. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Welcome!
Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
- Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
- Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
- If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide to Wikipedia users useful.
- The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
- We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
Also, please add a BabelBox to your userpage so we can help you with the languages you'll be working in.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.
Again, welcome! --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
I notice that you created Rhymes:German:-aχn, but the page is mis-named. It is based on narrowly defined phonetics, rather than on the broad phonemes of the language. Rhymes pages should be based on the phonemic pronunciation of words, not on the phonetic pronunciation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry EncycloPetey, I do not understand what is wrong with the name of the page. Could you tell me how it would be right? And here is a similar page: Rhymes:German:-ʊχt is that one also wrong? --Bigbossfarin (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- This was discussed in the Information Desk WT:ID#Phonology of ch in German just yesterday. I think the idea is that one might consider χ to be the same basic sound as ç, but pronounced differently because of the vowel in front of it. In that case, it would be x for both. I don't know if it's worth rearranging all the rhymes entries to make it that way, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi! Why do you think that German allein is an adjective with a full declension? Am I missing something? I know alleinig, which is an adjective, but I do not use allein or alleine like this. --MaEr (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Hallo MaEr ich habe gesehen, dass du deutsch sprichst, ich hoffe es macht dir also nichts aus wenn ich in deutsch antworte.
Als ich die Seite allein bearbeitet habe war ich mir nicht sicher ob es die Steigerungsformen gibt. Ich habe deswegen in der deutschen Wiktionary nachgeschaut und festgestellt, dass dort die Steigerungsformen nicht aufgeführt werden. Daraufhin habe ich den Eintrag mit der vollen Deklination ausgestattet. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Die Tabelle ist ja ganz hübsch :) aber würdest du es schaffen, daraus und mit den flektierten Formen Sätze oder Satzteile zu bilden? Wie zum Beispiel: eine alleine Person, ein alleines Tier, in einem alleinem Haus, an einem alleinen Tag? Und dann noch die Pluralformen? Mir fällt das sauschwer... --MaEr (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, ob du das meinst, aber hier habe ich die Vorlage zu der Deklination von einem Substantiv zusammen mit einem Adjektiv:
Template:de-decl-adj+noun-f
{{de-decl-adj+noun-f|allein|Person|en}} --Bigbossfarin (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Dann schau dir doch mal den Inhalt der Vorlage an: würdest du das für brauchbares Deutsch halten: Genitiv Singular der alleinen Person? Kennst du Leute, die so reden? --MaEr (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Also, normalerweise benutzt man im Deutschen allein meistens noch mit einem zweiten Adjektiv, z.B. allein erziehend, allein stehend oder als Adverb. Also bin ich mir nicht sicher ob es die ganzen Fälle bei allein gibt. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Das heißt: die Tabelle kann raus. Die ist ja voller Formen, die nie verwendet werden. --MaEr (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Ich denke auch, ich werde die Tabelle wieder entfernen.--Bigbossfarin (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi! Da gibt es ja dieses automatische Reime-Hinzufügen... Aber das stolpert anscheinend über Doppelpunkte. Du hattest die Seite Rhymes:German:-aːgn̩ angelegt und mit einigen Reimwörtern ausgestattet, aber der Seitenname enthielt einen Doppelpunkt anstelle des IPA-Längenzeichens. Und das automatische Reime-Hinzufügen hat den Teil hinter dem Doppelpunkt abgeschnitten, sodass dann Hagen plötzlich auf a reimte. Es lohnt sich also, das IPA-Längenzeichen ː statt des Doppelpunktes zu verwenden :-)
--MaEr (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Vielen Dank für deine Hilfe! Grüße --Bigbossfarin (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Außerdem soll man das IPA-Zeichen /ɡ/ statt des normalen Buchstaben /g/ benutzen. Ich habe die Seite jetzt auf Rhymes:German:-aːɡn̩ verschoben. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- ich kenn mich leider nicht so gut mit dem IPA, ich entnehme ich die Phonologie manchmal aus dem PONS, also danke für deine Korrekturen --Bigbossfarin (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Kein Problem! Ich weiß nicht, wie ernst PONS es mit g vs. ɡ nimmt. Kannst auch Phonologie aus dem de-wikt nehmen, das ist normalerweise zuverlässig. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
You have forgotten to give a definition / translation. What does it mean? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Oh thanks for reporting! --Bigbossfarin (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi, please be careful when adding words to rhyme pages: for example, "aufhören" is stressed on the first syllable, so its rhyme is the complete word "-aufhören" rather than "-ören". It doesn't belong at Rhymes:German:-øːʀən. Thanks! Longtrend (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, danke für den Hinweis! --Bigbossfarin (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
What is it? Is there an English term that can be used instead? Also, I think you made a spelling mistake... —CodeCat 23:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Hi CodeCat! The "Erweiterter Infinitiv" (German for: extanded infinitive) is a special feature of the German Grammar, for German explaination see w:de:Kommaregeln#Erweiterter Infinitiv. I thought about it and did not found an equivalent in the English Language. Maybe you could create an english equivalent with "extanded infinitive" but that term has no matches in Google Search yet. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I think CodeCat referred to a missing "i" both in the template name and in the text (you put "Infintiv"). As for the term "erweiterter Infinitiv", I agree that we should instead use an English term, maybe "zu-infinitive". Also, I don't think we should put this template on two-word entries such as zu haben, only on those with separable prefixes. Longtrend (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Oh I did not realize the mistake thanks for reporting. I support the term zu-infinitive. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi! Please don't use soft hyphens. They break links, when included in links (as they were here), and are unnecessary elsewhere. - -sche (discuss) 05:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry, that was not on purpose. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Why the change? Ƿidsiþ 20:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I know it is for distinction of strong and weak inflection but I can't place the poscatboiler. Every Category which is in Category:Class 1 strong verbs by language needs to have uniform name. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I see. OK, but be aware that Appendix:Old English verbs still distinguishes strong verbs with Roman numerals, so that will have to be changed as well. I can't imagine anyone will object much, although it does seem a shame to me since many of the standard printed OE grammars use Roman numerals so it's somewhat familiar. Ƿidsiþ 20:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, maybe we should discuss this in WT:RFM, a good solution would be if you could use the poscatboiler although the inconsistent name --Bigbossfarin (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
These templates aren't quite done yet, I'm still trying to improve them. {{ang-conj-weak-2}} is the only finished one, but the others still have some inaccuracies. It relates in particular to the contractions that occur in the 2nd and 3rd person singular, and in the past tense of class 1 weak verbs. The templates don't handle those yet, and I'm not quite sure how the contractions work in the first place. I assume there are rules, but are those rules strictly followed in Old English or are there exceptions, and if so which? —CodeCat 19:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Hi CodeCat! First I want to thank you for your great engagement for Wiktionary! But as you can see in babel I never learned Old English grammar. My native language is German and I am interested in strong verbs and I just try to manage the strong verbs in Wiktionary. I looked up the Old English grammar and I think all you have to know about the inflection of verbs is described in Wikipedia w:Old English verb#Verbs! Greetings --Bigbossfarin (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. How should I treat words like this? It looks to me (de-0.5) as if it were a form of the past participle ausgewählt - or am I mistaken? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- No, that's quite right. Past participles are declined like any other adjective, with 4 strong and 11 weak forms ending in -en. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- A Past participle is automatically an adjective. For example look laufend. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- OK. Thanks. Adjusted accordingly. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Is this OK? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Yepp in my opinion is everything correct. The predicative "er ist dreiprozentig" is not used but I don't think it's wrong --Bigbossfarin (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I think you can use it. "Ist dieser Wein drei- oder vierprozentig?" — "Er ist dreiprozentig." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Should I add the rest (1% through 100%) or only add them as I actually come across them. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I just looked what the Duden does and they only have 1-10 and 100-prozentig but I think 20,30,40,50 etc are also importent --Bigbossfarin (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. In the German Wikipedia, many of the articles about the chemical elements contain the following sentence:- "Der hier angegebene Wert ist der daraus berechnete maßeinheitslose SI-Wert.". I translate this as something like "The value here of the unit of measure is calculated loosely from the SI value.". But what bugs me is the word maßeinheitslose - an adjective or adverb (lowercase) from "unit of measure" and "loose/loosely". How would you attempt to define the word itself? Is this a strange feature of the German language? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- p.s. I should have said that I have previously seen compound adjectives that start with the lowercase form of a noun, but I have always been able to translate them into an equivalent English term. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- maßeinheitslos is a compound of the noun Maßeinheit (unit of measure) and the suffix -los (equivaltent to -less), it has the meaning without a unit of measure. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. Capitalised, as a noun, I think this means an octagenarian. But uncapitalised, as an adjective, it seems to be a form of the numeral achtzig. But we (and the German Wiktionary) show the numeral as lacking any inflection. I come across the word most often as "achtziger Jahre", which I assume means the 1980s. What should I do? SemperBlotto (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The lowercase achtziger only appears in the word compound achtziger Jahre, the adjective is not used anywhere else. The Duden recommends to write Achtzigerjahre like this but refers to the alternate spelling too. So I think achtziger doesn't need an own entry because it occurs to rarly and I don't know any other inflected forms of achzig. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
The definition on German Wiktionary doesn't seem to correspond to their English translation (we also have this as the German translation of distraught). Is my entry correct? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- These are the two meanings: ich bin davon angetan means I am taken with that (enthusiastic), but Warum hast du mir das angetan? means Why did you do this to me?. But I see no contact to the English distraught I removed it. -- Greeetings Bigbossfarin (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. This seem to be a form of mitteilen used in subordinate clauses. My bot doesn't generate them. Should it? If so, how should it be formatted/described? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Look at anzeigt that is the same case. For subordinate clause forms use this code:
{{de-verb form of|mitteilen|2|p|g|a}} (the a at the end is for subordinal clauses).--Bigbossfarin (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. I have attempted to add a conjugation template to ausweiten, but gives it with "sich" terms added. Does that make it reflexive? If so, How do we code them? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. It's not in the German Wiktionary, and Duden doesn't seem to give conjugation.Reply
- Like a lot of German verbs it can be reflexive, in which case it's liable to be translated into English with the intransitive incarnation of a "middle" verb: Der Diktator weitete den Krieg aus = "The dictator escalated the war"; Der Krieg weitete sich aus = "The war escalated". I usually just leave verbs like this unmarked, in the belief that the reflexive pronoun is acting like an ordinary direct object, the way we don't have a separate "reflexive" sense at see for He saw himself in the mirror. But maybe other editors do it differently. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
- That works if the reflexive sense is transparent that way, and if it's predictable when to use it. But for an English speaker, the difference in the examples you gave isn't so obvious, because escalate is an ergative verb in English, like break. In ergative verbs, the "patient" (thing that undergoes the action) is the subject when there is no object, but the object when there is one. ausweiten is not an ergative verb, so unless this is explained as part of the definition, it will confuse English speakers and lead them to forget sich when they use it intransitively, like in Der Krieg weitete aus. Something like
{{context|transitive|lang=de}} and {{context|reflexive|lang=de}} before that sense should help with that. —CodeCat 14:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
- In those cases I use pons.eu there are reflexive and transitive meanings distinguished. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. I think that I have added as many of User:Bigbossfarin/10000 German words as I can. Most of the remaining red links are capitalised adjectives etc, multi-word terms (that I haven't attempted) or English. Feel free to finish it off! SemperBlotto (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you very much for your job! I will tidy up the list and remove non existing words! --Bigbossfarin (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. An anon thinks that our inflection is wrong but doesn't know how to correct it. Could you have a look at the word's history and do whatever is needed (if anything). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I wouldn't say that the term teuerer is incorrect, but in the most cases you say just teurer in German. So I think the IP is right. The phenomenon of omitting the -e- is called e-Tilgung. Greetings --Bigbossfarin (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Was für einen Fehler hast du hier begegangen! ;-) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
- ich sehe nicht warum dieses Verb ein eigenes Template braucht, kommt nicht das gleiche heraus mit diesem Template? --Bigbossfarin (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Ach so jetzt hab ich es auch gesehen danke für die Änderung!--Bigbossfarin (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hello, will the template ever have a real use on the English verb entries? At least the results from it look useful for a first time English student. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I've created this template to have a good overview of the time tenses in English, because when I was learning English I never got it which one is which. But just after I've created it there where some users doubting the functionality and the benefit of the template (look here), since then I didn't dare to distribute it further even if I think it is senseful.--Bigbossfarin (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. What's wrong with this entry? I can't get the declension to match the headword (I copied them from Flucht - which I see now is also wrong).SemperBlotto (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Grammatically this declension is absolutely correct. Duden doubts that the term has any plural form but Google has about 13.000 maches for the term Zufluchten and it appears e.g. here. I wouldn't use this term in my usual usage but a sentence like Es muss mehr Zufluchten für Flüchtlinge geben. would make sense to every German speaker. Greetings Bigbossfarin (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply