User talk:AugPi/Archive 1

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

Have you seen how the spanish do verb conjugation? Its rather nitfy. es:aborrecer --Eean 02:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean the compact, unified table used in cantar? I agree, it looks quite good. To do something similar with the Latin I would have to some rearrangements... on the other hand I do like to have the English translations in italics. But if verb conjugations in Wiktionary should have a unified look, then they all should look similar to the Spanish... which gives something to think about. --AugPi 02:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andare (Italian)[edit]

Hello there. I have just added a conjugation table to andare and noticed that the existing Etymology looks a bit suspect - points to Latin red-linked vadere plus some question marks. Could you check it out for me please, and make any corrections that you think fit. Ta. SemperBlotto 17:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Having looked up "andante" (tempo), it appears that the Italian "andare" was formed by suppletion of the Latin verbs "ambulare" and "vadere". The dictionaries mention only "ambulare", one of them guessing that "ambulare" became Vulgar Latin "amblare" or "amlare". Then one might guess that "ml" became transmuted into "nd", so "amlare" became "andare".
Considering that there are not many candidates for being ancestors of "andare": the only Latin verbs that have similar meaning are "ire", "ambulare", and "vadere". The Spanish verb "andar" also appears to have derived from "ambulare", but "andar" is regular and has no evidence of suppletion with "vadere". The French "ambler" came from "ambulare", without any transmutation. --AugPi 16:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Cardinal numbers[edit]

Hi there. Just out of interest. There are an infinite number of cardinal numbers; are you going to attempt them all? Cheers. SemperBlotto 16:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, only the first hundred. --AugPi 16:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

maculare[edit]

Hi there. Could you do us a favor and make maculare into one of your nicely formatted Latin entries please. Cheers. SemperBlotto|Talk 11:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahoy, chief! —AugPi 12:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Template nl-noun[edit]

For the gender, plural and diminutive of Dutch nouns: try to use the mentioned template. More info at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:nl-noun. Good luck!

Articles[edit]

Please do not include the definite article on the inflection line. To indicate the gender, use {{c}} for common gender or {{n}} for neuter. --EncycloPetey 23:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Translation[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you are a native speaker of spanish, and I was wondering if you could translate the instructions on this page into spanish. I speak spanish, but not fluently enough to feel comfortable to translate that page into instructions.

Thank you. Bearingbreaker92 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw your work, thanks alot.

Bearingbreaker92 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Translations for listen[edit]

Hello, Could you help to fill in the Dutch translations for listen? Only the primary meaning currently has a Dutch translation, and this page is a pet project of mine. Thanks, --EncycloPetey 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Dutch past participles[edit]

Forgive my ignorance, but do past participles typically function as adjectives in Dutch? If so, then I would link this category under Category:Dutch adjectives as well. --EncycloPetey 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In both English and Dutch, a past participle's word form can act as an adjective. However, in a given sentence, the given word functions either as a verb (past participle) or as an adjective, but not both, so the past participle category should not be subcategorized under the adjective category. On the other other hand, it should often happen that the same entry will belong both to the past participle category and to the adjective category. As an example, the English word "broken" is both a past participle ("I have broken the radio") and an adjective ("The radio is broken"), though the broken article categorizes the past participle (wrongly, in my opinion) as an adjective, and the article is listed neither in the English adjectives nor in the English past participles category, though (in my opinion) it should be in both. A better example is the article drenched.
A similar situation occurs with present participles in English, which can also function as nouns, in which case they are called gerunds. An example is the article running. In Dutch the present participle is supposedly formed by appending -d to the infinitive, however, I often find that the gerund is in practice formed by the infinitive itself, or by preceding the infinitive with the article "het", whereas the present participle is formed by preceding the infinitive with the phrase "aan het", which must be in turn preceded by a conjugation of the verb zijn. Example (which I found using search enginge): "Eten is goed, niet geweldig maar goed." — "Eating is good; not terrific, but good." In this case the infinitive form of the verb is clearly functioning not a verb but as a verbal noun, i.e. gerund. Another example: "Mijn hobby’s zijn tekenen fietsen buitenspelen en rennen." — "My hobbies are drawing, biking, playing outside, and running." These hobbies are nouns (gerunds), though they have same form as infinitive verbs. Now, past and present participles must always (in sentences) be accompanied by preceding auxiliary verbs, whereas verbal adjectives and gerunds don't. Whereas "fietsen" and "rennen" may both take "zijn" as auxiliary, "spelen" and "tekenen" cannot: these only take "hebben" as auxiliary, so this way one can be sure that in the sentence "Mijn hobby’s zijn tekenen fietsen buitenspelen en rennen", "tekenen" and "buitenspelen" must be functioning as gerunds, not as verb forms. Also, if "zijn" were the auxiliary of "fietsen" and "rennen", it would have to be conjugated instead of being in the infinitive, so one can be sure that these four words are acting as nouns even though they have the same form as infinitive verbs.
The forms of the present participles in English can also function as adjectives, for example see the article growing. Examples of "growing" functioning as... verb form (present participle): "I am growing", adjective: "The growing problem must be tackled", noun: "Growing up is part of life". This does not imply that the category English present participles should be subcategorized under category English adjectives, it just means that, on an individual basis, each article about an English present participle might also end up categorized as an English adjective.
Coming to think of it, I notice that, in practice, the so-called present participles in Dutch, formed by appending -d to infinitives, actually function only as adjectives, not as verb forms. For example, the verb joggen has present participle joggend. The logosconjugator website only has the German conjugation of "joggen", but I find it to be quite similar to Dutch conjugations, and notice that the present participle of "joggen" in German is "joggend", the same as in Dutch, and if you look at all the conjugations of "joggen", shown in that page, you find that whereas the past participle "gejoggt" is used often, in a lot of conjugated forms of "joggen", always accompanied, of course, by auxiliaries: notice that "joggend" never shows up in any conjugation, and these are, in the page, as far as I know, all the conjugated forms of "joggen" (in German). So German turns out to be like Dutch, in that the present participles are not actually used as verb forms (i.e. as parts of conjugated forms of verbs) but are only actually used as adjectives. All this implies that I should, say, get rid of the joggend#Verb_form section by merging its contents into the joggend#Adjective section of joggend. If all this is true, then it also implies that the category Dutch present participles should be subcategorized under Category:Dutch adjectives and should be removed as subcategory of Category:Dutch verb forms. Needless to say this is rather surprising: in English the present participle is an essential part of the continuous conjugations, for example see the conjugation of the English word "jog". In Dutch, this verbal use of "jogging" would be translated as "aan het joggen", not as "joggend".
So I will have to find a decent Dutch grammar book and consult it to, hopefully, find out for sure what the deal really is with these "present participles", to verify that my suspicions are true; but there is no hurry, because Category:Dutch present participles does not exist yet, and the reason for this would be that its use is so less frequent than in English... —AugPi 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm having to decide how to handle this situation for our Latin entries, since in Latin participles are always functional adjectives but inflect like verbs. --EncycloPetey 21:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
As a native Dutch speaker: they are used as verb forms, but relatively rarely. You *can* say "ik ben joggend(e)", but it sounds weird. Most of the time when we do use them, it's after the word "al", in a construction like "Al joggende dacht hij na", "he thought while jogging". Which, yeah, you can also translate by "hij dacht na terwijl hij aan het joggen was", but that's a fair bit longer.
Incidentally, I'm fairly sure that in the "Eten is goed, niet geweldig maar goed" sentence, "eten" is in fact the noun "het eten", with the article omitted (which is technically not allowed, but hey, it's the internet...), so "Food is good, not great but good". Though it's a moot point, what you say about the grammar is right. Paul Willocx 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Template Dutch adjectives[edit]

Just saw your "klein" entry (while we're at it, you may have noticed I tend to keep a close eye on your Dutch contributions to either correct small mistakes, add definitions or add words of my own inspired by yours; I hope that doesn't bother you), and there I saw "possessive: kleins" which is utter nonsense... I'm not sure what the possessive of an adjective is supposed to be, but in any case "kleins" does not exist. I'm not very good with templates, so I decided to ask you instead of messing around myself. Paul Willocx 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ja, I noticed that, and even though I didn't say it, I appreciate it. Concerning the "klein" entry, I just did a small adjustment to correct that problem. However, could you check the list of adjectives at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:nl-adj to see if the possessive makes sense in those other cases? (It's just that I'm not familiar with this concept of Dutch adjectives having possessives, but perhaps they do.) —AugPi 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, my apologies, I was wrong, "kleins" does in fact exist in some cases, most notably in combination with "iets": "iets kleins" = something small, something that is small. Analogously, you get "iets groots", "iets gevaarlijks", and so on (in principle it could work for any adjective, in practice it's more limited). I find it a bit odd to call that a "possessive", though. Paul Willocx 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it does exist. I think you should revert your changes to {{nl-adj}}. However, maybe we should ask a neerlandologist what the correct term for this would be. According to the ANS, I think it should be partitive genitive. Another possibility is substantivisation. See also [1].
I have a project on my list to create a new adjective template that saves some more typing, similar to {{nl-noun2}}, by the way. H. (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Genitive is certainly correct. And yes you could call it a partitive as it only occurs after words of quantity like iets, veel, wat etc. And no Dutch grammars usually do not make much of it, but that happens with more things... Interestingly it is a strong genitive. In front of a substantive you used to have weak forms in -n: de broeders des gemenen levens. Overigens leuk dat je Nederlands doet AugPi nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf aka Iarlagab

Plegen[edit]

There are several bits of information missing on that page, but I'm not sure on how to go about adding it. Firstly, what to do with specific verb-noun combinations with a given meaning, such as "een telefoontje plegen" or "overleg plegen"? Since they require the addition of the noun to have their meaning, adding them on the "plegen" page seems a bit weird, but I don't know really... Secondly, the problem with "plegen" is that it's both strong and weak, depending on the translation (the "habitually" one is "placht" in the past tense, the other is regular/weak), see [2]. And thirdly, I posted something on the talk page of your new o.t.t.t. page. Paul Willocx 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would advise against WT:ELE here (it is a bit too much designed for English), and have multiple inflection lines, followed by their respective definitions. The phrases een telefoontje plegen and overleg plegen are idiomatic enough to deserve their own page, I think. H. (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

koan[edit]

I see you started this definition, so maybe you can clear this up. We define a koan as a riddle, but the article on Koan in Wikipedia specifically states that "a koan is not a riddle or a puzzle." There is a lengthy foot note justifying the statement. I'm no student of Zen, and cannot make a good judgement on this point. Any ideas? Ben 11:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch verbs[edit]

Hi AugPi, in Dutch there are two kind of irregular verbs: those that only have a vowel change are called strong verbs, the really irregular verbs (zijn, hebben, zullen, kunnen, mogen, willen) are called irregular verbs. So overlijden would be called strong, not irregular. Cheers, R. Koot 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about this, so thank you for clearing this up. —AugPi 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact there are 7 classes of them. (See the article of Germanic strong verbs of Wikipedia e.g.). On the nl.wiktionary I am trying to put them all in their proper class categories. It is quite a job: with all the separable and inseparable prefixes there is about 800 of them nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf
You might like Wiktionary:About Dutch ;-) Jcwf

-te[edit]

I don't think your analysis regarding the past participle is correct. There are quite a few ways to form verbal nouns in Dutch other than adding -ing. Some nouns are formed by (or rather: have been formed a long time ago!) by adding -t, -st, or -te to the stem of the verb. This has little to do with the participle. Besides participles can also end in -t or -en. nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf

OK, I have (hopefully) suitably modified my third definition of -te. —AugPi 02:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

inflection lines[edit]

Hi ... we prefer to use '''word''' rather than ;word (yes, I know it means the same, just style)

You might find it useful to use {{infl}}, see inkomen. Does the picky formatting and the categories. Robert Ullmann 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin?[edit]

Hi there. You've been around for just about forever, and I think you do some great work. Would you mind if I nominated you for adminship? :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind: it would be an honor. —AugPi 02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the nomination page: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2007-08/User:AugPi. You have to go accept, and fill in the requested information. Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 07:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

omheen[edit]

Interesting! A circumpostional preposition. I have never seen it analysed that way (but it make a lot of sense). Care to tell me where you got that? nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf

New Buttons![edit]

I'm happy to announce that you have been promoted. Here are some basic instructions about the new tools. If you have any questions, feel free to ask any other admin, including your promoter, User:Dvortygirl. Also, please update your entry in the administrator list with any additions or corrections at WT:A. Thanks for your hard work in the past and (in advance) for the work you will be doing! ArielGlenn 05:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Rod (A. Smith) 05:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ver-[edit]

Hey AugPi, can you eplain the 3 meanings of ver- to me? Especially the undesirable consequence, how is that applied to verdelen for example? Mallerd 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh seriously btw, this : acapela website includes a voice synthesizer for Dutch, as well as other languages, site is so funny
I don't think that the second definition applies to verdelen; it seems that verdelen falls better under the third definition. Voor de tweede definitie, zie maar de twee nieuwe voorbeelden; zijn ze juist? —AugPi 14:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well it was a bit unclear, since undesirable is not really correct, because it is a conscious action to condemn something or x, I think it should be a negative connotation that is added to the verb when you ass ver-. Greetings Mallerd 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

kamp[edit]

Hi, I see you have created the kamp page. Do you have an etymology? :) Thanks Mallerd 20:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Inderdaad. —AugPi 04:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we (me and another Dutch) can't find an etymology for the meaning of fighting, since campus does not mean to fight. But another issue:


Hello, just in case you haven't already solved the etymology of Dutch kamp: The word is found in many Germanic languages in the meaning of "battle": Du. kamp, Ger. Kampf, Nor. kamp, Old Icelandic kapp, etc. (It occurs in Beowulf too, though modern English has lost this meaning). The generally accepted view is that it is an early borrowing from Latin campus (field; field for military exercises (Campus Martius, e.g.); battlefield), hence the meaning "battle, fight." Grimm's dictionary (the German equivalent of the OED), however, provides arguments for a native Germanic source as well. (User: PeLu)

Sabine[edit]

Can you add the pronunciation to the article? Mallerd 15:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

About templates[edit]

Hi! You don't need to insert 'cat=' parameter into {{infl}} template if you don't have to specify another category. In addition, please use {{present participle of}} template as is done in gewijd article so that we get the standard style. Don't forget to use 'lang=' parameter. Thanks. --Jyril 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Standard style... I see... OK. (This would then also apply to past participles: {{past participle of}}.) —AugPi 01:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
And it should also apply to plurals: {{plural of}}, e.g. assen.

rarer[edit]

Hi, the comparative form of raar is not rarer, but raarder. Levenius 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dank u; ik heb het net gecorrigeerd.AugPi 00:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

tjokvol[edit]

Hallo, kunt u mij helpen om het vrouwelijk in tjokvolle te veranderen in plaats van tjokvole? Dank u. Mallerd 21:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

't Is gedaan. —AugPi 07:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

kore[edit]

Hey AugPi, on kore there is a Turkish meaning, but it should be capitalized how can I make a capitalized entry without being redirected to the normal "kore"? Mallerd 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Go to the Korean article, look under the Translations section for Turkish: Kore and click on the red-linked Kore. Otherwise you can make your own red link (e.g. in Wiktionary:Sandbox) like so: Kore. —AugPi 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dutch[edit]

Do you do requests? I'd love to see a Dutch section at trekschuit... Ƿidsiþ 12:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Ƿidsiþ 13:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

daalder[edit]

Could you add a Dutch section to this and check over the English? Apparently it was around recently too, maybe as a slang term though. Thanks --Lethal Inspection 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

slang[edit]

hey, hoe goed ben je in Nederlandse straattaal? Waar leeer je Nederlands? Mallerd 00:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ik ben niet goed in straattaal. Er zijn een aantal bronnen op het Internet, zoals, bv., nl.wikipedia, het Groene Boekje, woordenboeken, kranten; maar ik kan luister ook aan liedjes op YouTube, gepaard met songtekst, zoals in 2bedutch.nl . —AugPi 23:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Geslachten[edit]

Hoi, gelieve het geslacht bij vertalingen in {{t}} te zetten, gewoon als extra parameter na het woord: {{t|nl|kalk|m}}. H. (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tja, ik had misschien vergeten (om alle dingen te omvatten); dank u. —AugPi 18:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

struik[edit]

Is this word only used by botanists? If not, then the contaxt tag should be removed. A topical context tag indicates jargon used only in a specialized field. --EncycloPetey 00:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. OK. I'll keep that in mind. —AugPi 00:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Angelito vuela[edit]

Hola AugPi,

I was listening to this song called "Angelito". In it, the artist sings angelito vuela. What does that mean exactly? Thank you, adios! :D Mallerd 18:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Angelito vuela" appears to mean (in the imperative mood) "fly off, angel". In the song, "angelito" appears to refer to the engel des doods. —AugPi 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)