Wiktionary talk:About Swedish

I want to create an article listed in the grammar section, but I don't really know what to put in it and so... can somebody help me? Smiddle / TC@ 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

How to format the archaic spellings using e.g. 'fv', 'hv' or 'f' instead of the modern 'v'? Would bref be a decent way of formatting it? \Mike 07:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added instructions under Wiktionary:About Swedish#Obsolete spelling. --LA2 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm also trying to figure out how the work on Swedish words should be continued. We have very few active users and IMO each word tends to get a *very* brief article before attention is turned elsewhere. Of course that is not very strange, as there is little point, usually, in chasing blue links just because they correspond to a Swedish word, if one feels that chances are that it already contains the Swedish section. Hence I'm thinking of doing something slightly more systematic; some ideas of what needs to be done are present on that page, but I think there may be more issues we will have to deal with. So, if anyone interested reads this, please take a look and let's see what we can do about those issues. \Mike 13:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC) (oh, and please disregard the fact that the page is located in my user space: if you want to, please move it to a more suitable location.) \MReply

The Swedish templates have been criticized for being right-floating. I loathe the naming of both templates and parameters. The verb templates misses too many of the forms (most notably the passive). The adjective templates are actually somewhat misleading (compare {{sv-adj-reg}} and the new {{sv-adj}}).

Thus, I have for some time been thinking about recreating the templates, and to think through first and foremost the naming a bit. I have some thoughts and ideas here. But, often I come up with two or three ideas, without being happy with either. So before I tear my own hair any further, could you please help me with some input:

Background

• There are to be two templates for each headword: one on the inflection line, and one under a ==Conjugations==/==Declensions== header. (I have not been able to sway the Olde Users, so this may be considered as non-negotiable).
• I'm thinking of using the following forms on the inflection line:
  • Verb: , present, past, supine, imperative (all in active voice)
  • Adjective: , comparative, superlative (all in predicative)
  • Noun: All nominatives (or whatever one would call the non-genitive group.)
  • Adverb: All forms

Questions, verbs

1. Which verb forms to add to a main conjugation table? (I would liken this to a six-step rocket - how many of the steps should we use?)
   1. Active forms of infinitive, indicatives, imperative + participles.
   2. Passive forms of infinitive, indicatives (imperatives?)
   3. Active subjunctive forms
   4. Reciprocal/habitual forms
   5. Passive subjunctive forms
   6. Historical forms/plural forms
2. Should one try to obtain a small set of templates, each with a slightly more involved parameter use, or a larger set of templates, each with fewer parameters?
3. I have created an inflection line template at User:Mike/sv-verb. Please have a look - does it appear to be too complicated? (It is after all based on the "one template, complex use of parameters" doctrine...)
4. By the way, I asked in sv:WT:FR about the nature of forms such as "säljes" or "skrives" - are they really indicative, or are they subjunctive? That would influence the decision where in the table to put them...
5. How many conjugations templates would we need? After writing the inflection line template, I start to think that we'd be better off with at least two templates, one for weak, regular ones and one for the rest. Perhaps also split in deponent/non-deponent. One for verbs lacking passive? Or should there be a "no-passive"-parameter? If we include the reciprocal/habitual, the same for them? Perhaps one parameter for each voice... ("no-active", "no-passive", "no-habitual/reciprocal") True, is there a joint name for habitual/reciprocal voices? Or should all the "s-forms" be put under one header "passive/habitual/reciprocal", similar to what was suggested earlier? (The parameters would then at most need to modify the name in said header)
   • Else it would be nice to have as similar use of the inflection line template and conjugation template as possible...
6. Should all the forms of the past participle (or should they be called perfect participle?) be included in the verb template, or do we put them at the participle's page?

Ok, I'll continue on this later. I think this could be sufficient for a start... Now: Discuss! \Mike 23:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Accumulated from historic versions of Wiktionary:Statistics and Wiktionary:Statistics/generated.

This is frustrating. Swedish Wiktionary seems to hav little or no information on Swedish word etymology. This means that when looking up Swedish etymologies, if English Wiktionary has no information, i am more or less stuck. (Likewise, Finnish Wiktionary seems to hav little or no information on word etymology for Finnish, and likely by extension for languages other than Finnish. I know: i speak Finnish.) Could someone please start adding etymologies? It would be very useful for anyone interested in historical linguistics, such as i am.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think it’s time to move away from using the /ɧ/ sound in IPA transcriptions of Swedish.

This sound stems from a misconception of Swedish phonology, where someone somewhere along the line misinterpreted the fact that /ʂ/ and /x/ are sometimes allophones in free variation, as the false claim that the phoneme in question is a simultaneous /ʂ/ and /x/ and should be written with its own unique IPA symbol /ɧ/.

The Wikipedia article for the sound (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Sj-sound) is even made up in large parts of explanations of why this sound isn’t real.

In my opinion, Wiktionary is furthering this misconception by keeping the /ɧ/ despite the absence of evidence, and we should instead write out /x/ or /ʂ/ in such cases. If anyone is of the opinion that /ɧ/ should be kept, please present your reasoning. LivLovisa (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply