User talk:Donnanz

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

Header levels matter[edit]

Etymology headers are at level 3 and PoS headers at level 4 in entries with multiple etymologies, subordinate headers being at level 5. For a more complete explanation see WT:ELE. DCDuring TALK 14:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Escapea[edit]

Oddly enough, this word was independently invented (i) by my sister in the 1990s and (ii) by her friend a few years later. Escaping the plate seems to be a general habit of peas that causes comment. Equinox 14:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Nice to know I'm not the only one with a warped sense of humour! We can't make a Wiktionary entry out of it though... Donnanz 16:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

landmine[edit]

There's also {{da-noun-infl}}. Maybe that's why not all the forms are in the {{da-noun}} template. —CodeCat 21:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I'll see if it works when I make some new Danish entries. Donnanz (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: That template gives you a table. I won't use it; I have an aversion to tables. Donnanz (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Babel[edit]

Would you add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • OK, done. Donnanz (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative forms for Norwegian[edit]

Hi. I disagree with e.g. putting Bokmål terms under the alternative forms header in Nynorsk entries. I think this header should be reserverd for real alternative forms; i.e. forms from the same writtend standard. --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but as long as the alternative form is marked (Bokmål) it should be helpful to users, surely? I have done the same for akademiker, showing the alternative form of akademikar (Nynorsk). It does show that the spelling differs between languages, and explains why there is no equivalent Bokmål or Nynorsk entry for that spelling. Donnanz (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It sure can be useful; I just don't think that it is "appropriate" to put it under the alternative forms header. Though, I guess not much point in debating this any further before the poll has ended. Just thought I'd mention it. --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Would the heading ====See also==== be more acceptable to you, using ((l-nb|xxxxx)) or ((l-nn|xxxxx)) as the case may be? (I had to use the wrong brackets).

  • As for the vote, I can't help noticing that those voting in support of the proposal for unified (!) Norwegian normally have absolutely nothing to do with Norwegian. It's really a case of meddling in something they know nothing about. In the meantime I am trying to split as many nouns as possible into Bokmål and Nynorsk where applicable, so if the vote goes against us someone will have an awful amount of unravelling to do. Next word on the agenda: toalettpapir....
  • Something that has been confusing me today - is vass in vassbøffel (also vannbøffel in Bokmål) derived from å vasse, which I guess means to wade? Donnanz (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
See also should be better, yes. Vassbøffel is derived from vass- (dictionary). --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, vass-. Thanks a lot! Donnanz (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Norwegian Bokmål terms derived from New Latin[edit]

I fixed this for you, for future reference. —CodeCat 16:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Also fixed Category:nb:Cookware. It looks like other editors have had to fix several dozen categories that you created in the past. —CodeCat 16:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • OK, thanks; I'll have to see what I'm doing wrong. Donnanz (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

støt[edit]

Is this also used for the pronunciation feature that is called stød in Danish? —CodeCat 18:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, støt is the equivalent of stød in Danish. This often happens, where a "t" is used in Norwegian, a "d" is used in Danish (not always "t"; compare mann with mand). Donnanz (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Then it should probably be included in the definitions. —CodeCat 18:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Do you mean all the definitions listed under stød? I will when I confirm them, I'm not doing it willy-nilly. It's early days, the entry for støt didn't exist before today, and it doesn't even appear in the Norwegian Wiktionary. Donnanz (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Converting Norwegian entries[edit]

Do you find it fair to convert unified Norwegian entries to split entries, given the absence of consensus for this? (See e.g. diff). --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • As the vote for unified Norwegian failed, I feel that there is a consensus for both Bokmål and Nynorsk entries. In the case for "ball", which has obviously caught your attention and prompted your question, I was adding a 2nd definition that wasn't there before, so while adding it I also created an entry for Nynorsk. But generally I am leaving unified entries alone (some are quite old), except where there are good reasons for changing them. Donnanz (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Re: "I feel that there is a consensus for both Bokmål and Nynorsk entries": absolutely not; the vote made it absolutely clear there is no consensus for having the split into Bokmål and Nynorsk entries. The diff that I noted is not an isolated case; in the last weeks, I noticed a systematic pattern of your replacing unified Norwegian with Bokmål and Nynorsk, creating exactly the sort of duplication that was opposed in the vote by the supporters of the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing that those who voted for unified Norwegian are not contributors to Norwegian. Almost all who voted against the proposal are contributors to Norwegian, so that fact speaks for itself. Yes, I have replaced some entries, but it's not systematic - often I have found inflection tables which are incomplete or inaccurate, in other cases inflections have been entered for Bokmål and not for Nynorsk. There have also been Nynorsk entries made without one for Bokmål (still are). There has also been a large number of Tbot entries - about 500, now reduced to 250, all have needed confirmation and inflections added. I am also adding new entries, and have four lined up at the moment. Or would you rather I stopped contributing altogether? Donnanz (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you admit that the vote (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian) showed there is no consensus for keeping Bokmål and Nynorsk entries as separate languages? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Try looking from a different angle. There is no consensus for unified Norwegian. The vote failed for that reason. They tried doing it in Norway too, but that failed. Donnanz (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Is your answer to my question "yes"? Or "no"? Or "I don't know"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a consensus for keeping separate languages on the grounds that all those who voted for unified Norwegian do not contribute to it. The vote was flawed for that reason. I can't vote in the forthcoming Scottish referendum as I don't live in Scotland. Donnanz (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous Norwegian repetition[edit]

The more of the ridiculously duplicate entries that you have created I have seen, the more supportive I am of keeping Norwegian as one language.

Examples:

==Norwegian Bokmål==

===Adjective===
{{head|nb|adjective form}}

# {{form of|definite singular|sørafrikansk|lang=nb}}
# {{plural of|sørafrikansk|lang=nb}}

----
==Norwegian Nynorsk==

===Adjective===
{{head|nn|adjective form}}

# {{form of|definite singular|sørafrikansk|lang=nn}}
# {{plural of|sørafrikansk|lang=nn}}
==Norwegian Bokmål==

===Etymology===
From {{term|Skandinavia||Scandinavia|lang=no}}

===Noun===
{{head|nb|noun|g=m|definite singular|skandinaven|indefinite plural|skandinaver|definite plural|skandinavene}}

# a [[Scandinavian]] (''person from Scandinavia'')

===References===
* {{R:The Bokmål Dictionary}}

----
==Norwegian Nynorsk==

===Etymology===
From {{term|Skandinavia||Scandinavia|lang=no}}

===Noun===
{{head|nn|noun|g=m|definite singular|skandinaven|indefinite plural|skandinavar|definite plural|skandinavane}}

# a [[Scandinavian]] (''as above'')

===References===
* {{R:The Nynorsk Dictionary}}

The "as above" phrasing is especially troubling, since each entry in a language should be independent on entries for other languages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  • There was already separate Bokmål and Nynorsk entries for afrikansk, so to be consistent there should be separate entries for sørafrikansk and sørafrikanske. In addition sørafrikansk was on the Tbot list since 2009, so it was high time it was removed. There was already separate entries under South African.
  • As Norwegian Nynorsk is always going to follow Norwegian Bokmål, with no other language in between, I have always thought it logical to use "as above" in Nynorsk entries.
  • Are you always going to criticise everything I do? I think that's called victimisation. Donnanz (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Nynorsk and Bokmål etymologies are rarely 100% the same. The short form etymologies tend to be the same; but in the longer forms; I don't think that has to be the case (most Scandinavian etymologies tend to be the same in the short form, by the way; for anyone reading this). I think they should be duplicated even if they are 100% the same; that way, we don't have to make any assumptions (and it avoids the risk that a change made the to first etymology may not apply to the one below).
As for duplication, Dan Polansky is being ridiculously selective. Grammatical forms are shared between all the Scandivian languages. Random examples: rart, mørkt, billige, halve, lokale. --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou, Njardarlogar. A welcome (and unsolicited) comment. Donnanz (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: "Nynorsk and Bokmål etymologies are rarely 100% the same.": Do you have a source for the claim? Or do you have examples substantiating the claim for at least some Nynorsk and Bokmål etymologies? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
For starters, Bokmål stems from Danish while Nynorsk stems from Landsmål, which in turn was based on Norwegian dialects; with the standardisation process relying heavily on Old Norse. Most of the vocabulary in Bokmål and Nynorsk should fall into this category. A few examples below:
  • brød ('bread'; Nynorsk): ON brauð > Landsmål/early Nynorsk braud > contemporary Nynorsk brød
  • brød ('bread'; Bokmål): ON brauð > Danish brød > contemporary Bokmål brød
  • brann ('fire'; Nynorsk): ON brandr > Landsmål/early Nynorsk brand > contemporary Nynorsk brann
  • brann ('fire'; Bokmål): ON brandr > Danish brand > contemporary Bokmål brann
  • to ('two'; Nynorsk): ON tvá > Landsmål/early Nynorsk tvo > contemporary Nynorsk to
  • to ('two'; Bokmål): ON tvá > Danish to > contemporary Bokmål to
  • takk ('thanks'; Nynorsk): ON þǫkk > Landsmål/early Nynorsk takk > contemporary Nynorsk takk
  • takk ('thanks'; Bokmål): ON þǫkk > Danish tak > contemporary Bokmål takk
  • skog ('forest'; Nynorsk): ON skógr > Landsmål/early Nynorsk skog > contemporary Nynorsk skog
  • skog ('forest'; Bokmål): ON skógr > Danish skov > contemporary Bokmål skog
As for references, that's easier said than done. I don't know of any relevant references in English, and they are hard to come by even in Norwegian; especially online. Ivar Aasen's Norsk Grammatik ('Norwegian Grammar') from 1864 is available in PDF format here. It played a crucial part in his creation of Landsmål. It's written in contemporary Danish (there might be smaller Norwegian influences present), which means that it allows for an easy comparison between his Landsmål and the origin of Bokmål.
It's not true that e.g. Bokmål skog comes from Danish skov, as my writing above could suggest; Norwegian skog comes from ON skógr. So some of the steps in the etymologies above are more "true" etymologies than others. At the same time, it would be incorrect to forget about Bokmål's past; Bokmål never had a clean break with Danish: Landsmål was created more or less from scratch, Bokmål was gradually and carefully created from Danish. In Bokmål, skog had to compete with/replace skov, in Landsmål/Nynorsk it was the sole alternative decades earlier. In other words: skog had a different path into Bokmål than it had into Nynorsk. As far as I can see, that concerns the etymology.
@Donnanz I have a habit of keeping talk pages where I once replied on my watchlist; and I kind of had to reply to this stuff once I saw it ;-) --Njardarlogar (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You're far more methodical in that respect than I am! What you have listed proves that Norwegian etymology is not an easy subject. Donnanz (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
What is the source of the above eymologies? Where can I verify them using Wikipedia referencing standards? Or are they your invention? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Is "Landsmål/early Nynorsk braud" attested as per WT:ATTEST? If so, what are the attesting quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that braud (or Braud) was in use almost exclusively during the first half of the 1900s and earlier, attesting it is not the easiest task. Here is some attestation of braud that I did via the Internet:
Ikkje braud dei bar meg,
og brygg ikkje;
ned eg nidstirde,
tok upp runer,
ropande tok dei,
ned att der frå eg fall.
Ein skulde hava Kaffi, ein annan Øl; og ein tok Braud til Ølet, daa han ikkje hadde fenget Middagsmat.
Many more examples can be found be in digitalised articles from the publication Fedraheimen (1877-1891) here. Here they (Ivar Aasen-tunet) have written about their digitalisation.
As for the sources of the rest of the etymologies; I don't think there is a single source that lists them all, so a lot of different sources would have to be compiled. Here is an example regarding to > tvo from the Norwegian Language Council. There are four sample texts (Tekstprøver; supposed to be identical apart from spelling) on the bottom of the page, and in the last one tvo has been replaced with to (in the first text, you can even find the form tvau, which is neuter of either tvo or tvei).
The frustrating thing here is that for anyone who has at least a basic knowledge about modern (1800-present) Norwegian lingual history, etymologies/steps like the ones I proved above are common knowledge. It's like someone with a very limited knowledge about the European languages asking for evidence that French and English are separate languages. --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The disanalogy to English vs. French could not be greater. It suffices to present two sound recodings of complete sentences, one in English and one in French, to show to anyone, with very little knowledge of the languages, that they are separate languages. What you seem to be saying is that the allegged etymologies are a common myth passed by verbal tradition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
What I am saying is that if you had read books or texts on the subject, you would have become acquainted with these etymologies/steps; just like if you actually compared English with French rather than requiring sources for their differences. I just posted an example of such a text. Sourcing the rest of the etymologies would likely take many more links, unless I was lucky to stumble upon one that had gathered them all (my examples were random, after all). --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
If you ask me to provide sourcing for English etymologies, I point you to Century 1911 and multiple online dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster. If you ask me to provide sourcing for Czech etymologies (much fewer speakers), I point you to a published etymological dictionary. When I ask you to source the above claims that magnify trivial differences in etymology, you start speaking of common knowledge and the need of many links. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of the steps I've mentioned above are purely about spelling, and thus not necessarily considered relevant for quick etymologies. Those who do reflect differences in pronunciation do not necessarily reflect changes in the spoken language; i.e. the spoken equivalents of braud and brød coexisted, and probably still do. The Norwegian dictionaries that I have read do not focus on such details; they typically only focus on different languages or different phases of languages. I can source the bit where brauð > brød with the Nynorsk Dictionary, but for the intermediate step braud I will have to go to sources detailing the changes introduced with spelling reforms. Like here:
  • Ulempen var at disse bøkene ikke hadde noen ensartet skrivemåte, så det meldte seg snart behov for fastere regler. De kom i 1901, og innførte mange talespråkspregede former, f.eks. kasta (for kastade), fare (for faret, partisipp), anna (for annat), brød (for braud), dør (for dyre).
In sum: I do not know of any sources listing up the etymologies like I do above, but each step is taken directly from sources that do exist and that I have actually read. So to prove the etymologies above, I would have to list each individual source proving each step. --Njardarlogar (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Unrelated to your question, but it is my talk page: I came across the word "kenotaf" (cenotaph) yesterday; it's not in any online dictionary, but has an entry in Wikipedia. What is the etymology of that word, how common is it, and is it worth an entry? I did establish that it's a masculine noun. Donnanz (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to look: it's entered under cenotaph. Donnanz (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary[edit]

"Please delete - replaced by fyrstedømme (correct spelling) Category:Candidates for speedy delection"

Candidates for fast food? :) —CodeCat 21:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Hmm, yes indeed. I hope I've corrected it. It's an entry with a spelling error I want deleted, and I create one myself. Donnanz (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:da-noun-infl[edit]

Hi! I know that you also speak Danish, and speak Danish at a more fluent level than me, and are a more experienced editor here than me as well, so this is why I've come to you. For the entry bukser and some derived terms, the noun is plural only. I know we can just say { { head | da | noun }} for the header, and that is 100% okay. Well but for { { da-noun-infl | ------- } } it does not give a plural only table. I can make it so that it can give a singular only table, but the people who have worked on this template have not made a way to have a plural only table. Could you please, if I could ask a favor from you, help me resolve this problem so I can have this for our Danish definitions? Thank you very much. Regards, Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 04:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Let's get one thing straight - I study Danish, I don't speak it.
  • There are two ways bukser can be used, as listed by Den Dansk Ordbog - bukser / bukserne (the usual usage), and what is described as "fagligt" (used in the trade) - buks / buksen / bukser / bukserne.
  • Personally I avoid templates when they don't give the result I prefer, and many templates have shortcomings. I also avoid using tables as I dislike them. In this case you could try { { head | da | noun | g=p | definite plural | bukserne } }, or maybe { { head | da | noun | plural only | definite plural | bukserne } } if you want it listed as Danish pluralia tantum as at present. Donnanz (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was mistaken. I too study Danish, which is one thing we have in common. As a matter of fact, it is my main language of study.

Well anyway, so how are we going to word this in our Danish definitions? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 21:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just try one (or both) methods I suggested. Preview your changes before saving, to see how it looks. Donnanz (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing template[edit]

Why this edit? --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That template wasn't working for two reasons, perhaps because it's an irregular noun. It wasn't registering as a lemma (Norwegian Nynorsk lemmas), and besides that clicking on an inflection didn't take you straight to the entry for the inflection. For those two reasons I rewrote it. The regular templates have been adapted for lemma purposes (nn-noun-n1 etc.), but not this one.

  • By the way, I have decided to leave Nynorsk verbs alone - too complex for me. Donnanz (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added that functionality to the template now. Using specific templates makes it easier to
a) keep track of different classes and groups of words
b) update inflections whenever there are changes to entire classes at a time
It can be tricky to make templates work with all possible exceptions; but for the most part, they are very simple to code.
By the way, what it is that you find complex about Nynorsk verbs? --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Rewriting templates is beyond me, I'm afraid. When I mentioned the lack of an ABC index for Bokmål and Nynorsk files, I was coerced into adapting the Danish template, which is exactly the same, to nb and nn. It's not something I want to do every day.
    • Nynorsk verbs - I'm confused by the two different forms; ending in -a and -e. I notice you prefer to enter the -a form as the main entry, with the -e form as a supplementary entry. Anyway, I am quite content to leave nn verbs to you to enter.
    • I have just done entries for torden and tordenvær, but I am confused about whether plural forms are actually used. There are no equivalent Nynorsk entries to look at for guidance.
    • I wonder whether you could have a look at skyi; I suspect it's a Nynorsk side form, but I'm not sure. Donnanz (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The -a vs. -e suffixes are comparable to the class of Bokmål verbs that may end in either -a or -et in past forms, only that in this case, it's the infinitive that has the variation. I chose -a for the main entries because that's the traditional ending (cf. Old Norse, Faroese and Icelandic (and Swedish as well)) and it's how my dialect is. I have never seen theses rule written anywhere, but I think it is correct to say that the following rules hold (you can always rely on the online dictionary in this case, I think):
  • All non-compound Nynorsk verbs with more than one syllable can end in both -a and -e in the infinitive.
  • No two-letter Nynorsk verb can end in both -a and -e
The countability of nouns is a bit tricky. I don't find that the online dictionary that I most commonly use is very trustworthy - it seems to have inflections included by default, and only some entries have had them removed where appropriate. Google searches usually provide some clues for whether they are countable or not. I'd say that tordenvær is countable, while torden is not. Yet you can probably find some instances where torden is used for individual instances of thunder and thus is countable (there are other words for that, though). --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for dealing with skyi. I'm trying to clear some entries out of "Norwegian noun forms" etc., moving them to Bokmål and/or Nynorsk.
    • torden / tordenvær - yes, that's the conclusion I reached. Torden is listed as a countable noun in Den Danske Ordbog, which didn't help. The Norwegian dictionary we use was better before they "improved" it. I also use Lexin Bokmålordbok and Nynorskordbok for guidance. But I still do my research on Norwegian Google. Donnanz (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

television show[edit]

Pursuant to the RfD discussion, I have restored television show. As you supported this restoration, please improve this entry through the addition of citations supporting the definitions provided and any other materials that would demonstrate its value to the corpus. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I have moved away from the fruitless discussions which take place over terms which happen to have two words through no fault of their own. I'll have a look, but I can't promise anything. Donnanz (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)