Talk:Swedish
In the adjective translations Wakuran deleted the Swedish non-dictionary forms and only kept the Swedish basic form, just like in the Danish and Norwegian translations. The edits were reverted by Connel MacKenzie.
I can understand them both: Wakuran argues that Swedish is too different from English (which means that the various forms CANNOT be interchanged) and that we should stick to the basic adjective form, as proposed in a candidate Wiktionary policy. On the other hand Connel could argue that the mentioned policy isn't definitive (yet). And that removing Swedish forms is not consistent if you leave them in the other translation languages (e.g. Dutch or Spanish). Although Scandinavian languages like Danish and Norwegian also have these forms, but they are missing in the article.
In many noun translations it is striking that Breton mentions the Breton noun in the plural, unlike (almost) all other languages. What's the need for that plural and/or why are the plurals not mentioned for the other languages?
When will there be a (final) policy for these matters?
Jan from Belgium, 6 August 2006
- I am sorry if my clicking the [rollback] button was too terse.
- We enter all the possible translations for a form. He removed valid translations, so I rolled the change back. The lack of similar translations in other languages indicates only that no one has yet entered them.
- On the English Wiktionary, we have entries for each spelling of each word. Likewise, we try to include all the valid translations. If I am wrong about that approach, I'd be glad to have someone clarify what our practice should be. I'll review the proposed policy for Swedish entries when I find it. --Connel MacKenzie 23:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your approach seems valid to me.
- But what about http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Languages_with_more_than_one_grammatical_gender ?
- --Jan from Belgium, 7 August 2006
- Okay, I'll explain Swedish grammar, then. By looking at the entry, one would assume that the forms primarily mark gender, as in Spanish and French, which isn't the case.
- "Svensk" is used for both common genders in indefinite tense: En svensk kvinna (a Swedish woman), En svensk man (a Swedish woman), "svenskt" is used for neuter gender: Ett svenskt rike (a Swedish kingdom) svenska is used for plurals, and generally all genders in definite tense: svenska män (Swedish men), svenska kvinnor (Swedish women), svenska riken (Swedish kingdoms), den svenska mannen (the Swedish male/man), den svenska kvinnan (the Swedish female/woman), dte svenska riket (the Swedish kingdom), the form "svenske" is generally considered archaic, and mostly found in fixed phrases, such as the name of old kings, etc. If all of these grammatical aspects isn't marked, the information is insufficient and inaccurate. Wakuran 09:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll explain Swedish grammar, then. By looking at the entry, one would assume that the forms primarily mark gender, as in Spanish and French, which isn't the case.
- A quick note on the -e form: I understand that many people consider it archaic and in some cases even vehemently opposes it's use, but in some areas, such as where I live in southeast, people will look funny at you if you use an expression as "den svenska mannen" (is that a she or a he?) - here -e is still considered, well not the only accepted form, but definitely much more common. We had a similar discussion a while ago on sv:wiktionary (it was on my talk, it seems... Sorry for being to lazy to translate the discussion at the moment), but please see e.g. http://www.linema.com/ae.html which is referred to at the end. (Hmm, the newspaper references have unfortunately seems to have vanished from the net.) \Mike 14:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I remember having read that. That is "archaic/dialectal", then? Wakuran 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mmmm, the question is then: when does it get "dialectal"? As I understand the reference to Svenska akademins språklära it's still considered correct in writing. Btw, I gave a hint about this discussion to a linguist on sv:wp, let's see if s/he has any comments... \Mike 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, it still requires a marker of tense. "En svenske man" (One Swedish man/male) is incorrect even in Southern Swedish. Wakuran 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Still think it should be removed. The forms of German "schwedisch" isn't given in tense, either. Wakuran 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- About "svenske mannen" or "svenska mannen", according to Språkrådet, (see lilla eller lille or svenska eller svenske, Swedish only) the version with -a is considered dialect, and the version with -e as standard Swedish. (In atleast parts of Southern Sweden the version with -e can also been used in plural, but this isn't considered correct in formal swedish). /Jiiimbooh 81.230.195.16 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to be too common for a "dialectal" trait, but apparently it's informal. Wakuran 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- About "svenske mannen" or "svenska mannen", according to Språkrådet, (see lilla eller lille or svenska eller svenske, Swedish only) the version with -a is considered dialect, and the version with -e as standard Swedish. (In atleast parts of Southern Sweden the version with -e can also been used in plural, but this isn't considered correct in formal swedish). /Jiiimbooh 81.230.195.16 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)