User talk:Smiddle

This is my talk page. Click HERE to send me a message.

Hey there. I've got a few pointers about wiktionary work:

• When assigning genders to Swedish translations in the form of the gender templates, you shouldn't use {{f}} {{m}} since Swedish doesn't have masculine/feminine as grammatical gender, only common/neuter. When you want to specify that a translation is the female form of, say, a nationality or ethnicity just use (male)/(female) instead.
• Using {{IPA}} for Swedish pronunciation really isn't particularly useful, since the IPA-link leads to IPA chart for English at en.wiki, which isn't very useful for anything other than transcriptions of English. There's a pronunciation page for Swedish that you can link to instead and I suggest you try to use any of the formats used at kjol, häll and fjorton.

Keep up the good work!

Peter ^Isotalo 13:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Swedish has a masculine gender, it is just not very separate from common. E.g. the giant man is "den store mannen", but the giant woman is "den stora kvinnan". Smiddle / TC@ 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's a very specific exception and it's not accounted for in Swedish dictionaries. If you look up a word in NEO or SAOB, only en/ett is specified, and this not something that is an artifact of space constraints. The masculine/feminine is only applicable to adjectives in the definite form and it's not even applied regularly in all contexts. There's also a tendency for speakers to simplify the system by saying den mäktiga konungen ("the mighty king") rather than den mäktige. And then there's regional differences. People from southern Sweden have a tendency of saying, for example, käre du to male listeners, which to the best of my knowledge isn't done in the rest of the country, or at least not around Stockholm.

Including the concept of four genders in modern Standard Swedish is pretty much like claiming that Swedish has more than two grammatical cases, even though both dative and accusative only exist as remnants in some idioms and set expressions (man ur huse), and in the object forms of pronouns (henne).

Peter ^Isotalo 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and I noticed you've added gender inflections for adjectives on occasion, which is really unnecessary since this is an extremely predictable pattern. With very few exceptions, it's merely a matter of adding replacing -d with -t, and Swedish adjectives are always listed under their common gender declension. In most cases the adverb form is not defined (the same as the neuter declension) separately since the basic meaning tends to stay the same. As for adjectives that are based on the present participle (-ande), the labeling of them as being common and neuter really doesn't mean anything, since they always keep the same form no matter the circumstances. I recommend just adding grammar templates to the actual articles instead.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see you seem to prefer to use the latter, but is this intentional? Most IPA:s I've seen in the English sections have used the former, which has the benefit of giving the reader some hint of what's coming up. That the link goes to a page of IPA characters used in English is something one'd need to deal with there, rather than going through all the Swedish pages again to modify it when the link points to a better place. \Mike 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

See #Swedish genders and pronunciation Smiddle / TC@ 11:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

See aisle for how to request a pronunciation. (Can take quite a while) SemperBlotto 09:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Smiddle / TC@ 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you alter the quotation at ain't? Either the original quotation doesn't use that word, in which case it should be removed from that page, or it does, in which case it would be vandalism to alter the quotation so as to conceal that fact. (I assume you didn't intend your edit as vandalism, but I'm not sure how you did intend it.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was some IP user before Smiddle ... Robert Ullmann 06:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry, Smiddle; I should have been paying more attention. (Incidentally, that means I rolled back the wrong edit; I guess I need to fix that now.) —Ruakh_TALK 07:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to wiki orbok and remember I am not good at Sweedish. Your userpedia page says that orbok is sweedish for dictionary.--Arceus fan 13:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yah, it is. You made a little typo, though. Ordbok. Word-book. Smiddle 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jag såg att du lade in det ordet som en översättning av "abuse" (här). Har du någon uppgift på om det är en accepterad variant i något läge? Själv skulle jag nog i allmänhet anse att det är felaktigt, men jag hittar lite för många googlar för att vilja stryka det rakt av :) Så i annat fall borde det kanske i själva artikeln påpekas på något sätt att det är icke-standard, men jag vet inte riktigt vilken varning man ska sätta in där i sådana fall. \Mike 22:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ja, -ning-suffixet är nog överflödigt. Smiddle 17:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jo, egentligen är det ju det, men eftersom ordet ändå används... *shrugs*. Nåja, jag märkte helt enkelt upp det som "icke-standard". Jag lade däremot inte in några böjningar då jag är osäker på om folk skulle ge plural med -ar eller med -er. \Mike 10:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Misstolkar jag något nu, eller är det ordet koma du anger uttalet för under substantivet? Jag skulle väl vilja uttala substantivet "komma" och verbet "komma" likadant... \Mike 15:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Några av mina äldre ändringar innehöll felaktiga betoningar i uttalsanvisgningarna. Smiddle 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Har du någon källa för den etymologin? Jag jämförde nyss med Hellqvist som har en helt annan beskrivning, jämförande med fornsvenska vika, fornsaxiska wikan och fornhögtyska(?) weichen. Det är inte så att den etymologin hör hemma på "vek" eller så? \Mike 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jo, jag hittade det förmodligen i min gamla ordbok, som jag har tabbat bort för tillfället. Det kan också hända att jag slog upp fel ord. Smiddle 21:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Då tror jag att jag plockar bort den tillsvidare.... \Mike 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, mysteriet löst - du lade in samma etymologi på vek i redigeringen precis innan (dvs, det ser ut som ett "c&p error" ;) \Mike 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for catching my stupid error with the interwiki at Category:French suffixes -- it was intended for Category:French templates but for some reason my mind slipped. 62.147.8.143 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Smiddle 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious as to why you derive the French from the accusative form. Is this merely the standard form used in French dictionaries, or does French differ significantly from the Iberian languages in this regard? Most Iberian language nouns are derived from the ablative, which came to replace the nominative over time. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've most commonly seen it derived from the accusative, but I don't know if that's more proper than other derivations. In every case I know, the individual forms themselves aren't completely essential, but rather the 'oblique' stem. As the Latin noun system declined, case forms that were more similar merged. As such, it's possible to derive the word "gent" from both the accusative gentem and the ablative gente, because of reduction/loss of endings such as -em in Vulgar Latin. Smiddle 19:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply