User talk:Leolaursen/2009

Note that we do enter iwikis to redirects; if the other wikt using different spelling/caps/other conventions it will find the entry. Robert Ullmann 08:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll remember that.--Leolaursen 08:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hej, Leolaursen. Jeg lærer dansk og jeg opretter undertiden hér artikler for nogle danske ord. Når jeg oprettede dennelunde, skrev jeg en sætning af J. Baggesen, men jeg kunde ikke finde noget nyere end det. Bør jeg at tilføje skabelonen Template:obsolete eller Template:archaic, hvad mener du? Er ordet udbredt i nutidsdansk? Hilsen Bogorm 14:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ja det bør markeres archaic. I ODS på nettet er det markeret "foræld.", og det er ikke med i moderne ordbøger. Obsolete er nok overdrevet, da de fleste danskere vil forstå meningen.--Leolaursen 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Undskylfige for nysgerrigheden, men jeg er interesseret i dette ords brug - i ODS der ere to meninger udenfor i går: gårs dato og anden dags gaar. I Goggle, som det synes, er gårs dato temmelig brugeligt, men for det sidste udtryk der er kun et resultat(Luther). Er det ikke gængs? Skal jeg skrive denne betydning hér? Bogorm 17:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

gårs dato er formelt (formal), og ses kun skriftligt. anden dags går er forældet (obsolete), og erstattet med "i forgårs" (sv. i förrgår). – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 17:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi! At English Wiktionary, interwiki links are added by a bot - Interwicket. Note that, unlike Wikipedia and other wiki-projects, on wiktionaries this is completely automatible since all the entries have the same name on all wiktionaries. You might spend your time here in doing something more constructive (e.g. adding Danish translations to ====Translations==== sections). Cheers --Ivan Štambuk 06:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, no need to waste time then. Just thought it might speed up the process if I added them manually on the major wiktionaries. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This template is not accelerated. Are you planning to accelerate it today? --EncycloPetey 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I figured that it was, since it calls {{da-noun-base}}, which is accelerated. Is that a wrong assumption? In many cases {{da-noun-old}} is called. I intend to change them to us the new format, so I didn't bother to accelerate that. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 11:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

{{da-noun-old}} is now accelerated as well. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 14:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hej Leo. I artiklen om akademiker kan jeg se at du har tilføjet betydningen: "academic (member of an academy, college, or university)". Men hvad betyder det helt præcist? at være medlem af et universitet? er man så studerende eller ansat? en studerende vil normal ikke bliver kaldt for en akademiker. Jeg har aldrig hørt betegnelsen akademiker brugt om andet end folk der er uddannet. Men du tilføjede den måske blot fordi den samme betydning stod under svensk og norsk? Jeg kunne mistænke at betydningen kommer af en lidt for hurtig oversættelse af akademiker til academic og man har så kopieret betydningen fra artiklen academic. Er du enig? Kinamand 11:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gyldendals røde oversætter "akademiker" med 1. graduate, person with a degree, 2, academic, (universitetslærer). Omvendt oversættes "academic" med 1. akademiker, 2. universitetslærer, forsker.

Jeg er enig i at det er tvivlsomt at ligestille de to per automatik, men de overlapper helt klart. I øvrigt vil "arbejdere" ofte kalde universitetsstuderende for akademikere, men det er sikkert ikke helt korrekt dansk.

Betydningen er ganske rigtigt kopieret, for at angive hvilken betydning der henvises til. Måske skulle det formuleres mere præcist, som en person ansat til at undervise eller forske på en højere læreanstalt. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 11:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ja "member of" synes jeg ikke er en god formulering når der menes en der er ansat til at undervise eller forske men jeg ved ikke lige hvad den korrekte engelske vending er men hvis du kan kommer med en bedre formulering vil der være godt. Kinamand 15:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hej. Når jeg tilføjer danske beslægtede ord i etymologierne, plejer jeg at anføre retskrivningen før 1948, hvis det er fornødent. Så er jeg sikker, at skjæg er den gamle retskrivning af skæg (shag#Etymology_1) før 1948, men jeg er ikke sikker, om steen og heen blev udskiftet med hen (ifølge ODS er dette ord arkaist, er det ikke bruget?) og sten i 1948 (hone#Etymology). I Wikipedia der gives et godt eksampel for ii->i (Overviisning->overvisning), men intet for ee->e og derfor vilde jeg høre Deres mening, om ee->e også hændte i 1948. Bogorm 08:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Jeg har ikke fundet nogen kilde til ændringerne ee->e. Det har været foreslået allerede i 1700-tallet, men ee er brugt af forfattere omkr. 1920. Det virker rimeligt at antage at det er ændret ved 1948 reformen.

Hen (heen) er ganske rigtigt arkaisk, og kun kendt af ganske få mennesker, og kun adverbiet hen er med i ordbøger. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 14:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tak. Bogorm 15:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hej. I noticed that you have been writing "Start" as the edit summary for your new articles. It's actually more useful to leave it blank, because anybody looking at the history or recent changes can see that it's a new article, and if you leave it blank, a snippet of the article contents will show up instead. Equinox ◑ 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, good point, I'll leave it blank then. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 21:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hej igen, Leolaursen. Mig synes, at vi har stødt på den samme umage som med hals... I “kurv” in Ordbog over det danske Sprog dette ords oprindelse er sen. oldn. korf, men Vigfússon her belyser retskrivningen ved at fremføre i hovedartiklen under karfa körf som en anden tilladelig retskrivning (tillige skriver han: a mod. word, the old being vand-laupr - tænker du at der kan antages at begge ord - det islandske og det danske komme fra MLG? jeg mener Icel. < late ON < MLG > Dan. istedetfor Icel. < late ON (> Dan.) < MLG). Vi skal afgøre, hvorledes at skrive det oldnordiske ord, muligvis ved hjælp af en forskellig kilde, har du en tredje kilde for dette ord? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh, nej... I DW vi har en tredje skrivning som korfr (altn. korfr, isl. körf). Mig synes at vi skulle fremføre kun det islandske ord (körf efter DW og Vigfússon) som beslægtet uden det sene oldnordiske ord, fordi det er sent og der er tre skrivninger... Hvad tænker du? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Min etymologiordbog har også "korf", men den bygger i høj grad på ODS, så det siger ikke så meget. ODS anfører da, sv, no og non alle fra MLG, men det må være på et tidspunkt vi normalt henregner til oldnordisk. Jeg har ingen indvendinger mod dit forslag, om DAN < MLG. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hej. Jeg tilføjede artiklen jage et citat, som jeg fand, hvor præteritumsformen jog er brugt, men jag ved ikke, om din skabelon tillader to præteritumsformer og hvis ja, hvordan det skal knyttes. Jeg er også nysgerrig for at vide, om denne form (jog) er arkaisk i nutidsdansk? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Skabelonen {{da-verb}} er ikke min, og jeg synes faktisk den er ret dårligt lavet. Jeg har udskiftet den med {{infl}}, og tilføjet jog som absolut bør være med. Valget mellem jagede og jog er frit; men oftest vil man bruge jog ved betydningerne bevæge sig hurtigt, stikke eller støde hurtigt og pludselig smerte; altså slet ikke arkaisk. — Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 10:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, undskyldige for misgrebet med skabelonens forfatter. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ville det ikke være en god ide at lave en skabelon da-verb-infl i stil med da-noun-infl? Kinamand 08:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Jo bestemt, det ville være en glimrende ide. Jeg har ikke det fornødne overblik over danske verber til at gøre det lige nu; men måske kikker jeg på det engang, medmindre nogen kommer mig i forkøbet. — Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 08:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Leolaursen. Are you interested to be an administrator here? You are helpful with Danish words. I have tried, to learn Danish, but unfortunately I didn't progress so much. --Volants 08:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would like to become administrator at some point. Right now I don't really know what it means, although I am admin on the Danish wiktionary. About Danish, keep it up; but it is said to be one of the more difficult languages to learn.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 09:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

this page is the vote page--Volants 14:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Volants. I've accepted on that page.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 14:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

• You should now have your new buttons. SemperBlotto 09:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see them. Thank you.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 09:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Leolaursen. You seem to be the right guy to ask this question, but could you look over the entry that I made at ildkugle please? I want to make sure that I did everything correctly. Thanks, Razorflame 18:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Razorflame. It looks fine. I'll try to add some more.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 20:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thanks for the help! I'm glad that I made it correctly! Cheers, Razorflame 21:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I noticed the erroneous block, and un-block, but it still left a problem: as Interwicket continued to try to edit (not seeing block status until after the first page save attempt) the IP address was then auto-blocked.

When you fix an erroneous block (or shorten/undo an intentional one) it is necessary to look at the IP block list to see if there is an autoblock that should also be removed. (Yes, I know, very obscure technical detail, and it would be better if the un-block process would check this for us.) Cheers, Robert Ullmann 11:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Can you add translations to the entries ice storm and silver storm in Danish for those two words please? Thanks, Razorflame 20:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I don't know the translation for this. Maybe isslag ("freezing rain"), but that doesn't necessarily involve storm.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 20:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is isslag already listed as a trnaslation for freezing rain by chance? Anyways, thanks for the help anyways....maybe it would be the combination of the Danish word for storm and the Danish word for ice or hail? Razorflame 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just found an article from DMI (Denmarks Meteorologic Institute), saying that there is no direct translation. The best translation would be massivt isslag ("massive freezing rain"). Isstorm ("ice storm") is used sometimes, but is technically wrong, since compounds with storm implies storm (very strong wind).--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the information. Razorflame 21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

What are the endings for this word please? Thanks, it will help me learn the endings ;). Razorflame 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's rejsebureau, -et, -er, -erne. You can see the official spelling on Retskrivningsordbogen. I was just beginning on this , so I'll fill in later.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No need to fill it in. I'll do that now. Razorflame 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Can you add the translations of the words fissure, spark, and inferno please? Thanks, Razorflame 20:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Razorflame 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I understand your argument and will leave the page as it is. However, I am still of the opinion that - if only one term presented - the dictionary should reflect the most common. A Google search on Danish domains giving the seach string »"mere interessant" site:*.dk« 14000 hits against »"interessantere" site:*.dk«'s just about 200 hits could be used as an indicator, but of course this is limited to the websites indexed in Google's database. - LightningEagle

An option could be to describe the usage in a "Usage notes" section", and on the entries for the inflected words. This is a work in progress, so we can assume that all inflections eventually will be present on the page. Basically I folllow "Dansk Sprognævn" as published in "Den Danske Ordbog" and sproget.dk --Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 20:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just made blandt andet. I'm going to go to sleep now but if you could reread that (especially the second definition, which ordbogen says is right), I'd appreciate it. Mike Halterman 12:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if I worded the sentence correctly for the second example. The first one I know is fine. Mike Halterman 12:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I made some changes. "hendes" might refer to another woman, given by context, so I changed it to "sit". I'm not really convinced that blandt andet is a preposition, most of the time it feels like an adverb. You never find it in a Danish dictionary, except as examples for the preposition "blandt". Maybe the first sense is a prepositional phrase, and the second is an adverbial phrase.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 13:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the first one is clearly a preposition but the second use can be adverbial. Mike Halterman 21:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was using the "dyrelyde" page on da.wikipedia. Kaare had recommended me there once and I just figured if a native speaker put it there that must mean it was right. Mike Halterman 12:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Per WT:RFDO#Dialect etymology templates, the separate dialect templates ({{VL.}}, {{ML.}}, {{LL.}}) will be deleted. Please use the more functional and standard {{etyl}} approach ({{etyl|VL.}}, {{etyl|ML.}}, {{etyl|LL.}}). The template parameters work just the same. Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hej!

OK, I know that it is sometimes transcrbed like this, but other (paper) dictionaries I have don't give it as (and why is there a stress mark here?) but as or in a few cases as . As a native speaker, where do you feel the stød stands?. I'll take a look at my Danish grammar to remind me this chapter about the stød and I'll ask Danish friends to say the word so that I can judge, but for the moment, I'm confident you are right. I just would like to have your opinion, as there is also that as a rule, instead of the .

Med venlig hilsen ৵ Kąġi Oȟąko ^Ƭ 12:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard anybody pronounce it as , but I would understand it just fine and consider it an unknown dialect. As in fold, gold, hold, kold, sold, told and vold, the stød comes after l.

IPA (w:Alveolar trill) is not normal in Danish, the /r/ phoneme is normally either or .

As for the stress mark, I usually leave it out in one-syllable words, but perhaps it's better to use it. I use the book "Fonetik & Fonologi" by Nina Grønnum as reference, and it is pretty close to w:Danish phonology.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 14:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, because you are a Dane, I bow to your arguments, but it contradicts what I have about the stød, though my books date back to the end of the seventies and even to the fifties for one of them…. When I was a student, “some” time ago (more than 30 years, actually), I learned it this way for both transcriptions, and the teacher was a Dane, too (during the 12 years I lived in Sweden). IPA and other linguistics features have somewhat evolved since…

But I guess we should think more about putting a stress mark before Danish monosyllables: it could be confusing, e.g. when compared to Swedish and Norwegian languages and most dialects. What's your opinion about this point? And shouldn't it be good to talk with other native Danish and other native Scandinavian language speakers and linguists (i.e. I would not take part, because my mother tongues are Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar) to reach the best option?

Ha en fin dag! Hilsen ৵ Kąġi Oȟąko ^Ƭ 15:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply