. 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, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ivan Štambuk 17:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
After having checked them, just remove the tbot tag. Also check out the notes at User:Tbot/tbot entry. Cheers :-) --Ivan Štambuk 11:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks! I'll see what I can do with the Norwegian entries then (: --EivindJ 11:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad someone responded to you a bit sooner than I. Thanks for all the new Norwegian entries. I was wondering if I could ask you something about Norwegian formatting. While most of the Norwegian entries on en Wiktionary simply have "Norwegian" as the ==Level 2== header, a few have "Norwegian (Bokmål)", such as føner, as well as "Norwegian (Nynorsk)", such as måndag. May I ask how you are doing this on the Norwegian Wiktionary? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Hi Atelaes! Here's how we do it at Norwegian Wiktionary:
- Words that are the same in both nynorsk and bokmål we describe as "norsk", meaning "Norwegian" (see for example this entry). They are categorized as for exampel Category:Verb i norsk etc.
- If the word merely exists in nynorsk we refer to it as "norsk (nynorsk)" (see måndag). Then we categorize it as for exampel Category:Verb i nynorsk, as a subcategory of Category:Norsk
- If it merely appears in bokmål it's refered to as "norsk (bokmål)" (see this entry). Then we categorize it as for exampel Category:Verb in bokmål, of course also as a subcategory of Category:Norsk
- I hope that was comprehensible, if not, ask again (: --EivindJ 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Very comprehensible, thank you. Would you be willing to look over the following words to make sure they have appropriate language headers? føner, godt, ven (especially ven). When possible I think it best to follow the conventions of the native Wiktionary, so I think that, at least for the time being, we'll follow your lead. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, all those three entries above is ok now, but still I reckon there is heaps of words listed merely as Norwegian that should've been listed as Bokmål. Even though the two of them theoretically is equivalent, bokmål is most common and by most people refered to as Norwegian. I will do what I can to fix as much as I can (: --EivindJ 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Excellent, thank you. One final question: The L2's listed above: "Norwegian (Bokmål)" and "Norwegian (Nynorsk)", do they look good to you? We have set up a list of acceptable L2's and whatever we set up will have to be followed exactly. So, for example, if we say that "Norwegian (Bokmål)" is acceptable, and someone enters in "Norwegian (Bokmal)" or Norwegian Bokmål", it'll get tagged as improper. So, we should figure out exactly how they should read. Your thoughts? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Hi again! I've asked some of the no.-admins now, and they all meant "Norwegian (Bokmål)" and "Norwegian (Nynorsk)" is the best options ... unless you here on en.wiktionary don't want "Å" in the name. --EivindJ 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I think that the "Å" is appropriate, as it seems to be used in a number of English contexts. I'll add those later today. Thanks for everything. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
- No problem! You can always ask! --EivindJ 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I've got {{no}}, {{nob}}, and {{nno}} set up. Please double-check them and make sure they look ok. Like I said earlier, if these are different in any way from the way you write your headers, we'll have problems, so take a close look. If they look ok, you're all set. Happy hunting! -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
- This has gotten tripped up a little bit, so I must present the issue on the Beer Parlour for wider community to look at. Would you please offer your thoughts at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Norwegian language classification? Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
- No problem! Thanks for your engagement (: --EivindJ 07:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
is normally spelt with a capital letter according to google books, I've moved it and made some cosmetic changes, thank you for adding it. Conrad.Irwin 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I see, my bad. Thanks for fixing it! I'm learning something new all the time :) --EivindJ 22:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your help in categorizing. Good work. Mutante 15:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- My pleasure :) ... It's a nice way to get familiar with all the different templates – which may take some time here. --EivindJ 16:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hello EivindJ -- Good catch on the plural form. Thanks. -- WikiPedant 23:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks :) --EivindJ 06:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oops, thanks, indeed plural. --Daniel Polansky 10:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
English is not my mother tongue, but I can see use here. Maybe both "more/most" and "er/est" should be given, though I now, after some checking, agree on "more/most" being most correct (correctest) ;) --EivindJ 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Wow! Nice find. Widsith 14:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- No problem, but the comparative "modisher" I don't know about ... I reckon I just took it for granted, since "modishest" existed. Do you know anything about that one? --EivindJ 14:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- It sounds incredibly weird to me. But then so does modishest. I did search for it, but it's hard to find anything useful, since it's also a surname. Widsith 14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Correct, and if it does exist, it's at least extremely rare. I found one hit here, but it seems they also might be unsure. I also found one hit in those list of words, here. I dunno really. Anyways, do you know how I can make the
{{en-adj}} give this: "superlative more modish or (rare) modishest". Anyways, thanks for helping me out and good you saw it and corrected me. --EivindJ 14:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- The trick with
{{en-adj}} is to use <nowiki></nowiki>:
{{en-adj|<nowiki></nowiki>'''more modish'''|'''most modish''' ''or (rare)'' ''']'''}}
- It can just be "<nowiki/>" rather than separate tags; the effect is to make the parameter not a possible page title, so it doesn't get wrapped with 's. The second parameter contains brackets, so is not a page title anyway. I've removed the example, so this page isn't in the category "English adjectives"; look at prior version in history or modish. Robert Ullmann 15:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for the explanation, I think I understand how this works now :) --Eivind (t) 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please include wikilinks on any entry that you create. When a page has no wikilinks (square brackets ] ) on the page, it is not counted by the automated statistics. If you include a template that does the link automatically, it will not be counted as a "good" page; you must include the square brackets like this. --EncycloPetey 23:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, I see ... so it isn't sufficient that the brackets is in the template. I'll try to remember that. --Eivind (t) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I was planning to do some work on the Norwegian words here, but then I discovered there was no policy for dealing with Bokmål and Nynorsk. Since you participated in the last (indecisive) discussion of the subject, I'd like to hear your opinion about how the distinction between Bokmål and Nynorsk should be made (separate headings, tags?). I've made a very vague draft on the page Wiktionary:About Norwegian. It would be nice if you would comment on it. Kåre-Olav 13:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Hi there, Kåre-Olav. Nice to hear that you want to do some work with Norwegian entries here on Wiktionary, because it is well needed. You are also very welcome to come and contribute to Norwegian Wiktionary. Regarding Nynorsk and Bokmål: I reckon the best way to do it, which also is the present way to do it, is to categorize all words being both "Nynorsk" and "Bokmål" as "Norwegian". If a word, or a form of a word, only is present in one of those two languages, we differ. Now one should differ by calling Nynorsk words for "Norwegian Nynorsk" and Bokmål words for "Norwegian Bokmål" (see
{{nn}} and {{nb}}). So they should differ by heading and by categorization. If you have any thoughts on how to make this better, please come with it. I haven't read the "about Norwegian" page yet, 'cause I'm out travelling. I will try to give a better reply later. Fred. --Eivind (t) 23:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I can see a few problems with this procedure. First, even if a word is shared between Bokmål and Nynorsk, it often will not have the same gender, and it almost always will be inflected differently. Hence, we need a way to inform the reader about this (a tag?). Second, a "Norwegian" entry will contain all sorts of examples, derived words, synonyms, antonyms etc. Hence, we probably should make some sort of distinction (for example, straum is a synonym for elektrisitet in Nynorsk, but not in Bokmål). Kåre-Olav 23:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I know, and I agree with you. The problem is that last time Norwegian was discussed, the most people here (whereof the most people were not familiar with Bokmål and Nynorsk) concluded on Nynorsk and Bokmål being so similar that we very seldom would need to differ between them. I reckon this misconception comes from the fact that we almost haven't had any Nynorsk contributiors on this or the no.wikt project, resulting in almost none Nynorsk entries and loads of "Norwegian" or "Bokmål" entries (I reckon many of today's "Norwegian" entries actually should be "Bokmål"). Very few people therefore understood that almost every word is inflected differently in Nynorsk. So, before we take this discussion further, do you reckon we should have two different entries for Nynorsk and Bokmål? This will result in quite a lot of job, and a lot of repetions, but then again, it's already like that with Danish, Swedish and Norwegian anyway. --Eivind (t) 07:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, I think that may be the best solution. When they are separated, no confusion is possible. However, one problem remains: what to do with non-official forms (some Høgnorsk and Riksmål forms) that are Norwegian, but not strictly Bokmål or Nynorsk. For example, spursmål or spursmaal may be found in a work of Garborg, but today it is not allowed in Nynorsk, only in Høgnorsk. The same goes for Riksmål words like sprog and some older Dano-Norwegian forms that cannot be called Danish (like kjærring).
- The easiest solution would probably be to put Høgnorsk and old Landsmål forms under the Nynorsk heading, while Riksmål and old Dano-Norwegian forms are put under the Bokmål heading. (presumably while marking the words with some tag like (archaic) or (høgnorsk)). This would not be strictly correct, but it would make everything easier. Kåre-Olav 12:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- By all means, we're not forming or determining languages, we're just making a dictionary that makes it possible for people to understand and find Norwegian words and where they belong in the Norwegian language. I reckon forms not being Nynorsk or Bokmål should be set as "Norwegian Høgnorsk" etc., with a remark on how the word are or were used. The most important thing is that we in every case clearly explains the facts about the word. --Eivind (t) 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- OK, thanks, using these principles I think we can be able to get started. For now, I'll complete a set of separate Bokmål and Nynorsk templates (instead of the old common ones). I'll also try to expand Wiktionary:About Norwegian (please comment there if you have any comments or suggestions). Afterwards, it is probably a good idea to do make some order among the many confusing Norwegian entries that have been written already. Kåre-Olav 23:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, certainly. Thanks for helping out! I'll be out there helping you as soon as I can, but for now I'm kind of busy. Good luck, and please do not hesitate to ask further if there is stuff you wonder about. --Eivind (t) 23:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please do not use {{infl}} for Latin entries. There are Latin templates for use on Latin entries. If you do not know how to correctly use the templates, you can mark the entry with {{attention|la}} and I or someone else will attend to it. --EncycloPetey 23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, that's ok. I found the entry accidentally, and saw it was uncategorized. --Eivind (t) 11:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Quite a lot? Please list the -nesses you have found.
- One book cite from a lesser-known work, plus no news or groups hits seems unverified.
- Quite a lot of results? Barely over 300 doesn't seem like quite a lot.
- I have added the term to RFV.
- Teh Rote 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I reply here. Any -ness word that may also mean the "result of" what it is "the state or quality of", may be countable. Everything that only is "state or quality of" is uncountable. --Eivind (t) 15:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- That works. However, that doesn't solve the term's unverifiableness. Only one cite was found, and there are very few googles. Teh Rote 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, we'll see what people decides to do with it. I'm relatively new here, so I'm neither very familiar with the language nor the requirements for verifiableness. --Eivind (t) 16:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- It's all good, stuff happens. Teh Rote 23:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
In this edit , you removed the gloss. The gloss is necessary because the English word what has more than one use as a pronoun, so hva needs a gloss identifying which senses it corresponds to. --EncycloPetey 22:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- My bad. I thought "hva" meant all the different meanings of "what", but I was wrong. It's now fixed. Thanks for noticing and telling! --Eivind (t) 22:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Why is en-proper noun better than infl|en|proper noun? Some editors have changed my edits the other way round. I have no principles here, except the monkey see, monkey do principle.--Makaokalani 13:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, ok. I just got the feeling
{{en-proper noun}} was the correct template to use, and that the {{infl}}-template was to be used when no other templates where available. Of course, I do not want to do something I shouldn't, so I'll stop there. If people agree on en-proper noun being better, I'll continue. --Eivind (t) 13:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I don't think there's much difference, but I use infl|xx|proper noun for other languages too, so it comes automatically. Maybe both are right? And you are right to answer on the page where the question was set:-)--Makaokalani 13:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, I see, and I reckon both are ok. The only reason having en-proper noun must be if we (sometime in the future) figure out the proper noun is countable (like February), but that is quite seldom. Anyway, I'll just stop changing the templates, since it doesn't make any difference. Thanks for feedback :) --Eivind (t) 13:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Takk for ros, jeg gjør så godt jeg kan og syntes jammen det var på tide med flere oppslag over norske ord her. Gratulerer så mye med å ha nådd første milepæl (jeg husker da jeg ble medlem og det bare var rundt 6000 oppslag). :) Michae2109 21:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Jeg la merke til sitatet på brukersiden din (Salig er den mann som ikke vandrer i ugudeliges råd og ikke står på synderes vei og ikke sitter i spotteres sete) og syntes det ville være en perfekt eksempelsetning på oppslaget for salig, ettersom det tydelig demonstrerer den mer litterære bruken av ordet. Håper det er i orden at jeg bruker det der (i tilfelle du har laget det selv) :). Michae2109 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Ja, et så godt sitat kunne jeg nok ikke kommet opp med selv ... det er første del av Salme 1 i Bibelen :) Veldig flott at du tok deg bruk av det; det utgjør et flott sitat og eksempel! Og igjen, flott arbeid med norske oppføringer her! --Eivind (t) 10:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've been a supporter of the idea of splitting up Norwegian entries into Bokmål and Nynorsk, but I had some problems on the entries rasshøl and høl, as neither of them are part of the official orthography in certain cases (høl has an official meaning, but is also an oral variant of hull/hol). I eventually decided on creating a single heading for Norwegian and then placing separate Bokmål, Nynorsk and Non-standard definitions underneath. I've tried this on the two before-mentioned entries to start with; could you take a look at them and tell me what you think? :) Michae2109 14:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I might have been here longer than you and might have more edits than you, but gosh, I aint better than you (: It looks great and seems to me like the best way of handling such words. I did some changing in the header levels, but the rest looks fine. --Eivind (t) 07:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Do note that this (høl) header structure is not permitted. Languages are always only L2, Etymology always L3. Language sub-headings are not used. I've looked at a couple of the examples that were set up, and the form described at this point in Wiktionary:About Norwegian looks fine. This is, Wiktionary:About Norwegian/Layout3 (2 uses headers that are not acceptable; 1 is okay, but probably not desirable.) Robert Ullmann 07:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I see. At the moment we're working hard to figure out how we can format Norwegian entries as good as possible, so we'll first and foremost concentrate on what gives most user-friendliness without making too much work. Of course, we'll also try to keep to headers that we allow. You're very welcome to leave a note at Wiktionary talk:About Norwegian and tell what you don't think will work. --Eivind (t) 08:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for the information, I was not aware that the current structure is not permitted, and as User Eivind says, we're working on finding the most user friendly solution without breaking any established rules regarding headings. I imagine the issue will need some discussion so I'll take a look at Wiktionary talk:About Norwegian and perhaps contribute with some suggestions. I am a little nervous about "butting in" in the discussions, as I am still rather inexperienced with the policies here:) Michae2109 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
PS: How about continuing this discussion on Wiktionary talk:About Norwegian and see what can we can come up with? Michae2109 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
You've added nearly 400 Norwegian female given names and surnames, but, sadly, you didn't use a template - the surname template didn't even exist. Now the categories "no:Female given names" and "no:Surnames" are being replaced by "Norwegian female given names" and "Norwegian surnames". I will change every name if no one else will - I've promised to - but I'd be really glad if you had time to change even a little part of them. See the changes I made to Annelen and Aaby. --Makaokalani 14:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Well, I probably have to help cleaning up in the mess I've made myself … if not they may block me, you never know. I don't have too much superfluous time for Wiktionary at the moment, but I'll see what I can do. But, hey, isn't this something we should be able to fix with a bot? Maybe I should start up my bot again – would be a lot of fun :D --Eivind (t) 13:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, a bot would be useful. Category:ja:Female given names is much worse and the person who made it has disappeared. And 400 surnames should be moved. I don't understand anything about bots, or if you need a permission. If you're in a hurry never mind, I'll clean them up in two weeks, though I'm getting cramps in my fingers:-)--Makaokalani 13:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I'll see if I can re-establish my bot again. I have global bot flag for my bot, and plenty of experience using it, but unfortunately not so much time longer ... Seriously no reasons to get finger cramps my friend, though I cannot promise any time for my bot to run again ... but isn't there plenty of people with bots here on en.wiktionary? --Eivind (t) 14:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Many, many thanks! --Makaokalani 13:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Looks like a real Norweigan word. Shouldn't we have an English translation? SemperBlotto 12:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
- It is a proper Norwegian word indeed! I was editing both no.wikt and en.wikt at the same time, and unfortunately I made the entry at wrong wikt :) I have given it a proper translation now ... At least so I hope. My fault, I shouldn't have tagged it for speedy deletion so fast. --Eivind (t) 12:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your answer, I think it clarifies the meaning of these words. Calimo 11:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Actually, -unt- is a suffix. Esperanto does not have infixes. Kwamikagami 02:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Eh ... that's strange. I thought a suffix by definiton was something added at the end of a word, so I couldn't see how this could be a suffix. But, hey, I can't speak a word Esperanto ... --Eivind (t) 07:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- The -unt is added to the end of the word, and the grammatical ending -o or -a is added to the -unt. So -unto and -unta are sequences of suffixes. It does rather look like the -unt- is being inserted into an existing word, but all Esperanto suffixes act like this. Kwamikagami 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, ok ... thanks for the explanation, and sorry for bothering you! It's interesting though: by poking my nose into different languages' entries, I learn quite a lot :) --Eivind (t) 08:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've taken the liberty of starting a vote for admin status for you, if you'd like to accept, please indicate thusly on WT:VOTE; if not, sorry to have troubled you. Conrad.Irwin 12:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I have now accepted. Thanks a lot! --Eivind (t) 08:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- You should have some new buttons. Welcome. SemperBlotto 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you! --Eivind (t) 20:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
"When he saw the wreck, he formed the crash in his imagination." This doesn't sound like English. Perhaps "he formed an image of the crash", but then I think it's the pre-existing sense 1: to give shape. Equinox ◑ 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Hm, to me that's English ... but then again, I'm speaking something one could define as "Norwenglish". Anyway, I reckon the defintion "To develop a conception in mind" is correct (e.g. to form an opinion). I just thought you the abovementioned sentence was ok English, but if not: do you have a better example to describe the definition given? --Eivind (t) 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- No. Taken to RFV to see if anybody else can. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Great ... thanks! --Eivind (t) 21:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi EivindJ,
Since you commented at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Transwikis from other Wiktionaries., I wanted to make sure you were aware of the resultant vote, Wiktionary:Votes/2009-03/Transwikis from other Wiktionaries.
—RuakhTALK 13:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks! I'll have a look at it and make my votes ... --Eivind (t) 21:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Currency codes (like NOK or ZAR) are translingual. They are not just restricted to English, but used in multiple languages. -- Prince Kassad 11:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
- You're right! I've fixed them, but then I reckon the same is for GBP and USD? --Eivind (t) 11:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, the same applies to the other currency codes. -- Prince Kassad 11:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
My idea by introducing these specific definitions into the grandfather page, was that there might be corresponding terms in other languages than Norwegian. I understand that the format may not allow it, since they are really hyponyms. However, as English does not seem to have terms for these, this might limit comparison of languages.--Event 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
for your help with the internal link! :) --Tyranny Sue 07:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I got confused about the use of Categories in a user page. And, thanks for fixing it for me.Aletheia 15:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply