just use -, and have it shown as incomparable? Or is there somehow a kind of adjective that is comparable yet has no comparative form? --CodeCat 16:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it is just that I since am not a native Dutch speaker: I either (1) know that an adjective is comparable, and I know what the comparative and superlative forms are, or (2) I don't know the comparative and superlative forms, and I am not sure if the adjective lacks such forms. So the asterisk is a way of answering "mu" to the question "Is this adjective comparable?" If you ever read Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter, you will know what I mean by this "mu". The asterisk functionality just makes {{nl-adj}} backward compatible, as it were, with the information that is currently there (about Dutch adjectives, in en.wikt). Since you are a native speaker, you are better able to judge whether an adjective is not comparable, so you should use dash instead of asterisk with {{nl-adj}}. BTW, en.wikipedia has an article on Mu (negative) about this "mu." —AugPi 02:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did something similar with {{nl-noun}}, and the reason for that was given in #Template:nl-noun; but it is the same reason, basically, as that for {{nl-adj}}. —AugPi 02:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Recently, Jcwf (talk • contribs) pointed out in RfD that zeebodem doesn't really have a diminutive. So I proceeded to delete zeebodempje and zeebodempjes and to change the {{nl-adj}} of zeebodem to show that it doesn't have a diminutive. I think that native speakers like Jcwf and you are qualified to make such decisions: that (1) such-and-such noun has no diminutive, or (2) that such-and-such adjective is not comparable. However, to make {{nl-noun}} and {{nl-adj}} compatible with my level of knowledge, or just to make them plainly more comfortable for me to use, I added the asterisk functionality. In other words, sometimes I just like to have the benefit of the doubt. —AugPi 02:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

This asterisk makes my use of {{nl-adj}} and {{nl-noun}} more "constructive" in the sense of "intuitionistic logic": an interesting topic in its own right. —AugPi 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You should subst: those templates. Wiki-structure of WT:ELE must be maintained. I.e. {{subst:nl-verb-entry-2p|knielen}} instead of {{nl-verb-entry-2p|knielen}}, etc. --Ivan Štambuk 04:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain to me what the subst: is for? I didn't find it in WT:ELE. —AugPi 04:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, never mind! I see what it does (e.g. knielt). —AugPi 04:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you mean by "floating plate". Based on other entries you've been working on, do you mean the geological term tectonic plate? --EncycloPetey 03:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

(1) That definition of schol was added by an anonymous user, and I don't think that it was me, since according to IP locator, that IP is from Raleigh, North Carolina, a place I have never been in. I am just assuming that whoever added that definition knew what "they" was talking about.^† (2) the article on w:nl:Aarde (planeet) uses the term "schollen" in order to describe tectonic plates. This does not mean, however, that the term "schol" could not mean "floating plate" in a more general sense. —AugPi 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

† - It could be, for all I know, an anonymous edit by Jcwf (talk • contribs), who is currently in North Carolina. —AugPi 03:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

(3) To me, "floating plate" could just as easily mean "a flat, floating chunk of ice", the kind that polar bears like to stand on. I looked up Scholle, the German word which sounds cognate to schol, and one of its definitions is "floe", which appears to corroborate my interpretation of "floating plate". —AugPi 03:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have modified the definition of schol accordingly. —AugPi 03:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

These show up as an exception on some headers lists because they are not explicitly permitted in ELE. I'm trying to understand why they are used. Why do you use them? Do you only use them in Dutch? Are they indispensable? Thanks in advance for any explanation. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't use them at all frequently, and I do not think they are indispensable, and yes, I think I have only used them in Dutch. The only reason I used them (only a few times, I think) in the past is because I had seen other(s) use it (i.e. I had seen it being used in Dutch articles), so I had assumed that it was part of the way things were normally done in Wiktionary, but now that I know that it might not be kosher, I will stop using "Noun n" in the future. As to its use, I need to refresh my memory... I need to dig through my contributionerhaps so the user can choose); FTR, I'm not an actual splitter, but one needs to give linguistic things their due on a peer-to-peer level-playfield basis, whether pronunciation, word-frequency/choice or bigger differences-wise! If you/one look at my edits, I don't think a bias can be seen, apart from that I know Brabantian/Standard Flemish and related history best and so mostly contribute with those -- not so much me as such but a problem of pulling in a variety of editors (at least AugPi (sorry i shortened also your name :/ - sv) among the regulars here is nice to newbies, thanks!!! :D )

@Jcwf: every language has its beauty per se, so there's no need to state the obvious ;)

• In the hope of an inclusive solution in true Wiktionary spirit, best regards to both of you! :)

P.S. Perhaps this should be moved to Wiktionary talk:About Dutch >> + further amendments--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 09:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was not talking to you. Jcwf 04:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

A wiki is set up as a transparant entity, so willing/intending or not, once one says anything here on wt, it's to the whole community, the beauty of the system!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 09:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I saw you added a verb table to toetsen, and didn't include the subjunctive. I don't know if you know how to form the subjunctive in Dutch, but I'll explain it for in case you don't. The subjunctive has the same form as the plural present tense, but it lacks the final -n. So the subjunctive of toetsen is toetse, and the subjunctive of doorgeven is geve door (the plural present tense form is geven door). This works with all regular verbs. The subjunctive is hardly ever used in Dutch (except in some fixed expressions and cookbooks), so most Dutch people don't know this either. Groeten Grunnen 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You said: <<This works with all regular verbs.>> This is good to know: it gives me a "green light", so to speak.   AugPi 14:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm Dutch myself, but I only found out about this when I started adding verb tables at nl.wikt. The only exceptions to this rule I know of are verbs that do not end in -en. So gaan has the subjunctive ga, which is also it's 1ps present tense form ánd its imperative. Compound verbs always use the same subjunctive as there base (how do you call that?). What I mean is that when you know that gaan has the subjunctive ga, doorgaan must have the subjuctive ga door (as it is a seperable verb, and a compound of gaan with the prefix door-). And all irregular verbs have verb tables on nl.wikt (for example nl:gaan/vervoeging), where you can find their subjunctives (aanvoegende wijs), which you can then also use in compounds. So if you're not sure if a verb is regular enough, you can mostly check them, of ask on nl.wikt. Strong verbs also count as regular. Groeten Grunnen 14:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of this possible change to {{eo-conj}}? I know it looks a bit cluttered, but I really think that the conjugation template should include all different verb forms. --Yair rand 18:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

What a coincidence, I was thinking of Esperanto today! Yes, I like the the looks of the proposed new tables. As far as the textual contents, it took me about a minute to get my head wrapped around all those inflected forms, but afterwards I understood what was going on. So I'd say, go ahead with it. Support.   AugPi 19:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The only change I can think of is that one of the "acc." could have a link to "accusative", though to me it is completely clear that it means accusative.   AugPi 19:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I went and made the change to the template, with links. (things like that don't require a vote, do they?) I'm not sure that linking acc. is the best way to go, though. What do you think about using just an onmouseover, like this: acc.? --Yair rand 20:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I changed the link to onmouseovers. I didn't realize span tags could do that: I only knew that span tags helped implementing WT:ACCEL.   AugPi 20:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great. Do you know how Esperanto inflection entries are formated? I want to make a template for use in the definition line but I really don't know what part of speech the participles are shown as. (Adjective/Noun/Adverb/Verb/Verb form/Participle?) --Yair rand 20:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

One way to handle participles is as in tremanta: use {{eo-part}}. There is an alternative way to handle them, as verbs, I think.   AugPi 00:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they can be verbs, as in invitita, nomita, but the inflection line is the same: {{eo-part}}.   AugPi 02:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, the part of speech header is either Adjective or Verb. It could even be both: for example, in one sentence a participle could be used as adjective, in another one as verb: so take your pick.   AugPi 02:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

If I had to choose, right now, one of the two, I would pick Verb.   AugPi 02:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because the inflection line points to a verb, and Category:Esperanto participles is subcategorized under Category:Esperanto verb forms.   AugPi 03:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. You might want to see {{eo-form of}} which I just made for use in the definition line. Works for all verb forms, noun forms, and adj forms. Probably filled with bugs and whatever because I'm not that good with templates. --Yair rand 15:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you doublecheck my translations for bay window, storm cellar, and magma chamber in Spanish please? I believe that I got them right, but I'd like a native Spanish speaker to help me out and make sure that I did it right. Thanks, Razorflame 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, they should be satisfactory now.   AugPi 02:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You might want to move camara magma to the new translation that you gave. Razorflame 02:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done.   AugPi 03:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cheers and thanks, Razorflame 03:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you've been following the logo vote recently, but I made this change to the voting page as there seemed to be some consensus forming on those things. Now we have the problem of updating all the translations to reflect the change. Do you think you could do the Spanish translation? --Yair rand 22:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done.   AugPi 15:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You missed the part under the round two section and the table at the bottom. --Yair rand 15:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think I got it now.   AugPi 15:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Yair rand 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Chances are I know less than you do. I haven't put any babelboxen (is that really the correct plural?) on my user page because I'm not really sure what the different levels mean. I mean, I know a bit of Esperanto and Hebrew, but not really enough to hold a full conversation in either. Does that fall under xx-1, xx-2 or none at all? --Yair rand 03:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you can read a language with some level of comfort then that would not be xx-0, maybe xx-2. However, if you can't understand the language well when spoken on the, say, radio, then I guess you wouldn't be xx-3.   AugPi 03:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you have read a book which presents an introduction to the language (and that is all), then I would say you are xx-1.   AugPi 03:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you can write/speak a language as easily as you can listen to it in radio/TV, than I'd say that is xx-4.   AugPi 03:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've read so far the Wikibook on Esperanto, an online book that there was a link to from Wikibooks, and more recently the online book that I found a link to on your user page. --Yair rand 04:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to eo-1!   AugPi 04:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the Esperanto Wikibook^† doesn't seem very complete (at least vocabulary-wise), but the one that I linked to is pretty good. I haven't finished reading that one myself. I read an Esperanto book from a college library instead (Esperanto: Learning and Using the International Language by David Richardson).   AugPi 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

† - Sorry, if you meant The Esperanto Teacher by Helen Fryer, then that is pretty good. Ploughing through that book will land you squarely in eo-1.   AugPi 04:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi AugPi, I just stumbled across this entry. My question is: is there a convenient way to denote this as a partitive inflection? Because that is what it is. The actual adjective is waardevol, but after iets, niets, veel etc. you get e.g. "iets waardevols". I would move the page but I'm not quite sure how to do the partitive bit. Jcwf 03:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just modified template {{nl-adj}} to be able to handle the partitive. The next step is to create a template {{nl-adj-part-of}} for use in the definition line of waardevols, which would say something like "Partitive case of waardevol" or "Partitive form of waardevol".   AugPi 14:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw English verbs with the context label "ergative", so I have started adding is to some Dutch verbs too. The problem is that, if you have both an ergative and a transitive, the first takes zijn as aux and the second hebben. Is there a way to put that into the conjugation template? Jcwf 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just came up with this: (1) add aux2=zijn to {{nl-conj}}, and (2) add a Note under the conjugation table which says that hebben is used transitively and zijn ergatively.   AugPi 05:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The acceleration link doesn't work because it doesn't include "unc=yes" and therefore includes the unnecessary "singular". The acceleration spans should probably be removed until WT:ACCEL works for uncountable nouns. (I removed the uncountable span from eo-noun a while ago, when I noticed that it didn't work.) --Yair rand 06:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK. By the way, I am having a similar problem with {{eo-proper noun}}: the inflection line says "accusative singular" when there is no plural.   AugPi 07:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear AugPi,

Today my user name and/or IP address was blocked from editing. I understand the reason and I am terribly sorry.

It was a mistake and now I know that referencing a commercial product is clearly not acceptable.

It was never my intention to cause any harm. I am hoping you can unblock my user id and account. I can be reached fwhiteb at hotmail

Best regards,

Fred

What is the name of your account? Maybe I can unblock it.   AugPi 05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi AugPi

The message was "Your user name or IP address (203.48.45.198) has been blocked from editing by AugPi"

User name: Fwhiteb (Is a Wikipedia account) IP address (203.48.45.198)

Thanks and regards,

F

This Spanish entry has been giving me problems. Based upon my rough translation of what it says on the Spanish Wiktionary, it says that this word can be an adjective meaning wild, however, I am not sure about that definition. I know that the main definition for this word is ranger, which I believe I got correct, but could you please double-check it anyways? Also, if you could, could you figure out the Adjective forms for this entry? Thanks for the help, Razorflame 19:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your definitions are basically correct: I added some glosses just in case. Then I added articles for the inflected forms. By the way, the RAE has some of the same definitions as es.wikt.   AugPi 20:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thanks for the information! I'll add the RAE link to my userpage for easy access. Razorflame 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is "affix=yes" really the best possible name for this parameter? It seems like infix=yes or interfix=yes would be more intuitive. —Ruakh_TALK 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Infix"... yes, that is better! I'll go ahead and change it.   AugPi 21:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you know if content from this site can be copied onto Wiktionary? I was just asking Razorflame about this and xe mentioned that you use this site, so I thought you might know. --Yair rand 07:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I thought that he used the site....I didn't know for sure. Razorflame 07:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't actually use it much, even though I have a link to it on my user page. There is no copyright sign on the page itself, but there is a copyright sign on its parent page: http://esperanto-panorama.net .   AugPi 07:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the parent page has a copyright sign, but the actual page itself doesn't, so it makes me think that it isn't a copyright violation. Furthermore, I don't think that it would be a copyright violation because aren't dictionaries supposed to be public domain anyways? Razorflame 07:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

However, the webmaster does seem interested in the promotion of Esperanto, for non-commercial purposes.   AugPi 07:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

So I guess that that means that we would be promoting Esperanto for non-commercial purposes ;). Furthermore, the Copyright seems to be expired...it doesn't say Copyright 2009, it only goes to 2002. ,"framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply

...I have zero recollection of where I have used "Noun n", and I browsed through my contribution history, and I am overwhelmed by the lack of recognition of which articles might have "Noun n" in them: if you know where those articles are maybe you could clue me in. Anyway, I do think the "Noun n" use was analogous to "Etymology n". As I said, now that you notified me as to its "problematicity" , I shan't be using it in the future.   AugPi 06:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looking at your contribution history, I found pik, whose Danish entry you corrected, replacing Noun 1 by Etymology 1 + Noun and Noun 2 by Etymology 2 + Noun. Looking at its history, I see that Leolaursen (talk • contribs) created the Danish entry with Noun 1, Noun 2 and no Etymology. Verbo (talk • contribs) later added the common Etymology, apparently without realizing that Noun 1 and Noun 2 have separate etymologies. Later you corrected that. I think you were correct in assuming that "Noun n" is a defective form of "Etymology n", and thereby making that correction. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I can state that: if one does not know at least one of the differing etymologies, then one should use {{rfe}} together with "Etymology n", not "Noun n".   AugPi 07:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Occasionally I find difficult case::s, which I cannot make fit ELE without artificiality, that seem to require either Pronunciation n or PoS n headers. For PoS n is seems to be in inflected languages for which there can be nouns with very close etymologies and meanings but the differences in meaning are associated with different genders and therefore different inflection. I think I can across your name on jongen#Dutch, where you had made changes under Noun 2 and Noun 3. I hadn't looked to see if you had added them.

I had stumbled across the Danish items when cleaning up PoS n headers. I didn't want to get on his case while his admin vote is open, especially since I had come across a case that looked difficult to force into ELE (folk#Danish) in the first half dozen.

In English there are a number of cases where nouns and verbs are spelled the same with indistinguishable etymologies but have different pronunciations. ELE may not work well in every case, but it also seems that PoS n and Pronunciation n headers are used in cases where there is a useful etymological distinction to be made. Being functionally monolingual, I need to be cautious in imposing ELE conformity on other languages.

Thanks for taking the time to help me. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

For appel#Dutch, if etymology were added to it, it would break it up into sections "Etymology 1" and "Etymology 2", since the first inflection line has Germanic roots, and the second one appears to derive from French. For jongen#Dutch, "Noun 1" is a lemma, and "Noun 2" is a plural form (I removed "Noun 3"), and the approach of using multiple inflection lines under the same header would not work because "Noun 1" has "Derived terms", "Related terms", and "See also" subheaders, which do not correspond to "Noun 2". And it is not obvious to me that the etymologies are all that different. ...No, I have consulted INL GTB which says that jongen derives from Middle Dutch jonge, whereas jong comes from Middle Dutch jonc.... (however I am not terribly convinced that "jonge" and "jonc" are all that different)

I have never understood why etymology is used as criterium here. In Dutch there are many cases where the etymology is really not that clear -and that goes for most of the world's languages!!- or where two etymologies have merged into one: er e.g. in part descends from an old pronoun genitive, in part from a weakened form of er or r. Its use has evolved so much that distinguishing the two etymologies is almost impossible and would do considerable injustice to its current usage in the language. On the opposite end you have words like doorlopen en doorlopen. Two different verbs. Een school doorlopen takes 5 minutes. Een school doorlopen takes 5 years. Etymology is as similar as the spelling... Both come from door and lopen. One became dóórlopen, the other doorlópen. Jcwf 01:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

iwas wondrin'bout "er/il y a,"framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply

Right, and then there is voorkomen#Etymology 1 vs. voorkomen#Etymology 2, i.e. vóórkomen vs. voorkómen. The splitting of the Noun header under two Etymologies (1 & 2) might be artificial, since both come from the compounding of voor and komen. So are you saying that the header/subheader layout for entries should be purely synchronic, leaving out diachronic considerations such as etymology, in other words there shouldn't be "Etymology n" headers with PoS subheaders and so on? Instead... what? Would you use "Pronunciation 1" and "Pronunciation 2" for voorkomen?   AugPi 01:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

At nl.wikt we have a little template "klem" that functions like a context label, but we put it under the Pronunciation header. It generates a label "klemtoonhomogram" under which we then give both pronunciations (either two audio files or two IPA's or both. We use the vóórkomen vs. voorkómen notation to distinguish the two pronunciations (It is (part of) the official spelling). The etymology only has one topic, but we repeat the verb header+vóórkomen and voorkómen with a separate conjugation table (because one is separable and the other is not.) The"klem" template puts the page in nl:Categorie:Klemtoonhomogram in het Nederlands. Of course our format may not chime with what is usual here. We do use the same method for similar situations in other languages.

Jcwf 14:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

This helps me understand the limits of current WT:ELE. It could stand some work. Its application to languages other than English has already been riddled with exceptions (L3 and L4 headers) that are language- or language-group-specific. The idea of having some uniformity across languages is highly desirable. But our particular framework for trying to achieve that uniformity is imperfect and hard to change without violating some desideratum or another. The current patchwork may be the best we can do.

Thanks again to all. I'll continue to try to avoid messing things up while trying to clean up entry structure. DCDuring TALK 14:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see what you have done at nl.wikt for the voorkomen article. You have used the "Verb" header twice, i.e. "Werkwoord" & "Werkwoord", instead of "Werkwoord 1" & "Werkwoord 2". That is what I think I have actually done in the past for semantically disconnected clusters of definitions for Nouns: use a pair of headers "Noun" and "Noun", instead of "Noun 1" and "Noun 2", if for some reason I thought that the header needed to be split instead of using two inflection lines under the same header (as in appel#Dutch). The splitting into two "Noun" headers might be necessary, if, say, the first definition cluster has one "Derived terms" subheader, and the second definition cluster has another "Derived terms" subheader. The only objection to using multiple "Noun" (or "Verb") subheaders without numbers (1 & 2) is that an uncareful reader might see the first definition cluster, then see the "Derived terms" for that first cluster/header, and think that those are the only definitions for the word in that part of speech, without realizing that there is a second header for that same part of speech further down below, with more definition(s). Having a number, e.g. "Noun 1" might instead alert the reader that there is a "Noun 2" futher down below. Apart from this last objection, using "Noun" & "Noun" instead of "Noun 1" & "Noun 2" would avert being at odds with ELE.   AugPi 00:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Noun n headers work better also with the ToC. Two identical headers in the ToC might look like a software error or other mistake. I don't think that too many people would object to a Noun n headers when faced with a reasoned defense them for languages other than English. In English we may be able to dispense with them and keep a more consistent structure. OTOH we are not yet fully settled on Pronunciation n headers for the 1000 or so English entries that might warrant them. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

i'v never used templates,so eh,ow2use the abuv1pl?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 12:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's easy! In the definition line for the Brabantian word, between the # and the definition, type {{Brabant}}. For example, in the definition of afmotten, you see that the definition line is as follows:

# {{Brabant}} to ] a person ] (with one's fists)

To see the entire code of afmotten, click here: http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=afmotten&action=edit .   AugPi 00:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

In fact, when you created the afmotten article, you used a pair of templates, even if you did not realize it. Here is your initial code for afmotten:

==Dutch==
===Verb===
{{nl-verb}}
#{{context|Brabantian}} ] a person ] (with one's fists)
====Synonyms====
*]
====Related terms====
*]

The things enclosed in pairs of curly brackets are templates, i.e.: {{nl-verb}} and {{context|Brabantian}}. By the way, in the future, use {{context|Brabant}} instead of {{context|Brabantian}} and you will be alright.   AugPi 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

P.S. {{context|Brabant}} does exactly the same thing as {{Brabant}}.

imeant ido entrysby c/p--i'd'v gone2'afmote'4da next brab.1n hensfine>het geluk is met de dommen;)

• so umade a.atemplate4my chin.name;sv a.ok,but ta4ur consideration nsory4ur time:/--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 12:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi AugPi,

I just came across a real weird klemtoonhomogram pair:ómwinden en omwínden. Both mean to wrap something around something, but the role of the objects is different. For the inseparable omwínden the direct object is the thing around which the wrapping is happening, the wrapper takes a preposition met (prepositional object)

Hij omwond de arm met een verband: arm=direct object; bandage=prep object

For separable ómwinden it is the other way around. The wrapper is now the direct object:

Hij heeft er een verband omgewonden.

However, the other object "rond de arm" is almost always reduced to "er", although you can add the prepositional object as a clarifying afterthought:

Hij heeft er een verband omgewonden, om die arm.

If you put the arm in the sentence it reverts back to the base verb though:

Hij heeft om die arm een verband gewonden.

Dutch, my beloved mothertongue, thou art weird... Jcwf 19:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, other thing. In Middle Dutch jonghe was an inflected from of jonc.

I tried to add the pronunciation to the page, but I don't know if this is acceptable. Could you do me a favor and check? Jcwf 21:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I replaced Verb 1 & Verb 2, which were flagged by AutoFormat, with Pronunciation 1 and Pronunciation 2. I might have to check WT:ELE to see what is really acceptable.   AugPi 21:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

WT:ELE and its subpages don't seem to say anything about "Etymology n" or "Pronunciation n" formats. Time will tell if AutoFormat (talk • contribs) accepts the page's new format. I probably should copy from nl.wikt and add Flemish/Brabantian pronunciation, at least, if not Limburgish.   AugPi

By the way, I think omwínden and ómwinden have meanings that are similar enough not to be heteronyms: they would just be homographs, but there are no homograph categories.   AugPi 21:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

my hap'orth~pron:

• weneed standard dutch/flemish [~US/UK[or woteva names we agre upon, theold1s r confusing4sevral reasons
• a.need althe main dialects/lang~map by Veluws
• as is:nl partial umbrela:ve/limb alredy'escaped',otoh brab haseven no isocode

wheter wekeep'em al2gether w/due lablin,reducin duplicatn[unles/bot;imnot gona doda typin:(

or we split evrythin so lablin='lang'heder

orwe doboth,per bot-sync[praps most userfriendly!

tr-l-wise:i'd nest 'em under nl/fl orso,tho the oposin'case canbe made[sowe'dgo4prefs perhaps--imnot anactual splita,but1needs2giv'things their due,wheta pron/word-freq/chois or biga difrences![ifu lukat my edits,idont think a bias canbe seen,apartfrom that ino brab/st.fl best n so mostly contribute w/those--notsomuch me buta prob ofpulin in a variety of editors [atleast ogpi nice2newbs,ta!!!:D

jcfw:evry lang has its beauty perse,sono need2stateda obvious;)

• inda hope ofan inclusiv solution indue wt-spirit,best regards2both ofya!:)

ps praps this'dmovd2 nl-talk?

Translation: << my hap'orth (forgot to link, sorry - sv) ~(here=regarding - sv) pronunciation:

P.S. Perhaps this should be moved to Wiktionary talk:About Dutch >> + further amendments--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 09:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was not talking to you. Jcwf 04:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

A wiki is set up as a transparant entity, so willing/intending or not, once one says anything here on wt, it's to the whole community, the beauty of the system!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 09:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I undid a bunch of your edits, because you marked them as strong while they have clearly irregular features. I explained a bit in the edit summary of each one. But essentially it comes down to this: a regular strong verb has only a vowel change, no other special features such as consonants appearing and disappearing in some forms. Furthermore, even if a verb has no strange features, it still only belongs to one of the 7 'default' classes if its vowel pattern matches up. This is not the case for komen in class 4 for example since it shows the vowel sequence oo-a-aa-o rather than ee-a-aa-o like class 4 is supposed to. Strong verbs that have only a vowel change, yet do not adhere to the vowel pattern of any of the 7 classes should be placed in Category:Dutch non-standard strong verbs with {{nl-verb-strong|i}}. An example is helpen which has e-ie-ie-o rather than e-o-o-o like class 3, or x-ie-ie-x like class 7 (with x being the same vowel in both cases).

By the way, I am aware of the fact that historically, most of the verbs you edited WERE strong verbs. I know for example that komen was originally kwemen and that zien was originally sehen like German, with a h/g change that appears in other verbs (such as slaan, as well as s/r like in vriezen). However, I don't think the use of historical categories is very useful for the modern-day visitor/Dutch learner, who will be coming to this site with the expectation that they can easily get an idea of the grammar using the definitions provided. Someone who sees komen listed as a class 4 strong verb would expect its forms to adhere to those of other class 4 strong verbs, while in fact they do not. I therefore think they are best marked as irregular, in the interest of warning users that those verbs have nonstandard features that must be memorised. --CodeCat 09:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will not bother your last edits. The reason I had reverted to listing them as strong verbs was because that is how the nl.wikt lists them. However, while I was doing the reversion, I noticed that nl.wikt lists wezen as a strong verb whereas, looking at its conjugation pattern, it looks like an irregular verb to me. That is when I realized that you might be right. —AugPi 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info and the code string. Unsigned comment by Zhividya.

You're welcome. —AugPi 02:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to remove the category Category:Dutch weak verbs from {{Template:nl-verb-weak}} for maintenance purposes (see my user page for info). However, since your most recent edit to the template I can no longer get the category to update itself. Even after commenting out the category from the template, and even doing several 'nonsense' edits to the template in order to somehow trigger an update, the category page still shows those pages as being in that category, even though they are not. This is a problem for me as I am using the listing of the category as a to-do list for entries that still lack the {{Template:nl-verb-weak}} template. Do you have any idea what's going on and why the category page doesn't list its contents correctly? --CodeCat 22:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oww, I'm sorry! I didn't know why that was commented out. Yes, you're right, something weird is going on with the Category:Dutch weak verbs, and no, I don't know what is causing it. —AugPi 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I left a message about this in Wiktionary:Grease pit, to which User:Robert Ullmann posted an answer. What I understand is, that it is going to take some time for the database to update the contents of the category. —AugPi 02:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The imperative of zijn is ben, the first person singular form, as is usual for any verb. wees is the imperative of a synonymous verb, wezen, but is more frequently used than ben (though not exclusively). This verb shares its past tense forms with zijn, but no longer has distinct present tense forms other than the imperative and infinitive. Originally it was a regular class 5 strong verb, with an s/r alternation similar to vriezen and verliezen. It had a full present tense: ik wees, jij weest, hij weest, wij wezen. Its past participle was gewezen. --CodeCat 20:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see. Should my last imp= edits be removed then? But I am having trouble with something else: I am trying to have an optional 6th parameter for the singular subjunctive (the plural subjunctive is obsolete in modern Dutch, I am told). In the old templates I noticed that a 6th parameter was/is often used with the -n removed from the pagename/infinitive. This should be for an extra line under the line for the imperative, but I am finding it practically impossible to add an extra line optionally, depending on whether {{{6|}}} has content or not. Do you think that this subjunctive issue is worth considering? —AugPi 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, imp= turned out to be very useful just now, when I went to edit wezen. See for yourself. ;) And the subjunctive form would definitely be useful, as it would show forms like zij and ware, even if they are archaic in use. However, there isn't just one subjunctive form; the subjunctive is completely parallel with the indicative, and has a present and a past tense. The subjunctive is distinct only in the singular, and is formed by adding the ending -e to the stem. The plural is like the indicative, and adds -en. However, regular weak verbs already have an -e suffix so the past subjunctive is not distinct for these verbs at all, and is identical to the indicative. Nevertheless, to show all this information reliably, you'd have to add two rows: one for singular and another for plural. Or you could another two columns to the right of the table (though keep in mind there is no subjunctive participle). --CodeCat 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

nl:aanbreken/vervoeging Now that I am trying to do this more systematically at nl.wikt I'm running into the wonderful complexities of Dutch verbs. Aanbreken e.g. has two meanings, in one as de dag brak aan (morning has broken) it is an ergative verb. But it can also mean opening up a bottle, can, supply etc, then it is transitive. That means that "aangebroken zijn" can either be the perfect of the active (ergative) or the perfect of the transitive passive... In the transitive case the aux active is hebben.

I'm not sure how to put that into a table without a lot of repetition, so I used a reference note instead. Not elegant I know.... I'd appreciate your thoughts, because I'm sure that particularly for English speakers our usage of the auxiliary zijn must be very confusing. Is my table of any use?

Upon reading CodeCat's contention above that the imperative of zijn is 'ben' I must admit that I have never seen that before. I'd like to see a quotation. Preferably 20th century. His contention that the subjunctive has a full set of forms in both present and past is perhaps defensible for Middle Dutch (<1500). Modern Dutch has less subjunctives than modern English...

Jcwf 02:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind your use of footnotes in the conjugation table of aanbreken. In fact, I used footnotes in my Latin conjugation templates before they were later overhauled by other user(s); see, for example, http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Template:la-conj-1st&oldid=646119 . As far as zijn as auxiliary being confusing, I don't think it's that confusing, though if I were to speak in Dutch, I don't know if I would always know to use it in the right places instead of hebben. I remember that not long ago I found myself using conjugated forms of "to be" as an auxiliaries for some past participles (in English) for the sake of playing with words (in an analogy with Dutch). For English ergative verbs, this can be done grammatically correctly, for example "The lamp is broken" means almost the same as "The lamp has broken", and it doesn't take much to imagine that "The lamp is broken" actually means "The lamp has broken", likewise "dawn is broken" could be construed to mean "dawn has broken" with the meaning of "break" as in "at the break of dawn".

Dutch grammar is comparatively quite simple: the conjugation tables of Dutch are significantly simpler than other languages. But looking at the conjugation table for zijn in the Latin Wiktionary and then in nl.wikt shows that there might be more complexity than what the conjugation tables in the English or Swedish Wiktionaries are letting on. For example, for the case of zijn, the conjugation for u is the same in the plural as for the singular, and for je it is the same as for u, and not the same as for jou or jullie. Then there is the conjugation for gij and ge, which breaks the mold. But then I looked at nl.wikt's conjugation of lopen and saw that it was "back to normal", i.e. the same as en.wikt's or sv.wikt's, without having different forms coming out of the woodwork.

Concerning the imperative of zijn, I looked up the phrase "wees goed" on a search engine and found two sentences in which wees is used imperatively: "Wees goed tegen je ouders" (Be good to(wards) your parents) and "Wees goed, wees veilig, en geniet van uw tijd" (Be good, be safe, and enjoy your time). When I looked the phrase "ben goed" I did not find instances in which it appeared to be used imperatively. So I will probably change the imperative of zijn back to wees, even though wees is, considered strictly, a form of wezen. This problem arises because zijn and wezen are like Siamese twins: they cannot be "untangled apart", they have ended up with conjoined forms in their conjugation tables. I think CodeCat was trying (at least subconsciously) to untangle zijn and wezen apart. If an English speaker comes across a table which says that "ben" is the imperative of "zijn", such English speaker might be wrongly tempted to use "ben" as the imperative of zijn in actual speech or writing, so it would be better to have "wees" in the table instead. I think what CodeCat really means is that, morphologically, ben should be the imperative of zijn, even if such use is "muted", i.e. never actually used that way. Instead, the imperative of "wezen" is used, which semantically corresponds to the imperative of zijn, so one might as well consider it the imperative of zijn. To insist that the imperative of zijn is ben would only make sense for a regular verb, but we already know that zijn is irregular...

Considering the subjunctive, I have been considering getting rid of the "subjunctive plural" line in the conjugation table, since it only repeats forms which are already elsewhere in the table. If one knows that the subjunctive plural is the same as the indicative plural, one really doesn't need that extra line in the table. So instead of that line, there should be a note in Wiktionary:About_Dutch which says that "subjunctive plural" was not mentioned in the conjugation tables because it has the same form(s) as the indicative plural. The 6th parameter should be more or less required, just like it is in nl.wikt and sv.wikt, and the 7th parameter should remain optional. The old table for zijn listed two forms of the subjunctive: apparently one is present subjunctive and the other past subjunctive, so the 7th parameter can be useful, if at least for backward compatibility with what was already there. Anyway, there is a Dutch Grammar website which says that subjunctive plural isn't used much at all in modern Dutch, so that is another reason for getting rid of the "subjunctive plural" line. There should be a note in Wiktionary:About_Dutch which would say that, in the conjugation tables, by "subjunctive" is actually meant the "subjunctive singular" which is the only form really used in modern Dutch. —AugPi 13:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just spotted this so I figured I'd join in the fun. ;) About the imperative of zijn, I guess you are right that semantically it and wezen are the same thing so there is little point in trying to pry them apart. However, you also have to consider the intuition behind a language. Speakers perceive certain patterns in the language, and tend to adjust forms they perceive as 'different' to fit with those patterns. Dutch speakers would undoubtedly realise that the imperative is always the same as the 1st singular form, so this is the 'pattern'. The different form in this case is wees, which has managed to survive so far because of the existence of a parallel (though defective) verb wezen. However, language intuition and the desire to regularise anomalous forms can be a strong thing, and this causes ben to be used as the imperative next to wees. While wees is considered as 'standard', you'd be surprised how often ben crops up in everyday speech, simply because of its perceived regularity compared to wees. I've heard plenty of people say ben op tijd, for example. So it would make sense to list it, even if only as a secondary form.

Then there is the gij-form, which does indeed present a problem. The problem is that the verb forms in Dutch are not aligned along grammatical person or number, but rather determined by the pronoun. gij, u and jij are grammatically all 2nd person singular (or plural for gij and u), but the verb forms are potentially different for all three. This isn't much of an issue, as long as the table lists them on those grounds. However, this creates a lot of redundancy as most verbs have identical forms for all of these (as well as for hij), and is only of real benefit for some verbs. So we have to decide whether to list the forms per pronoun (and potentially list the same form many times) or come up with another solution. --CodeCat 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The superlative is bruutst, not brutest. can't help it

Greetings

Jcwf 23:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I had noticed that mistake just now too. —AugPi 05:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've been looking at the changes you made to {{nl-adj}} but I can't figure out what they're for. It seems that it just skips displaying the comparative and superlative altogether if you set the comparative to *. Why not just use -, and have it shown as incomparable? Or is there somehow a kind of adjective that is comparable yet has no comparative form? --CodeCat 16:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it is just that I since am not a native Dutch speaker: I either (1) know that an adjective is comparable, and I know what the comparative and superlative forms are, or (2) I don't know the comparative and superlative forms, and I am not sure if the adjective lacks such forms. So the asterisk is a way of answering "mu" to the question "Is this adjective comparable?" If you ever read Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid bytyle="color:#000">Razor]]flame 07:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see a ©2000-2009 at the bottom of the home page and I don't think it matters whether it's for commercial use or not as all Wiktionary content must be licensed under GFDL and all that other stuff. We may have a problem here. --Yair rand 07:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll email the webmaster and ask if we can use his materials on this site then? Wouldn't that work? Razorflame 07:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, the front page says (c)2000-2009. Where do you see 2002?   AugPi 07:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://esperanto-panorama.net/unikode/index.htm   AugPi 07:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

That might work.   AugPi 07:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was looking here right at the bottom of the page. I think we would have to ask permission from the webmaster to license the content under the Wiktionary licences or something but I'm not sure. --Yair rand 07:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I sent him an email asking if he would license the information under the GFDL license. Razorflame 07:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the website says it's from the data of the multilingual dictionary Ergane which shows a copyright at the bottom. Worse yet, all the contact information links are broken. --Yair rand 07:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

:( Crap. I still don't think it is a big deal. It isn't really a copyright violation because the information used on that site is still basic knowledge... Razorflame 07:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nope. Look at the third bullet point in Wiktionary:Translations. Something makes me think that that wouldn't be there if this wasn't a copyright violation. We don't seem to have a good solution to this, so I wouldn't rule out panicking ;) And now might be a good time to stop adding translations from it until we figure this out. --Yair rand 07:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I'll stop adding translations now. Razorflame 07:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is transitive? Is the definition incorrect? I thought all -iĝi words were intransitive. --Yair rand 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I found an -ita form: http://eo.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Andrew_Bird , and I think that n. stands for naskiĝita.   AugPi 22:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, you may be right. Someone may have made an error in eo.wikipedia, because I found articles such as this one: http://eo.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Carl_Gustav_Jung with n. standing for naskiĝinta.   AugPi 22:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let's see: eo.wikipedia search for "naskiĝinta" yields 13343 hits, "naskiĝita" yields 60 hits, which would support the claim that "naskiĝita" is an erroneous form.   AugPi 22:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is only a handful triple plurals. I don't know any quadruples, but I could be wrong. I'd say make one cat for multiples.

groet

Jcwf 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quick question: are you working on an Esperanto inflection bot? I was just curious because I noticed a link to Help:Language inflection bot on your user page. --Yair rand 06:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, I was just thinking about it. I don't know how to make bots: I would have to learn Python, wouldn't I?   AugPi 06:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

But a bot for Esperanto verb conjugations would be a good idea.   AugPi 06:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, don't bother trying to make one right now. I'm currently working on learning Python and I hope to have a Inflectobot ready within a month or two. Cheers, Razorflame 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great!   AugPi 06:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is done and it currently up for vote now. Razorflame 22:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. If you make any new verbs with conjugation tables for Esperanto, please add them to User:Darkicebot/Feed so that he can add the forms of that verb please. Thanks for the help, Razorflame 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi AugPi. I noticed that Wiktionary doesn't have entries for the any of the eo letter names (a, bo, co...), so I think I'm going to try and add them. Do you know what the inflected forms of letter names are? I think they're something like a-on or A-on or something like that, but I can't remember. Thanks. --Yair rand 03:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think you are right. I found this: http://eo.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Vikipedio:Projekto_matematiko/Formala_gramatiko in which can be found

pozitiva nombro de 'a'-oj

so the inflected forms of a would be a-oj, a-on, and a-ojn. For bo they would be boj, bon and bojn as usual.   AugPi 14:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that article also mentions "b-oj" and "c-oj". The article on w:eo:Esperanta alfabeto also refers to it as b-oj. The eo-wp seems to have very few hits for either of them, so I'm still not sure what to do with the consonants. --Yair rand 17:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi AugPi

As I'm sure you know the Dutch, Flemish and Surinamese governments have stuck their heads together to standardize Dutch spelling. Of course there are plenty of people who ignore that or know too little about spelling and use wrong spellings on line. Unfortunately wiktionary, at least en.wiktionary is fuelling that problem by insisting on taking up all sorts of spellings they happen to encounter on the web. I have tried to fight that and run into a lot of trouble. If I report it under rfd I get scolded that "Delete" is the right tag, if I put "delete" I get told to put it under rfv or rfd and then I get denied because they find the wrong spelling somewhere on the web. Or my request simply gets ignored. Even if I put a link to the Taalunie site, that gets ignored or I get told that that has no authority. (What does that say about respecting other people's democratic choices?)

At nl.wikt we do our best to provide Dutch speakers with proper spelling information, if possible including its history. One reason is that we want to help Dutch kids acquiring good orthographic skills. En.wikti is downright sabotaging our efforts. What do I do about that? If things don't get any better I think we should put a disclaimer on the main page of nl.wikt that loudly warns users not to trust en.wikt when it comes to Dutch orthography. Of course, that would be very unfair to you and a number of other contributors to Dutch here. Another possibility is to write to the Taalunie and ask them to contact Jim Wales about this. This really needs to stop. Wiktionary does not have the right to undermine the Dutch language, our democracy and our educational system.

Jcwf 06:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, neither Wikipedia nor its associated projects (such as Wiktionary) is authoritative. Jimbo Wales reportedly said that a student would have to be stupid to cite Wikipedia as a source of information for a school paper (because due to the nature of how Wikipedia works, there is no guarantee as to the accuracy of its information).

Secondly, I think Wiktionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. En.wiktionary could legitimately include Dutch words which are spelled in 18th century style, which do not conform to TaalUnie, and they would still meet CFI. The only proviso is that the article explicitly state that that spelling is from the 18th century. Likewise, if a word is a common misspelling of another Dutch word, then it is legitimate material for an article^†, as long as that article explicitly states that it is a common misspelling.

Thirdly, why would Dutch speakers look up Dutch words in the English Wiktionary, for God's sake? English Wiktionary is primarily intended (by its very nature) for use by English speakers, i.e. the Anglophone world (though I heard that much of the Netherlands is English-speaking, especially Amsterdam). Besides, any Dutch speaker with half a brain knows that the authoritative place to look up Dutch spellings is TaalUnie, not Wiktionary.

Finally, would you like it more if there were a special template, say {{nl-misspelling}} which would be used at the top of a page, or at least at the top of the Dutch section (if other languages are involved), which would have a hard-to-miss symbol such as , which would say something to the effect that "ATTENTION: This Dutch word is not properly spelled or does not conform to the current spelling standard."?

Or would you like to notify me directly of such words and have me delete them right away?   AugPi 02:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

† - even if the article might have to be a stubbed soft-redirect, as Ivan Ŝtambuk pointed out.

I deleted sjagerijnig. As reason for deletion, I said "Misspelling of chagrijnig". That way, any one looking up sjagerijnig would find a notice saying that it was deleted for the reason that it is a "misspelling of chagrijnig" and that way that user would be redirected to chagrijnig, which is a satisfactory situation from my point of view. Would you like me to do the same with lelietje van dalen? However, lelietje van dalen already redirects to lelietje-van-dalen, explicitly stating that it is a (albeit common) misspelling. Why is that not good enough for you?   AugPi 03:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Someone looking up sjagerijnig in the search box would find only "Create the page 'sjagerijnig' on this wiki!" and only after clicking on the red link would find a redirect to chagrijnig, so the situation is not 100% satisfactory from my point of view. However, it might still be passable...   AugPi 04:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Restored, per Carolina Wren, Ivan Ŝtambuk, Dan Polansky, 史凡, Lmaltier, and the above reason (delete notice redirect is hidden under red-link hood).   AugPi 04:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

:: But if you insist, then I will delete lelietje van dalen, stating as reason for deletion that it is a "Misspelling of lelietje-van-dalen". Just let me know.   AugPi 03:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. Wanna help fill in all the red links on these two pages? :

• Appendix:Esperanto words listed in the Akademia Vortaro (Part 1)
• Appendix:Esperanto words listed in the Akademia Vortaro (Part 2)

There are plenty of words to go around :) Make sure to feed User:Darkicebot to make the form of entries ;). Cheers, Razorflame 05:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seems like a worthwhile endeavour. Thanks for pointing them out.   AugPi 05:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

They seem to be the fairly easy to translate words as well, like piramido, kapsulo, and subjekto, so you might have a good deal of fun with them ;). Razorflame 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please make sure to feed Darkicebot any nouns, adjectives, or verbs you make so that it can grow and gain more expierience in different areas. Anyways, I'm off to bed. Night.

I see that Darkicebot passed the vote! Congratulations! Nouns and adjectives can be done with WT:ACCEL, but I will surely feed verbs to Darkicebot. Anyway, I should probably be off to sleep too. Nighty night.   AugPi 06:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

This should probably be much smaller and go under ====Usage notes====, because it's ugly and takes up half the page, or more. Something more neutral would talk about the Dutch spelling reforms - do we have an appendix for this? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed the flag since it is non-neutral (e.g. the Belgian flag would have to be included as well) and it wasn't looking right (e.g. the two icons were rendered on top of each other). Also, I provided a link to a Wikipedia article about "Wordlist of the Dutch language": there is no such en.wikt appendix that I know of.   AugPi 14:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi AugPi. The logo vote schedule has been set (as written in the BP). Could you notify the Spanish Wiktionary? --Yair rand 18:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Guã Þin Nomme already notified the Wikcionario:Café at es.wikt.   AugPi 12:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I mentioned where the vote is going to be: that was not mentioned by Juan_renombrado.   AugPi 12:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, he had a link to the English vote, but anyway...   AugPi 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. --Yair rand 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo in m:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be a mistake for historio, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're right. Akademia Vortaro has an entry for histori/o but none for histor/o. So I deleted it.   AugPi 16:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, historo does exist in Esperanto. Supposedly, it means story. Razorflame 06:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it doesn't. "story" is historio in Esperanto. — opiaterein — 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi AugPi

You might appreciate this one: herinrichten, meaning to redecorate

The verb has an infinitive and two participles, but there is a conflict between inrichten (a separable) and the prefix her- which is not separable. This makes all the finite forms in main clauses impossible and people default to the replacement of the her- prefix by the adverb opnieuw:

Ik ga herinrichten

Ik heb heringericht

Zij wil dat ik de kamer herinricht

but Ik richt de kamer opnieuw in.

In Belgium people might say:

Ik richt de kamer herin.

But this is really not standard language.

There is a few other such incomplete verbs that lack separated finite forms with her- in front of a separable.

Jcwf 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi AugPi. I don't think this is how the word is spelt at all. I am sure it's spelt either 'anaesthetize' or (US) 'anesthetise'. Jamesjiao 07:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're right: the fourth-to-last letter should be a 't', not an 's'. I changed the article to {{misspelling of}} format and I corrected the verdoven article.   AugPi 15:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just going through some Old Verbo contributions... is this right? Or is it somewhat sum of parts? If so, we don't have the sense at pak#Dutch. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

pak voor de broek definitely means a kind of spanking, and I think that it is idiomatic enough to keep: "spanking" is definitely not the main meaning of pak, and the Etymology points to pak slaag, not just pak, as the origin.   AugPi 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply