Talk:נשים
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following discussion has been moved from the page user talk:Msh210.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Are you sure about this? I really could have sworn the construct form was nashot — there's a dorm on the Technion campus that's dedicated to nashot kakh-v'kakh, and an episode of one of the Law and Order series mentioned the phrase nashot khayil as meaning "women of valor" (so, apparently the plural of eshet khayil). —RuakhTALK 02:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just my two cents, I thought that both were valid -- nashot being used far more often than nashim, but still. --75.28.22.235 02:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly, the form given there is neither nashot nor nashim … —RuakhTALK 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- See [1] and [2] (where the "intitle" restrictions are to restrict to Hebrew texts (i.e., to exclude the Babylonian Talmud, etc.)). It seems very likely from those pages that n'she is the only form in older Hebrew.—msh210℠ 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. Perhaps all these parameters should support a value of
usage, that would direct readers to the usage notes section? —RuakhTALK 08:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. Perhaps all these parameters should support a value of
- Or allow multiple pl and cons parameters — e.g., pl and pl2, cons and cons2 — with an explanation parameter; so that pl=foo|plnote=jocular|pl2=bar|pl2note=archaic would yield (plural foo (jocular), bar (archaic)). Or does that make the templates just way too complicated?—msh210℠ 07:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Conceptually, that would be awesome. In practice, the code to do that well would make my head reel. Any simpler thoughts? :-P (Alternatively, we could make Robert Ullmann do it for us, heh.) —RuakhTALK 08:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- hmmm, think that would be at least a pint. Going to be in Nairobi soon? Need a precise specification. Note that doing it is easy, making in understandable to those who have to use it is not so easy. Robert Ullmann 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)