User talk:Mofvanes

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for all the entries you've contributed thus far, and for the thoroughness you put into them. Just a quick thing--make sure that you double check your entry before you submit it to screen out small formatting errors, like an extra "=" or the like. You can use the "show preview" button next to the publish button to look for these. Thank you! --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm usually more careful Mofvanes (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

No problem--we all do it. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please be careful not to remove too much lexical information. Though the two adjectival senses can each indeed be translated as "Sunday", it is more useful to users to explain the difference in meaning. For instance, few people these days would reserve their "Sunday Best" exclusively for Sundays any more. (On an unrelated note, these adjective-adverb pairs on -s usually have different etymologies, but it is fine to leave them as is when adding them.) ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Understood. FYI, I re-added the declension to zondags. While you're here, may I ask you a few questions about Dutch entries?

1. Do other days of the week have such a double meaning, that I should add?

2. How would you deal with diminutive Dutch nouns without a non-diminutive like buitenbeentje?

3. Should I list idioms like een sprong in het duister maken as a verb or a phrase?

Mofvanes (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. I don't think there's anything in contemporary language, though the WNT gives "damn, darned" for zaterdagsch. Their cites are all in obsolete spellings, however.
2. I'd prefer lemmatising the diminutive in that case. Whether you use {{nl-noun|n|-s|-}} or {{nl-noun-dim}} is up to you, but my preference goes to the first option.
3. A verb in this case, and you can use {{nl-conj-see|maken}} instead of a conjugation template. But if the verb never conjugates you could consider turning it into a phrase.

←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Please stop creating Klingon entries. Due to copyright issues, most of what you have created will unfortunately probably need to be deleted. See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2018/July#Klingon_language_copyright. - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok. :( . This was not made clear. I suggest you add a notice to Appendix:Klingon for the future. Mofvanes (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You'll probably be OK, actually. Keep 'em coming - if we decide to keep them, great. If not, we can always delete them later. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

If one keepes the entries coming and they get deleted later, then some amount of work will be wasted. Thus it's better to wait and discuss the issue first (somewhere else like WT:BP). -84.161.57.43 20:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The gender at Jodenster was incorrect. Compounds take the gender of the head (in this case ster), with only few exceptions, though there can be complexities with words that have or had multiple genders. You can also leave the gender parameter empty if you don't know sure. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Noted. I knew that. (I think) I used a different article as a template, but forgot to change the gender. Thanks Mofvanes (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please use the "bor" template in etymologies only when the target language really borrowed that word from the source language. For example, Kanin has several intermediate steps from Old French to modern German. And since Old French ends at 1350 it's really virtually impossible for modern German to borrow a word from Old French. (Unless a modern German writer actually took it from an Old French dictionary.) Use the "der" template in any case of doubt. Thank you.

Noted Mofvanes (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Whether it is correct or not, it's not uncommon to use {{inh}}/{{bor}} together with other {{inh}}/{{bor}}. By the same reasoning (OFr. ended 1350, NHG and NE started around ca. 1500) Category:English terms borrowed from Old French should be (almost) empty and Category:English terms borrowed from Latin be smaller (e.g. without adolescence). And by similar reasoning Category:English terms inherited from Proto-Germanic and Category:English terms derived from Proto-Indo-European should be (almost) empty too. Yet these cats aren't empty... -84.161.57.43 20:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

• "Attested in Duden", "Attested on German wikipedia", "attested on wiki", "attested on redensart-index, pons, dict.cc, etc." :

  You do know that all these source do not attest anything as for English Wiktionary's WT:CFI, do you?

• "Info from de:" :

  You do know that there's much much nonsense in the German Wiktionary, do you?

-84.161.57.43 20:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps "attested" isn't the right word, "appears" might be better; I know it doesn't meet the standard for WT:CFI, I just want to make clear that the terms exist. Regarding the German Wiktionary, they cite their sources, so I'm inclined to trust them. Mofvanes (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised to read that about de.wikt. I thought they were a serious bunch, albeit too prescriptivist. Per utramque cavernam 21:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's very easy to find obvious mistakes in de.wt, e.g. de:Randale (obviously incorrect inflection), and from today de:Empfängerin (hypernym Frau = woman but example refering to a company). -22:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the quote in Hüter was wrong (wrong year (edition) or wrong text). I kept the year and corrected the text; alternatively the text could be correct, but the year wrong. Possibly more Lutherbibel quotes need to be fixed... -20:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It's the correct year and text, it's just modernized spelling (which tbf, I should have indicated) Mofvanes (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

If it's for example the 1912 Lutherbibel, then it's more than just "modernized spelling"; and if it's modernized but another year is given, it's not "correct year and text" anymore. -84.161.51.5 22:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought it would be OK. You rarely ſee KJV quotes conteyning the original ſpelling. Now I know. Mofvanes (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I now realise it is, in fact, the 1912 Bible, just for some reason Biblegatway said it was the 1545 version. I'll update the quotes Mofvanes (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

as e.g. Norden + Nordmann, Nordwind. Please see Nord, Süd, Ost, West. --Norman Mapot (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Danke für den Hinweis. Ich dachte, Nord/Süd/Ost/West (ohne -en) wären nur zusammengesetze Formen (wie z.b. Schule + Bus -> Schulbus) /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mofvanes, thanks for all those German entries! How sure are you of the plural Aufläger? I´m not familiar with this term and there are many oddities in German lects, but it sounds wrong to me. Besides, neither Duden nor de:wt seem to know it. --77.4.121.150 17:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Google Books finds some clear examples of Aufläger going far back. e.g.

1. • 1913 Angewandte Chemie, vol. 26. p.61

     Vf. bespricht einzelne Bauunfälle an Betonbauten, die auf Sehalungsfehler, Temperatur, Überlastung oder schlechte Aufläger zurückzuführen waren

Others seem to be an variant spelling of Aufleger (publisher?). In any case, it exists, but is uncommon. /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Most of the hits in GoogleBooks are misreadings of Ankläger in Gothic script. But there must have been a noun Aufläger (cf. Dinglers polytechnisches Journal, Band 24; Band 274,J. G. Cotta, 1889, p77: "ein Aufläger vor der Mitte des Kessels, die anderen beiden rechts und links davon"), which could denote some kind of substructure. I think we should treat all clear occurences of Aufläger in the plural as forms of this noun as long as there isn´t a clear counter-example linking it with Auflager. --77.7.81.74 09:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you have been adding a large number of Dutch entries and they seem to be of good quality. Thank you! ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've noticed you quoted that work quite a lot.
Please make sure, that your quotes are correct. See for example: diff (cp. Voß' Ilias (5th ed., 1821)).
Your link - which by URL might imply it's from the edition from 1821 - is dead, so I've no idea, what it stated. Now it's which under "Quellenangabe" states:

So it's not claiming to be the version from 1821; instead it doesn't reveal anything about the real edition. --B-Fahrer (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The now dead Spiegel link itself had a Quellenangabe which also stated it was from 1821 and I thought that was correct. I will make sure to cite it correctly in the future. /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your quotes might be from the 1844 edition - when Voß was already dead -, , e.g. in Olympier. --B-Fahrer (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mofvanes,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email [email protected].

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've noticed a lot of mistakes in verb entries you've created. Some examples: einschwören (which you created as weak when in fact it is strong, like schwören), similarly zerbersten; abliegen, anliegen, beiliegen, brachliegen, etc. (all of them missing 'ge-' in the past participle); you marked durchliegen as having auxiliary either haben or sein when it is transitive/reflexive and hence can only be conjugated with haben; similarly you marked zurückstehen as transitive with auxiliary sein, which is impossible (in fact the verb is intransitive and conjugated normally with haben, but with sein in Austria and Switzerland); auftürmen, aufkeimen, aufbegehren etc. missing the prefix 'auf-' in the headword, similarly auslernen and ausrollen missing aus- in the headword, abschöpfen missing ab- in the headword; ausbessern given the conjugation of anbessern; ausbrennen given the past participle abgebrannt in the headword; auslöffeln given the conjugation of löffeln; etc. These are mostly just the mistakes in verbs starting with a that I've caught so far; there must be dozens more. Benwing2 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Another example: Confusing transitive and intransitive usages of verbs that may be separable or inseparable. Generally, separable verbs are intransitive (and conjugated with sein if they refer to motion) while corresponding inseparable verbs are transitive (and conjugated with haben), but you've confused this in at least durchschwimmen and durchwaten. Benwing2 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

herauskommen, dazukommen, einkommen, etc. missing the past subjunctive in the conjugation. Benwing2 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you've taken on interest in Mohawk. It's a good idea to add a "references" section to the entries you're creating and add a reference template to it. I've created Template:R:moh:Deering:1976 for Deering (1976), you can just add it to a reference section like so and use the |page= parameter to specify the page a word is mentioned on. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions and happy editing! Thadh (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! I will use it. I will also make a similar template if I start using other references a lot /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed that you enjoy working on and with Klingon, but have been slowed down because some people worried about copyright issues. If you wish to continue putting your energy into this beautiful hobby, I'd like to invite you to join the Klingon Language Wiki (follow klingon.wiki). Your knowledge of languages could also be helpful, since it is set up in four languages and always looks for translators. PS: I have edited your Klingon Swadesh list and added it to the Klingon Wiki. Thanks for that great idea. -- Lieven (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply