Overleg gebruiker:Lwh
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Romaine 18 jul 2008 00:07 (CEST)
transtool
hello,
If you want to create a link in the translations section, it is best to create such a link for all of the translations. This can easily be done by using transtool. Grunnen 10 mrt 2009 19:41 (CET)
This is the right link. Just copy and paste the entire translations section to toolserver, convert it and paste it back. Grunnen 10 mrt 2009 20:10 (CET)
Gender
Hi Lwh,
I saw you changed the gender of citroen from v/m to g. I don't think this change is correct, because the word is mostly v in Flanders and m (or g, if you like) in the Netherlands. The v is put first since it is the original gender. If you need to know more, just ask me.
Greetings, Wikibelgiaan 20 apr 2009 21:33 (CEST) I wrote in English because I only saw English text on your overlegpagina.
- To answer to your question: when we talk about common gender (g) in Dutch, we actually mean the male gender. For example, when talking about the word "citroen", we get the following sentences:
- (using the original, female gender) "De citroen is geel en zij is zuur."
- (using the male or "common" gender) "De citroen is geel en hij is zuur."
- This strange phenomenon arises from the fact that in some Dutch varieties (and in the standard language) the article is identical for male and female words (e.g.: "een man/de man" - "een vrouw/de vrouw"), a bit like in English. Because this difference is so small, these dialects will start using "hij" when talking about a female word. Only when the word is clearly female (like "vrouw") "zij" will be maintained (you could say that only "animate" female words stay female, to draw a parallell with Polish). Since the male gender is transferred to originally female words, some linguists use the term "common gender". Other dialects keep using different articles for both genders and don't have the same confusion.
- "Common gender" is actually more appropriate when talking about Frysian or Scandinavian languages. They have gone through the same development as the Dutch dialects I mentioned before, but they have gone much further. In those languages, male and female have converged into a "common gender", actually a "common, originally male or female, gender".
- I hope it's a bit clearer, now. You should certainly take a look at WikiWoordenboek:Genus. If you have any questions, about the marvellous Dutch language or about something else, just ask me! Greetings, Wikibelgiaan 20 apr 2009 23:53 (CEST)
plnoun
I agree with you. Jcwf 12 mei 2009 00:13 (CEST)
-plstam- etc
I saw your question and I can probably answer it, because I'm the one that started it. The reason to put the table statement before the header is simply one of alignment: it puts the table at the same height as the header. Otherwise the table trails behind which makes short lemmas rather ugly. There is another reason: if you have two tables it works best if you put one of them before the header and the second one after. The header then forces them to come below each ohter, instead of besides each other in various positions. Jcwf 22 mei 2009 01:31 (CEST)
Hallo Lwh,
At first, I'd like to tell you that your pages are getting better and better! Your making very good progress. Then, I have a question about Anglia. Is it true that in Polish there is a plural form of England? It seems kind of strange to me: one England, two Englands. In English, Dutch and many other languages there are no plural forms for country names, mainly because there is only one England. I have however seen this many times in Polish entries, so maybe in Polish it is possible to have multiple Englands, but I'd like to be sure. Please let me know how this works in Polish. Thank you in advance!
Groeten, Tvdm 1 jun 2009 16:49 (CEST)
- Strange. Polish () and en.wikt seem to give plural. (I was actually more surprised when I saw Dutch didn't have a plural) --Ooswesthoesbes 3 jun 2009 21:38 (CEST)
Hallo Lwh,
Would you be so kind (and will it work) to check the Polish translations for the word speler? I couldn't put them under the right definition but I hope you grasp the difference between the two definitions. If not we could discuss them in English... but maybe it already works. Alvast bedankt en vriendelijke groeten, --Forkboy 4 jun 2009 18:05 (CEST)
groet
- Met vrIendelijke groet
beschrijf template
Hello, I see you are changing the beschrijf template into another description. You changed, for example, "{{beschrijf|]|nno}}" into "Deze categorie bevat alle woorden in het Nynorsk die met wiskunde te maken hebben.". Do you have a reason for that? I ask this becouse personally I think the description you give is less accurate than the one given bij the template. Groeten Grunnen 6 jun 2009 18:17 (CEST)
- Well, It isn't a mess :) It's just that the template indicates that the category contains all the words we have at this moment regarding the subject, whereas the other description states the category contains all words related to the subject, which mostly is far from true. Therefore I asked. Unifying the descriptions is something that indeed needs to be done, but personally I'd use the template in all these cases, although it cant be used for all categories (like categories that contain words of a specific word class for example). Groeten Grunnen 6 jun 2009 18:34 (CEST)
categorization
Lwh, please pay attention to the subject I started in the Kroeg ()
Diminitive
Hello, I saw you added the word decimetertje and indicated it had masculine gender. In Dutch however, all diminitives are neuter. Groeten Grunnen 10 jun 2009 17:40 (CEST)
Hello Lwh,
How could piekło have a plural form and niebo not? In Dutch, there is no plural (there is only one hell (and one heaven)). This is why I think one of the two articles is wrong. Could you please correct it? Thanks in advance!
Groeten, Tvdm 12 jun 2009 20:42 (CEST)
aanvoegende wijs
Hello, I see you are leaving the aanvoegende wijs blanc when you create a verb table. The aanvoegende wijs is simply the infinitive minus the final n. Always. Groeten Grunnen 17 jun 2009 17:32 (CEST)
- Sorry Lwh and Grunnen, but I have to correct you. The rules for the aanvoegende wijs are a bit more complicated. Mostly it's infinitive minus the final n, but not always! For example, the aanvoegende wijs of doorlopen is lope door. I don't know if there is a simple rule for it. Tvdm 17 jun 2009 17:39 (CEST)
- As far as I know, the aanvoegende wijs is the infinitive minus n, but when the verb is scheidbaar (e.g. dóórlopen => loop dóór) you have to separate the stem and the prefix. In other cases, Grunnen's rule seems to be correct (e.g. doorlópen => doorlóóp) Wikibelgiaan 17 jun 2009 17:48 (CEST)
- You're right, seperating seperable verbs comes so natural to me I don't even really notice I do it. But it has to be done. Wether a verb is seperable or not can be seen in the verb table on the page of the headword. If the verb is seperable the verleden tijd will have a separated form. Grunnen 17 jun 2009 18:01 (CEST)
- As far as I know, the aanvoegende wijs is the infinitive minus n, but when the verb is scheidbaar (e.g. dóórlopen => loop dóór) you have to separate the stem and the prefix. In other cases, Grunnen's rule seems to be correct (e.g. doorlópen => doorlóóp) Wikibelgiaan 17 jun 2009 17:48 (CEST)
improving pages
Hello, I saw you made the page redenering. That was a good page the way you made it, but I do have a some tips for improvement. You can easily ad *{{sound}}: {{audio|nl-{{pn}}.ogg|{{pn}}}} (even if it gives a red link), and the woordafbreking (you can find the woordafbreking here, this is the official woordafbreking and you can copy and paste it).
In the declination table we don't put ] around the citation form (the infinitive of a verb or the naamwoord enkelvoud of a noun). And we normally use {{trans-top|}}, {{trans-mid}} and {{trans-bottom}} instead of {{(}}, {{-}} and {{)}}, and then put the definition in the {{trans-top}} template, like this: {{trans-top|1. het proces waarmee men van een aantal argumenten, premissen of axioma's tot een standpunt of conclusie komt}}. I hope this will help you improve your pages! Groeten Grunnen 18 jun 2009 17:58 (CEST)
Hello Lwh,
Why is the declension table at en.wiktionary.org different than this one? See . Also the IPA is different. Could you please let me know which ones are right and make corrections if needed? Groeten, Tvdm 20 jun 2009 15:05 (CEST)
- Doing my IPA entries I always use charts from w:en:IPA chart for Polish and in my opinion it's a correct one. I don't know which chart set they using on pl.wiktionary.org or en.wikitionary.org - notice that there're a lot of faults in Polish articles on above wikipedia's. --Lwh 20 jun 2009 15:14 (CEST)
Japans
Hello, The Dutch word for Japanese is Japans (Japan+s, compare Pool+s=Pools). Shouldn't the other writing systems of Japanese also be given their own pages (the Kana and Romaji forms)? I'll ask in the kroeg what people think about that. Groeten GRUNNEN OVERLEG 18 aug 2009 18:28 (CEST)
Vote
Hi Lwh
First of all my compliments for all your good work. I don't know if you want to be involved, but we are having a vote (we rarely ever do that..) about the logo.
thx Jcwf 12 okt 2009 07:49 (CEST)
Nog een hand geven on Waalse Wiccionaire ?
Ik probeer de model {{t+|fr|franse vertaling}}
Het klopt voor link naar Frans woord, maar het linkteken is fr(fr) en niet fr in boven positie, als het zou zijn. Kijk tigneus of esnoufyî
Wat moet ik doen ?
- Dat is een gedrag van de sjabloon. Het maakt gebruik van vaste lijst van talen. Elke taal heeft de naam een vaste positie. Probeer de vertaling gereed voor de Finse en het zal verschijnen vlak voor de Franse. U kunt de sjabloon veranderen. --Lwh 13 mei 2010 16:06 (CEST)
196.217.230.82 12 mei 2010 17:45 (CEST) Uzeu:Lucyin
Dank u voor uw help in de vertaling tabelen. Nu werkt het prachtig wel.
Ik heb nu nog enkele moeilijkheden. Als u enkele minuten had om ze op te lossen. Dank u wel in voorhand.
--Lucyin 26 nov 2010 13:35 (CET)
Haakjes
Hallo Lwh, Waarvoor zijn de haakjes rond de verkleinwoorden hier? Romaine (overleg) 4 jun 2012 03:21 (CEST)