User talk:Rua/Archive 2009-2010

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Our format guidelines (nicknamed "ELE")
• Criteria for inclusion (nicknamed "CFI")
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
• What Wiktionary is not
• FAQ

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ivan Štambuk 17:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

mag ik vragen waar je bent opgegroeid als ik zo naar je Babel kijk? Zie je niet vaak namelijk iemand die zowel Engels als Nederlands als moedertaal heeft of zie ik dat verkeerd? Als je niet (meer) in Nederland woont: kom je er nog wel vaak? User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 18:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ik ben in Nederland opgegroeid en woon er nog steeds (Eindhoven om precies te zijn). Maar mijn vader is Iers, en ik ben tweetalig met Engels en Nederlands opgevoed. Ik spreek beide talen dus als 'oudertaal' (je kan ze moeilijk moedertalen noemen :p). --CodeCat 19:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wat grappig, spreek je dan Nederlands met een Iers accent of Iers met een Nederlands accent of gewoon helemaal geen accent? :P Ik heb wel eens een Engelse vrouw uit Manchester Nederlands horen praten, dat klonk echt als een kip die een ei legt. Of ligt dat dan aan die vrouw zelf en niet aan het Engels? :P User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 16:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ik ben opgegroeid met beide talen, dus in het Engels klink ik als Dubliner, maar als Nederlander klink ik als Eindhovenaar. Iedereen kan uiteindelijk elke taal goed leren uitspreken, maar het wordt naarmate je ouder wordt, en/of minder contact hebt gehad met andere talen, moeilijker om een andere uitspraak te leren. Je eigen 'accent' gaat dan als het ware vastliggen en het wordt dan moeilijk om dat nog te veranderen. Kinderen zijn nog flexibel genoeg om zich vanalles aan te leren, dus je zou een kind gerust vloeiend accentloos 4 talen kunnen leren. Ik denk ook dat het helpt als je al 2 talen van huis uit spreekt; je bent dan als het ware al gewend om die 'omschakeling' tussen de twee soorten uitspraak te maken. Voor mij is dat in elk geval heel duidelijk, als ik praat dan zit ik altijd in 'Nederlands-modus' of 'Engels-modus'. --CodeCat 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dat klopt, wat ik ook grappig vind zijn Nederlanders die naar de VS of iets dergelijks zijn verhuisd later terugkomen en dan heel Amerikaans Nederlands praten. Mijn vader komt uit Indonesië maar bahasa werd vroeger net iets te weinig gesproken denk ik, want ik moet me als ik zo'n tekst lees vaak goed concentreren op vooral de uitspraak. Vaak betrap ik mezelf erop dat ik de klemtoon totaal verkeerd leg (vrijwel altijd ligt die op de een na laatste lettergreep). Andere talen uit de familie zijn echt niet bijgebleven, maar gelukkig kun je in Nederland veel talen op school leren. User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The way you've written the template, a person couls add three (badly formatted) diminutives by using {{{dim}}} {{{dim1}}} and {{{dim2}}}. Did you mean to allow that? If not, I can fix it so that doesn't happen. --EncycloPetey 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and also by specifying {{{2}}} no doubt. I didn't write the template that way, it was like that before I started. It's rather hard to get so many different combinations to work together, as it is. Ideally, there would not be {{{dim}}} and {{{dim1}}} parameters at all, but only {{{dim2}}}, and likewise for {{{pl}}}, {{{pl1}}}, {{{dimpl}}} and {{{dimpl1}}}. However, no matter what you change, you're bound to break some articles... --CodeCat 19:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

But it easily can be set up to accept either {{{dim}}} or {{{dim1}}} without accepting both (as it currently does). That's a simple change for me to make, and it would simplify the template too. I'll demonstrate... --EncycloPetey 19:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nevertheless, wouldn't you agree that the parameters I mentioned are essentially redundant? I don't see a point in allowing a plural to be specified using {{{pl}}} or {{{1}}}, to be honest. It just needlessly complicates things, IMO. --CodeCat 19:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but look at how I've simplified the "Plural Stuff" section, reducing seven "ifs" to just three. --EncycloPetey 19:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Definitely looks better allright, but as I said I wasn't the one that wrote that huge list of ifs in the first place. :P I made a post on the template's talk page regarding the other issue. --CodeCat 19:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe that I've fixed the problem you noticed, and I've figured out how to simplify the plural construction section even further, using only 2 "if"s. Let me know if you spot any further problems in the next few days. If not, then I can apply the same simplified code to the diminutive sections and greatly reduce server strain with no difference in parameters or display. --EncycloPetey 15:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll do it myself. I was just a bit confused by your initial code, as it wasn't doing what I was expecting it to. To understand code, you first need to know what it does. ;) --CodeCat 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

<<The imperative of zijn is ben, the first person singular form, as is usual for any verb. wees is the imperative of a synonymous verb, wezen, but is more frequently used than ben (though not exclusively). This verb shares its past tense forms with zijn, but no longer has distinct present tense forms other than the imperative and infinitive. Originally it was a regular class 5 strong verb, with an s/r alternation similar to vriezen and verliezen. It had a full present tense: ik wees, jij weest, hij weest, wij wezen. Its past participle was gewezen. --CodeCat 20:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)>>Reply

I see. Should my last imp= edits be removed then? But I am having trouble with something else: I am trying to have an optional 6th parameter for the singular subjunctive (the plural subjunctive is obsolete in modern Dutch, I am told). In the old template instances (callings) I noticed that a 6th parameter was/is often used with the -n removed from the pagename/infinitive. This should be for an extra line under the line for the imperative, but I am finding it practically impossible to add an extra line optionally, depending on whether {{{6|}}} has content or not. Do you think that this subjunctive issue is worth considering? —AugPi 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

For example, the conjugation table for bedanken is called as follows: {{nl-verb-table|bedank|bedankt|bedankte|bedankten|bedankt|bedanke}}, which has a 6th parameter, which looks like the subjunctive, which does not show up in the table. —AugPi 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

misschien (waarschijnlijk) heb je gelijk, ik weet niet waar je woont en wat voor NL je spreekt maar waar ik vandaan kom wordt dat woord gewoon gebruikt om Duits te imiteren. Misshien dat het in een lettergrootte 1 erbij gezet kan worden. Ciao 81.68.255.36 01:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have made the declension template that you have just created non-right-floating. If you disagree, we can discuss this in Beer parlour. --Dan Polansky 14:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

See Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Right-floating declension templates.

I noticed that you made some changes to nl-adj. Everything looks good except for one thing. The inflected form of an adjective no longer displays, if it has no comp/sup forms (ie. -'ed or *'ed). Please fix this. Cheers mate Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is by design. I am trying to phase out mention of the inflected forms of adjectives in favour of a dedicated declension table, {{nl-decl-adj}}. I believe this will be clearer, since right now there is a potential for no less than 8 forms all in the inflection line (basic, inflected, partitive, comparative, infl comp, part comp, superlative, infl sup). A declension table would arrange the terms more neatly and also provide better usage information, i.e. predicative or gender-specificness. --CodeCat 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I still personally prefer the current nl-adj template as it conveys the information in a more concise form, which I believe is more effective. However, if you want to go that way, I am just thinking, what about Conrad's acceleration script? Would it work for this new template? And how about the multitudes of entries that are already formatted with nl-adj, are we goin to manually add nl-decl-adj to every one of them? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 12:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

But something to remember is that this isn't a paper dictionary. We don't need to be concise here if we can easily show every possible form and combination in a declension table, for each word. Compare it with German adjectives such as gut, Swedish ones like god or Finnish ones like iso. All of them have little or no information in the inflection line, and delegate the declension information to a table. Out of those three, Swedish is also comparable to Dutch in how inflected its adjectives are; it has roughly the same amount of forms.
Along with fixing up the words using nl-adj, I have already been adding nl-decl-adj to all the adjectives I encounter. It might take a while, but eventually it'll get done. We've done similar 'major changes' to the verbs before, and with success. And as for the the acceleration script, this works fine to the same extent that the nl-adj template has done. I.e. basic comparative and superlative work, but no inflected forms of any kind. I have already submitted a request to him to have those other forms looked at. --CodeCat 13:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. It's going to create slightly more work for Dutch editors, but I think if it adds more value to the existing templates, then it will be worthwhile. I will for the timebeing continue to use nl-adj without a declension section, but I will keep an eye on the progress of the new template. Thanks Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 07:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did you talk about this with other Dutch contributors? I agree that the inflection line might get convoluted, but for a lot of adjectives, the incomparable ones, the other reasoning applies: using {{nl-adj-decl}} is gigantic overkill, since it will contain only ‘-’, except for one cell, see duffels. Can I please re-add the inflected form? What do others think? H. (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can make the table collapse into a smaller form if the adjective is incomparable. That's not hard to do. And as for what others think, why are you asking me on my talk page? :P —CodeCat 17:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am quite sure this is an adjective e.g. netto inkomen or netto belasting. It's used to describe the income / tax, and thus making it an adjective. Please discuss a change like this with me before effecting it. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 12:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe terms such as 'netto inkomen' and 'netto belasting' may be examples of what is sometimes termed Engelse ziekte in Dutch. I've also seen it written 'netto-inkomen', and 'nettoloon' is even one word. I agree that it's hard to categorise exactly, but this problem seems to occur with other words that are only used in restricted contexts as well. My initial thought was along the lines of Hij verdient netto 1000 euro where it is clearly an adverb. However, I have reverted the change for the time being, perhaps someone else can shed light on things. --CodeCat 13:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Codecat, I was originally going to fix it myself, but just haven't found any time for it. There is an issue with this template. When there is no plural to a noun but there is a diminutive, you are supposed to place a - for the first unnamed parameter, but specify the dim in the second unnamed param. It should then show header (no plural, diminutive: whatevertje). Instead it shows both the the diminutive AND the diminutive plural which I believe is not correct (dim plural should not exist). Are you able to fix that or are there any further intricacies with this template that I am not aware of? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 11:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think I fixed it now. The template is a bit of a mess because a lot of parameters have duplicate functionality. Perhaps I'll give it a similar 'overhaul' as {{nl-adj}} if nobody else minds. --CodeCat 10:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind now that I know you are the go-to person for coding :). Just checked my sandbox, the bug seems to be gone now. I will keep you posted if I find more bugs. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 10:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mijn mond viel open toen ik dat woord zag, waar wordt dit in godsnaam gebruikt joh? Als ik google zie ik vooral Fryske wurdboeken en andere Fryske dingen. Is het wel Nederlands? Jij was het geloof ik ook die bennen als Low Saxon indeelde, ik vind dit een vergelijkbaar iets. 81.68.255.36 09:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ik heb hem zelf niet toegevoegd, ik heb er alleen maar een tabelletje bijgezet. Dus voor de oorsprong van het woord zal je bij iemand anders moeten vragen. --CodeCat 11:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ja..maar je zette er niet een RFV bij ofzo dus je kende het woord wel neem ik aan. Als echt Nederlands bedoel ik. :) Daarom. 81.68.255.36 00:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is listed for speedy deletion, but I can't remove the {{delete}} template as it doesn't seem ot be there at all! Can you help? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think I might know what's going on. The template actually got added to Template:nl-verb-table, which was a redirect to Template:nl-conj. So when that page got added to speedy deletion candidates, the software thought it was the redirect target instead, and because of how categories are cached it didn't update yet. I did a null edit (click edit and save with no changes) on the page you linked and it seems to have fixed it. It's just a strange bug in the caching system, I guess. --CodeCat 17:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Found another issue with nl-conj-wk. Verbs that start with i usually pick up the diaresis in their past participle form (such as interesseren- geïnteresseerd, interrumperen - geïnterrumpeerd and interveniëren - geïntervenieerd (just a sidenote, these are all considered weak verbs, but interrumperen uses nl-conj-st for some reason.). Should there be a parameter that allows one to manually specify the past participle? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 08:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

So far I've handled these cases by using {{nl-conj-st}}, because it has a past participle template. However, I agree that it's not really all that elegant a solution, so I'll look into adding an extra parameter to {{nl-conj-wk}}. —CodeCat 08:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I added it. It's the third numbered parameter. See interesseren for an example.

wow I didn't know about this bot at all. Nice work. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I created it today, and I'm doing some field testing before asking for a bot flag. Right now it has some small problems still, although overall it works very well. --CodeCat 23:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looks good, you might want to add a {{count page|]}} to the bottom. Conrad.Irwin 23:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow, lekker botje hoor CodeCat :) echt handig zo! 81.68.255.36 17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dank je ^^ —CodeCat 18:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, zou dit niet gewoon een entry kunnen worden? Misschien is het onmogelijk door al die templates, want ik heb daar nu een beetje moeite mee, maar misschien weet jij er raad mee. Dit heb ik tot zover, je moet even kijken of het in eerste plaats allemaal klopt:

===Dutch===

====Verb====
{{nl-verb|irr|sep=yes}}

# To ]
# To ], do it

=====Conjugation=====
{{nl-conj-st|sep=het|doe|deed|gedaan|aux2=zijn|doe|dede}}

Ik zie dat de wiki in plaats jouw naam als werkwoord plaatst, maar je snapt het wel denk ik. 81.68.255.36 11:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dit past waarschijnlijk beter onder Category:Dutch phrasal verbs. Het is namelijk eigenlijk geen woord op zich, maar een combinatie van meerdere woorden die samen iets uitdrukt dat anders is dan de woorden afzonderlijk. Kijk maar hoe de andere werkwoorden in die categorie zijn gemaakt. De werkwoordsvormen in de tabel kloppen trouwens ook helemaal niet, hè. En nog iets... zou je niet zo onderhand je eigen account aanmaken? :p --CodeCat 12:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Kloppen ze helemaal niet? Ik had ze gewoon van doen gekopieerd, ik dacht dat je daar gemakkelijk 'het' voor kon plakken, maar dat liep anders dan verwacht. Kun jij misschien niet de entry maken? Ik heb een account, maar gebruik liever dit :) zolang er een talkpage bij zit is er geen probleem, toch? ;) Joe! 81.68.255.36 18:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wat wij scheidbare (separable) werkwoorden noemen zijn werkwoorden zoals indelen. Daarbij komt in de vervoegde vormen van de hoofdzin het scheidbare deel achter het vervoegde woord, met een spatie ertussen. Maar in de bijzin of bij niet-vervoegde (infinitief, onvoltooid/voltooid deelwoord) komt het scheidbare deel vóór de werkwoordsvorm, zonder spatie. In het algemeen is een scheidbaar deel een bijwoord, en als het dat niet is (zoals bij huishouden) dan 'zit' het meestal niet zo lekker. 'Ik hou huis'? Datzelfde geldt voor 'het doen', maar 'het' is eigenlijk geen scheidbaar deel, maar gewoon het lijdend voorwerp.

En wat je account betreft, op zich is er niks tegen dat je anoniem werkt, maar het is gewoon een kwestie van etiquette denk ik dat je, als je meer dan een paar eenvoudige bewerkingen doet, jezelf registreert zodat je makkelijker te vinden bent. Het heeft ook het voordeel dat je je account mee kan nemen als je IP adres verandert (als je ergens anders bent bijvoorbeeld). --CodeCat 18:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi CodeCat. Would you mind if I nominated you for adminship? It would be advantageous to be one if you're planning to run a bot, as bots can potentially make a lot of mistakes, and dealing with them would be a lot easier. If you like, I'll start a vote for you. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if I'd really be up to it, because I have no idea what additional responsibilities that would involve. I wouldn't want to bite off more than one can chew. --CodeCat 20:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You get more buttons, can block people, delete and undelete pages, see deleted edits, promote people to autopatrollers, protect pages, edit protected pages, and rollback. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's allright, but what I meant was whether I'm expected to actually perform all those additional duties. I imagine for the most part I would just keep doing what I do now, anyway. So are there certain things I'd be required to do as an admin that I'm not now? --CodeCat 21:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, nothing's required. People might bug you to delete stuff, maybe. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Then I won't mind. Go ahead. :) --CodeCat 22:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2010-03/User:CodeCat for admin --Rising Sun talk? contributions 23:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Your adminship has been granted. You should find a few new tabs now. I'll give you the advice that I was given on becoming admin: Learn to use them slowly. Congrats! --EncycloPetey 05:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there!

An anon and I were discussing in my talk page the possibility that laatst may have two different meanings (as an Adjective): (1) latest, most recent, and (2) final, ultimate. Is this correct? Because SPQRobin (talk • contribs) had added the meanings final, ultimate to laatste, the inflected form of laatst. Check out the latest (but not ultimate!) section of my talk page (click on the (t) in my signature), alstublieft. —AugPi 20:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please keep make your automated edits with your bot account, not with your main account. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nope, these aren't automated. My bot can't perform these edits yet so I'm just doing it the good old-fashioned way, by hand. Sorry if it's causing problems. —CodeCat 21:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

no problems. Please continue. I just wanted to say mew and cat in one sentence. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please flag all bot corrections as "minor". You are flooding out Recent Changes with corrections to what your bot is doing. You might need to rethink your procedure or bot's code to minimize this. --EncycloPetey 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh crap, I turned that off in AWB for one edit and forgot to turn it back on again. I'm so sorry! Thanks for telling me!

And as for the procedure, there isn't really an alternative. The problem is that some of the verb form entries that the bot creates already exist, but have outdated and/or bad formatting. The bot can detect this but is unable to correct the formatting. So instead I can either force it to make an 'unsafe' edit (by appending the new information to the existing entry, which duplicates part of the content) or skip it. However, skipping it usually leaves the bot's job partially finished, because then those old entries haven't been cleaned up. I could still clean them up manually without the bot's help, but in either case they still all have to be edited regardless. So that's why I tell it to force the edit, so that the bot adds its (correct) content, and I can then remove the old entry's contents afterwards. The bot adds all such forced edits to a maintenance category so I can get through it quickly with AWB. That's why it probably caused the flood. Sorry for that. —CodeCat 17:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would be even better if you could run these through the bot account. Conrad.Irwin 22:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Even though they're not automated edits? I thought bot accounts were for automated edits only, to avoid abuse? —CodeCat 22:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

EDIT: Also, MewBot doesn't have AWB permissions. —CodeCat 22:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well that can be changed. -- Prince Kassad 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Allright, thanks. I'll try to use MewBot for any AWB edits as well from now on, if that's allright. But one more question: does minor/major edit make any difference for bot edits? —CodeCat 23:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not really, since bot edits are hidden by default anyway. -- Prince Kassad 23:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. This verb has not been created yet. Would you be willing to create it please since it is used the in term zich verkleden? Thanks, Razorflame 20:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure if it is ever used without a reflexive pronoun. And if it is, then I believe it means the same whether you use the pronoun or not. Still, 'ik verkleed' by itself sounds rather odd to me. —CodeCat 20:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm..Ok :) Thanks for the confirmation! Also, can zich opstapelen possibly mean to stockpile? Razorflame 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but isn't stockpile a transitive verb? Reflexives can never be transitive, so that would rule it out as a translation. —CodeCat 20:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I knew that reflexives cannot be transitive, and I know that stockpile is usually a transitive verb, so I thought that I would run it past you first. Cheers, Razorflame 20:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you think that making verkleden a redirect to zich verkleden would be a good idea? Razorflame 21:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. :) —CodeCat 21:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, cheers :) Razorflame 21:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just on this topic maybe we should create the conjugation for it (without the reflexive component) Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'd add it to zich verkleden saying that it is almost never used alone. Razorflame 22:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Enjoy — opiaterein — 13:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow... figures there is always one obscure header that the bot doesn't pick up on. Thanks for pointing it out. —CodeCat 13:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Het is toch gepepen? :P 81.68.255.36 16:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have seen instances of gerechtvaardigd used as the past participle. Is there any difference between that and rechtvaardigd? :) Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

yes, I'm afraid "rechtvaardigd" is incorrect. The part. has a ge- Jcwf 05:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re this post, the second first parameter for {{infl}} is only used for setting the script or for setting the category when there are two or more arguments. Thus, {{infl|nl}} is exactly the same as {{infl}}. --Yair rand 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Uh, no. Your example {{infl}} has zero parameters. In your example {{infl|nl}}, nl is the first parameter (not the second), and it is required. The second parameter marks the part of speech, as is also necessary. --EncycloPetey 01:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I mistyped. None of the parameters in infl are required, FYI. Output of {{infl}}, right here: (removed, causes script error) . --Yair rand 01:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is news to me. Why isn't it explained in the doco? --EncycloPetey 01:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

In any case, it doesn't hurt, does it? ;) —CodeCat 08:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi CodeCat,

I think that this is an impersonal verb: "Het geliefde hem dit te doen", i.e. it only has an impersonal 3rd person singular with "het" and "zij geliefden" or "wij gelieven" does not exist. Jcwf 01:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

this page disagrees. I think gelieven is similar to dunken, where the roles of subject and object are switched. The subject is the thing liked, the object is the person that likes it. The English like was originally like that as well: it likes me used to mean what I like it means now. The archaic meaning 'to please' still attests to that (and happens to be the meaning of 'gelieven' too). —CodeCat 08:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

So it's been a while since I read anything in or about Dutch, but I thought the plural of this would've been coyote's, since it's a loanword and ends in a vowel... was that wrong? nl.wiktionary also lists coyotes with no apostrophe. Could you provide some clarification? — opiaterein — 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The apostrophe is only used if adding the -s would otherwise shorten a long vowel. By far the most common vowel to end a word is the 'mute e' or schwa sound, and very few Dutch words end any other kind of vowel. And since schwa can never be long, there is no harm in sticking the -s right on. This is also the case for coyote (the e is not pronounced as it is in English). Compare also other words that end in schwa such as the diminutives in -(t)je. —CodeCat 23:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I didn't remember ever reading such a rule. Thanks :) — opiaterein — 23:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good to know. I'd have added the apostrophe after it, if it hadn't been for CodeCat's explanation. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The rule is actually just an extension of the much more common rule that closed syllables with a single vowel have short vowels, while open syllables or double vowels represent long vowels. The letter e is just unique in that when written single, its sound depends also on stress (secondary stress included). An unstressed single e is a schwa, a stressed single e is short or long e following the usual spelling rule. Since schwa cannot be long, length-preserving rules such as vowel or consonant doubling, as well as the insertion of an apostrophy, are ignored.

This ignoring of length preservation is so strong that adding length-preservation features to the spelling usually turns the schwa into a short or long e, and gives that syllable an implied stress. While this is obvious for doubling a vowel to create a long e, it's not so obvious for doubling a consonant to create short e. So take a look at wandelen . Since both e's are schwas, they have no length-preserving features: no double consonants. Now, if you turn it into wandellen, the pronunciation turns into , with secondary stress on the second syllable, and a short e (to a Dutch speaker, it now sounds like a compound of 'wan' and 'dellen'). —CodeCat 14:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey Codekat,

weet jij hoe het geluid heet als je over gebroken glas heen rijdt? bijvoorbeeld zoals op een koninginnedag ofzo :P dat terzijde, ik zat te denken knerpen, knersen en misschien zelfs knarsen? Ik weet het niet :P tsjo 81.68.255.36 16:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wat mij betreft kan het allemaal. Namen voor geluiden zijn meestal onomatopeïsch, wat wil zeggen dat de klank van het woord de klank van het geluid nabootst. Denk ook aan 'haha', 'koekoek', 'dingdong', 'pats' en meer van dat soort woorden. Dus is het niet zo moeilijk om nog meer woorden te verzinnen die ook naar hetzelfde soort geluid kunnen verwijzen, het is allemaal vrij ruim van begrip. —CodeCat 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you confirm these nouns have different plurals? I think they both take elven? -- 124.171.194.6 21:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure what the general use is here. A few sources I found mention that the plural 'elfen' was introduced in a translation of Tolkien (also in English: elfs instead of elves) and has been used ever since. However, elf is an old word in Dutch and was known in the middle ages, so the plural 'elven' should also exist from a historical perspective. —CodeCat 22:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I can recall correctly most of my Dutch grammars state there's a rule that nouns ending in -f turn to -v in the plural (for phonetic reasons) though there are likely exceptions. A native Dutch friend of mine corrected my spelling saying the word elfen does not exist, but elfen does indeed appear to be in widespread use: Google returns more uses of elfen than elven (105k:60k) even without considering that elven can be eleven. The Dutch WP uses elfen too. Might het Groene Boekje mention this? -- 124.171.194.6 22:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay I found this, which appears(?) to be of the official Dutch language union. I guess that settles things. Thanks for your help. -- 124.171.194.6 22:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

In this case I don't think there is any doubt: both are widely used, so both should be mentioned here. Wiktionary's job isn't to tell right from wrong, only to document existing practice. Also, it's no surprise that 'elfen' results in more Google hits - it's also the plural form in German. —CodeCat 22:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unless they were practicing their German on a Dutch website, Google shouldn't have picked it up (language was set to Dutch).

I couldn't account for it being used historically or at all to mean elves. My friend also seemed to hesitate when I asked her, because it doesn't seem to follow the spelling conventions. I haven't searched through any of those 60k Google results to find a historic use of the word (frankly, I couldn't translate most) and they may be digitalizations of older texts (thus would not be an indication of its modern-day usage). For all I know, it might be that every elven in those results means eleven. -- 124.171.194.6 23:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can confirm that the plural form of elf as in the mythical creature is elfen. It also has an older form alf (plural: alven), which I don't think is still being used in contemporary art forms. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

alf is the native Dutch word as it descended directly from Germanic. elf is a loanword, probably from English (Old English ælf). I'm not sure when elf was first introduced, but it has more or less replaced the original word. I'm guessing Tolkien played a big role (even though the word was probably in use before then). —CodeCat 09:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

1. helloen
2. wthen
3. lolen

Can you find any invisible unicode characters in the above 3 ordered list entries? I suspect it might have something to do with me switching between Chinese and English on Vista (have been adding a few Chinese and Japanese translations lately) Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't look like it. You can test it yourself by clicking on the end of the line (at least in Firefox) and then pressing the left arrow twice to skip over the square brackets. If you then press backspace, then if there is a hidden character, the backspace will appear to do nothing (but it really deleted the invisible character). If there is no hidden character, it will delete the last character of the word. —CodeCat 10:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

In Opera, if the page does not exist you can simply hover over the link (or use the edit button, if the page exists). If there are any invisible characters, they will be URL encoded (percent signs). -- Prince Kassad 11:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cheers gents (assuming there is no lady here :D). I will keep an eye out for it when it comes to the time to feed the kitty. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.​—msh210℠ 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you double-check the forms of the word constipatie please? I need to make sure that they are right ;) Thanks, Razorflame 16:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

STOP ADDING FOREIGN-LANGUAGE CONTENT YOU ARE NOT SURE ABOUT. YOU ARE HURTING WIKTIONARY. JUST STOP IT. Equinox ◑ 16:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added this because I found the forms elsewhere and while the source is reliable, I just want to make sure :) Razorflame 16:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The word is uncountable for starters, but other than that it's ok. Still, I agree with Equinox here, you shouldn't be making edits until AFTER you've verified that something is correct. —CodeCat 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I'll work harder to verify something before I add it in the future :) Thank you for the help, Razorflame 16:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lol, diminutive constipation --Rising Sun talk? contributions 16:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Maybe a small amount of constipation? ;) Razorflame 16:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's not how diminutives work in Dutch. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know. I was making a joke ;) Razorflame 16:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi CodeCat,

Could you check the conjugations for leasen: according to http://www.onzetaal.nl/advies/leasen.php the 3rd person singular present is "least" which is different from the 2nd person singular present "leaset", but I was wondering if the missing 't' is just a typo, or the way it actually is (because leasen is weak, and weak verbs usually have the same 2nd and 3rd person singular present forms). Also, I'm sticking to the Groene Boekje: should the Witte Boekje conjugations be added as well (with clarifying notes, of course)? —AugPi 13:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, the situation with the two inflection lines of leasen for the same definition is rather awkward. Could you fix template {{nl-verb}} so that the two inflection lines can be merged into a single one? —AugPi 15:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here is a suggestion: set parameter #1 to wk-dt. —AugPi 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just use {{nl-verb|wk-d|wk-t}}. As for the second/third person forms, they ought to be identical. If they're not, then that's an error on their part since there is no reason why they shouldn't be. The real problem with verbs like this however is that (IMO due to laziness) they don't get respelled using Dutch spelling rules. And that creates all sorts of problems with silent e's and vowel combinations that are pronounced in unexpected ways. See racen and douchen for similar examples (the 1st singular 'ik douche' is also found). The only real solution I think is to just give the authorities a good slap and tell them to make liesen the official spelling. —CodeCat 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. (so I have fed leasen to MewBot) —AugPi 22:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey

kun jij eens hier naar kijken? Ik had Stephen ook al gevraagd om een vertaling, maar ik weet niet of het echt klopt. Misschien dat jij zegt dat het een foutief gebruik van 'sowieso' is, maar ik neem aan dat echt iedereen in Nederland in ieder geval begrijpt wat er bedoeld wordt (misschien een informal tag ofzo er aan). Er wordt bedoeld dat er "iets" met Ivoorkust is gebeurd waardoor ze raar gingen voetballen (i.e. vechtpartijtje, meer overtredingen), maar dat ze eigenlijk ook al raar voetbalden vóórdat het "iets" gebeurde. Over dat laatste gaat de zin die nu op sowieso staat. Klopt het als je het dan gewoon als anyway vertaalt? Thanks 81.68.255.36 16:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

De vertaling klopt op zich wel, het betekent zoiets als 'ondanks andere dingen', oftewel iets dat altijd al zo was. Ik heb ook nog anyway en in any case toegevoegd. Ik vind alleen het gebruiksvoorbeeld wat raar. Misschien dat daar iets beters voor gevonden kan worden? —CodeCat 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wat het voorbeeld betreft, ik hoorde het op de tv en ik dacht dat het een iets andere betekenis had dan hier werd weergegeven. Blijkt dat het dus niet echt zo is, dus ja het voorbeeld kan wel veranderd worden :) wat de rest betreft: dankjewel! 81.68.255.36 22:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

ik zag dat houden verwant is aan het Engelse hold en die laat uiteindelijk zien dat hold van

Proto-Germanic *halðan (“‘to watch, look after’”).

komt. Wordt daar hetzelfde woord als *haldanan bedoeld? 81.68.255.36 14:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ja, inderdaad. Door verschillende mensen wordt de etymologie van Germaanse woorden verschillend beoordeeld. Veel taalkundigen gaan uit van een uitgang -(a)nan voor werkwoorden, afgeleid van een Indo-Europese vorm -(o)nom. Maar aangezien alleen voor de eerste -(a)n concrete bewijzen zijn (-an verdwijnt namelijk spoorloos in het Germaans, ook bij veel andere woorden), zijn er ook mensen die zich liever niet binden aan een dergelijke conclusie. Welke vorm je vindt is dus puur een kwestie van welke taalkundige je het vraagt, maar voor zover ik weet bestaat er inmiddels wel consensus over -(a)nan. In ieder geval zijn alle taalkundigen het er wel over eens dat er iets achter de eerste -(a)n moet hebben gestaan.

Wat de ð betreft, die mag gelijkgesteld worden aan d. In het Germaans bestond er nog geen onderscheid tussen d en ð, hoewel ze wel een verschillende uitspraak hadden, maar die was allofonisch bepaald. Hetzelfde geldt overigens voor b en g, soms wordt daarbij het onderscheid op dezelfde manier aangegeven door streepjes door de letters. —CodeCat 14:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the beer parlour, you wrote "Conjugation and declension templates are usually named xx-conj and xx-decl." But is this documented anywhere? Wiktionary:Declension redirects to Wiktionary:Entry layout explained#Additional headings, which only mentions "declensions" under the ===Noun=== heading. There is no mention of any ====Inflection==== or ====Declension==== heading there. I'm doing some of the conversion, but I'd prefer to have written guidelines. --LA2 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree it's not really very clear, but I found out about it when someone pointed me at Category talk:Conjugation and declension templates. I think we should codify this in a better way, but I'm not sure how or where. —CodeCat 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wrote my impressions into the introduction of Wiktionary:Swedish inflection templates. That's not the right place (and now that page even has the wrong name, as it mostly catalogs declension and conjugation templates). Instead this Swedish page should link to the proper documentation. If you know where to put this, please do. --LA2 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

FYI, this table claims to list "all" Swedish verbs that go outside of the default for {{sv-conj-wk}}, i.e. all with -er, -de/-te and all strong and irregular verbs. It lists some 500 verbs. If somebody cared to proofread the entire list, maybe this could be a test case or a wishlist for Wiktionary. --LA2 20:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

For the record: the table, which is now Appendix:Swedish verbs, contains all irregular verbs listed in that dictionary. --LA2 16:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I left you a message on my talk Page here. Leasnam 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. Thank you for your response. Very enlightening :). I left you a few more messages please, here. Leasnam 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

This has a plural aardes doesn't it? If you referred to two Earths in parallel universes would you call them aardes generically? -- 203.217.43.166 15:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I suppose so. But it doesn't usually occur outside a sci-fi context, just like suns and such in English. —CodeCat 14:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

And maybe in poetic / metaphorical contexts? A Dutch friend suggested that a more appropriate word to use would be werelden in this case, so it might be wrong/unusual to use after all. -- 203.217.43.166 06:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you look crosseyed from space, you see twee aardes. So it does exist. ;) —CodeCat 08:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, sorry, I did that to fix the sudden problem with {{deftempboiler}}. (Then, a few moments later, I realized that {{deftempboiler}} simply shouldn't have been changed to use {{languagex}} to begin with, and reverted said change.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey CodeCat. Could this be renamed so as not to be confused with a language code? We try to avoid 2/3 letter (lowercase) templates names for non-lang codes for that reasons. Thanks. --Bequw → τ 14:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Support, yeah. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is no langcode lx though, so there is no chance of a collision. Besides, the upcoming ISO 639-6 will have four letter codes, so that could mean we have to rename {{infl}} and {{temp}} among others, if they happen to coincide with ISO 639-6 codes. I think it would be better to rethink the naming of language templates altoghether, now that we're at it. Prefixing them with lang: would be a good idea I think, that way there is no danger of collision. —CodeCat 15:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Collision is not the issue (ISO 639-1 is effectively frozen), it's that we don't want people thinking it's a language code and creating confusion (we have only a few grandfathered in templates that break this rule). If we use 639-6, we will prefix them, just like we prefix the 639-5 codes. We specifically don't prefix the 639-1/3 codes because many editors across many projects use them directly (eg {{fro}} or {{subst:fro}} in wikitext). --Bequw → τ 17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think people will try using lx as a language code unless they have a good reason to think it is one. But I don't think there is anything on Wiktionary to give users that impression, apart from the fact that it has two letters. Furthermore, there may not actually be many users that are aware of the fact that each language code corresponds to a template; they just use the codes and know they will work without knowing how. And even then, if despite all that, anyone ever does try using it as a language code, things will go wrong in a rather obvious (to that user) way. That said, {{lx}} was only created to circumvent limitations in the existing {{l}} template (just as {{termx}} supplements {{term}}). If {{l}} could be made to work like {{lx}}, then the latter could be deleted altogether. —CodeCat 17:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's not about usage, it's about confusion/understandability/learnability of wikitext. One can usually guess that 2/3-letter cryptic templates are language templates. I didn't realize there were more of these "x" templates. Why don't we name them something more descriptive like {{l-app}} and {{term-app}} or {{l/app}} and {{term/app}}? --Bequw → τ 00:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The solution I would really prefer is that {{lx}} be obsolete altogether. Either its code should go into {{l}}, or (even better) the language templates get standard names like {{gem}} rather than the current {{proto:gem}}. It's that latter distinction that warranted creating those templates (and {{languagex}}) in the first place, but I consider them a workaround. —CodeCat 08:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see you added a cat parameter. Why would you want to use {{ca-adj}} in entries other than Catalan adjectives? We already have {{ca-adj-form}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because it is useful as some other words (interjections for example) inflect like an adjective. Take a look at benvingut for example; the parts of speech are distinct (as they are for welcome), but both are inflected. Seems like a waste to make a whole new template for other PoS when this works just fine too. —CodeCat 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

And here's another use for it: determiners. Again, same kind of inflection, just a different part of speech. See poc. —CodeCat 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Neither of these accept ISO 639 language codes. Thought you might like to know that. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, but what exactly are you telling me for? Do you want to point out something I did (in error), or do you need me to fix it so that they do accept codes? —CodeCat 17:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Second one. I'd rather not try it myself, and get it wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, done. Let me know if there are any problems. —CodeCat 20:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for correcting me :) Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't really sure about the edit after I made it though. Although it doesn't make perfect semantic sense, I can imagine people still say it anyway, especially when comparing with something else already described as 'peperduur'. Die auto is peperduur, maar deze hier is nog peperduurder! You think I should revert it? —CodeCat 10:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nah don't. I don't think it's going to make too much difference in the bigger picture. If someone has half a brain, they will probably click on duur in the etymology section to see the comp/sup forms.

You may have noticed this has been nominated for deletion. Your input would be very much welcome, especially with Carolina wren away for the forseeable future. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What is the Catalan equivalent of Spanish situar? I ask because Spanish situación derives from situar by addition of a suffix. The word situació might therefore serve as a Catalan example of a word derived using -ació. --EncycloPetey 19:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

situar exists in Catalan as well: . So the same process could be applied here too. However, the etymology for situation shows that the word may not be an independent Catalan coinage. So, you should be aware of that, in case we need to distinguish between synchronic and diachronic etymologies. —CodeCat 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi CodeCat. You gave the translation as "to blow someone's nose". Is this right? It is a strange idea to blow someone's nose, and not one's own. --SixTwo 22:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The reflexive verb mocar-se means to blow one's own nose. So by extension the non-reflexive verb is transitive, meaning to blow the nose of. At least two Catalan dictionaries support me on that, too. Furthermore, I even found a few mentions of a Latin verb mucare with the same meaning, which this verb is obviously derived from. —CodeCat 22:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I added an entry mocar-se, as you are probably aware. I'd appreciate any fixes. Especially a link between the reflexive and non-reflexive senses. BTW, I don't know Catalan. --SixTwo 22:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looks just fine. The templates automatically link so nothing else needs to be done. —CodeCat 22:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does Catalan really have a different origin for that word from other Iberian languages? Spanish penal comes from Late Latin poenalis. --EncycloPetey 22:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's the same thing really, and I believe there is much discussion going on right now about those kinds of etymologies. The etymology of the Catalan word is synchronic (how current speakers analyse the morphemes) while that of the Spanish word is diachronic (traced back to the time the suffixation was first made). Both are equally correct, and should ideally be listed in both etymology sections. We just don't have a standard format for that right now. —CodeCat 22:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean that some experts think the word originated in Catalan de novo through suffix addition (perhaps in addition to inheritance from Latin), or do you mean that some dictionaries write a synchronic origin scheme, regardless of the word's history? --EncycloPetey 22:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

What I mean that the word can be analysed in different ways that are all correct. Modern Catalan and Spanish speakers will not generally know about the original creation of the word, but they will know about the -al suffix because it is still productive today. So that is the synchronic view. The diachronic view is indeed the original formation poenalis as you said. It's not that the word has two different origins, as much as it has two different ways to view its origin. —CodeCat 22:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

What I'm getting at is that, on Wiktionary, we treat the actual historical version of events, rather than a de novo approach to etymology. So if the word does come from Latin, then that is the etymology that should be given. An etymology is not a "bits and pieces" section, but a means of tracing a word back to its historical origins. --EncycloPetey 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware that there was a specific policy saying that. I agree that if such an etymology exists it should be given, but I don't think it's particularly useful to leave out the synchronic etymology either. I believe both should be listed, if known, and in my opinion, the criterium for showing a synchronic etymology (along with the diachronic) should be simply could a modern speaker re-coin the word if it didn't already exist?. —CodeCat 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

But synchronic construction isn't etymology, and that's my whole point. Those sorts of items are listed under "Related terms". Only the historical origin of a word should be present in the Etymology section. Wiktionary does not deal in hypothetical possibilities of coinage, only in facts and actual usage. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Huh? So are you saying we should use {{suffix}} and such in a Related terms section? —CodeCat 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, but you can list verbs and suffixes and other words constructed from related roots. The {{suffix}} template should exclusively be used for historical origins of words in an Etymology section. The category it generates is etymological as well. To categorize words by shared endings (regardless of etymology) we use categories like Catalan terms ending in -al. --EncycloPetey 23:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is all getting rather confusing and counterintuitive really, and it doesn't really help to conceal information that many people will find useful. For example, why does someone who is just learning penal have to go via poenalis, poena and then hope that pena is listed as a descendant? The connection is obvious to any Catalan speaker: pena + -al. I suggest moving this to WT:BP because I believe I'm not the only one who thinks this. —CodeCat 23:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did you understand that pena would be listed in the Catalan section under penal? No one has to go to the Latin source to find the Catalan related words; they should be listed in the Catalan section. You can take this to the BP if you like, but the way Etymologies have been written since I started here is to give actual etymologies, not misleading or fictitious ones based on roots and affixes. The only time a word's etymology should be given that way is when that's how the word actually originated. --EncycloPetey 23:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes I did understand that, but I don't think that is nearly as clear as the representation provided by {{suffix}}. I dug up an older discussion, see Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/September#"Synchronic" and "diachronic" etymologies. —CodeCat 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

In {{infl form}} the alt= parameter doesn't seem to work any more. See humanissimus as an example. SemperBlotto 11:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That template is currently nominated for deletion, so I think it might be best to leave it as it is for now, until things become clearer. —CodeCat 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Can you take a look at this. This can be deleted or moved if need be. I know that the template for weak masculine nouns used is -ô (Nom & Voc), but I wanted to see what this would look like. Personally, I tend to agree with forms that show in -ēn (in this case as -ê), rather than -o, because it's easier to connect the Old Norse forms in -i as well as WGmc in -a/-o (< -ā) to these. What do you think? Leasnam 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

This can be moved simply to Appendix:Proto-Germanic *tīmô, but I still favour the aforementioned. I know that would be a nightmare to have to build other templates. Leasnam 23:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is a rather tricky subject as there is no real evidence that could counter it, since there are few places in the whole language where ô occurs word-finally. However, Ringe mentions that the ending was -ô and that Old Norse -i was taken from the -ijan stems:

*in Gothic, masc. -a can have been remodeled on acc. sg. -an, nom.-acc. pl. -ans

*In Runic Norse, masc. -a (-ą?) was the result of the same remodeling as in Gothic, but that vowel was subsequently lost by regular sound change, and a new -i was added on the model of the ijan-stems

I believe that the Runic Norse evidence clearly speaks in its favour, since it's unlikely that -ę̄ would shift to -a and then back to -i again within such a short time period. Furthermore, there is also the word-final -ô of many adverbs, although I don't know what the outcome of that was in Old Norse (I believe it was lost altogether?) Nevertheless, I think in that light that we should stick to -ô as the ending of masculine an-stems here. —CodeCat 14:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with no change. As-is is fine. I just wanted to know your take on the matter. Ok, I will move *tīmēn to *tīmô, and begin using the -ô forms in my etymolgies. Thanks ! :) Leasnam 16:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Moved to Template talk:sv-decl-noun

Hello again. I see that you use h in initial position (*haglaz). Do you also use h in all positions? (e.g. *þinhanan, *hauhaz, etc.)? Leasnam 18:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It's explained in some more detail here. Basically, no Germanic language has ever used a variant of x for that sound, and I figure if we really want an IPA-like representation, we shouldn't be using þ either. I personally prefer a representation closer to the regular Latin alphabet because it's easier to type. —CodeCat 18:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I feel you on the 'easier-to-type' piece. þ and æ are not normally found on most keyboards. ok, I will forlet the use of χ and return to using h. Thanks again. Leasnam 18:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I use the US-International layout, which has þ and æ. I just don't like æ for symmetry reasons: why have ō but not ē? Besides, æ with a macron (which it should have since it's long) is even trickier. —CodeCat 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Can you look at casteller and check if it is OK, please. --SixTwo 15:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if it is, I haven't heard of that word before. I think it might be better to ask someone more experienced with Catalan. —CodeCat 17:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's OK!--Morkai5 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I know you're not very fluent in Catalan but I was wondering if you'd be able to check the two entries in this category and see if the definitions (after i fixed the grammatical errors) are okay. 50 Xylophone Players talk 10:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't really know that many Catalan idioms yet, so I can't tell if they are correct. You could try asking User:Morkai5, who is a native speaker. —CodeCat 11:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I left you a reply. Not sure if you received it. Leasnam 19:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey! I have a concern regarding the Second Conjugation weak verbs. First, is the inifinitve ending correctly *-ōnan and not *-ōjanan? I believe *-ōjanan is the more correct. I see -ōnan featured predominantly in German references, which answers to their own OHG verbs in -ōn; but PGmc *-ōnan cannot answer to Old English -ian (also Old Frisian -ja). However, *-ōjanan satisfies both developments (*-ōjanan > -ōn; AND *-ōjanan > -ian). Second, I think the 2nd and 3rd Conjugations have -m/-n in the first person present indicative (e.g. OHG ih mahhōn = ich mache; ih habēn = ich habe) and not the -ō (OHG -u) of the 1st. Leasnam 08:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

All references I've seen refer to -ōnan. The only existing evidence we have for a -j- is Old English and Old Frisian, neither of which are known to be very archaic when it comes to their phonetics or their verb paradigms. Furthermore, while the change -ōjanan > -ōn is indeed plausible, the catch is that the loss of -j- between vowels is known to have occurred early in the PG period. So that rules the existence of such a suffix out altogether. I believe that the -j- was introduced based on the other two classes of weak verbs, especially once the -i- infix of class 1 was lost in early Old English: -jan/-ida, -ōn/-ōda > (-i- is lost) -jan/-da, -ōn/-ōda > (-j- is introduced to restore parallelism) -jan/-da, -ōjan/-ōda.

And as for the 1st person ending, I'm not really sure. The only language to preserve it is Old High German, a language which is known to have severely reorganised especially the 3rd weak class of verbs. Ringe makes very little mention of the phenomenon at all, and gives 2nd class verbs the regular -ō ending, which doesn't seem plausible either. There must be some reasonably common source for the -m, but I don't know what it is. —CodeCat 10:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Well, ok. I invariably use the *-ōjanan in my etymologies which are mainly through Old English (the greatest language that ever existed, imho! :p), and many of the sources I use opt for that form. Perhaps we can add the *-ōjanan as an alternative form on the *-ōnan page? I would still prefer to show the former in my etymologies. Is there a way to add a linking form which would link to *-ōnan but would show *-ōjanan in the Proto template? Otherwise, I can just show both and one will link. || Concerning first person -m, I know that Old English also shows vestiges of this (e.g. ic bēom = I am; ic dōm = I do) indicating that there must have been some sort of connection to PIE -mi in PGmc. What references are they that you predominantly use, if I may ask? Leasnam 18:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey! I like what you've done with *makōnan concerning Old Frankish. I struggled with how best to show that, and yours is perfect! : ) Leasnam 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I mostly use Don Ringe's book as a reference, along with some online dictionaries and grammars for the descendants.

Regarding the -m ending, that is true. But they only occur in Old English in a handful of irregular verbs that are known to descend from athematic verbs in PIE. What has happened in OHG is that two entire classes of verbs have gotten the athematic ending. It seems very unlikely that those classes got their ending based only on a few irregular verbs. So I agree that the ending -mi must have been more systematic in Proto-Germanic. Just where or how, I have no idea.

And as for -ōjanan, I am still very skeptical about it, I'd prefer it not be used anywhere at all to be honest. —CodeCat 23:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

k, I won't show *-ōjanan in the Appendix. If I use it at all, it will be as an alternate in my etymologies. Leasnam 03:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are we sure that braudan is a regular a-stem neuter? I believe it's a neuter s-stem (in Old english these are represented as -ru plurals: brēad>brēadru; hǣmed>hǣmedru; cealf>cealfru; lamb>lambru; etc.). This is why I forwent adding a declension until an appropriate template can be made. Leasnam 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If that's the case then the Proto-Germanic term must have been *braudaz. But it seems a bit strange to use Old English alone as evidence for that, especially considering Dutch and especially German increased the number of nouns with that type of declension beyond the inherited base. So it might well be an Old English innovation. —CodeCat 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and we do have a template for such nouns. {{gem-decl-noun-z-n}} —CodeCat 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, {{gem-decl-noun-z-n}} will certainly work, as the s/z of this class was also in the singular, only later removed to match the other classes. I know that OE cild was extended to this declension, but never heard mention of brēad. Some sources do cite a PGmc braudaz for "bread" in the sense of "something broken, fragment", which further points to a possible conflation: braudan ("cooked food") & braudaz ("broken piece, crumb"). Until I find more info, I think we're good for now to leave as is. Very interesting though! Leasnam 19:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there!

When you added Catalan conjugating capability to MewBot, did you have to request additional permission for it from Beer Parlour or anyone? Because I think QuasiBot is ready to conjugate Esperanto verbs... —AugPi 22:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did make a topic but it was more of an announcement than a request: WT:GP#Announcement: MewBot is being upgraded for Catalan verbs. So I think if you are just extending a bot there is no problem. —CodeCat 22:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#Gotan. I thought you might be interested in it. -- Prince Kassad 15:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's weird. How come the page shows you as the creator? were you creating it at the same time as I? Leasnam 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think so. It looks like you overwrote my version after an edit conflict. —CodeCat 18:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it wiped out the etymology and many of the Descendants. Oftentimes it takes me several edits to get the page just right. I usually do not get it all at once. Leasnam 18:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have 3 sources that agree on the Old Norse form, although I see it is a -ja verb, but they all include it nonetheless. Do you see something diff? I see you moved the Scand forms... Leasnam 19:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've looked at it a bit and I think we're actually dealing with a loan directly from Old Saxon or Old Frisian. Since the form *ēskian/ēskojan is attested only in the northern West Germanic languages that seems plausible. And it's the only way I can think of that Old Norse could have had a weak class 2 verb in -ja. —CodeCat 19:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but...there was also a substantive in PGmc: *aiska= from which ON may have taken it, but I am okay with htis. :) Leasnam 19:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yea,, I also see etymologies where its borrowed, especially Scandinavian ones. good. Leasnam 19:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it's alright to lump the OE neuter with the OHG masc? Most sources only cite masc for PGmc (in fact, I haven't seen a one citing neuter actually). Probably the OE was due to gender reassignment? I shudder to have to create sep entries for so small a class. Leasnam 19:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I just found a Norwegian dialectal feim (neut)/feime (masc). Still, the PGmc is shown as masc. Leasnam 19:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we can do what they do with Latin, create the entry for the masculine form only and refer other genders to it. Especially when the words have the selfsame menaing as in the case with *dailiz. If there is substantial semantic difference between the genders,, perhaps then we can list them individually. How does this sound? Leasnam 19:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wonder what causes these kind of gender changes anyway. I can't imagine that a word just changes gender, unless there is analogical pressure from other words, either because of semantics or because of morphological similarity. I noticed that the vast majority of gender irregularities is caused by unusual stem formations or rare/obsolete declensions. Most z-stems for example show up in various forms across the Germanic languages. Can we be sure that the word was really an a-stem and not something less common? —CodeCat 19:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does template gem-conj-wk3-a correspond to verbs in -ēnan (<earlier ájanan)? Leasnam 19:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have one such verb I'd like to add (Goth anasilan) Leasnam 19:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It depends on the origin of the verb. No Germanic language distinguishes two different variants of weak class 3, but it is known that Proto-Germanic still possessed two distinct subgroups. According to Ringe, the ai/ja class consists of 'statives' and the ai/ā class consists of 'factitives'. Whatever that might mean I am not sure, but I think statives describe a state of being (to have) and factitives are derived from nouns. —CodeCat 19:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Well, the PGmc form would be *silēnan "to be silent, flow slowly, cease". this sounds stative. I'll use the one for Proto-Germanic *þewānan and see how that goes. Leasnam 19:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I bet you can tell by now that I am just copying other existing entries and tweaking them. I'll stop doing that. I took *tekanan to create this, totally forgetting that that was a reduplicate (Doh). Leasnam 22:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's ok, I do the same sometimes! ^^ —CodeCat 22:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed we've really been talking a lot lately. Do you think maybe we could talk more directly? Via MSN or something? —CodeCat 22:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Of course. Let me create an account...Leasnam 01:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have one now. What do I need to give you? The email address I used to create the account? Leasnam 07:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but I wasn't expecting you to create an account just for me! o.o I have GoogleTalk, AIM, Yahoo too so you could use those. —CodeCat 10:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

LOL, it's alright. I just got a new pc, so I needed to. I have an old AIM account, but I like google. I use it for everything else. Leasnam 17:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, on Google I am 'Leas nam' <with a space> ([email protected]). I'll stay logged in. Leasnam 18:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

hi codecat

I temporarily reverted your change to this template as it was causing some weird irregularities in its formatting. They might have something to do with the new x templates. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you show me what it broke exactly? In theory the x-templates should be exactly the same as the regular ones... —CodeCat 22:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Just rolled back my undo, so you can see the problem. Scroll down to see the examples. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I found at least part of the problem, but it is very strange. Take a look at User:CodeCat/sandbox. That looks like fairly standard code, right? Now try putting subst: in front of the #if, and then save the page and reload the source code. For some reason it adds a newline! —CodeCat 22:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Doesn't seem to do that when I substitute something like the prefix template. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Just fyi in case you've attempted to IM me, I am in the office and not logged into chat. Leasnam 21:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I haven't, but thank you. :P —CodeCat 21:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Got your messages...*framaþjaz is the form that I've seen sourced, but *framaþijaz is also possible. I understand what you mean by the gemmination, but I believe the form did end in -(i)jaz and was not an i-stem. The West Germanic ending in -i (OE -e) seems to support this (-iz endings usually leave no trace in terminal -i). The only other alternate form I've ever seen is *framiþjaz. Leasnam 05:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you find an OE adjective that we can be entirely sure was an i-stem in Germanic? I'd like to compare its forms with those of a ja-stem... I'm quite sure the two classes merged in all the West Germanic languages. —CodeCat 10:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, hard to be sure. There's PG *minniz > OE minn ("little, low"). I'm just not finding a lot of PG adjectives in -iz. Only nouns. But we can compare the inverse: adjectives in -jaz. They are rife: *niwjaz > OE nīwe, OHG niuwi; PG *grōnijaz > OE grēne, OHG gruoni; etc. Leasnam 17:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

With PG nouns in -iz, we see i-mutation, but no ending (PG *bōniz > OE bēn). I think this is why those who reconstructed the form put the -j- in it. Leasnam 17:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

But what I'm saying is that all i-stem adjectives were moved into the ja-stem group, and their nominative singular form along with them. u-stems also became ja-stems in the same way. The only Germanic language to still distinguish the three is Gothic. So we can't really be sure that it wasn't *framaþiz or even *framaþuz based on North/West Germanic alone! —CodeCat 00:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Are all PG adjectives then wonky, and we should only be using the Gothic form as the pristine representation? Leasnam 07:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

One other thing you probably already know, *framaþjaz is a derivative of *framaþ (as Gothic dalaþ "down" from *dala "dale, valley"). Leasnam 07:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added another class VII verb. Can you please advise on the 2nd person past *bebautt? Should it rather be *bebautat? Leasnam 07:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

*bebaust would be the proper form. bt, pt, ft > ft; dt, tt, þt > st; gt, kt, ht > ht. —CodeCat 09:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay thanks. That makes sense. It's seen in words like mōtan, witan, etc. It's all becoming clear to me! :) Leasnam 17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, in those words there is actually an older change tt > ss. The st found in the 2nd person past of strong verbs had its t restored by analogy with other verbs. —CodeCat 00:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I will just write "r", and won't distringuish between the trill and the flap. As for the long "e", I have almost always heard it pronounced as a diphthong, would it be okay if I wrote /eɪ/ as an alternative pronunciation along with /eː/ like I did here: geen? And the same goes for "g" as well.--Dezzie 11:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be better to list regional pronunciations separately, and explaining in what regions that pronunciation is used. —CodeCat 11:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I saw a few entries that had, for example, /ʀ/ for "r", so I thought alternative pronunciations were acceptable. I also saw a few, such as week, that already had /eɪ/ written as the pronunciation, so I thought it would be alright. But if you insist, I'll stick with /eː/.--Dezzie 11:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

At the very least we should include the standard pronunciation. We don't want to give the impression that words that should rhyme don't really rhyme because we write the vowels differently. Consistency is important I think. —CodeCat 12:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

So would mei be transcribed with /eː/, or would it have /eɪ/, being spelt with an "ei" instead of "ee"?--Dezzie 14:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mei would be /mɛi/, with an ɛ. —CodeCat 14:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, so "ei" rhymes with "ij". That makes sense now. Dank u wel!--Dezzie 14:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Uh, yes... are you saying you don't actually speak any Dutch? —CodeCat 15:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am saying that It's difficult for me as an English speaker to be able to hear fine distinctions like /eɪ/ vs. /ɛɪ/. We don't make that distinction in English, so if I'm not listening closely mee sounds like mij and mei to me.--Dezzie 15:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know of no dialects where ee and ei/ij are the same though, all Dutch speakers can reliably tell the difference. If ee is a diphthong at all it is usually only very slight, and its starting point is relatively closed. ei/ij is a very clear diphthong and sometimes even tends to go towards or in some areas, its start point is much more open. In areas where ei/ij have become monophthongs (in the south), the openness of the vowel is the main distinction too: ee and ei/ij . —CodeCat 15:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

For example, when a Dutchman says band, it sounds like bent, because the /æ/ doesn't exist in their vowel inventory, they just use an /ɛ/. Keeping a distinction between /ɛɪ/ and /eɪ/ doesn't exist in English, so if I hear the words mee and mij on a tape I am using to learn Dutch, I won't hear the clear-cut difference you would. The different materials I use to teach myself languages don't break down things into IPA transcription, so I write it down as I hear it. And I've been accurate so far save for a slight Hollandic bias which you pointed out to me.--Dezzie 15:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

One last question if you don't mind. Which "u" would you use in "Utrecht", /y/ or /ʏ/. The Wiktionary entry says it's a /y/, but the Wikipedia article has it listed as a /ʏ/. Thanks again.--Dezzie 18:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's pronounced /ˈy.trɛxt/. The t is part of the second syllable. —CodeCat 18:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the Wikipedia article has it transcribed as "/ˈʏtrɛxt/", I'll go fix it.--Dezzie 18:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I saw under blauw you changed the transcription from /blʌu̯/ > /blɑu̯/. On the Dutch orthography guide here it says though that "au(w)" is transcribed as /ʌu̯/ or /ʌː/. Are there exceptions to this rule?--Dezzie 20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would say that that page is wrong, to be honest. And there are other problems with it too. In any case, if I say /ʌu̯/ then it sounds like someone from Amsterdam... not at all like Dutch the way I hear most people speak it. I think the problem with a lot of pronunciation guides is that they only look at a limited set of dialects, but they ignore the rest. I certainly pronounce the starting point of the diphthong the same as the vowel in hand and similar words. —CodeCat 20:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why not list both pronunciations?--Dezzie 07:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You do realise that that second -g- in the PGmc form is a suffix. Should be *stag-g-jô. Compare -ga. Leasnam 16:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh... I guess I automatically thought that -ggj- can't exist in Proto-Germanic. ^^;; I've never seen that suffix before though. Are there any Gothic words with it, so that we can rule out gemination after the PG period? —CodeCat 16:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

In Proto-Germanic *þreskanan you have "treske" as a Danish descendant to Old Norse þreskja. I don't believe "treske" a danish word, though it is a Norwegian. Perhaps tærske ("to trash"), which ODS says descend from Old Norse þryskva, þriskja (Old Norwegian þreskja).

Why is the page title (*þreskanan) different from the word (*þreskaną)?--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 11:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oops, you're right, it does seem to be tærske in Danish. I fixed that now. And as for the difference between page title and headword, it's similar to how we add macrons and other diacritics to Old English words. The forms that use ogoneks (ą) are rare in literature about Proto-Germanic, and all our etymology sections link to the final-n form (an). So if we decide to change the page titles then all the etymology sections would have to be changed as well. That's a lot of work. —CodeCat 11:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

That was quick. I get confused when I see different forms in different sources, so I really wish that we had an official form, and {{proto}} doesn't seem to allow for alternative spelling like e.g. {{term}}. BTW, ODS have Old English þerscan instead of þrescan; is that a typo?--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 11:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It could be, but since the same swap happened in Dutch, it might have been an alternative form of the word. To be honest though, I think {{proto}} doesn't really work as well as it used to. The naming scheme for reconstructed terms makes things a lot more difficult than they should be. Especially now that we have {{termx}}. —CodeCat 13:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I too wish that (deprecated template usage) proto allowed for alternative display forms like term. OE þrescan is a metathetic variant of þerscan, which is the more usual form. Leasnam 16:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ohhhh, You beat to me to it! I was going to create this page :) Leasnam 22:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering how you'd feel about adding the original Finnish names of cases/tenses/etc to the Finnish tables. It's not really necessary for all languages, but I find it useful so I figure others might also. But it tends to stretch out tables a bit... {{lv-conj}} is the vertical method, or {{lt-decl-noun}} shows horizontal. What do you think? — opiaterein — 23:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Finnish names are almost the same as the English names anyway, so I don't think there is really a lot of value in adding them. It seems more like a gimmick than anything seriously useful, to me. —CodeCat 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Depends on the language, and whether you want to know the grammatical terms. Like the Lithuanian noun cases are way different, but the Latvian ones are Latin-based. — opiaterein — 01:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply