Talk:midnatten
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The Danish entry should be deleted as midnat is not inflected at all. See history of midnat, and Den Danske Ordbog. Donnanz 15:56 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- RfV? Perhaps it's a real but nonstandard term. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe. I'm not sure whether this link will work.
http://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=midnat&search=S%C3%B8g It says (Grammatik) "især i ubestemt form singularis". (especially in indefinite singular form). But no inflection is shown. Donnanz 00:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a primary source though. Secondary sources have their uses, but can never replace primary ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- If this isn't a primary source, what is? Name one. Donnanz 11:59 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Any Danish novel.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Striking as kept: bad nom. Moving to RFV.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Danish entry. Rfded mistakenly, so I brought it here. I haven't sought cites.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is an inflected form. The problem is that multiple editors opposed applying RFV to inflected forms. I don't oppose this RFV, though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've commented before, and at least one user has agreed, that we should distinguish between individual slots in inflection tables that don't happen to be attested, and entire sections that are (or are alleged to be) unattested; i.e. I would distinguish between cases where something like mitternachtsblauen only gets two (or zero) hits as the neuter mixed genitive form of mitternachtsblau but enough other forms get hits to confirm that mitternachtsblau inflects, vs cases where no inflected forms at all are attested (suggesting the adjective is invariant), or no comparative or superlative forms are attested (suggesting it isn't gradable), etc. In this case, the claim made on Talk:midnatten, and by the references cited there, and by da:midnat, is that this term is invariant and has no inflected forms at all. Against that claim, I've so far found two uses of midnatten in books published in Copenhagen in the 1800s. Perhaps inflection of midnat is an archaic or obsolete phenomenon. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I set Danish as search language in Google Books and got these relevant results on the first page of the search for 21st century books [1][2][3][4][5]. Altogether, there were 44 hits, but about half of them are either Swedish or reprints from older books. The relatively low number is partly explained by the fact that "in the midnight" is expressed with indefinite article in Danish: "ved midnat". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've commented before, and at least one user has agreed, that we should distinguish between individual slots in inflection tables that don't happen to be attested, and entire sections that are (or are alleged to be) unattested; i.e. I would distinguish between cases where something like mitternachtsblauen only gets two (or zero) hits as the neuter mixed genitive form of mitternachtsblau but enough other forms get hits to confirm that mitternachtsblau inflects, vs cases where no inflected forms at all are attested (suggesting the adjective is invariant), or no comparative or superlative forms are attested (suggesting it isn't gradable), etc. In this case, the claim made on Talk:midnatten, and by the references cited there, and by da:midnat, is that this term is invariant and has no inflected forms at all. Against that claim, I've so far found two uses of midnatten in books published in Copenhagen in the 1800s. Perhaps inflection of midnat is an archaic or obsolete phenomenon. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and other definite forms without verifications. Also for entries in Swedish, Norwegian, Albanian (inflected or suffixed), Abkhaz (prefixed) and any other language with prefixed/suffixed definite forms, not Arabic or Hebrew, where the article is not part of the lemma, unless a term is only used with a definite article, like place names. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- The entry was created by a native speaker and tagged for deletion by a da-1 based on a grammar reference. I could see maybe tagging this as proscribed or adding a usage note, but this whole exercise seems mostly like a waste of time. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have added a translation table and usage notes to midnat. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Don't you mean inflection table? --WikiTiki89 02:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I do - inflection table. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Don't you mean inflection table? --WikiTiki89 02:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have added a translation table and usage notes to midnat. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- RFV passed: cites are linked above by Hekaheka. The task of copying them to Wiktionary can be left to the original nominator Donnanz (Talk:midnatten). --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)