User talk:Krun

Reply

Hi, I've started a draft guideline for how Old Irish should be treated at Wiktionary. Comments, suggestions, and additions to Wiktionary:About Old Irish are most welcome! —Angr 06:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks good so far. – Krun 09:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Icelandic index has recently been created, with links to all Icelandic lemmas in en.wiktionary. Can you check it (the alphabetical order especially) to see if it is correctly ordered. If there's a problem, tell me or Conrad (he is generating the lists) --Volants 13:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Check out how it looks now. Are the borders better, or would you still like to be rid of them? — opiaterein — 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I still think white borders are best. – Krun 20:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

White borders or no borders?? In some browsers, white borders appear, but in Opera (what I use) there are no borders at all when you use the drop-down box — opiaterein — 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Definitely white border; anyway, I think that's what appears in my browser (Safari) with most of the other declension templates. It must have something to do with class="inflection-table". – Krun 20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nah, class="inflection-table" only makes the links appear black if you have it set to do that. I'll change the borders to white now :)— opiaterein — 20:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that's much better. Too bad the Faroese templates don't use a base template for the table format as well. I shall have to go through them and change them. They could possibly even use the same base as the Icelandic ones. – Krun 11:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

An IP created this today. Would you mind checking/formatting the entry? Thanks, L☺g☺maniac ☃ 19:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done – Krun 20:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

On the page skina you have used the word "skĭne"/"skĭna" a couple of times, and claimed that it is Nynorsk. There's a problem with that: the letter "ĭ" is not used in Norwegian

Even if you correct "ĭ" to "i", you get the word skina, which means neither ‘small, thin plate’ nor ‘to run off because of mosquitoes’ as far as I know.

Regards, ;-) --Harald Khan Ճ 15:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Harald. I am well aware that ĭ (i with breve) is not part of the regular Norwegian orthography, but it is used here for clarification in the same way as it is in my source for the etymology. It simply denotes the Norwegian short i (IPA /ɪ/) as opposed to long i (IPA /iː/); that is to say, it is not /ʃiːna/, but /ʃɪna/. This is probably not a common word in all parts of Norway, and may even be fallen out of regular use entirely, but it is probably one that was collected by Ivar Aasen. – Krun 16:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also the verb skjena (another form of skĭna also mentioned in the entry) may be found here. – Krun 16:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, "skjena" I've found. But if the word "skina" is only to be found in Aasen's Landsmål with those particual meanings, it would be incorrect to label it as Norwegian Nynorsk, which is a contemporary written standard. --Harald Khan Ճ 16:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, Landsmål, Høgnorsk, Riksmål, etc. are not entered separately here on Wiktionary; Norwegian is split here (where it is split at all) into what we term Bokmål (Dano-Norwegian, including Riksmål and all codifications of Bokmål) and Nynorsk (everything else; i.e. all the Norwegian dialects derived from Old West Norse and the standards based on them, including Landsmål, Høgnorsk and all forms of standard Nynorsk). – Krun 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You still need to make a distinction, though. Saying that words like kvat or yver are Nynorsk without specifying further is directly misleading.. It's not impossible that skina can still mean ‘small, thin plate’ and that the online dictionary simply lacks an entry. I don't know; but for clear cut cases, a distinction is of course necessary. You might not put Landsmål words under their own heading, but it must of course be made clear that they are Landsmål and not modern Nynorsk. --Harald Khan Ճ 23:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Something like {{context|Landsmål}} or {{context|regional}} in the definition line would work nicely, I think. – Krun 09:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

... seems to be contributing in Scandinavian languages, needs to be taught formatting and templates and whatnot. L☺g☺maniac ☃ 16:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Krun! Why did you erase the nominative declension of this word, as well as the other acceptions of the word? (NB: this is no aggressive question for me).

If this is easy for you, it's not for most of the users, whose native language is not Icelandic. When I created this article, I first looked at different similar ones, and tried to be as precise as possible — I even resisted to give the full declension paradigm…

Thanks forward for answering (you can do so in Icelandic, but I read somewhere it is not the English Wikipedia policy to write in another language…). Cheers. ৵ Kąġi Oȟąko ^Ƭ 11:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Only certain forms are to be included in the line where the word is mentioned (what we call the inflection line); in the case of Icelandic adjectives this is only masculine nominative (indefinite if applicable) in the positive, comparative and superlative. The rest can actually always be inferred with regular adjectives (the only exception I can think of is góður and mikill). Nevertheless, we aim to include all inflected forms in a table under the header “Inflection”. There are many adjectives for which this has not yet been done. There are some templates which make this easy, but the set is not yet complete. I have been working to make templates for nouns (see e.g. björn, bekkur, hola), but I haven't turned to adjectives yet, although some older templates exist which will eventually be replaced with better ones. – Krun 12:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why did you change from ǿ to œ? I was under the impression of that the former was more correct. --Harald Khan Ճ 13:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

They mean exactly the same thing. It is simply an established convention here to use œ (see grœnn, sœtr, hœna). Most dictionaries of Old Norse do (where they even differentiate between æ and œ); also e.g. ODS. I personally also prefer æ and œ over ę́ and ǿ. – Krun 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have no knowledge to debate further; but while we're at it, should þrongr be at þrǫngr, pehaps? It appears to me that they mean the same thing. --Harald Khan Ճ 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it should. I have now moved and expanded it. – Krun 19:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

What about sjálfr? My source lists up sjalfr, but are there two variants, perhaps? --Harald Khan Ճ 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sjalfr would be the more original form, and sjálfr a later development more or less specific to Iceland and the Faroes. – Krun 12:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does this just mean a cat that's of a black color? If so, feel free to shoot on sight (IMO). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Takk fyrir að fara yfir sniðin, en þrjár spurningar:

1. Af hverju breytirðu lýsingarhætti þátíðar í supine, í stað fyrir past participle?
2. Af hverju fjarlægðirðu nafnháttarmerkið? Ég fór aðeins eftir enska sniðinu sem skeytir því við allar sagnir.
3. Ertu ekki sammála því að nafnháttarmerkið sé ekki notað á undan núþálegu sögnunum munu og skulu, og að lýsingarháttur þátíðar þeirra sagna sé ekki til (sbr. wikipedia-greinin)?

takk enn og aftur fyrir að fara yfir --BiT 21:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ekkert að þakka. Hér eru annars svör við spurningum þínum:

1. „Supine“ hefur verið notað til að þýða íslenska orðið „sagnbót“, en það mun vera rétt heiti þessa fyrirbæris, en þótt þetta sé upphaflega mynd af lýsingarhætti þátíðar (nánar tiltekið þolfall eintölu í hvorugkyni) beygist hún ekki í nútímamáli eftir kyni og tölu. Það væri villandi að mínu mati að tala um lýsingarhátt þátíðar og gefa svo upp (staðnaða) beygingarmynd hans í stað kk. nf. et. Þetta er hins vegar ekki mjög heppileg þýðing.
2. Ekki hefur verið venja að hafa nafnháttarmerkið með hér á ensku Wiktionary, nema einmitt í tilfelli enskra orða (veit ekki alveg hvers vegna, en sjálfsagt hefur það verið tíðrætt á spjallsíðunum hér einhvern tíma fyrir löngu). Það er ekki gert fyrir hin norðurlandamálin, né fyrir þýsku eða hollensku, og þykir mér það einnig eðlilegra, enda er nafnháttarmerkið ekki í neinu þessara mála notað í öllum tilfellum þar sem nafnháttur kemur fyrir (ekki einu sinni ensku).
3. Jú, vissulega er nafnháttarmerkið ekki notað með munu og skulu. Það er hins vegar ekki ástæða til að forrita eitthvað í kringum það þegar nafnháttarmerkið er ekki haft með í sniðinu. Lýsingarhættir þeirra eru ekki til (hvorki nt. né þt.), en það er fleira sem er ólíkt með þeim tveimur og hinum núþálegu sögnunum, eins og það að framsöguháttur þeirra (indicative) er ekki til heldur, en hann er tilgreindur í sniðinu! Ég breytti því bara greinunum munu og skulu þannig að þær nota ekki sniðið. – Krun 23:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ég þekki þetta ekki nógu vel þannig ég treysti þér bara fyrir lýsingarhættinum. Ef þú hefur tíma þá væri líka frábært að fá hjálp við sniðin fyrir sterkar og veikar sagnir- annars geng ég í það á næstu dögum :) --BiT 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Þá er loksins búið að klára sniðin :) spurning um að bæta við upplýsingum um beygingu sagnanna, þetta er t.d. gert í latínu í uppsláttarorðinu puella þar sem stendur "first declension" á eftir kenniföllum og í orðinu tangō stendur "third conjugation". Þar sem þú ert áhugamaður um japönsku þá stendur líka þar hvort sagnir séu t.d. ichidan-sagnir eins og 食べる, godan-sagnir eins og 買う eða óreglulegar sagnir eins og する. Hvernig litist þér á þetta?

Nokkrar hugmyndir hvernig væri hægt að gera þetta:

geisa (first person singular past indicative geisaði, supine geisað); weak verb

eða

geisa weak verb (first person singular past indicative geisaði, supine geisað)

eða eins og í japansku uppsláttarorðunum:

geisa (weak inflection/conjugation, first person singular past indicative geisaði, supine geisað)

--BiT 15:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Já, ekkert að því að bæta slíku inn. Hins vegar er spurning hvort þörf sé á að hafa fjögur snið; fyrst ekki er verið að gera flóknari hluti með aðgreiningu ætti þetta kannski frekar að vera aðeins eitt snið, is-verb, og fyrsta breytan þá beygingarflokkurinn (svipað og kynið fyrir is-noun). Þetta er gert fyrir japönsku, en þá er breytan „type“ notuð.

Svo er annað sem ég fór að hugsa um; ópersónulegar sagnir beygjast aðeins í þriðju persónu, en ef sniðin geta fyrstu persónu þarf sér snið (eða aukakóða) fyrir ópersónulegar sagnir. Hægt væri að geta einfaldlega þriðju persónu í staðinn, þar sem stofnsérhljóð er ætíð það sama og í fyrstu persónu, fh. þt. et. er alltaf nákvæmlega eins, o.s.frv. Einungis þyrfti að gæta að þriðju kennimynd sterkra sagna, sem þá fengi ekki -um, heldur -u. Þetta hefur verið gert á öðrum stöðum og virðist vera venjan með fornnorrænu. – Krun 18:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ég velti því líka fyrir mér hvort það væri betra að sameina þetta undir einu sniði sem tekur inn type= færibreytu en fannst þetta skýrara svona og auðveldara að skrifa (þ.e. "{{is-verb-weak|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}}}" í staðin fyrir "{{is-verb|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}|type=weak}}") en það er ekkert heilagt.

Annars veit ég lítið sem ekkert um kennimyndir ópersónulegra sagna þannig að það þýðir ekki að ræða um það við mig. Hvaða tillögu líst þér annars best á? --BiT 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ég var nú meira að hugsa um {{is-verb|weak|geisaði|geisað}}. Ég hugsa að sennilega væri þægilegast að nota þriðju persónu almennt í kennimyndirnar (þá t.d. bera, bar, báru, borið; rigna, rigndi, rignt). – Krun 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Held að ég sé samt hrifnari að hafa sem fæstar færibreytur. Það væri reyndar eitt mögulegt, það er dálítið viðsjárvert en það væri hægt að gera lítinn kóða sem athugar "er fyrsta færi breytan ri eða preterite? ef svo er ekki, eru 2 eða 3 færibreytur? Ef bara tvær færibreytur þá veik sögn, annars sterk sögn."

Ertu að tala um að nota þriðju persónu fyrir allar sagnir? Hvað um greinina? --BiT 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Já, einmitt, þriðju persónu fyrir allar. Það gildir hvort eð er einu hvort er notað, þar sem formin eru nákvæmlega eins fyrir utan -m aukalega í þriðju kennimynd þegar fyrsta persóna er notuð. Margar orðabækur forðast vandann með því að geta ekki persónunnar (ef t.d. stendur segja, sagði, sagt er ekki augljóst hvort átt er við fyrstu eða þriðju persónu vegna þess að formin eru eins, eins og áður sagði; þriðja kennimynd sterkra sagna er það eina sem gefur persónuna til kynna, og hún kemur ekki fyrir nema sögnin beygist persónulega). – Krun 10:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Væri sniðugt að búa til flokka fyrir áhrifssagnir eftir því í hvaða aukafalli andlagið er.. s.s. hvaða falli þær stýra? Ég var einmitt að búa til flokkana ] og ] þá væri hægt að búa til flokk eins og:

• "Category:Icelandic verbs that take/govern the accusative": fyrir sjá <konu>
• "Category:Icelandic verbs that take/govern the dative": fyrir sagnir eins og henda <sverðinu>
• "Category:Icelandic verbs that take/govern the genitive" fyrir kenna <áhrifa>

Síðar væri jafnvel hægt að taka þetta lengra með því að flokka tveggja andlaga sagnir eins og kenna einhverjum eitthvað og gefa einhverjum eitthvað sem "Category:Icelandic ditransitive verbs that take/govern the dative and accusative". --BiT 06:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Já, þessi flokkun gæti vel komið að gagni, sérstaklega fyrir þá sem eru að læra málið eða rannsaka það. Spurningin er bara hvernig við merkjum og flokkum þessi mismunandi andlög. Margar þeirra eru notaðar með ýmsum hætti; henda getur t.a.m. einnig haft stakt þolfallsandlag, bæði persónulega (í merk. „grípa“) og ópersónulega (í merk. „koma fyrir“), kenna getur einngi stýrt þolfalli og þágufalli, sjá getur einnig stýrt þágufalli (t.d. hún sá mér fyrir mat og húsnæði). – Krun 10:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ég hef alla vegana haft það þannig að ef orð tekur mismunandi aukaföll eftir merkingum þá bæti ég "(with <aukafall sem merking tekur>)" fyrir framan hverja merkingu fyrir sig. Væru þá ekki sum orð einfaldlega tvíflokkuð? Ákvað líka að tala við þig um þetta þar sem ég leitaði í "Categories" og fann ekki nein önnur tungumál sem flokka sagnir eftir hvaða föllum þær stýra. Ætti að innlima þetta í sagnasniðið? --BiT 14:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

(snögg spurning, hvað með sagnir sem eru bæði áhrifssagnir og áhrifslausar með eiginlega sömu merkingu? t.d. ákveða getur bæði verið notuð sem áhrifssögn með þolfalli ákveða þetta og áhrifslaus sögn hann ákvað að fara; þá sérstaklega sagnir eins og (deprecated template usage) biðja sem geta verið áhrifslausar ég bað, áhrifssagnir ég bað þig og tveggja andlaga sagnir ég bað þig einhvers, hvernig í ósköpunum er þetta sett upp?) --BiT 14:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ég held að það sé einmitt réttara sem þú hefur gert upp á síðkastið, þ.e. að setja þetta við hverja merkingu, því að þetta getur verið mjög mismunandi fyrir sömu sögn. Við skulum ekki vera að flækja sagnasniðið með því að hafa andlög þar í; það hefði takmarkað notagildi og væri mikið vesen. Tvö andlög saman eru venjulegast þf. og þgf., en þar sem er þf. og ef. er yfirleitt hægt að umorða hið síðara með forsetningu („biðja e-n um e-ð“ í stað „biðja e-n e-s“); þá er spurning hvernig ætti að setja það upp, já. Við þyrftum að prófa okkur áfram með það. Það eru svosem engin vandræði með áhrif/áhrifsleysi sagnarinnar biðja, þar eru merkingarnar „ask“ og „pray“ aðskildar, en fyrrnefnt vandamál þó til staðar. Ákveða er ekki síður áhrifssögn í setningunni „hann ákvað að fara“; „að fara“ er einfaldlega andlagið (nafnháttur er einn fallhátta sagna og getur því staðið sem frumlag, andlag eða viðurlag). Sumar áhrifssagnir geta hinsvegar staðið andlagslausar og er þá andlagið merkingarlega eitthvað óskilgreint eða augljóst (t.d. „þú eldar í kvöld“, „þú verður að kveðja áður en þú ferð“). Þær er hægt að merkja „ambitransitive“. Það hefur verið gert töluvert t.d. fyrir serbókróatísku. – Krun 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Já ambitransitive gæti virkað- dictionary.com skiptir þessu upp sem "used with object" og "used without object" og nokkrar skilgreiningar sagnarinnar read hér á Wiktionary eru merktar sem "transitive or intransitive", veit ekki hvernig ætti að leysa þetta. Hvað ætti annars að nefna flokka fyrir sagnir eftir hvaða falli þær stýra? Ætti að kalla þær Icelandic verbs that govern the accusative, Icelandic verbs that take the accusative, Icelandic verbs that govern the accusative case eða Icelandic verbs that take the accusative case eða eitthvað annað? --BiT 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Já, ég held líka að ambitransitive sé betra en transitive or intransitive, m.a. vegna þess að það er styttra, og upplýsingar um föllin taka líka pláss. Ég veit ekki með þessa flokkun samt. Kannski við ættum að geyma það bara, kannski þar til komið er eitthvað magn af sögnum sem eru merktar á viðunandi hátt. – Krun 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Pedia says /ð/ is devoiced in the word final position, but I notice you changed eruð and borð already said /ð/. Is pedia wrong, or is it a conditional thing, or...? — opiaterein — 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, you might also wanna check hvað. — opiaterein — 17:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The final ð may be devoiced, yes, but so may all other voiced consonants except nasals. However, this is by no means universal, and furthermore may only occur at the end of an utterance or before a pause (e.g. for emphasis), or before words that begin with certain unvoiced consonants. The devoicing is also often only partial. It is therefore advisable to stick to the voiced consonant in this context. On the other hand, the first part of compounds may have a fixed, complete final devoicing e.g. hafsjór (/hafsjouːr/), from haf /haːv/ (in which the /v/ is never fully devoiced, but often partly) + /sjouːr/). – Krun 00:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to wikipedia, the nasals, r and l can all be devoiced. — opiaterein — 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I meant just in this context (non-doubled consonant at the end of a word). At least, I cannot hear a distinctive devoicing of nasals in this position (perhaps something like 5-10% devoicing, which might also occur in other normally voiced positions and is not perceived as such). – Krun 08:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is any real advantage to using templates with names that make them difficult to identify, or make them all require 3 parameters when normal verbs can use one. If you look at is-conj-weak-ar-aði, you'll see that I included options for u-mutations that you can see used on tala. I haven't done that for these -ir verbs yet because I have yet to find any that need it. — opiaterein — 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late response. The name is not particularly difficult, but it may as well be called is-conj-weak2 if you insist on fewer abbreviations. The naming scheme is similar to what I've already been using for nouns; e.g., is-decl-noun-f-w2 is a template for feminine nouns of the second weak class. I'm simply using the traditional classification that you should be able to easily find in grammar books. All the templates have seperate parameters, at least: 1. for the first part of the word before the main stem vowel, 2. for the main stem vowel, 3. for the rest of the stem. The template needs the stem ending as a seperate parameter to be able to take into account assimilations and other regular, predictable mutations in the conjugation: rðt>rt, ðð>dd, ndt>nt, etc. This template replaces is-conj-weak-ðir-ddi-tt, is-conj-weak-ir-ði-t, and several others that you would have needed to create, since you don't use any conditionals, and actually makes things simpler. Sure, you have to do d|æ|m instead of dæm, but you don't have to choose from as many templates. – Krun 15:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

In my less-than-humble opinion, having more templates that are very simple to use is preferable to having one template that is excessively complex in use and coding. — opiaterein — 17:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is not complex in usage; as I explained, it is even simpler. As for the coding, even that is not so complex; there are only two different (not very) big switches that are being repeated over and over again, and that could, and probably should, be simplified by using an extra tier of templates (something like is-conj-weak, which would be a sort of intermediary between is-conj and is-conj-w1/2/3/4). That way, each switch would appear only once in is-conj-w2. – Krun 18:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's still going to need directions for usage on the talk page. — opiaterein — 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it definitely does. I'm going to have to make a proper grammatical appendix that will be linked from there. I don't know when I'll have the time for that though. I've been putting off doing these conjugation templates for ages, and I'm not finished with the noun templates yet, either. Then there's adjectives, too. —— Oh, well, it'll be done some time. There are always some small bits and pieces being finished. I really owe you one for pushing me into this now. I guess I'll be on to the rest of the weak verbs soon. There are only four classes and six slightly irregular ones (and you've already created a template for one of them, vilja). – Krun 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll get the rest if you can tell me which they are - I've been having a hard time finding a list. — opiaterein — 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The rest are: kaupa (keypti, keypt), meina (meinti, meint, but meina, meinar in the present tense; this verb is also conjugated according to the fourth class: meinaði, meinað, in different senses), sækja (sótti, sótt), þykja (þótti, þótt) yrkja (orti, ort, but also according to the second class: yrkti, yrkt, but in different senses). – Krun 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I'm aware of the semantic fields requiring attention and thorough cleanup. Most of the words I add are from corpora index on the basis of the frequency of occurrence. The big remaining issue is with languages and nominal color names which we here currently treat as "nouns" but are in fact pure adjectives undergoing adjectival declension. hrvatski is in fact hrvatski jezik without final jezik. I've created a bunch o these "XXX jezik" a while back but these are pure SoP and ought to be deleted. Similarly crna is a shorter form of crna boja, not a full-blown noun per se. I am thinking of using context labels, e.g. for language adjectives in the definition lines:

1. (masculine, as a noun) the XXX language

But I'm still not sure...There is the same problem with country names (in -ska, in fact shorter forms of "XXXska država"), but given that these are proper nouns with capital initial letter, they don't overlap in spelling with normal adjectives so there is no collision. I've also read a paper a few years ago where one linguists argues that these are actually separate inflectional paradigms and should be recognized as such, but this hasn't really caught on, at least not in the recent grammar books I've read. --Ivan Štambuk 15:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's the same in Icelandic with colours - they only exist as adjectives. But adjectives can generally be used substantively, and that is quite different from creating a noun from them, because a noun would decline differently and take a definite article differently. There is a very similar issue also with language names in Faroese, where the neuter gender of the adjective is used (being the same gender as the noun mál “language”). I think your solution is good, but perhaps it should rather say (masculine, used substantively). These cases would benefit from some sort of standard explanation in the Usage notes section (perhaps one for colours and one for languages; these could be templates). I would suggest we leave the issue of -ska country names for now, as (like you noted) they won't interfere with anything else, being capitalised. When this has been changed we can just hurry and delete the SoP entries and hey presto, problem solved. – Krun 17:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, one thing, about numerals. Entries often have “Numeral” as the POS header, but, as you know, numbers are either adjectives or nouns. We have tisuća and hiljada marked as nouns; shouldn't jedan, etc., just be under “Adjective”? – Krun 17:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your proposal seems fine. I'll research a bit more on the issue to see whether there are some other classes of nouns being nominalized adjectives by origin which are covered by this problem. The most comprehensive grammar book I have (published on uz-trans, in case you missed it) touches this topic only briefly (§ 478, § 869). Usage notes explanation should be transcluded by means of a template.

As for the numerals: well the PoS header ==Numeral== (or ==Number== as I've seen it oftentimes used instead) is more of a semantically defined term, rather than being a fully grammaticalized category. Numerals 1-4 (and also 21-24, 31-34 etc.) inflect like adjectives, while others are uninflected. Numerals for 100 (stotina), 1000 (tisuća, hiljada), billion (milijarda), etc. inflect like nouns. And there are different sets of issues with ordinal numbers, collective numbers etc. I'd personally have no problems formatting them either way. What I've seen across various languages on Wiktionary, is that there is hardly any kind of standard scheme for numbers, and that the formatting varies significantly across languages according to the editors' preference. My preference would be to use generic ==Numeral== coupled with usage notes on the inflectional pattern. I still need to engage into a thorough treatment of numbers, it's on my TODO list, but it's a significant amount of focused work requiring preparation, which is a bit discouraging. --Ivan Štambuk 17:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you change it? Maro 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mostly to conform to other declension tables, most importantly Slavic ones; see e.g. most and мост. The color scheme should probably be standardized as well (gray is being used at present for Czech and Icelandic, blue for most Slavic languages, green for Hungarian, etc.). This is of course open for discussion, but you must agree that a uniform look would be desirable, whatever exactly that look will be. – Krun 22:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Krun’s changes. So did Kasjanek21. The table looks much prettier now and conforms with other Slavic templates. --Vahagn Petrosyan 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Why did you remove the translation "macia como bumbum de nenê" from the entry soft as a baby's bottom? --Daniel. 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because the established policy is not to include any inflected forms in translation tables, only in the terms' own entry. – Krun 21:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you please inform where you found this "established policy"? That is, in which policy page, discussion room, etc. ---Daniel. 19:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't remember where this was discussed, but I do remember it being discussed that only the main form would be included in translation tables. In the case of PT adjectives we would only include macio, rather than macio m, macia f...and then potentially also macios m pl, macias f pl. — opiaterein — 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It has been discussed, but I don't think there was any consensus. Since inflected entries just lead right back to the lemma form with (often) no other information, I just find them clutterish in translation tables, especially forms as long as this. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, we do have a {{nonstandard}} tag you know. Do these all need to be speedy deleted without discussion? I'm not saying they don't, just that I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

They get in the way of orphaning obsolete declension templates and are otherwise being a nuisance. They are nonstandard in including an inflection table, and in not mentioning in the definition lines which inflected forms they are. I can't really be bothered now to create proper ones, but they should be created en masse later. – Krun 12:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Suits me ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is this Japanese entry really incorrect? -- you reverted it: ja:ウェード式 --达伟 11:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's just that interwiki links on Wiktionary are meant to be for the exact same spelling (in this case that would be ja:Wade-Giles, an entry which, when created, will give the definition or translation of this English word in Japanese). This is contrary to Wikipedia practice, where the names in each language would be linked together. – Krun 11:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK thanks. So I could create a translation section on Wade-Giles and then place the Jpn. Wiktionary link there...--达伟 12:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just created a translation section in Wade-Giles. There you can see that the template {{t}} automatically includes a link to the word's entry on the Japanese Wiktionary as well as here. Also take a look at our article for the Japanese term and see how direct interwiki links in the sidebar are used. – Krun 13:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!--达伟 09:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does this word mean a person who is alive or the adjective alive? Thanks, Razorflame 22:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Both, actually. The adjective sense just hasn't been added yet. – Krun 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to have this on my talk page because it is directed towards you, so I'm moving it here: (posted by Razorflame)

If you, Krun, do not care about keeping and breaking promises, that is your choice. It is certainly not my choice. I have posted this breach of promise here only after Razorflame insisted on my talk page that he can change, and that I am adamant, stubborn, rude, with an unhealthy attitude, an attitude that Wiktinary does not need right now--these are his words, just check the conversation on my talk page. He whines on my talk page that I should trust him again, and few days later, he breaks his new promise again. I care to document this breach, if you allow. He has told me: "You should be acting like: Ok, you keep the promise for two weeks and we can help each other again. I don't see why you can't have that kind of attitude when that kind of attitude is exactly what this Wiktionary needs right now." After that, I feel entitled to post a plain notice to Razorflame's talk page that specifies shortly what happened, to make misbehavior traceable. --Dan Polansky 06:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot of his conduct that I don't like either. That includes his whining and his promises, and such hasty comments as he has flung back at other users. That does, however, not give said users any valid excuse for doing the same and worse. If you can't trust Razorflame, that's your personal issue. If you care about the languages he's editing, you should just patrol his contributions, then. I'm already going through them, expanding his Serbo-Croatian entries, etc. You could also patrol entries needing attention, since he has taken to tagging his “skeleton” entries for attention. I certainly don't trust all content from every user on Wiktionary. That's why I check entries, and that's how Wiktionary becomes a good dictionary. Quite a lot of our high quality entries started off as this sort of skeleton, or even as a complete mess. We should just deal with it. – Krun 09:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Who created those inflection forms that you just deleted? Razorflame 08:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

SPQRobin created them. Why? – Krun 08:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thought I made them :/ Razorflame 08:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

fyrir ofan What does that mean in Icelandic? Thanks, Razorflame 09:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It means above. – Krun 09:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just a preposition, right? Does it need the accusative/dative added to it? Razorflame 09:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is a preposition. It governs the accusative only. – Krun 09:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Krun. One thing that you could have done instead of deleting ambulantan is to have moved it to ambulantni and then restored the revision that was deleted. That way, you preserve the history of both entries, as well as correct the situation too :) Everyone is happy and the Wiktionary gets more correct :) Razorflame 22:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. There wasn't really any more information in ambulantan, the two were basically copies, so no point. Cheers. – Krun 22:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Glad to hear it :) Razorflame 01:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why have you done this ? Please, tell me your source. About this one : please, don't delete other users' entries. I don't know for Serbo-Croatian, but when giving opinion about Croatian, please, at least compare with Hrvatski jezični portal. "Ophodna" for "orbitalna postaja"? Tell that to Štambuk :))) Serbs using "ophodnja" for "patrola"? Serbs using "časnik"? Or even "časnica"? Krun, do you know the difference between "ophođenje" and "ophodnja"? Krun, you're making a mess.
If you want to add entries for so-called Serbo-Croatian, OK, your choice. It's not my maternal language, so I'm not messing there. But, please, don't delete entries for other languages. This is not Croatian, nor Serbian nor anybody's POV.
Former Yugoslavia had lines in four languages in the banknote's of SFR Yugoslavia: (in Serbian, in Croatian, in Slovenian and in Macedonian): "dvadeset hiljada dinara", "dvadeset tisuća dinara"....).
Be careful. Those mistakes aren't innocent, it can be very dangerous. Serbs feel some of those words as serious provocation: e.g. if you refer to military officer with "časniče"; "ophodnja" is also very provocative. Especially if you go in Serbia and use those words - many Serbs'll feel ofended and that you intentionally provoke them.
Have in mind that someone reads Wiktionary and blindly believes to everything he/she reads here. Why 'll you get that person into serious troubles, if you can stop that from the very beginning? Kubura 03:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Krun's edit was correct, ophodni indeed meas "orbital". It can also mean "patrolling", but chiefly in Croatian usage. Most of such "Croatian words" are easily attested in Serbian/Bosniak usage, especially in the speech/writing of Bosnia and Herzegovina where Croatian media exert lots of influence. Please Kubura spare us of "Serbs use this" and "Serbs don't like that" sermons - that spells spreading ethnic hatred/intolerance in my vocabulary and continuing so would get you blocked. --Ivan Štambuk 11:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The difference in that banknote titles of yours is in the words hiljada and tisuća in dvadeset hiljada dinara vs. dvadeset tisuća dinara, both of which are used by both Serbs and Croats for centuries. See Citations:hiljada and Citations:тисућа if you don't believe so. On the other hand, what are the odds that two so "different" languages share 3 inflectional endings and a syntactical construct (possessive genitive) in one such phrase...hmmm, hmmm :) --Ivan Štambuk 11:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why this ?
Colleague Štambuk told me that I can add Croatian entries, if I don't delete "Serbo-Croatian" . Kubura 03:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, you shouldn't have performed a simple undo, since you reintroduced wrong information, e.g. the indefinite form *ophodan is not to be found in the Serbo-Croatian dictionaries I have access to (e.g. Hrvatski jezični portal). The same goes for your definition, “the patrolling one”. First of all, such grammatical constructs are not appropriate for a definition, especially since it excludes other grammatically possible uses of the word (a better wording for your definition would be “of or related patrol; patrolling”, or something like that). However, regardless of the wording, this definition is, again, not to be found in other dictionaries. The definition “orbital” is found in HJP and in the Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika, and is furthermore the only definition. I can see that the other definition is likely, but without any source on it it is difficult to include.

Your Croatian entries are very welcome, but please do not be offended by the fact that when I clean up, expand (and correct) your entries, I also change the name to Serbo-Croatian. That does not mean it is not Croatian. Serbo-Croatian includes Croatian. I know there has in the past been a lot of confusion with the term “Serbo-Croatian”, but here on Wiktionary, it simply means “Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, and/or Montenegrin”, including Ijekavian (found among Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs (and Montenegrins)), Ekavian (found among Serbs and Croats, probably some Bosniaks as well) and Ikavian (found among Bosniaks and Croats), and including the primary idiom (Neoštokavian standards) as well as dialects (Neoštokavian variants, Old Štokavian, Čakavian, Kajkavian, etc.). If you insist, you can have a separate Croatian section as well, since there is no official policy for Serbo-Croatian and its national standards on Wiktionary. I personally just do not see any particular usefulness for such a separate Croatian section. However you choose to do, I hope it will help us together make Wiktionary a truly great dictionary. Good luck with all your editing. Regards, Krun 11:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

In my Norwegian dictionary, the etymology for "daude", meaning 'death', lists up both dauði and dauðr. Does that mean that 'dauðr' could also be a noun? Do you happen to know anything about this? Thanks in advance, --Harald Khan Ճ 15:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dauði is definitely the main word in Old Norse; ODS (Ordbog over det danske sprog) also mentions the noun dauðr, but marks it as rare. Cleasby/Vigfusson mention the noun dauðr as conjectured based on the phrase „til dauðs“ (genitive), and only a handful of possible other instances (look under DAUÐI here). This strong noun is probably the ancestor of Danish/Norwegian død, Swedish död, although it would at least be mixed up with the weak version, since Danish has the construction til døde (<til dauða). Old Danish seems to have had both (døth, døthæ) and Old Swedish also had both (döþer, döþe). In short, yeah, it existed, but was very rare in (recorded) Old (West) Norse. – Krun 18:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sweet, thank you for your detailed reply. It would perhaps deserve a mention in the entry here? (if anyone knowledgeable feel that they could be bothered, that is ;-)) While talking about ancestors; I thought that perhaps Nynorsk daude could come from an earlier form dauder (which again would stem from ON dauðr), or something like that; and not necessarily being a typical conversion from ON i to modern Norwegian e. I think there are few examples of this in modern standard Norwegian; and at least in the dialects we got many (ON -r --> MNO -er --> NO -e; e.g. ON kemr, MNO(?)/Nynorsk kjemer and dialectal/w:landsmål kjeme). --Harald Khan Ճ 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please can you add Icelandic to bestar --Rising Sun talk? contributions 09:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just thought I'd let you know that there have been a bunch of Icelandic edits of late. I've been marking them as patrolled, as they're not obvious vandalism, but it would be good if you could look over them at your leisure, to ensure they're also accurate. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's okay, but thanks for letting me know. – Krun 07:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous editor says this is a misspelling of allt fínt. Can you delete it if this is the case, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Correct. Now deleted, and allt fínt cleaned up. – Krun 12:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sæll,

ég fór að læra íslensku, en það eru sum orð til sem ég finn ekki í orðabókum. Þá bætti ég þeim við í síðunni beðinna bókanir. Ég yrði mjög þakklátur ef þú gætir fylgst með henni og svarað mér annað slagið.

Bestu kveðjur, Wisapi 22:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Krun -- Nice catch!. Thanks for cleaning up after me. I'm getting bleary and sloppy in my advanced years. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. We must all hope the little errors we introduce here and there will be caught eventually. – Krun 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Note my change here reflects standard Mandarin translation formatting. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 13:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I didn't even think about it although I knew about this. I'd probably notice if I'd added the translation myself, though. Thanks for catching this. There ought to be a bot for this sort of thing… – Krun 15:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Krun!

My name is Robbie_SWE and I'm an administrator at the Romanian Wiktionary. I've noticed that you have tried to have a discussion with WernescU concerning his contributions.

We have had problems with WernescU back in the Romanian project as well, problems that I have brought to the attention of Opiaterein who has vowed to keep an eye on him. It seems that WernescU doesn't listen to anyone, let alone people who try to communicate with him in his native tongue (God knows I've tried). In the Romanian Wiktionary we use the old orthography and when I discovered that he was adding duplicates here I tried to redirect them, but it's hard to keep up with him.

He is not going to succumb to the norms and this is one of the reasons why he left the Romanian Wiktionary in the first place (he also persisted on adding words that don’t exist thus causing irritation amongst the other users).

Let me know if he keeps disrespecting your requests. I'll have a word with him if it's needed.

PS: I also suspect that he doesn't speak very good English, so he might not understand you.

Best Regards,

--Robbie SWE 20:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

From English horse (“heroin”) I suppose. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. – Krun 12:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What does cheesing mean in this case? --Mat200 23:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cheese is gaming slang for tactics which exploit a vulnerability inherent in the game to defeat an opponent. This has begotten a corresponding verb and derived words such as cheeser and cheesable. – Krun 23:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Could I trouble you to add a definition to those pages? --Mat200 23:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

94.101.2.145 (talk) has added "m" to the ?first-person plural past indicative? of many Icelandic verbs, for example velta (ultu → ultum). He or she has also changed Template:is-verb-strong. In many cases, you were the one who added the verb forms, and added to the template; can you check and see if 94.101.2.145's edits are vandalism, or correct? I am also asking User talk:BiT. - -sche 08:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I saw your edit, was 94.101.2.145 (talk)'s change incorrect? See my discussion for my response --BiT 11:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

As I briefly touched upon in #Upplýsingar um beygingu (last comments), I think it is better to use third person than first. It is by no means universal to use the first person forms as principal parts. The third person forms are used a lot, especially in older and foreign (non-Icelandic) sources (and also e.g. in the Icelandic-English dictionary on Snara.is), although use of the first person has become prevalent in Iceland. The first and third person singular past is always identical, and all the indicative plural past forms always have the same stem vowel. The reason it is better to use the third person is that it can consistently be used for all verbs, also verbs that are only used impersonally. For these verbs, first person forms do not exist. It is also consistent with the customary treatment of Old Norse and Old English. – Krun 16:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fine. Let's stick to that and add your justification to the template to avoid similar incidents. --BiT 17:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If possible, could you not start rhymes with *: but rather just *. I find it distracting to have a 'step ladder' effect in pronunciation sections. NB this is not policy, it's a personal request, based on a Grease Pit discussion where nobody really commented. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I prefer the indentation. Rhymes and homophones follow a specific pronunciation, and variations are not necessarily the same between homophones or rhymes. See lágur and hver. – Krun 10:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Krun,

Did you still want these? I'm happy to try to help, but I don't know enough about what our Icelandic entries look like. If you can give a fairly objective, simple-minded description of what I should search for, I'll do so . . .

—Ruakh_TALK
03:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've replied at the Grease Pit. – Krun 10:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I ran that request, the results are here. I also wrote about it here. - DaveRoss 01:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why? --Yair rand 09:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because listing them all would be like listening ==British English== and ==Continental Portuguese== for every entry. — Laurent — 12:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, removing these is like removing terms that are only in British English or Continental Portuguese and leaving no entry at all, as far as I can tell. --Yair rand 12:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Then you can't tell very far, unfortunately. Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian were all used before, probably for fear of irritating the hyperpolitical if "Serbo-Croatian" was used anywhere. But someone adding one almost never added all three. They're all one language, with pretty minor regional differences. Such regional differences are marked. — Laurent — 12:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused. You do know that I was referring to edits where sections were removed and no Serbo-Croatian section was left, right? --Yair rand 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see Krun do that, and you didn't say it explicitly, and one word messages don't say much, so no. I only saw sections removed where there was already SC. But then I don't stalk most users' contributions, so yeah. — Laurent — 12:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yair rand probably referred to edits such as these, and not to usual sh-ification. The thing is that Serbo-Croatian has 7 cases, and sibilanti is not simply "plural form of sibilant, it's "nominative plural of sibilant" and also "vocative plural of sibilant". The template {{plural of}} is restricted for languages that don' have cases (and other markers like definiteness..). Regardless, there is no damage done in removing them since they can be reached from the usual search box, due to the fact that SC nouns have declension listed as full words, and not template-generated. --Ivan Štambuk 13:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Searching sibilanti does not give any indication that it is a Serbo-Croatian word without the entry there, and even if it did, it's still a word, so it needs an entry, like all form-ofs in all other languages. --Yair rand 13:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't see Ivan being convinced of that :D Anyway, if we're going to have SC form-of entries, we should make them right. They can be bot-uploaded eventually, we don't need random form-of entries now. — Laurent — 13:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Inflected forms don't need entries on their own. The only reason why we add them is because MediaWiki is such an lexicographically-unsuitable piece of software. All the information on them is already encoded in the inflection tables of the lemma entries. What needs to be done is to have MediaWiki 1) expand templates first 2) collect inflected forms marked with e.g. special tags and index them to the respective lemma. This shouldn't be too hard even in the primitive language such as PHP. These statically-generated bot-uploaded inflected-form entries as useless junk wasting database space and Internet traffic. But we add them anyway because we don't want the French to beat us :P They add a false set of accomplishment, beside acting like a psychologically rewarding "score" system subliminally forcing people to create many obscure low-quality entries instead of focusing on the thoroughness of treatment of the important existing ones.

Of course that simply searching for sibilanti won't work if the entry already exists (another bug - the inability to search for some particular content if there exists a page with the same name). You need to manually add e.g. Serbo-Croatian. --Ivan Štambuk 14:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Form-of entries can be very useful for pronunciation sections, especially for stuff like Lithuanian and its crazy stress paradigms. — Laurent — 14:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I guess you guys just answered for me… Yes, the reason I delete these is that I am trying to clean up the remaining Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian sections. These form-of entries didn't provide much useful information of their own and would have needed considerable work – the exact format for SC form-ofs would have to be figured out, and once that has been done, such entries could be massively generated by bot. The existing form-of entries are well under a hundred in total, compared with the tens of thousands which could be generated automatically, once the format's been figured out. That said, I really would support a way for us to get around the need for these (in any language here). It would be so much better to just have language-specific search by word form. I also make complex entries for Icelandic, and have long avoided making many form-of entries because it just messes long, complex language sections up so much. – Krun 22:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer to wikify them rather than outright delete them; but there is a precedent. I've seen SemperBlotto delete Latin entries to allow SemperBlottoBot to readd them with better content. The difference being, SemperBlottoBot adds back the definitions within minutes, if not within seconds. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not always. There are some that remain blank. Anyway, it'd be better to wait for SerboCroatian. I was able to add pronunciation sections to Lithuanian bot-uploads, and also for Esperanto and Romanian. This could possibly done for SerboCroatian, possibly. I'd say so, if it can be done for Lithuanian. — Laurent — 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't suppose you fancy finishing of the remaining 31 (down from about 600 at the start). I'm slowing going insane due to copy-and-paste overload. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done. – Krun 15:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I really appreciate that you are checking the Proto-Germanic entries. It's hard to find proper resources on Icelandic and especially Faroese, so it's good to have someone who helps! —CodeCat 16:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem. As to resources, you should check out the online Faroese dictionary. It's pretty comprehensive. Although it may be difficult for you to understand the text, at least you can check the existence of a word (or correctness of spelling) and inflections. For Icelandic, there is a nice aggregate site, http://snara.is/ , which includes the main Icelandic dictionary (Íslensk orðabók) as well as numerous others (e.g. a dictionary of idioms and various translation dictionary, among them English-Icelandic and Icelandic-English; none of the translation dictionaries are very good, but they are somewhat useful nonetheless) plus a historical/etymological dictionary of Icelandic personal names, an encyclopedia of famous modern Icelanders, a searcheable map of Iceland, and even a couple of cookbooks. It requires a subscription (ISK 4680 ≈ EUR 28,50 for a year or ISK 8520 ≈ EUR 52 for two years), but I think it's well worth it. Of course, there's always the Germanic Lexicon Project, which includes a 19th century dictionary of Icelandic (mostly Old Icelandic), which is a bit outdated, but I still use it a lot. The only real etymological dictionary is the one by Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon. It is not available in digital form (and probably won't be until it's out of copyright), but it is available in print here. – Krun 17:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see that you created autocraat. Really appreciated. Here are some of the templates we use to create Dutch entries that you might be interested in for next time (so I don't have to fix your formatting :D) User:Jamesjiao/Dutch templates. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a list of Serbo-Croatian entries which also have Bosnian, Serbian and/or Croatian entries on the same page? Now there are no uncategorized entries (touch wood) such a list should be relatively easy to come up with; though I'm not sure how to do it. It should be possible using Microsoft Excel to put all the entries in four columns and check which entries match. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's really no need. I'm just working my way through all Croatian nouns, etc., whether or not they have a Serbo-Croatian section or not. – Krun 12:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've began to create some Icelandic inflection templates on the nn: wikt, and wondered whether there existed somewhere a decent overview of the different classes of nouns and adjectives that existed. In the Faroese dictionary linked to above, there are codes such as h3 and k6 used to indicate which class a noun belongs to - has someone made a similar overview for Icelandic? The Icelandic page linked to above provides inflection, but not codes.
A related question: does {{is-decl-noun-n-s}} cover other 'classes' than ö in plural, no ö in plural and no ö in plural but j in some föll? Njardarlogar 10:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can find a description of the classes in Íslenskt mál, volume II →ISBN; for all three volumes →ISBN, although there are errors in it and it doesn't cover quite everything. The system used there is a traditional one which may be used for both Old Norse and Icelandic, and it is this system that I use for my templates here. You may of course copy my templates to the Nynorsk Wiktionary. I don't think I've quite finished making templates for all the irregular nouns, and there may be some eventualities (not mentioned in the book) that I have not addressed yet.

The template you mention covers all strong neuter nouns. There are several phenomena which may occur within the class: no vowel change (gos); a>ö (barn); aCaC > öCuC ; VCaC > VC (meðal); lacking -i in dat. sing. ; -i in stem which disappears in dat. and gen. pl. (kerti), or turns into -j- (merki); gen. s. -s assimilated (vax); secondary vowel dropped (veður, gaman), etc. – Krun 16:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I now feel more tempted to simply copy the templates here; though we'll see. Njardarlogar 12:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you please only delete categories that are empty? I'm trying to clean up the wanted categories but that's harder if I have to keep making sure not to recreate the categories you deleted. —CodeCat 13:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, if you can clear this category, this is the last of the Serbian categories, and all the Bosnian categories are now clear, leaving only the remaining Croatian ones (albeit, quite a lot of them). --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Will do! But there is also Category:Serbian abbreviations; perhaps I'll do those as well. – Krun 13:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The remaining entries in that and Category:Serbian prepositions are all single letters. They seem to have Serbian and Serbo-Croatian sections with non-identical content, which means I can't merge them apart from 'blindly' by guesswork. See also my most recent Beer Parlour thread on SC. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hej Kristján!

Jag ville bara göra dig uppmärksam på att du verkar ha glömt att ändra lite information på uppslaget Hjálmtýr. MVH Diupwijk 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hej. Vilken information har jag glömt att ändra? Jag förstår inte vad du menar… – Krun 23:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Uttalet är väl inte rätt? Det är detsamma som för Hjálmar. Diupwijk 23:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

*facepalm* Nu måste det erkännas att jag bara är blivit för trött. Tack så mycket och god natt! – Krun 23:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hej igen! Allt väl?

Jag undrar lite över uttalet av byrja: skall det verkligen inledas med ett s-ljud? Vänligen Diupwijk 11:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hej. Nej, det skulle väl inte ha haft ett s i uttalet. Nu korrigerat. – Krun 13:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Tack så hjärtligt! Diupwijk 16:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

	Hello, Krun. You have new messages at Biblbroks's talk page.
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

They're the same actually, tnx. How did you know the tone for garantovati? --BiblbroX дискашн 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

From the Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika (Matica srpska and Matica hrvatska, 1967). – Krun (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is there an electronic version you could spare? Or at least an online version? --BiblbroX дискашн 19:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please? --BiblbroX дискашн 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

You'll find it if you just search for it on Google: . Also, I thought I already sent you an email about that. Didn't you get it? – Krun (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry bout that email. It came to my mind checking inbox but I've fallen as a victim of praxis witnessed here on wikt and didn't want to become disappointed when finding out that there's no message waiting for me. It's actually because I rarely use smtp. Thanx for your trouble. On my way to sort my yahoo account. Cheers, --BiblbroX дискашн 14:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Never taken the chance to thank you for the link. Sorry about that, I just forgot. Anyway thanks a lot. --BiblbroX дискашн 20:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Happy editing! :) – Krun (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed you added that name and I wonder if it could be related in any way to the Old English name Scefing that appears in the introduction to Beowulf? —CodeCat 12:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

That certainly seems possible. The Icelandic name most likely comes from Low German, from some merchant family. – Krun (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm cleaning up existing Icelandic noun form entries to use {{is-inflection of}}. I've come a across a problematic case though (problematic due to lack of content provided). I fixed the format at (deprecated template usage) lóða (Etym 3) but since I don't know a lot about Icelandic could you confirm that the inflection specified is correct? Also, can you add the appropriate declension template to the lemma entry? Thanks. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 02:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Same problems at (deprecated template usage) húfur (Etym 2) as well. 50 Xylophone Players talk 02:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seems alright. I've added all the inflections. – Krun (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. :) Also, (deprecated template usage) jóna need conjugation in etym 1 and declension in etym 2 Here are some more that I found during my clean up:

There's no rush I guess of course but I just said I'd list out all the problems/incomplete entries I found. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you check the Tbot adjective entry here? :) I came across it when adding noun forms. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. Could you also fix (deprecated template usage) öld? The declension just recently added seems wrong according to the Icelandic wikt. If it's not too much trouble, could you also try writing documentation for the Icelandic declension templates when you have some time? It really would make them easier to use; as an example, I couldn't quite figure out to fix this entry myself. 50 Xylophone Players talk 03:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you add some Icelandic touches to the tölt page, please? Does tölt have other meanings apart for the horse gait? --I love ponies (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi - for consistency, Swedish is always listed before Danish in order of descent from Old Norse; the full list of languages, in order, is found here http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:About_Proto-Germanic --Proto-Germanic Fan (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't noticed that page before; thanks for pointing that out. – Krun (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

When you add references, like at *klainiz, could you add <ref> tags in the appropriate places in the entry (like on Wikipedia), so that it's clear exactly which part of the entry is referenced? Thank you. —CodeCat 10:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you check the pronunciation for this? We also need citations for it, for FWOTD, so if happen to know of any that would be great. Thank you. —CodeCat 23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

More FWOTD requests: could you please translate at least one of the citations at afturbatapíka? Also, could you please cite and add a pronunciation section to jökulhlaup? Dank je —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you know anything about this? TIA --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why, certainly. I have edited the etymology accordingly. – Krun (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

谢谢！ --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, thanks for helping expand my Icelandic entries. I'm only learning the lingo at the moment even though I've added quite a few words here so it's good to get a native speaker tidying up and especially adding the pronunciations (the books don't teach you how to pronounce the words, which is really annoying!). Cheers, BigDom (t • c) 21:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Keep up the good work! :D – Krun (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why were you shocked at a change that was supported by everyone except you? Pretty much every Wiktionarian has voiced their opinion on the discussion page by now - how much more participation do you want? -- Liliana • 20:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The only reason I noticed this to begin with is your change to the template. Five or ten people is not “everyone”. It has long been practiced here to use curly quotes and apostrophes for presentation, while using straight ones for page titles. This has never been explicitly required, as far as I know, nor has it been universally applied, but it has certainly been done in some of the more prominent pages and templates that use them (like {{term}}). This has always seemed a no-brainer to me: straight apostrophes in page titles make pages easier to find and curly ones in the actual page text make for a nicer, more professional look. In any case, this is an ideal that (some) people have been striving for here before I even arrived, and seems to be the norm, at least on non-stub pages. To decide a (new) policy on it is something I think should be discussed in a more prominient place (Beer Parlor), so that people can actually notice the discussion and take part in it. – Krun (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

When linking to reconstructed terms, can you use this instead of {{lx}} from now on? Thank you. —CodeCat 17:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sure, no problem. – Krun (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are these idioms? The Icelandic past-participle-declension tables link to them. I'm not sure if the entries should be created, or the links corrected.

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK 05:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

They are certainly common collocations, but I would say they are SOP, the same as English phrases like strong declension or weak conjugation. By all means remove the links from the templates; I’ve never liked them. – Krun (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! So then, could you create the Icelandic entries for veik and sterk (or whatever the lemmata are)? —Ruakh_TALK 17:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Those would be veikur and sterkur. – Krun (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perfect, thanks! I've updated the templates. —Ruakh_TALK 21:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that they are missing grammatical senses. If I read "veik beyging" with the current definitions at veikur, I arrive at something that seems like a declension that is less strong, pliant, or sick, which makes little sense in this case. —CodeCat 21:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Grammatical senses have now been added. – Krun (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Do you know any way to get the conjugation tables for weak verbs where the stem vowel changes? For example, I just created kremja and can't work out how to get the right conjugation to show. Cheers, BigDom (t • c) 22:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Sorry about that, but I simply haven’t created the templates for those yet. I’ll make them some day, along with the strong verb templates, but I don’t know when I’ll have the time. Nice work with the Icelandic entries, by the way. Are you living in Iceland? – Krun (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I'd help out but think it would be beyond my capabilities with templates. Thanks, but no, I'm living in England but I'd love to come to Iceland one day. BigDom (t • c) 16:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

How do you know that this is an ī/jō stem and not a normal jō stem? —CodeCat 02:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I confess that I do not know, but aurî (= *aurī) is the form given by Torp. I see now that Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon in his Orðsifjabók gives *auriō (= *aurijō). What should we do if we cannot know which it is? – Krun (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just saw your edit comment on this edit. Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten lists historical kana spellings in most entries that have them, and they use the small ゎ, small っ, and ゃゅょ. Do you have a source showing that these weren't used? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Going through and cleaning things up following discussions among other JA editors, where the rough consensus emerged that we should stick to the L3/L4 headers of Kanji and the POSes. I reworked しかり and removed a number of kanji that appear to be exceedingly rare and archaic / obsolete alternates for more established spellings. I then started working on にゃく and wondered where these came from -- /njV/ invalid IPA characters (V) is not a common phoneme in Japanese to start with, so I was surprised to see such a list of characters. Looking at the history showed me that you'd created this page some time back; I presume from a data dump of some other source? If EDICT / KANJIDIC, I've run across the occasional mistake in their corpus, and numerous examples of characters listed with a reading that is vanishingly rare, off into "someone once used this as an ateji for XX" territory.

Do you have any strong feelings about how to handle such rare / archaic / obsolete readings? My sense is to get rid of them unless they can be shown as citable, but I don't quite know how best to go about finding citations of really rare uses, short of trawling through a dead-tree Japanese library. At the bare minimum, my sense is that rare or unusual readings should at least be marked as such, to avoid misleading users. What's your opinion? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I believe these have usually been aggregated from the reading data on pages for individual kanji. Personally, I feel that these are useful; it is my understanding and experience that readings are a very important way to find characters; also very rare characters, or rare readings of common characters, especially as part of archaic words which cannot be found as a whole in many dictionaries. Reading listings on hiragana pages should ideally work very similarly to form of entries, but instead of referring back to a POS entry spelled with kanji, they refer back to the ===Kanji=== section for individual characters. Many readings (chiefly on-readings) are not used as individual words, only word parts; they nonetheless have a meaning and are useful for look-up. – Krun (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• If it's from Kanjidic, then, but nowhere else I can find, I'll mark it as rare. Part of my concern is that we don't adopt an "anything goes" approach to what kanji readings are allowed -- in large part due to the activities of one or two very troublesome anons.  :(   Mind you, I don't think that's what you're advocating; I just want clear guidelines. My thought too is to reduce editing load and confusion -- if a character is listed with reading X in, say, Kanjidic but nowhere else, I'm fine including that reading with a qualifier, but given the additional maintenance overhead and potential for user confusion, I don't know that it makes sense to add that kanji spelling to the entry with that reading -- unless we can cite it. Does that work for you? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Back in 2009 I created Ekavian form of vrijediti as vredeti, but you moved the Cyrillic spelling to vrediti and rectified the entry . (with vrijediti still having Ekavian form listed as vredeti though) However, Zabadu under IP address complains that the proper Ekavian infinitive form is vredeti, which quick google search confirms. vrediti seems to have some usage but it appears to be improperly reanalyzed on the basis of present stem vred-i-. Do you remember whether you saw vrediti in one of the dictionaries? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I’m not sure. If I looked it up, it must have been in the Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika. I may have just assumed *vrě̄diti > vrijediti / vrediti, but what is it really, then? Is it perhaps *vrě̄děti > vrijedjeti > vrijediti through some sort of dissimilation? – Krun (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

According to RSHKJ the proper form is indeed vredeti. I think that the error occurred due to a mistake in the original entry (linking to vrediti but displaying vredeti). I've relocated the entry. Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Two things just came to my attention:

1. Your recent change to {{ja-kanji}}, while generally something I can support, now looks super-funny because of how inconsistent it is with all the other headlines for other languages. Perhaps we should look into having everyone adopt larger headword sizes?
2. Straight links using ] don't add any linguistic information to the resulting HTML. Meanwhile, templates like {{l}} do add such information. This can be a usability issue for anyone using a screen reader or other technology. Examples:

'']''

produces:

<i><a href="https://dictious.com/en/%E8%A8%93%E8%AA%AD%E3%81%BF#Japanese" title="">kun’yomi</a></i>

No linguistic information means that any tech parsing this page won't recognize that kun'yomi here is Japanese.

{{l|ja|sc=Latn|訓読み|''kun'yomi''}}

produces:

<span class="Latn" lang="ja" xml:lang="ja" style=""><a href="https://dictious.com/en/%E8%A8%93%E8%AA%AD%E3%81%BF#Japanese" title=""><i>kun'yomi</i></a></span>

Note the lang attribute. (Unfortunately, also the xml:lang attribute, which we shouldn't have anymore as it's apparently been deprecated (or even outright removed?) in HTML5, but which thankfully doesn't seem to do anything bad.)

If you changed this because you're seeing odd fonts on your end, that depends on your browser and how it's set up with regard to languages and fonts. On Chrome, get the Advanced Font Settings extension and you can configure this. On Firefox, click Tools > Options, select the Content tab, click Advanced in the Fonts & Colors section, and select the font in the top dropdown and the fonts below that.

HTH, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

Sorry to be a nuisance, but could you point me to a help page regarding inserting inflection-tables in Wiktionary. For instance, the code for the Icelandic word björn seems to be just:

"\{\{is-decl-noun-m-s3|b|ja|rn|u=u\}\}" (Backslashes added.)

How does this work - for nouns, verbs etc. A pointer to a help page would be enough if it exists? All the best 85.220.22.139 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

The inflection tables are slightly different for each language. I made the current ones being used for Icelandic, but I haven’t gotten around to making a help page yet. In fact, I haven’t even made templates for all the inflection categories. It’s a lot of work, and this is all a work in progress. I can make a brief summary for you.

All the templates follow traditional Icelandic grammatical categories. The nouns are divided first by gender, then by whether they are strong or weak (in weak nouns all cases in the singular end in the vowels -a, -i or -u), and then by numbered categories. The noun categories are as follows:

• m-s1 for masculine nouns ending in -ar in nominative plural and -s or -ar in genitive singular. The most straightforward example of this is words like hundur; but the template also covers words with an elided secondary vowel like böðull, humar, etc., words with a stem ending in -i, but losing the -i before plural endings, like læknir. It also allows for u-mutation if the stem vowel is -a-, as in garður, kaðall, etc.
• m-s2 for masculine nouns ending in -ir in nominative plural and -s or -jar in genitive singular. Words like hvalur, hylur, lækur
• m-s3 for masculine nouns ending in -ir in nominative plural and -ar in genitive singular. Includes words like hugur, siður, viður, litur, but also words ending in -aður/-uður, like söfnuður, and u-stem nouns (using the parameter u=u) like björn, vörður, etc. (these u-stem nouns have u-mutation in the nominative and accusative singular, as well as in the dative plural like all nouns do, and they furthermore have i-mutation in the dative singular and nominative and accusative plural).
• m-w1 for masculine nouns ending in -i with a plural in -ar, like skóli, hjólbarði, etc.
• m-w1a – declension identical to m-w1, but nominative in -a, like herra, séra
• m-w2 for masculine nouns ending in -i with a plural in -ur with i-mutation, e.g. lesandi, bóndi
• f-s1 for strong feminine nouns with plural -ar (or -r in those ending in á or ú), like vél, á, nál, trú, Gerður, ermi
• f-s2 for strong feminine nouns with plural -ir, like sál, kvöl, deild
• f-s3 for strong feminine nouns with plural -ur/-r with i-mutation, like bók, fló, kýr
• f-w1 for feminine nouns ending in -a with plural -ur (with u-mutation), like nunna, mamma
• f-w2 for feminine nouns ending in -i in all cases in the singular, with plural in -ir or -ar (the latter is indicated with the parameter ar=ar), like lygi, beiðni
• n-s for strong neuter nouns; these have -s in the genitive singular, and a nominative plural marked only by u-mutation, e.g. barn, þil
• n-w for weak neuter nouns; these end in -a in all cases in the singular and take a -u plural, e.g. auga

All of these have the stem inserted in three or five parts: the principal stem vowel is the second parameter, whatever letters precede it are the first parameter, and the rest of the stem is the third. When there is a secondary stem vowel, this is parameter 4, and then parameter 3 contains whatever is between the vowels and parameter 5 the rest of the stem. Sometimes extra parameters must be used, as explained above. Also the dative ending -i is somewhat arbitrarily present in strong masculine nouns (of all three classes). Its presence must be indicated with the parameter i, which can have the values i, -i, or i-, which means -i/-inum, -Ø/-inum, and -i/-num, respectively (indefinite and definite forms shown on either side of the slash). I can’t give you any more detailed info now, but you can take a look at the linked entries to check out the template usage. Maybe I’ll have time to explain the verb and adjective templates later. Good luck; I hope this helps. – Krun (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm Icelandic myself and am, among other things, interested in grammar and linguistics. Well, my own language is the one I know best, so I thought it could be worthwhile to learn the semantics of the templates to add inflections, where I see none, and am in the mood to add something. Bestu kveðjur 85.220.22.139 16:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

PS: I just looked at hvalur. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark there. All the best 85.220.22.139

Sorry, I was too hasty. I was looking at the Faroese declension. But still, the dative singular in Icelandic should be given as hvalur/hvali. Both varieties occur. Best of wishes. 85.220.22.139 16:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Another PS: I'm sorry for this flood of questions, but shouldn't it be possible to include the archaic forms of the masculine u-stems, where they can occur, mostly in fixed expressions, for instance á ýmsa vegu etc? All the best 85.220.22.139 16:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Enn eitt péessið. Ég skráði mig inn sem notandinn, sem birtist á eftir. Ég nota þetta nafn lítið og er raunar nokkurn veginn hættur að skipta mér af Wikipedíunni sem slíkri. Mig langar hins vegar að hafa áreiðanlega málmyndafræði íslesku á einum stað. Þar get ég a.m.k. lagt eitthvað af mörkum - ég finn orð, þar sem beygingu vantar og set hana inn. En þú hefur rétt fyrir þér - það er svo mikið af undantekningum og afbrigðilegum beygingum í íslensku, að sniðmátin verða geysimörg. Talsvert vantar af lýsingarorðum, og hvað sterkar sagnir varðar, svo tekið sé dæmi, má vissulega flokka þær eftir hljóðskiptum, en stundum verða undantekningar næstum jafnmargar og sagnirnar sjálfar. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hvað varðar sól og sál þá mun algengast vera, að eignarfall fleirtölu sé sólna og sálna, sbr. sálnaflakk. Skýringin á þessu er líklega, að veikar og sterkar myndir hafi verið til, og þær eru enn til, hvað sálina snertir, og að veika eignarfallsennið hafi smitast í sterku orðin. Orðið sála er a.m.k. til, það sver ég við sálu mína, það veit sála mín o.s.frv. Kær kveðja Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rétt ein athugasemd, og svo læt ég þig í friði. Ég var að svipast um eftir "setningarfræði" sniðmáta og rakst á þannig greint sem lýsingarorð. Þetta er atviksorð. Atviksorð ættu raunar heima í þessum sniðmátum, þar eð þau stigbreytast eftir ýmsum reglum og sum eru óregluleg. En ég sá líka, hvert ógnarerfiði þessar töflur hafa verið. Ég man ekki í svipinn eftir jafnmörgum slaufusvigum í röð og hvað sviga almennt varðar lítur þetta út eins og LISP. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I assume you mean hval/hvali for the dative; that can be done, but I am not so sure it should. I think it might be better that we omit rare or erroneous/proscribed variants from the main declension table. We can still note these in a comment below. That allows us to further specify their status and context. I think we needn’t change the template or introduce a new class for such variants, as long as the regular form exists as well. You can see what I have done with vegur, where I have added the forms vegs and vegu in a comment below the declension table. Svo að ég skipti nú yfir í íslenskuna, þá væri ég mjög feginn að fá einn í lið með mér í þetta víðfeðma verkefni. Athugaðu að þú getur meira að segja bætt við orðum með beygingu án þess að setja inn merkingu þess (ef það er erfitt, t.d.); þá seturðu bara {{rfdef|lang=is}} í staðinn fyrir merkinguna (sjá snæri), og einhver annar (eða þú sjálfur) getur bætt henni við seinna. Það væri auðvitað frábært að koma inn sem flestum orðum og beygingardæmum. Hvað varðar þannig, þá er það útfrá nútímalegri greiningaraðferðum ýmist atviks- eða lýsingarorð, eftir því í hvaða setningarsamhengi það er, t.d. ég vinn ekki þannig (atviksorð), en þannig mál er erfitt að leysa (lýsingarorð). Sjá einnig BÍN. – Krun (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rétt hjá þér, þannig getur verið lýsingarorð og atviksorð. Við, sem lásum Björn Guðfinnson á sínum tíma, erum bara vön að líta á þannig sem atviksorð. Hins vegar þarf svo sem engin ný fræði til að greina orðið sem óbeygjanlegt lýsingarorð. "Gamaldags" bækur, sem fjalla um setningafræði, segja í aðalatriðum, að lýsingarorð kveði á um fallorð og atviksorð um sagnir og svo er þessu háttað hér. Það var aðeins máttur vanans, sem fékk mig til að koma með þessa athugasemd, en ég er hér með leiðréttur. :-) Hins vegar sýnist mér óþarft að búa til beygingasniðmát fyrir allsendis óbeygjanleg orð. Það dugir að segja, að orð beygist ekki, og þar með höfum við það. Hvalur/hvali stafaði einfaldlega af athyglisbresti við innslátt.

Gott og vel, þá er flest komið á hreint. Ég mæðist raunar í mörgu um þessar mundir, svo að framlag mitt, ef eitthvert, verður stopult. Það væri samt ágætt að fá leiðbeiningar um, hvernig maður setur upp sniðmát. Vissulega má lesa eitthvað úr kóðanum, en þetta kraðak af slaufusvigum gerir manni býsna erfitt að ráða í hann. Fyrst þú kannt þetta, þá gætirðu e.t.v. sett saman stuttar leiðbeiningar. Ég hef þegar nefnt sterkar sagnir. Tvöföldunarsagnirnar að ganga og hanga þurfa t.d. hvor sitt sniðmátið, þótt þær sé annars í sama flokki. Hvorugt er nú til. Og ef eitthvað er missagt í fræðum þessum, er væntanlega um að kenna innsláttarvillum. :-) Kær kveðja Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

PS: Hvaðan hafa menn almennt frumgermanskar og indó-evrópskar rætur? Ég á nokkurt safn af þessu, frá Pokorny til Mallorys og Ringes, og sýnist sitt hverjum. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Enn eitt péssið og svo er ég hættur í bili. Ef þú svarar mér, mætti það gjarnan vera á notandasíðu minni, sem er fremur tómleg sem stendur. Ég sé þá strax, hvort einhverjar fréttir eru. Annars finnst mér Wikipedían sjálf hafa stirðnað í skrifræði. Ef til vill var það nauðsynlegt, en gamanið er horfið. Í Wiktionary er hins vegar aðeins um að ræða staðreyndir, sem ekki er líklegt að standi styr um. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ég laug. Hér kemur eitt péess til. Ég bætti við íslenska hlutann í greininni um viðskeytið -a og bjó til færslu um íslensku í greininni um -um - enginn orðaleikur ætlaður. :-) Þetta var bara tilraunastarfsemi, en er þetta viðunandi sem fyrsta skref? Þetta er þar með komið á blað, og alltaf má bæta við. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bætti við "placeholder" fyrir endinguna -ur, sem þyrfti að taka vandlega fyrir. Kær kveðja Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sæll! Ég bjó til sniðmát fyrir orðið altari með hliðsjón af öðrum. Þetta kemur rétt út í sandkassanum mínum. Hvernig ber ég mig að við að setja það inn á sniðmátalistann (þ.e. Icelandic Neuter Nouns)? Hafi maður smíðað eitt, gætu önnur fylgt. Svo að þú vitir meira um mig, þá læri ég ekki neins konar hugvísindi í háskóla, þótt ég hafi verið jafnvígur á allt í menntaskóla og áhugi á tungumálum og sumum öðrum hugvísindum hefur fylgt mér alla tíð. Kær kveðja Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Já, ég skil, þú meinar að þú hafir sett inn beyginguna með sniðmátinu non-decl-noun. Tæknilega séð á aðeins að nota það fyrir fornnorrænuna, en þetta virkar svosem nokkurn veginn. Ég hugsa að altari þurfi sitt eigið sniðmát. Ég skal búa það til fljótlega. – Krun (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ég bjó til sérstakt sniðmát fyrir altari: {{is-decl-noun-altari}}, og búinn að koma því í notkun á síðunni um altari. – Krun (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Takk fyrir það. En fleirtalan ölturu ætti líklega að vera á undan. Ég þekki engan ómálhaltan, sem notar fleirtöluna altari. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ég vona þá að þú teljir mig ekki málhaltan, því að ég hef aðeins tilfinningu fyrir myndinni altari! – Krun (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Úps! Hvernig stendur á því? Málhaltur ertu varla. :-) En ég hef aldrei heyrt altari notað sem fleirtölu - svona þegar ég hugsa um þetta, hvorki af málhöltum né öðrum. Þetta er að vísu ekki orð sem kemur oft upp í samræðum. Íslensk orðabók gefur aðeins upp ft. ölturu. Stafsetningarorðabókin er því miður stödd á vinnustaðnum, en ég held, að ölturu verði að teljast réttari, hvaða skilning, sem menn annars leggja í það orð. Við snögga uppflettingu reynast Kress og Stefán Einarsson a.m.k. sammála mér, þótt gamlir séu þeir vissulega. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

http://bin.arnastofnun.is/ er auk þess sammála. Á Árnastofnun ekki að eiga síðasta orðið - nógu frjálslega fer hún með ýmislegt annað? Hve lengi hefurðu búið úti, ef ég má spyrja? Beztu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Stafsetningarorðabókin gefur upp hvort tveggja í fleirtölu. Þetta orð er heldur óíslenskt að forminu til, enda tökuorð. Þarna togast á tvær reglur eða mynstur í máltilfinningu manna: annars vegar eiga hvorugkynsorð með -i í stofni að vera eins í eintölu og fleirtölu, en hins vegar á ekki að geta verið a í nf./þf. ft. hvorugkynsorða. Það er því ekkert skrýtið að fleirtalan sé á reiki. Hún hefur líka verið það lengi. Dæmi úr ritmálssafni Árnastofnunar sýna myndirnar altari og ölturi (báðar frá 16. öld) og svo ölturu (frá 18. öld). Ónáttúran í þessu orði er náttúrulega sú að ekki á að geta verið -i í stofni án i-hljóðvarps. Varðandi beygingarlýsinguna hjá Árnastofnun, þá vantar ýmislegt þangað inn, og þar sem fleirtölunnar altari er ekki getið í Íslenskri orðabók kemur það mér ekkert á óvart að hana vanti í BÍN. Það gæti samt verið snúið að bæta þessu inn, því að kerfið á BÍN er svolítið erfitt. Ég er nú einmitt að fara að vinna við BÍN í sumar, svo að e.t.v. get ég komið þeirri lagfæringu til leiðar. Hér úti hef ég búið síðan um haustið 2009, en með hléum þó, því að ég hef verið á Íslandi á sumrin og dágóðan hluta vetrar 2011-12. Svo hefur annars verið svo mikið af Íslendingum hérna úti að þetta er eins og hálfgerð nýlenda. – Krun (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ég tók mér það bessaleyfi að snúa ölturunum við. Fleirtalan altari særir máltilfinninguna ógurlega. Þetta eru að vísu hártoganir, en ég vona, að þú takir þetta ekki illa upp. En nú fer að líða að lokum 69. afmælisdags lýðveldisins og ég verð víst að búa mig undir vinnuvikuna, sem verður raunar 4 dagar að þessu sinni - blessunarlega. Ég slysaðist til að heyra hluta af ávarpi Sigmundar Davíðs. Ræðan var ekki slæm, þannig lagað, en að breyttu breytanda hafði maður heyrt þetta allt áður. :-) Góða nótt Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sæll! Ég er eflaust farinn að reyna á þolinmæði þína, og ég biðst afsökunar. Samt sem áður datt mér í hug verkefni, sem væri prýðileg æfing, þ.e. að búa til mát fyrir karlkynsorð, sem enda á -all, -ill, -ull og -ann, -inn, -unn, þótt ekki komi þetta allt fyrir í töluðu máli. Til þess þyrfti ég örlitla tilsögn. Það, sem ég hef fundið dugir ekki til. Þú gætir e.t.v. bent mér á eitthvað sambærilegt. Ég væri þakklátur og ef við horfum fram á veginn, létti þetta af þér. Hins vegar verð ég að viðurkenna, að ég á afar bágt með að samþykkja djöfulinn sem lýsingarorð. :-) Ég get bætt við orðum með þeim sniðum, sem til eru, en íslenskan er svo litríkt mál í beygingum og undantekningar og undandantekningar frá undantekningum etc. svo margar, að þetta verður víst seint fullunnið. Annars er góðar upptalningar á afbrigðum að finna á ótrúlegustu stöðum. Bruno Kress tekur þetta allt rækilega fyrir, málfræði Valtýs Guðmundssonar er enn nothæf með varúð og - viti menn - í hinu fremur litla kveri, Móðurmáls-bókinni eftir Jón Ólafsson frá 1911 er að finna nokkurn veginn allt, sem höfundi auðnaðist að finna, og var ekkert smáræði. Það er raunar gaman að íhaldssemi hans. Sögnin slyngja, slöng í þátíð er þar talin lifandi. :-) En spurningarnar eru sem sé: Hvar nálgast maður "setningafræði" sniðmáta, ef einhvers staðar? Hvernig vistar maður nýtt sniðmát og þarf einhver sérstök réttindi til þess? Ég mun nú þegja uns hjálp berst. Ég hef náð mörkum þess, sem ég get - a.m.k. án þeirrar yfirlegu sem þetta kostaði þig á sínum tíma, og mér þætti tvíverknaður að finna hjólið upp aftur. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Með hvaða --orð hefurðu lent í vandræðum? Það er kannski ekki víst að nýs sniðmáts sé þörf. Á Wiktionary:Templates ættirðu að geta nálgast allar almennar leiðbeiningar um sniðanotkun. – Krun (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Þessa síðu fann ég en ekki almennar reglur. Ég var að svipast um eftir beygingu fyrir djöfulinn. E.t.v. hefur mér sést yfir eitthvað. En það er svo annað mál, að einhverjar reglur þyrftu að vera til reiðu, svo að aðrir geti búið til þau sniðmát sem vantar, og þau eru mörg. Þarf maður sérstök réttindi til að bæta þeim við? Hafi maður þau réttindi, hvernig kemur maður þeim fyrir á viðkomandi lista? Þú segist vera möppudýr, svo að þetta hlýturðu að vita. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Þetta var misskilngur minn. Enn fremur las ég ekki fyrstu leiðbeiningarnar nógu vel. Ég biðst afsökunar á því. Ég hef afritað þær í sandkassann, vonandi með góðfúslegu leyfi. :-) En mig langar samt, þótt ekki sé nema fovitninnar vegna, að átta mig á reglunum um gerð sniðmáta. Eitt hef ég búið til, fyrir orðið altari, en það er einföld upptalning og auk þess límt í heilu lagi á síðuna sjálfa, en samræmisins vegna ætti þetta að vera í safni. Já, meðan ég man, orðið möppudýr var ekki illa meint. Þetta var alhaft á Wikiheimild í árdaga. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ég tek því ekkert illa að vera kallaður möppudýr, enda er ég slíkt „dýr“ á íslensku Wikipedíunni. Ég er þó reyndar ekki möppudýr (bureaucrat) hér, aðeins stjórnandi (administrator). Það var bara einhverntíma ákveðið á íslensku Wikipedíu að allir stjórnendur yrðu möppudýr líka. – Krun (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Orðið djöfull er annars ekkert vandamál; beygingin fæst með sniðinu {{is-decl-noun-m-s1}}, svona: {{is-decl-noun-m-s1|d|jö|f|u|l}} – Krun (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Svo þarf engin sérstök réttindi til að búa til þessi snið. Við sem skrifum færslurnar þurfum bara að koma okkur saman um hvernig á að staðla þær. – Krun (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Takk. Ég var raunar búinn að ráða við djöfulinn. Ég er ekki búinn að komast að því, hvernig maður kemur hinni gömlu beygingu orðsins brún fyrir, en það skiptir svo sem ekki máli, þetta er afgreitt í athugasemd.

En hvað sem því líður, það sem ég átti við með réttindum, er, að fari maður t.d. á síðuna ] og smellir á Edit, birtist þetta:

\{{tempcatboiler|is|noun inflection-table}\} - öfug skástrik mín

þannig að sniðmátum hlýtur að vera stungið inn annars staðar. Vissulega mætti sækja síðuna í heild sinni og reyna að ráða í kóðann, en reynsla mín af þeirri táknasúpu, sem þannig fæst er ekki góð. Kær kveðja Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Þess má til gamans geta, að ég er enn stjórnandi í Wikiheimild undir öðru nafni. Ég hef ekki fengist við hana lengi. Ég nota núverandi "alter ego" í lögmætum tilgangi, ef þú skyldir velta því fyrir þér, hvort ég sé "sokkabrúða". Þú færð auk þess býsna mörg prik, ef þú ræður í, hvaðan Þórður Breiðfjörð kemur - það fer sennilega eftir aldri þínum. :-) Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Gott og vel, eitthvað hlýtur að hjálpa manni bak við tjöldin, því að ég sá altarið á listanum yfir íslenskar beygingar. Þetta virðist sem sé auðveldara en ég hélt, nema einhver annar hafi fært þetta til bókar. Ég mun halda áfram að ráða í sniðmátagerð, en annars þyrfti ég helst að læra PL/SQL og fleira tengt gagnagrunnum, VBA fyrir Excel, rifja upp R og er þá ekki allt talið á sem alsnöggvast, þannig að tíminn er naumt skammtaður. Þetta skeytaflóð mitt stafar eingöngu af því, að það er þriggja daga helgi á Íslandi - tæplega þó í Utrecht. :-) Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Þórður Breiðfjörð kemur að sjálfsögðu frá Matthildi ;). Konan mín er nú alveg sérstakur aðdáandi Útvarps Matthildar, Úllen dúllen doff, og fleira gamals og góðs íslensks gríns, svo að ég þekki til hans. Þú hefur væntanlega séð, miðað við svarið hér að ofan, að það var ég sem setti inn sniðið á altari. – Krun (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mikið rétt! Ég tók raunar mátið frá öðrum flokki sterkra sagna og sneri því í s3. Við sjáum, hvað kemur út úr því. Þú ferð eftir hefðbundnum hljóðskiptaröðum, sýnist mér, sbr. þá ágætu vísu

Bíta, rjúka, bresta, nema, biðja, fara.

Rámur skyldi róminn spara.

Ég á að vísu eftir að reikna þessa svissa út, en það kemur. Hafi maður einu sinni lesið og skilið illa samið C-forrit og endursamið það, þá hlýtur þetta að hafast. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sæll aftur! Ég vona að þér sé ekki farið að leiðast. En eftirfarandi get ég nú gert og gildir allt um nafnorð:

• Farið eftir sniðmátum, sem til eru.
• Búið til ný sniðmát með upptalningu.
• Sett inn ný orð, þám. framburð, uppruna og beygingu.

Þetta get ég ekki:

• Samið nýja tegund sniðmáts, þótt leiðbeiningar séu vissulega til - þær eru bara svo mikið torf, að ég hefi varla tíma til.

Þessu get ég bætt við:

• Lýsingarorðabeygingum, sé beygingin til fyrir.
• Sama gildir um sagnir.

Ætli við verðum ekki að láta þetta duga í bili, þótt mig langaði raunar að smala sterku sögnunum. Með þetta í höndunum ætti ég að geta lagt eitthvað fram, þegar andi og nenna leyfa. :-) Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ég spreytti mig annars á sögninni að ganga með búa sem fyrirmynd. Eitthvað var þar rotið í Danaveldi, þar sem ég fékk aldrei annað en kóðann sjálfan á skjáinn. Jæja, látum það vera, en ég hefði gaman af að vita, hvað fór úrskeiðis. Ef þú nennir geturðu litið í sandkassann minn og farið í ".../sandbox/ganga", en þar er að finna það, sem ég var kominn með. Kær kveðja Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ég lagaði þetta. Það vantaði bara einn hornklofa. Svo eru samt beygingarmyndir af búa enn þarna inni. – Krun (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kærar þakkir. Já, ég vissi af beygingarmyndunum af að búa. Ég ætlaði að skoða þetta smám saman án þess að vista (nema hjá mér), til að sjá, hvort ég hefði ekki raðað rétt upp. En þú ert vonandi sáttur við að fá sniðmát inn. Bestu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sæll aftur!

Ertu með einhverjar hugmyndir um sagnir, sem ekki geta komið fyrir í miðmynd, svo og sagnir, sem aðeins eru til í miðmynd? Núverandi sniðmát setja allan hauginn inn.

Enn fremur: Mun ekki reynast nauðsynlegt að setja inn sérsnið fyrir næstum allar tvöföldunarsagnirnar svo og hinar núþálegu? Það mun verða mikil handavinna, en það er þó hægt að gera fremur "slavískt". Ég gæti a.m.k. bætt við einni á viku eða svo. Beztu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sagnasniðinu er skipt í parta, og það er hægt að afvirkja hvern fyrir sig með því að bæta við act=- (engin germynd), mp=- (engin miðmynd), eða pp=- (enginn lýsingarháttur þátíðar). – Krun (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ég er smám saman að átta mig á pörtunum. Ég setti að hanga rétt í þessu. Það er hægt að stytta sér tíma með Search-Replace. En varðandi setningarfræði þessarar uppsetningar allrar, var ég að rekast á, að Lua, af öllum málum, mun vera undirstaða þessara sniðmáta. Þarf maður virkilega að læra það? A.m.k. notar Lua slaufusviga, sem hér koma fyrir í massavís - sem minnir mig á erindi Tómasar Guðmundssonar:

Þegar frá dauðum Dassa rís

Drottinn kemur í massavís. :-)

Tómas hafði gaman af svona rímbröndurum sem og ég (þetta þekkirðu):

Og alveg varð ég hissa

er herrann lét sér detta

í hug að nota þetta

handa foringjanum Hitler

og föður Jósef Stalín.

– Nú fá þeir að vera saman,

og rímsins vegna í peysum

frá prjónastofunni Malín.

Kær kveðja Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lua er ekki notað í sniðmátunum. Svokölluð modules (sjá Wiktionary:Scribunto) nota Lua, og það er hægt að nota þau inni í sniðmátunum ef maður vill, en ég hef ekkert farið út í það. Þetta er frekar nýlega tilkomið fyrirbæri, og ég hef raunar ekkert kynnt mér kosti þess. – Krun (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hvernig eyðir maður undirmöppum úr sandkassa sínum? Ég bjó til eina fyrir sögnina að ganga og sit nú uppi með hana. Það birtist síðan sem sniðmát á síðunni yfir íslenzkar beygingar en það hvarf þegar ég tæmdi möppuna. Nú vil ég losna við hana. Ég mun halda mig við .../sandbox/tilraunir héðan í frá. — This unsigned comment was added by Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk • contribs).

Þú getur ekki eytt neinum síðum sjálfur; aðeins stjórnendur geta það. Þú getur alltaf sett {{delete}} á síðuna, og einhver stjórnandi eyðir henni innan skamms. Ég er búinn að eyða þessari fyrir þig. – Krun (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sæll!

Sjá titil. Hvort telur þú betra, að búa til lítt fágaða grein með, segjum, einni merkingu, framburði, beygingu (sem er þá tiltæk) og vonast til að aðrir bæti, eða sökkva sér djúpt í efnið? Fullsmíðuð grein verður varla til nema með yfirlegu. En fyrst hér eru til Íslendingar, sem allir hafa öðru að sinna, má ekki gera ráð fyrir "sjálfleiðréttingu" smátt og smátt? Beztu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ég held að það sé betra að setja inn færslu með litlum upplýsingum en að vera alltaf að geyma sér það þangað til að maður getur gert það „almennilega“. Það er líka, eins og þú segir, ekki ólíklegt að aðrir bæti einhverju við. Það sem er erfiðast að setja inn eru nákvæmar lýsingar á merkingu, notkunarleiðbeiningar (usage notes) og tilvitnanir. Hins vegar er lauflétt að setja inn framburð með IPA og tengli á rímsíðu, og beygingu (í flestum tilvikum). Þetta eru enn fremur upplýsingar sem engar aðrar íslenskar orðabækur bjóða upp á. Því finnst mér að við ættum einmitt að einbeita okkur að því. Lokamarkmiðið fyrir hverja færslu er svo að sjálfsögðu að hún gefi nákvæma og því sem næst tæmandi merkingarlýsingu, nákvæmar upplýsingar um uppruna og merkingarþróun orðsins, upplýsingar um dreifingu og algengi orðsins og merkingartilbrigða þess í tíma og rúmi, nákvæmar upplýsingar um framburð þess, einnig svæðisbundinn eða eldri framburð, með hljóðdæmum frá fólki á ólíkum aldri, af ólíku kyni, og frá mismunandi svæðum, notkunardæmi og helst a.m.k. eina tilvitnun fyrir hvert merkingartilbrigði, alla beygingu, og aðrar upplýsingar eins og við á, svo sem upplýsingar um orðið sem tökuorð í erlendum málum (sbr. Geysir), lista af samsetningum þess og öðrum afleiddum og skyldum orðum í málinu, myndir af því sem orðið vísar til eða hljóð (t.d. fyrir kvaka), notkunarleiðbeiningar, o.s.frv. Þú sérð því að mikið verk er fyrir hendi. Það mikilvægasta er hins vegar að bæta stöðugt meiru við safnið. Lítið er ávallt betra en ekkert (svo fremi sem upplýsingarnar eru réttar og passa í orðabók). – Krun (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sem sé, tvær flettur á dag koma skapinu í lag. :-) Talandi um flettur, þá setti ég orðið ösnu inn rétt í þessu, aðallega vegna þess, að mér varð hugsað til miðmyndarsagnarinnar að asnast. Sögnin að asna er vissulega til í germynd, en eiga þetta ekki að vera tvær flettur - hafi ég skilið það rétt, að fletta sé á íslenzku það sem heita mun lemma á ensku? Ef svo er, þá ætti þetta við ýmsar miðmyndarsagnir. Beztu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Meðan ég man. Hvaða kröfur eru gerðar til heimilda, a.m.k. í fyrstu útgáfu greinar? Ég er íslenzkumælandi og auk þess málhreinsunarmaður, og ég hefi fengið mikla þjálfun í heimahúsum (ég fór m.a. yfir fjölda stafsetningarprófa á unglingsárum) og hefi lesið meira um efnið en tíðkast. Má þá ekki setja inn orð heimildalaust í fyrstu atrennu? Ég sé, að þetta er algengt. Ég nenni varla að vitna í Íslenska orðabók eða Ásgeir Blöndal (eða Sigfús Blöndal, ef því er að skipta) hverju sinni, sem mér dettur orð í hug. Beztu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Í raun hefur vísun í aðra orðabók ekkert sérstakt gildi. Heimild fyrir orði er frumtexti þar sem orðið er notað í samhengi, ekki bara minnst á það eða fjallað um það. Orðabækur geta verið mikilvæg heimild um sjaldgæf orð eða afbrigði, eða um orðsifjar, merkingarþróun, o.s.frv. Einnig eru þær gagnlegt tól til að finna orð, en við þurfum alltaf að meta hvort við getum treyst þeim upplýsingum sem þær gefa. Ekki eru allar orðabækur áreiðanlegar, eða öll allar færslur í þeim. Þær kröfur sem gerðar eru eru fyrst og fremst að uppsetningin sé eins og miðað er við hér, tungumál og orðflokkur gefinn upp, og að upplýsingarnar séu réttar. Hægt á að vera að finna þrjár tilvitnanir eftir mismunandi höfunda fyrir hverja merkingu orðs, en það er ekki nauðsynlegt að færa það inn strax nema einhver efist um að hægt sé að finna slík dæmi og leggi fram formlega beiðni á WT:RFV eða WT:RFD um að láta staðfesta eða eyða viðkomandi upplýsingum eða færslu. Ef orð er algengt og við getum staðfest það (t.d. með Google-leit) verður því raunar ekki eytt þó að við setjum notkunardæmin ekki inn. – Krun (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hjartanlega sammála. En - eigi að síður - er "málhafa" treyst til að hafa rétt fyrir sér? Eins og þú segir má oftast finna tilvitnanir. Það er sjálfsagt að gera þá kröfu. En - og nú fyllist ég ef til vill mikilmennskubrjálæði - miðað við eigin kunnáttu og þau heimildarit, sem ég á tiltæk, er mér sem sé treyst sem heimild unz annað kemur í ljós. Ég tók t.d. eftir því, þegar ég færði orðið ösnu til bókar, að þar er til orð úr retórómönsku sömu merkingar (og sama uppruna) svo og skozkt orð, sem mun þýða rif. Engrar heimildar er getið. Þú þarft svo sem ekki að svara þessu. Ég er smám saman að átta mig á kerfinu. Og loks, eins og ég sagði fyrr, að mig minnir, er ég ekki málvísindamaður að mennt - heppilega, þegar ég þurfti að velja háskólagrein kom samanburðarmálfræði til greina, en ég valdi þann kost ekki og slapp þar með við að sækja mörg námskeið í anda Chomskys, sem er, að ég tel, einhver ofmetnasti maður allra tíma. Joseph Greenberg gerði meira gagn, þótt flokkun hans sé vafasöm, og næstum með öllu hafnað, hvað snertir mál indíána. Afrískur fjöldasamanburður hans var betur heppnaður, en þó mun menn samt sem áður greina á um einstök mál eða málaflokka í þvísa kontítenti. :-) Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sæll og sjá titil!

Samkvæmt síðustu talningu, 28. apríl 2012, voru íslenzkar færslur 14.931 talsins. Ég hefi ekki séð aðra, sem eru augljóslega Íslendingar hér nema þig og hinn ágæta notanda BiT. Þetta getur varla verið allt eftir ykkur, nema með gríðarlegri vinnu af beggja hálfu. Hve margir eru þeir Íslendingar, sem við þetta fást, svona á að gizka. Beztu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ekki er það allt eftir okkur, en ég hugsa þó að meirihlutinn sé eftir mig eða BiT (eða a.m.k. að við höfum komið eitthvað nálægt því). Í árdaga var Schneelocke (talk • contribs) virkur í íslenskunni, BigDom (talk • contribs) hefur sett inn töluvert nýlega, og svo eru alltaf hinir og þessir að setja eitthvert smotterí inn annað slagið. – Krun (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Gott og vel! Ég reyni þá að koma tveimur atriðum á dag, en það eru þá ríflega 700 færslur á ári. Ég snýst í öðru, þannig að varla verður meira krafizt. Einn nokkuð ýtarlegur bálkur um íslenzku er reyndar til eftir mig - í annarri Wikipedíu. Ég held þar með, að ég hafi lagt mitt fram - til þessa. Beztu kveðjur Þórður Breiðfjörð (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Krun, I have had a go at creating {{is-conj-w1}} in my userspace here. I think it's mostly OK judging by the results on this test page, but there's just a couple of things: the present indicative of berja is wrong, obviously the 2s and 3s should be berð and ber, not berur. Also, I'm not sure whether the middle voice conjugations are completely correct. Would you be able to have a look? Cheers, BigDom (t • c) 15:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Right, I've fixed the berja conjugation using #ifeq: but I'd still be grateful if you could have a look through the rest of it before I move it into template space. Thanks, BigDom (t • c) 09:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to Wyang, there's more detail in the etyms at JA 鶴 (​tsuru) and KO 두루미 (durumi, “durumi”).  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you help out with this? —CodeCat 12:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nice to see you back editing. What do you think of idea of mass-generating stubs for Serbo-Croatian words by a bot, with etymologies, pronunciations, inflection, reference to HJP, but without actual definitions, using {{rfdef}} instead (or some kind of "stub" definition generated from Google translate)? I.e. something similar to what Tbot was generating before, with a notice "this entry needs to be checked/completed". The idea is that editors should spend less time on the Byzantine wiki markup and inflection, i.e. something completely automatible from existing databases which could be easily be imported en masse, and should focus more on adding definitions/usexes. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would support such an effort (i.e. mass import without definitions). After all, why should stubs with grammatical info and pronunciation and without a definition be any worse than stubs with only an incomplete definition and without grammatical information or pronunciation? I personally don’t think any one kind of dictionary data is inherently more important than another. As to importing Google translate glosses en masse, I don’t think we can legitimately do that. – Krun (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you please add an Icelandic definition to jarg? --Back on the list (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would like to make some small changes to how the parameters of this template work. You're the most active Icelandic contributor so I wanted to ask if you are ok with it. The changes are:

• Instead of using - as the second parameter to indicate that a noun is a plurale tantum, you specify it by using m-p, f-p and n-p as the gender. Most other languages' templates work that way already, so it makes things more consistent and easier to learn.
• The second parameter can't be - anymore. If the noun is a plurale tantum, then the second parameter gives the genitive plural instead of the genitive singular.
• The third parameter can still be -. But if the noun is a plurale tantum, it's ignored. So it doesn't give the genitive plural anymore, only the nominative plural.

—CodeCat 18:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would support such a change. However, I am not certain that genitive plural should be there at all, though it is currently supported. It is not usually given in dictionaries, and it doesn’t really give one much of a clue about the class/declension paradigm that isn’t already given by the nominative plural. Of course, all the words get a full inflectional paradigm below the definitions anyway. Then the second and third parameters would both be ignored in the case of pluralia tantum.– Krun (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's ok too, I can remove the genitive plural forms from the headword line altogther, if you prefer. —CodeCat 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please do, and while you’re at it, could you also change the text uncountable to no plural form or some such. I believe this was discussed somewhere and already implemented for some languages, but I can’t remember exactly. – Krun (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've made the changes, and updated the documentation to match. I also made it categorise the entry if the genitive and plural are empty, so that we can easily find entries that are missing inflections. But there are probably also nouns that have no inflections; should I allow the second parameter (genitive) to be - when it should show "indeclinable"? —CodeCat 19:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The second shows the feminine and neuter forms, while the first doesn't. Is there a reason to have two different templates? It seems to me that we could orphan and delete one of them, but which one? —CodeCat 22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply