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

Deletion debate[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


I think this entry provides false information. I've worked a lot with old Swedish texts and never come across "göro" as a word on its own. The (obsolete) present plural forms I know are "görom, gören, göra". The current entry, created in 2006 by a user who hasn't been active since, doesn't provide any references to make me believe otherwise. --LA2 12:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Should be at RFV then, no? You're new here so you might not yet understand the difference between the two. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You're correct that I don't know much yet. Thanks for pointing me to WT:RFV. However, I wonder if RFV will help, since so few Swedish speakers are around here. It seems likely that nobody will respond. I could ask for input from sv.wiktionary or sv.wikipedia, but I fear that might be construed as "forum shopping" (buying votes). Or maybe I should just ask for a speedy delete? You tell me. --LA2 16:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
RFV has a presumption of nonexistence: if a word is listed there and not cited in a month, it can be deleted. if you think it's not a word, you have no need to buy a vote: indeed, there's nothing to vote on. Please, even if you don't recognize the word, look for it, as it may simply be out of use in the time periods that the texts you work with were written, or something. You can try looking among Swedish books on Google Book Search, though I hqave no idea how good their coverage is. (Note, though, that when I say it "can be deleted" after a month, I mean just that: it may take longer until someone gets to it. Often, foreign words for which verification is sought will not get deleted until an editor who knows the language and is known to the deleter says he's never heard of it, unless no such editor exists.)​—msh210 (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I should list what I have done in my search so far. The entry claims that "göro" is an obsolete present (tense) plural form of the verb "göra". I know there are obsolete verb forms in Swedish, I wrote a summary about this on the page category:Swedish obsolete verb forms and created entries for some 250 such verb forms (see Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Swedish obsolete verb forms for my recent efforts), all of which yield plenty of search hits in websites like the Swedish Wikisource. However, for the verb forms that were made obsolete in 1944-1970, "göra" was the present tense plural form and not "göro". Since "göra" coincides with the infinitive, it is not listed in the category for Swedish obsolete verb forms. If we go further back, we find two more present tense plural forms: görom and gören, both entries written by me recently, with good, biblical example sentences that you can easily find online. These three (görom, gören, göra) are all the possible present tense plural forms you can find. As far as I know, that leaves no empty room for "göro" in the last 200 years, when Swedish orthography has been standardized. Some websites with older Swedish literature, that I have searched in vain, are Litteraturbanken, Swedish Wikisource, Internet Archive, Google Books, and finally Project Runeberg. I'm the maintainer and founder of the latter. What I did find was this: (1) An essay published in 1889 about some surprising finds in Old Swedish from around the year 1500, when indeed "göro" appears. However, this is an unusual example from a small region (Växjö) of Sweden in a time long before orthography was standardized. Nobody plans to fill Wiktionary with all Swedish spellings that were used 500 years ago. (2) This page from a novel published in 1927 indeed has "göro", but as an infinitive (an obvious typographical error) and not as a present tense plural. --LA2 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
...and circa 1500 was in fact old Swedish rather than Swedish, right? Looks like this can probably be speedily deleted. Perhaps input from Mike would help: I see LA2's requested it at Mike's talkpage. In the future, though, RFV rather than RFD is right place for these. (There, too, things sometimes get speedily deleted, so you don't lose out on that possibility by bringing it there.)​—msh210 (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(: I have never worked on, or tried to learn, old(er) Swedish to any significant amount. However, neither have I ever seen that form, and since LA2's research seems to strongly suggest non-existence, I agree that it most likely should be deleted. \Mike 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The suffix is only applied to the plural in the past tense (with the exception of vara, where the form is äro), and only when the past tense does not use a suffix, but rather a stem change. Since the past form gjorde has a suffix, past tense can not be formed with -o (unlike these examples: togo, from tog, see taga, and sutto from the supine root sutt-, see sitta). Smiddle 20:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The root is not the same as the root of the supine, even if they coincide in some cases, but from the past subjunctive. Cf. gingo, fingo (not *gåtto, *fåtto). \Mike 16:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The supine roots for these verbs are not *gått- or *fått-, but gå- and få-, and those were never used when identical with the infinitive. Smiddle 07:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, nobody seems to find any actual occurrences. Even if this would have belonged on RFV, I think it's safe to say that the entry fails CFI (as non-attestable) and thus the entry is now deleted. \Mike 16:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)