User talk:Myndfrea

It's fixed now. You can edit your sandbox again. -- Liliana • 11:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. Myndfrea (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering why you are adding the genitive forms to Old Norse entries. There is already a declension table, so it seems kind of redundant. And why the genitive? —CodeCat 12:10, 2i6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it was on one of the pages I edited in the first place, so I kinda thought of that as a norm. Myndfrea (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Plus, it seems like genitive singular is preset on Icelandic noun-templates as default. Myndfrea (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • There aren't really any norms for Old Norse yet. But in general, when a full declension table is given in an entry, common practice is not to display those same inflections in the headword line, because it is kind of redundant then. However, for some languages, knowing one or two of the extra forms lets you easily predict the rest of the forms, these forms are called "principal parts" and you can list them in the headword line like we do for Latin entries. Maybe that's why Old Norse entries listed the genitive in that way; the previous editors may have copied the practice from Latin, without knowing what it was for. In any case, I don't know if Old Norse nouns have any principal parts, and whether any of them would be the genitive singular form. I know that verbs do have principal parts, and we list them for Icelandic already too. In any case, for Old Norse noun entries you should probably use {{non-noun}}, which is customised specifically for Old Norse usage. It does include parameters for genitive and plural, but again I am not sure if they are principal parts. I've raised the question at WT:ID. —CodeCat 12:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
• I fixed up the headword-line templates that are currently available for Old Norse: Category:Old Norse headword-line templates. I also added them to all entries that didn't use them yet, so now those templates should be present wherever they can. I asked about the principal parts and BigDom said that genitive and plural are the most usual principal parts for Old Norse, so I left them in the template. —CodeCat 20:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks, although, as you said, having both these two forms and a declension table indeed is a bit redundant. Still, as these two forms are principal, I guess they are to be added. Myndfrea (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think this table is too wide. It probably won't fit on most people's screens. I think it would be better to put the third-person forms below the other forms. —CodeCat 15:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Or maybe reverse the axes - so person goes down instead of across. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, here is how others have it: tables or .Myndfrea (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Those tables list singular, dual and plural on separate rows, so that's why it takes up less space there. From what I can tell, the Wikipedia table was based on the other one too. {{sl-decl-ppron}} is kind of similar, as is {{sla-decl-ppron}}. But they don't list the third-person forms because they inflect just like adjectives and all other pronouns. That is, they distinguish gender, which the first/second person and reflexive forms don't. —CodeCat 16:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • I changed the table based on the Icelandic variant, listing the numbers below instead of across. Myndfrea (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey! I notice you're methodically going through the Völuspá. Good job! I'm getting some Old Norse words to feature as Foreign Word of the Day, and I'm wondering if you could add a pronunciation or two (IPA or audio) to some of the words, if you know it - pronunciation is a requirement for featured words, and I don't know enough to do it myself. I've nominated mold, viðr, íviðja and unnr so far - but if you know of any other interesting words, we'd be happy to have more nominations here. Cheers! Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I've tried searching for some IPA instructions on Old Norse, but I couldn't find much about that. I don't really know how would these words be properly sounded. As for citations, I will add some. Myndfrea (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I might ask User:CodeCat if she knows. By the way, I presume you're doing the translation (at your sandbox) yourself? If so, would you mind if I used for Old Norse citations? - otherwise I have to look up another public-domain translation, and/or work it out myself. Hyarmendacil (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, you can use this translation, but I'm not sure whether it is exactly accurate (since so many of these words' meanings are uncertain and/or metaphoric), plus, it certainly doesn't preserve the alliterative verse of the original. Myndfrea (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you're confusing two words here. *hwaz (> hvar) and *hwarjaz (> hverr with two rs) are separate words with their own inflections and meanings. Also, the first is a pronoun (stands alone) while the second is a determiner (modifies words). —CodeCat 12:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Well, they merged in the end. I noticed the difference, but it's not easy to separate the forms, especially of oblique cases. Myndfrea (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • As far as I can tell, the forms inherited from *hwarjaz are just strong adjective forms. All the remaining ones are from *hwaz it seems. Except for hvern, that one is a bit strange. —CodeCat 13:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • I edited the table a bit, but I'm still not quite sure about the feminine forms. Please check it and correct if needed.Myndfrea (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • I think it would be better to make two tables and show them together. One table to show the regular strong adjective forms inherited from *hwarjaz, and the other with the singular forms inherited from *hwaz. —CodeCat 13:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • I've made a table for hvar but I'm still not sure about whether it's correct or not. There aren't many sources on that matter, and they all differ. Myndfrea (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Like morginn, undorn, nið, hof, which I fixed. But there are probably more. —CodeCat 15:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, I have forgotten to put the parameter. But there aren't any other entries like that left, I've checked. Sorry. Myndfrea (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I think the way the parameters work on {{etyl}} is very counterintuitive. In the past, we had a lot more templates that would assume the language is English, and still quite a few do. But I'm hoping we can move away from that gradually. —CodeCat 16:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
• P.S. {{context}} also requires lang=, just so you know. I have cleanup up all so far. Hyarmendacil (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove gardîn? --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Did I now? Oh, sorry about that. But, come to think about it, it doesn't come directly from Old Norse, but through Old Northern French. I mean, indirect descendants aren't usually listed. Myndfrea (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would they not be listed under the direct descendants (e.g. like this?) --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I guess they would. But if we take gardîn back, we have to list these direct descendants (Old Northern French and Vulgar Latin in this case). Isn't that right? Myndfrea (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Plus, gardîn isn't listed as a descendant of garðr, but rather of Frankish gart, along with other words in Romance languages. Ergo, a question arises – what exactly was gardîn derived from? Myndfrea (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! I noticed that you've created a bunch of new declension templates. Thank you so much for this! I've wanted this for a while now. I was curious about their construction, however:

1. Are the |s= and |p= params used for anything besides not displaying either the singular or plural? The |form= param already has this function (you do |form=sing for singular, |form=plur for plural, and |form=sing-indef for indefinite singular).
2. What is the difference between |ns= and |nsi=, etc.? It seems like the |nsi= type are redundant.

I don't mean to bother, I am just so glad someone went and made these tables and I want them to be the best they can be. —JohnC5 02:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Yeah, |s= and |p= have no other usage other than the one mentioned, except I didn't know of the |form= parameter (you have to forgive me - I'm just an amateur in coding as well as in linguistics). And probably, yeah, come to think of it now, you don't really need the |nsi= parameter when one can simply use the |ns= and |nsd=. - Myndfrea (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Edit: Again, there are cases where only |nsi= (or any other indefinite form) is different from the presupposed paradigm. So, I guess, the only real advantage of having these form is the shortness of the text you add with the template into the article. - Myndfrea (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick response. Would it be fine if I removed all the |ns=-type parameters and just left the |nsi/nsd= params? Also may I remove all the |s/p= parameters (of course, I will change all the entries that need to be singular or plural beforehand)? —JohnC5 12:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, of course, I guess. - Myndfrea (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean to step on your toes, of course. You've done a great job, and I'm just trying to help. —JohnC5 14:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 I don't really think you're stepping on anyone's toes here. This here is a joint project, created for and aimed at perfection by the hands of many. - Myndfrea (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Great, great. I hope if you don't mind if I continue to ask you questions, etc.

1. I've begun removing the |s/p= params and adding |notes=. You can see that at Category:Old Norse noun inflection-table templates.
2. Could you help me migrate the words at {{non-decl-noun}} over to your new templates? The are listed here. I have removed all the other unused templates, and would love to remove this one too.
3. I take it that {{non-decl-nd}} may apply to several different genders, as {{non-decl-r}} does?

Thanks for the help! —JohnC5 22:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Yes, I'll change the templates - that is what I have been doing for the past two days. And, no, {{non-decl-nd}} takes only masculine, if I remember correctly. (It's just that I commonly forget things.) Maybe it'd be better to change it to {{non-decl-m-nd}}, though I haven't really encountered any to be sure. - Myndfrea (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! I've finished fiddling with the templates for now. I did the following:

1. moved {{non-decl-nd}} to {{non-decl-m-nd}}.
2. split {{non-decl-r}} into {{non-decl-m-r}} & {{non-decl-f-r}}.
3. added doc pages (with no documentation) to the templates. I may in the future make {{non-decl-doc}} that provides a standard format template for the documentation.
4. Nayrb edited {{non-decl-n-an}} but appears justified in doing so (I was not checking any of these for accuracy, just templatic well-formèdness).

Somethings that we might consider (if you are still interested, of course) would be:

1. maybe try to get the inflected forms to link.
2. again, write a documentation template.
3. add extra parameters for alternate stem forms (either from elision of disyllabic nouns or from irregular nouns).
4. probably other things.

I hope all this helped! —JohnC5 04:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 OK, migration is complete, the template {{non-decl-noun}} is word-free now. I'll be making corrections and emendations to the new templates later, when I'll be looking at the words more extensively. You can attempt to get the inflections to link, but it will cause some troubles, especially where there are double forms. Maybe it'd be nice to make stem categories for the templates, like the ones in PGmc, but I don't think that'd be a good idea, seeing as words simply jump from one gender and/or stem to another while transitioning from PGmc to Old Norse. Lastly, I don't think linking the cases in the templates was a good idea: what for? - Myndfrea (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So, I removed the linking for the case names (I had put it there because it is used in some other languages). I have made a module Module:non-cell and template {{non-decl-cell}} which will take and input of the form word1, word2, word3, ... and make them Old Norse links. It has the property that it will split around commas, no matter how much white space; so word1 , word2 and word1,word2 will both produce word1, word2 with linking. Also, if you set the cell to be empty, it will insert a ― dash.

When I was asking about stems, I was discussing how disyllabic words like himinn will lose the second vowel in certain forms. It doesn't matter that much at the moment. Just enjoy the linking, and tell me if you need anything! —JohnC5 03:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 The cell module is nice, thank you. Concerning the syncope in disyllabic nouns, it usually occurs in the cases with a vowel ending, but it could actually get irregular, so attempting to put that in the templates might work, but to me right now just listing the syncopated forms is fine. I may think of something later. - Myndfrea (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I see you have created a template for Old Norse masculine i-stems. After reading, Old English and Old Norse: Introduction to West and North Germanic by Seán Vrieland and Barnes' New Introduction to Old Norse It seems that there may have been two different forms of the genitive of masculine i-stems: one type in /ar/, the other type in /s/. At first I tried moving the page Template:non-decl-m-i to Template:non-decl-m-i2 planing to make another i-stem template with a genitive in /s/, but when I saw that the masculine consonant stems were marked Template:non-decl-m-c1 and Template:non-decl-m-c2 rather than Template:non-decl-m-c and Template:non-decl-m-c2 I decided to move the page now marked Template:non-decl-m-c2 (already having a genitive in /ar/) to Template:non-decl-m-c1. Unfortunately, I failed to check before moving this page that the masculine consonant stem with genitive in /ar/ was listed under Template:non-decl-m-c2 and not under Template:non-decl-m-c1 so now, I have double redirects for the i-stem template, the numbering doesn't even match up with the consonant stems, and I have no way of fixing the double redirects with my account (or at least I have no clue how). How can I fix this mess I created?-- Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Nayrb Rellimer: Howdy-do and thanks for the help, even if it did get a little confusing. I have, for the time being, moved all the {{non-decl-m-i}} words to {{non-decl-m-i2}} except where they are explicitly /-s/ genitives (these I left at {{non-decl-m-i1}}). If you would replace {{non-decl-m-i1}} with a template containing the /-s/ genitive, I will go through and make sure everything is correct on the entry side of things. Does that work? —JohnC5 20:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but the page Template:non-decl-m-i1 still redirects to Template:non-decl-m-i2.-- Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Nayrb Rellimer: Yes, I did that as a stop gap until you could replace it. Just overwrite it with the /-s/ stem genitive. Currently, nothing links there. —JohnC5 20:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have created a new page under Template:non-decl-m-i for the genitive in /s/ because I don't know how to overwrite Template:non-decl-m-i1 without also overwriting Template:non-decl-m-i2.-- Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Nayrb Rellimer: Ah, sorry I misunderstood. I've moved it now. Again thanks for the help. —JohnC5 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply