User talk:Longtrend

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

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! L☺g☺maniac chat? 01:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IPA[edit]

When you add IPA to an entry that is not English, please specify the language code. Otherwise, the "IPA" text will link to the page explaining English pronunciation, instead of the page about the correct langauge. See this edit, for an example. --EncycloPetey 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I never noticed that. Thanks for telling me and sorry for the inconvenience. Longtrend 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Aprilscherz[edit]

Agree with this, thanks. --Anatoli 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

German[edit]

Excellent work, keep at it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) Longtrend 13:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Obazda[edit]

What makes you think that either Obatzda or Obazda is missing? -- Gauss 21:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no German section on Obatzda, or am I missing something? Longtrend 21:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You had a point there. -- Gauss 21:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 :) Thanks für adding the section. Longtrend 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

German CFI[edit]

Hello there, you have added the box "This discussion needs more input" to the discussion "German CFI" (February 2011) at Beer parlour (diff). I do not think there is much more to add to this discussion. To make the discussion go further, someone would have to propose a wording for a candidate rule that would exclude some German closed compounds and would be acceptable. The wording proposed by Prince Kassad was rejected by so many people in that discussion that it is unlikely to pass a vote; I think the proposed wording is unlikely to gain even a plain-majority support, but I may be mistaken. Current status quo as regards CFI for German is good enough IMHO, and is the same as for Finnish (another language tending to form long closed compounds): all attestable closed compounds are included.

The last post to that discussion was on 7 March 2011; today is 4 May 2011, so two months later. What I propose is that you just remove the "look" template from that thread: that discussion has effectively been closed as "significant opposition for the proposed rule", although no one said that explicitly in that discussion. --Dan Polansky 08:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add that template because I wanted further input to Prince Kassad's proposal, but rather because I would have liked to get an answer to my question whether we have any guideline on how to treat polysynthetic languages -- the "all (written) words in all languages" approach simply doesn't make sense for those languages, and this is relevant for German as well. But maybe we should indeed have a separate discussion for this. Longtrend 10:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I see. I know of no special treatment of polysynthetic languages, neither in CFI nor in a separate guideline. This search for "polysynthetic" in Wiktionary: namespace suggests there is really no such guideline. --Dan Polansky 15:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

verwandte et al[edit]

Thanks for the entry improvement. Today I changed "adjective form" headers to "adjective" for ten or so German entries similarly incomplete. Please feel free to find them through my user contributions. DCDuring TALK 21:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

yhe[edit]

Hi there. I removed yhe from the wanted list. As far as I can tell, it is just a typographical error, or an OCR error for the. If you feel that it is a word in its own right, please add an entry for it. SemperBlotto 12:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't know this word in any language, but I believe that there should be a discussion before removing it -- it's such a short word that I wouldn't be surprised if it was an actual word in some language. Longtrend 13:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

IPA deutsch[edit]

Moin. Es ist schön, dass Du IPA-Einträge für das Deutsche machst, aber es problematisch, dass Du konstant /R/ verwendest. Das Standardhochdeutsche spricht den Buchstaben als /ʁ/ aus. Da das Hochdeutsch der BRD jenes ist, welches in Lehrbüchern gelehrt wird, verwende bitte dessen R. Andernfalls kennzeiche die von Dir eingetragene Aussprache mit {{a|Austrian}}.Dakhart 06:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, danke für den Hinweis. Ich benutze schon seit einer Weile /ʁ/, aber es gibt natürlich noch viele alte Transkriptionen von mir, bei denen ich noch /ʀ/ verwendet habe. Habe auch schon gesehen, dass du einige davon berichtigt hast. Wenn du dabei bist, kannst du bitte auch gleich die Notation mit den /Schrägstrichen/ in die Notation mit den [eckigen Klammern] ändern, denn normalerweise nutzen wir hier eine relativ enge Transkription (z. B. mit [ʔ]). Danke! Longtrend 19:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Durchschnitt[edit]

Yeap, my mistake. Thanks. --Милан Јелисавчић 15:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Deklination[edit]

Hallo, ich hab gesehen, dass du in den von mir neu angelegten Artikeln die Deklinationstabellen ergänzt hast. Erst mal danke dafür und auch für alle sonstigen Korrekturen und Anpassungen. Kann ich denn diese Deklinationen auch selbst einfügen? Ansonsten versuche ich langsam hinter die Regeln hier zu kommen, was wie beschrieben und formatiert werden muss. Gruselwusel 10:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Klar kannst du sie auch selbst einfügen. Je nach Genus des Wortes nimmst du das Template {{de-noun-f}}, {{de-noun-n}} oder {{de-noun-m}}. Am einfachsten funktioniert das, wenn du dir ein paar Beispiele anschaust. Das Grundprinzip der Templates ist jedenfalls, dass du als ersten Parameter (also nach einem |) die Genitivendung angibst und als zweiten Parameter die Pluralendung. Wenn sich der Stamm mit verändert, musst du noch mit pl= spezifieren -- z. B. für Baum: {{de-noun-m|(e)s|pl=Bäume}}. Wenn du Fragen dazu hast, kann ich sie gern beantworten. Schön übrigens, dass du dich auch um ein paar gewünschte Einträge des Deutschen kümmerst! Bisher war ich so ziemlich der einzige ;) Longtrend 11:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pustekuchen[edit]

What's your source on the etymology of that? Why did you change it from from the Jewish cochem which didnt mean cake to cake? Kampy (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Kuchen does mean "cake". The actual meaning is what is put in the {{compound}} template. If you think that the info about the Jewish word belongs there additionally, feel free to add it back. Longtrend (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

beantragen[edit]

Well yeah that's what I meant to do, see Category:French words suffixed with -er, most of those a verbs formed from non-verbs. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we really have categories that include (almost) all verbs of a language, just because all of them end on the same suffix (the reason for which being that, well, this suffix's function is to mark verbs)? Longtrend (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Well most of those for French would actually be in Category:French terms derived from Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Frage zum Page-Edit[edit]

Hi, ich habe deinen Kommentar in der Versionsgeschichte beim Artikel Seite zur Kenntnis genommen. Danke, dass du mich auf meinen Fehler hinweißt, allerdings weiß ich im Moment nicht was du genau meintest :Schulterzuck:. Antworte mir doch bitte, damit ich weiß was ich falsch gemacht habe ;-). Nero86 (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, meinst du den Artikel Blatt? Was ich da meinte, ist Folgendes: Die /Schrägstriche/ bei Ausspracheangaben sollten hier nur für englische Wörter verwendet werden, da sie nur grobe, phonemische Informationen enthalten (die eigentlich erst Sinn machen, wenn man das Lautsystem der Sprache kennt -- das ist wohl die Idee dahinter, schließlich ist das ja das englische Wiktionary). Für andere Sprachen sollten [eckige Klammern] benutzt werden, da stehen dann genauere Ausspracheinformationen. Longtrend (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, ich verstehe zwar dein Anliegen, dass man hier Englisch und die anderen Sprache trennen will, aber wenn man hier durch diverse Artikel stöbert, findet man eigentlich nur die /Schrägstrich/-Variante (bei vielen Sprachen wo der Englischsprachige sehr wahrscheinlich Ausspracheschwierigkeiten hätte...) :abermals Schulterzuck: Und ja, ich bin der IPA Lautschrift mächtig :). Aber IPA ist doch genau dafür da die Aussprache anzuzeigen, eben WEIL die Person die Aussprache (und somit auch den Lautstand, etc.) der Sprache nicht kennt. Nero86 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Mein Reden ;) Deshalb die eckigen Klammern. Dass es in der Praxis oft nicht so gemacht wird, ist eine andere Sache. Es spricht sicherlich auch nichts dagegen, sowohl phonemische als auch phonetische Umschriften zu haben. Aber wenn es schon mal eine phonetische gibt, sollte die nicht wieder durch eine phonemische ersetzt werden (auch wenn die beiden Varianten bei [blat] und /blat/ gerade, bis auf die Klammern, identisch sind). Longtrend (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, okay. Bei meinen nächsten Edits werde ich IPA in [eckigen] Klammern hinzufügen. Es lohnt sich aber nicht, denke ich mal, das bei allen deutschen Einträgen zu ändern. Es gibt vielleicht Nutzer, die damit nicht einverstanden sind. Wir wollen hier ja auch keinen Edit-War oder sowas starten ;-) Nero86 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Na ja, so weit ichs mitbekommen habe, ist das, was ich in der Edit Summary geschrieben habe, Konsens. Nur noch nicht überall durchgesetzt. Und wenn ich die Klammern ändere, ist das sowieso immer nur Teil eines umfassenderen Edits. Longtrend (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

English/Indonesian on WT:Wanted entries[edit]

I added that as a reminder in case an editor creates only one of the two languages, so they know there should be two. —CodeCat 21:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but I think the text above the wanted entries on the page makes it clear that such info doesn't belong there -- if you want to have the entry created for both languages, you need to add it to both WT:RE pages. Such comments just clutter up the Wanted entries page. Longtrend (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

assyrisch, assyrische[edit]

Thanks for creating them. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And begründet. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem! I take care of the list of requested German entries whenever I find some time. Longtrend (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Further thanks for gefaßt, genannten, geschweift, and gestr. The way you've handled genannt's declension is good; what could the alternative be? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good question. There were some lengthy discussions about this here and there, however without any consensus. One alternative would be to use a POS header Participle rather than Verb or Adjective (personally, I would like that solution). Longtrend (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I read the June discussion, but not the July one (it was too long, I'm afraid). I haven't come to a conclusion one way or the other, though I found myself agreeing with you that if the reasons for using the participle header in Latin are good ones, then that header should also be used in German. (I'm not convinced, however, that such a header should be used for English participles, since they don't inflect independently.)
Thank you for creating Deutung. Of those remaining terms for which I requested entries, I am stumped most of all by ü. d. Z. — could you tell me what it means, please? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know that one but perhaps some context will help. Can you give me a link where that abbreviation appears? Longtrend (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't got a link for you, but I'll quote the sentence in which I found it:
  • Sed hic Antipatrum filium quinque diebus ante obitum interemerat, haeredem [ü. d. Z.: ⟨alias⟩] futurum animi paterni.
I've also had difficulty with the abbreviation Z. Any idea what it means? It appears four times in the same source that uses ü. d. Z. I'll quote them for you:
  • (unsere Ausgabe I,10 S. 600, Z. 14–16)
  • (I,10 S. 612, Z. 20 – S. 613, Z. 2)
  • (s. unten, S. 211, Z. 1)
Can you help with either of these abbreviations?I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Gah, that's not even a German sentence :) However, Z. definitely stands for Zeile (line). ü. d. Z. could mean über der Zeile ("above the line") but I don't know if that makes sense in this context. Longtrend (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does make sense in that context; there's probably a corresponding caret unter der Zeile that it was not felt to have warranted a mention. :-) Thanks very much for all your help. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could help. Longtrend (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bejahte‎, biblischen‎, ebd., eigene, and Herrlichkeit. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate your thankfulness, but you don't need to thank me for each addition :) Longtrend (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure; I can see how the notices could get annoying. :-) Well, I've watchlisted all the pages for which I've requested entries, so just take it as read that I notice each addition, and am grateful for them. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

German R[edit]

Hi! I wondered if you had an opinion regarding the transcription of "R" in German: Wiktionary_talk:About_German#R. - -sche (discuss) 22:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Translation requests[edit]

Thanks for your work on the translation requests. For some reason we don't seem to have that many contributors who do German. Equinox 20:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad I can help! I've been seeing some new users working on German recently. Still not that many though. Longtrend (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain but I think too many translation requests are not very productive. They may sit for a long time if there are no active editors filling them. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I actually meant the requested entries (WT:RE). I wasn't very clear. Equinox 22:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Image-Problem[edit]

Are you able to verify this entry? My German is pretty awful, so I wanted to check that I was understanding the hits correctly (see google books:"das Image-Problem", google books:"des Image-Problems"). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine. I'll change the etymology and add a plural form, though. Longtrend (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! (Actually, as of posting, Cashflow, Big Mäc, and Big Mac need IPA, plural, and decl as well.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Schalldichte[edit]

Surely there is a plural - Schalldichten? SemperBlotto (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Never heard of it and searching Google Books is tricky, because there's also the inflected adjective schalldichten. I also can't find it in any dictionary (though most lack the lemma Schalldichte altogether). Longtrend (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
dict.cc has it - not sure how trusted it is. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Searching Google Books for "Schalldichten von" does yield two unquestionable noun results, so I'll add the plural form. Thanks for the hint! Longtrend (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
BTW, unless you have evidence for the etymology you added, I'd remove it. It could as well be derived from the adjective schalldicht. Longtrend (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Phonemic representation of final -b[edit]

I notice you switched [[abarbeiten]] /ap/ to /ab/. It's true that pronouncing final b as /p/ is a regular rule, but I think even the broad transcription should nonetheless be /p/, because /p/ and /b/ are distinct and contrastive phonemes, and there exist minimal pairs like

  • Abort (Fehlgeburt, Abtreibung) (from abortus) /aˈbɔʁt/
  • Abort (Räumlichkeit zur Verrichtung der Notdurft) (from af Ort) /ˈapˌɔʁt/

It also seems to be more common to transcribe ab as /ap/, e.g. in [[ab]] itself, and [[abschließen]], etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand your point. I'd understand if you said that there's simply no way to tell whether ab uses /b/ or /p/ because there's no variant of this word that shows [b]. Using /b/ would then just be an assumption based on orthography. But distinctness is not a sufficient argument IMO. By this logic, Laub would be /laʊ̯p/, despite there being variants that actually use [b] (such as Laubes [laʊ̯bəs]). I believe it's common sense in linguistics to say that the phonemic representation of Laub is /laʊ̯b/. Longtrend (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The proper linguistic analysis of phonemes looks only at contrasting features. At the end of a word, voicing is not a contrasting feature so it's correct to say that all /p/ become /b/ word-finally as well, because the distinction is lost. Said another way, the phoneme that appears word-finally is some kind of abstract phoneme /P/ that results from merging /b/ and /p/. However, the phonetic realisation of word-final /b/ and /p/ is a voiceless bilabial plosive, so /p/ is the correct transcription. —CodeCat 18:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I would transcribe Laub as /laʊ̯p/ and Laubes as /laʊ̯bəs/, at least in dictionary entries for those words. In an academic paper on suffixes, I might accept Laub=/laʊ̯b/ as an abstraction, but I wouldn't include it in a dictionary where people would be misled into thinking it was the pronunciation of the word. - -sche (discuss) 18:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Phonemic transcription looks only at a phonetic comparison (phonemic contrast) between words, not about the grammatical or etymological relationships between words. The word Laub on its own is /laʊ̯p/ because that best represents the phomic contrast of the sounds present in the word. It's only when you look at Laubes that you realise the final /p/ is underlyingly /b/, but that is at a higher level, that's when you get into morphophonemics where the relationships do matter. But at a basic phonemic level, the phonemes of Laub do not change based on the presence or absence of Laubes, you should only consider the word by itself. —CodeCat 18:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I learned it differently in my studies ;) Laub [laʊ̯p] is phonemically /laʊ̯b/, because there's Laubes [laʊ̯bəs], where it becomes obvious what the actual phoneme used in the morpheme "Laub" is. I don't say your interpretation is less valid, though. To me, this just shows that using phonemic representations in the first places opens the floodgates to edit wars of people who have different understandings of them... Of course, this is also true of phonetic transcriptions to a certain extant, because there are debates coming up every now and then about how much phonetic detail to use. But it's not that difficult to find a compromise here IMO. Longtrend (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe w:Morphophonemics might be useful to you, as well as w:Phoneme#Neutralization and archiphonemes. The linguistic term for the "underlying" /b/ in Laub is an archiphoneme, which is a representation that is higher level that just phonemic. Archiphonemes can never be derived from just one word and as such, they are not real phonemes. Phonemes refer only to contrasts, but there is no contrast between Laub and a hypothetical *laup, they have the same phonemes which means they are homophones. In fact, homophones have, by definition, the same phonemes, even if they may have different archiphonemes. That is why Tod and tot rhyme in German. —CodeCat 19:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I have heard of the concept of archiphonemes, though I have to admit I thought until now that it's an obsolete concept. Believe me, if there's one thing I learned in almost six years of linguistic studies, it is the fact that apart from just a few things virtually everything is under debate and unsettled. I really learned a very different concept of phonemes to the one you know, and I really doubt either is "more correct" than the other. Longtrend (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I can understand that. My own view is that the phonemes are what a speaker hears when someone pronounces a word, without any context. If I say [toːt] to you, you will hear the phoneme sequence /toːt/ but you cannot tell whether the underlying representation of that last /t/ is actually /t/ or /d/. That is what I consider phonemes. The higher level is when you are able to deduce additional information about the underlying structure of a word through context (grammar). Saying [eɐɪsˈtoːt] lets you deduce that I intended the word tot, but you cannot tell that without the additional context, so it's not part of the phonemes proper. I do think it would be a good idea to discuss this more widely, in case there is disagreement over the interpretation of phonemes. —CodeCat 19:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
No, you could still be saying er ist Tod. ;) But I think we all know what you mean. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Were we writing a paper on the phonology of German, it would be important to iron out what degree of abstraction to use for -b. But we're trying to give people practical information on which sound to utter... so it (still) seems to me that we should transcribe Laub as /laʊ̯p/ and ab... as /ap.../, because /b/ and /p/ are distinct phonemes. If we list -b as /b/ and people actually follow our advice and pronounce it like that... *shudder*. Context may save them from being misunderstood, or it may not!
Shall we move discussion to WT:T:ADE or the Beer Parlour? - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Beer Parlour may be better because this concerns similar situations in other languages as well. In Catalan for example there is a merging of unstressed vowels which behaves phonemically very much like final devoicing. —CodeCat 21:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I support moving the discussion to Beer Parlour, though I don't see of what use such phonemic transcriptions could be for language learners (as opposed to linguists) in the first place. But maybe that will become clear to me in the discussion. BTW, regarding the initial topic discussed here, I now agree that /ap/ probably is a better representation of ab than /ab/. No matter which definition of phoneme we choose, there's no real evidence that there's a /b/ in there apart from orthography. Longtrend (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Declension of 08/15[edit]

How would one decline 08/15? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. It's indeclinable. (It can only be used predicatively, or in compounds such as ein 08/15-Computer). Longtrend (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Groß-/Kleinschreibung-unterscheidend[edit]

Hi there. Is this the best (most common) form of this adjective. Is the declension OK? SemperBlotto (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks good in theory. However, are you sure it's attestable? Seems like a weird word to me (but there's nothing wrong about it in principle). Longtrend (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It was added by Sea1962 a few years ago. I've sent it to RfV. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Please verify[edit]

Please verify a priori. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I loved reading you found the German wiktionary too prescriptive. I feel 1000% the same way. (I'm currently making some changes on German as an IP. I used to have an account, but I forgot what it was. I'm making a new one soon.) I think it's terrible over there. I mean there is already a Duden. What use is wiktionary if we only add words, rules, inflections, usages that you can already look up in the Duden? Anyway, I don't want to chitchat, just found it great there are others who felt like this, too.

:) Yeah, the public opinion in Germany still seems to be that dictionaries such as Duden determine what's correct and what's not, which is a shame... and this probably even carries over to Wiktionary. I'm glad to hear you feel the same way! Longtrend (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Verification[edit]

Bitte verifiziere Rhymes:German:-aŋn̩ und Rhymes:German:-ɪŋn̩. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen singen etc. transcribed as [-ŋn̩]. It might be possible though, I'm not sure. IMHO, the rhyme pages should never use these "abbreviated" forms but rather the spelled-out ones (in order to avoid such problems), but that's just my two cents. Longtrend (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Konfix[edit]

Hi there. I think this should be simply translated as confix. The definition in Duden seems to confirm that. The original lister disagrees and has reverted my change. What do you think? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the user's point is that Konfixe are not affixes, however the definitions at confix indeed say confixes are affixes. The user is right in that the German Konfix is usually used for special morphemes that are neither true affixes nor true words. I don't know if the English confix has this meaning as well (if yes, it should be added as a definition; if no, we shouldn't translate Konfix as confix). Longtrend (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Inflection[edit]

How would one inflect doppelt gemoppelt? Thank you in advance. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's a way to inflect it. Seems like it's used only predicatively. Longtrend (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Why not use it attributively? For example: ein doppelt gemoppelter Ausdruck or eine doppelt gemoppelte Aussage. There are many examples of this on the web. It sounds normal to me personally, of course regarding the fact that "doppelt gemoppelt" is per se informal.Kolmiel (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Farmersalat[edit]

What does this darn revert has to do with the plural form as in your comment? --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. This was just an additional comment because I couldn't find uses of the plural form. I could find uses of the genitive forms Farmersalats and Farmersalates, however. Longtrend (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of -chen[edit]

Hi, you asked me to give you the quote based on which I claimed that the diminutive ending -chen is not pronounced with a syllabic [n]. So here it goes. It’s from Duden Grammatik, 2nd edition, 1966, p. 53:

"Nach [p b t d k g f v s z ʃ ʒ ç x pf ts tʃ dʒ] kann unmittelbar nachtoniges [ən] am Wortende oder vor Konsonant durch silbisches [n] (Zeichen: [n̩]) ersetzt werden. Dieser Ersatz wird nicht allgemein als hochsprachlich empfunden. Im Verkleinerungssuffix -chen (wie in Mädchen [ˈmɛ:tçən]) spricht man gewöhnlich [ən], nicht [n̩]."

Now, the source is of course very much outdated and I don’t know if more recent Duden books still make such a claim. There is also no doubt about the fact that several pronunciations prescribed in the cited source have since become obsolete. Therefore I really don’t insist that this rule is generally observed. I can only say that my own pronunciation is in line with this: I personally don’t use a syllabic [n] in diminutives, not even in such ones as Mädchen. Best regards :)Kolmiel (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for your research! I'll see if I can perhaps check some more recent edition of the Duden Grammatik. Longtrend (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)