Template talk:nl-noun

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Redundant parameters[edit]

Currently the template accepts a whole list of mostly overlapping parameters. For example, you can specify the plural form using either {{{1}}}, {{{pl}}} or {{{pl1}}}. And similarly for the diminutives and diminutive plurals. Wouldn't it make more sense, in simplifying not only the coding in the template, but also the usage, to have just one way to specify each of these? {{{1}}} for the plural, {{{pl2}}} for the second plural, {{{2}}} for the diminutive, {{{dim2}}} for the second diminutive, and so on? --CodeCat 19:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If the inflection templates were all consistent across Wiktionary, then maybe so. For those peole who edit in multiple languages, some of the additional parameters are helpful. I edit in both English and Spanish, and somtimes have trouble remembering how to enter the plural form for Spanish because it's not like other languages. I think that {{{pl1}}} could be discarded, but {{{1}}} and {{{pl}}} should both be kept as alternatives for the sanity of editors. While {{{1}}} is easier for those who edit only Dutch, {{{pl}}} is easier to remember for people who work in multiple languages. --EncycloPetey 19:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

no plural but diminutive exists[edit]

Hi guys, I have noticed that when you specify * for the plural parameter, it ignores the diminutive parameter as well, which is strange because not having a plural is not equivalent to not having a diminutive. What I want to see is when you also specify a dim parameter (either named or unnamed), it should be displayed regardless of the value in the plural parameter. However, since there is no plural, the diminutive should not have a plural either. In addition, in the quickguide, it states that {{nl-noun|-|ijsje}} will result in the text no plural and the diminutive. This is not true. It outputs the above + the dim plural. I will be looking at this issue in the next few days. JamesjiaoT C 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

not neutral but m or f unclear[edit]

As one of the (millions of) native Dutch speakers with a two-gender noun system (we strictly distinguish the neuter gender, but we very rarely distinguish between masculine and feminine), how can I indicate that a word is not neutral, when I don't know whether it's masculine or feminine? Rp2 17:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Use g=c. C stands for common gender, which is the proper name for the combination of masculine and feminine (it's also used in Swedish and Danish for example). —CodeCat 17:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The use and misuse of *[edit]

It seems to me that using * as the parameter is being misused a lot to simply forego specifying a form. This template is the only one I've seen it used on, and I think it would be better off being removed. So I propose making it so that * and - is the same for diminutives: nothing is shown at all. For plurals it is trickier, because - indicates an uncountable noun but * might not. So I think maybe we could add a category to the template whenever * is used, so we can clean them up easily. Thoughts? —CodeCat 20:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I see no use for * as well. However, we might consider not mentioning the diminutive if there is none, instead of ‘no diminutive’ as it is now, so adapt the behavior of * for dims. H. (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Diminutive plural[edit]

I think diminutive plurals should be mentioned on the page of the diminutive, not on the page of the lemma form. That would mean we can remove a whole part of the code. Objections? H. (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes me, why not? It's only one more word, it provides useful information. That seems to be more of a priority than 'removing a whole part of the code'. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

gender bug[edit]

You can't use g=g for no gender; it categorizes in Category:nouns lacking gender (no mention of Dutch). --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

pluralia tantum[edit]

What about a noun like kleren, which is a plural, m and f, and also has singular and plural diminutives? —Stephen (Talk) 00:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the singular of kleren then? I can't think of it. And gender is not distinguished in the plural in Dutch, like in German. —CodeCat 00:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I think long ago the singular was probably kleed, but now there is no singular. There is a diminutive singular. All (or almost all) the nouns in Category:Dutch pluralia tantum have problems with this template. —Stephen (Talk) 02:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple feminine forms[edit]

Is there a way to add more than one feminine form? I tried to add an extra feminine form of Fransman to the template on that particular page, but I fail to figure out how this is done. Is there a way to do this? And if not, there should be. Both Franse and Française are feminine forms of Fransman. Caudex Rax (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added it now. You can use f2= to show a second feminine form, and m2= for a second masculine form. —CodeCat 12:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much, CodeCat. Caudex Rax (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Btw (since I read that Dutch is your mother tongue), I added 'Engelsen' as the plural of 'Engelsman' the other day.[1] It's the only plural mentioned in the electronic Van Dale groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal 14. When I wanted to add the plural of 'Fransman,' I noticed that Wiktionary already mentions 'Fransmannen,' while Van Dale – again – only mentions 'Fransen.' Woordenlijst.org neither mentions 'Engelsmannen' or 'Fransmannen,' while it does mention both 'Engelsen' and 'Fransen.' Should we too only mention '-sen'? I have to say that '-mannen' does sound a little odd to me. But only a little. Caudex Rax (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I do find some results on Google for "de Engelsmannen" and "de Fransmannen" which shows that it is in some use at least. So I think it should be kept. —CodeCat 10:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)