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)

Dan Polansky, the issue has long been discussed and the only reasonable way is to treat the two Norwegian languages as separate languages in the English Wiktionary. There will no doubt be some duplication between Swedish, Danish, Norwegian Bokmål and Norwegian Nynorsk. But now, finally, we are seeing real progress on the Norwegian entries. Both languages are now above 10,000 entries, which is still far behind Danish (26,000), Swedish (91,000), and Finnish (116,000). After Norwegian (unified approach) reached 6,000 entries in 2009, there hasn't been much progress until finally this year. --LA2 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

kenotaf[edit]

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)

Keep up the good work[edit]

Great progress with the Norwegian entries! I keep some statistics at Wiktionary talk:About Swedish#Statistics. --LA2 (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou! It's been hard work. If Bokmål ranks 36th that's not bad. By the way, I do find quite a few Swedish entries where the plural exists but there's no main entry - kattungar for example is one I found yesterday. Donnanz (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As you say, it's hard work. Sometimes when I got bored, I just created some plural (or past tense) entries. In other cases, there are main entries but no entries for the deflected forms. LA2 (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen some of the main entries you mention. I will leave the filling in of the gaps to you! I did some Swedish entries months ago, but not very many. Donnanz (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

gjev[edit]

Maybe you could check and improve gjev. I tried my best but I don't really know Norwegian. --LA2 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm having a look at it. I found an obsolete form (gjæv) in Einar Haugen's Norwegian-English Dictionary, which is itself well and truly out of date; it was made obsolete in the 2005 spelling reform, but I think it's still worth recording as an obsolete spelling. Donnanz (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I think "best men" may be OK, I think "finest men" would be OK too. In some contexts "gjeveste" translates as "most prestigious". I haven't been able to find anything for the second example. I will rewrite the inflections for lemma purposes - unfortunately that template doesn't automatically record the lemma entry. Donnanz (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

advokat[edit]

I’m curious, are you aware of any synonyms for this term? --Romanophile (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume it's Norwegian you're referring to. Lawyer is the general term, but Haugen, which is biased towards American English, lists in addition attorney (at law), the British terms barrister and solicitor, as well as advocate (of a cause). The term advocate is also used in Scotland and South Africa for a barrister. Donnanz (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Erm… I meant Scandinavian synonyms, not English ones. --Romanophile (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, right. I found sakfører (Bokmål) and sakførar (Nynorsk), but apparently these are no longer used officially (Wikipedia). In Danish sagfører, also replaced by advokat as an official decription. In Swedish sakförare (person som utför juridiska uppdrag utan att vara advokat). Donnanz (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

half#Translations_3[edit]

Hi,

Could you kindly add the Norwegian translation please and check Danish (gender), if you can? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting. The Danish translation is corrected to halvdel. --ContraVentum (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I agree with halvdel (no Danish entry exists though), and Bokmål and Nynorsk use the same spelling. Donnanz (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do you get the etymology for the Norwegian terms from?[edit]

You often place some Old Norse word on your entries under etymology, where do you get the information from?

drafty[edit]

Please read the intro of WT:RFV. It is for the verification of entries that may not exist. I would not like to see drafty deleted if there are no citations after 30 days, and I don't think you want it deleted either. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Header: "Overview: Requests for verification is a page for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion"
Please do not attempt to delete drafty; it definitely exists. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't jump to false conclusions. Donnanz (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything I can say that will convince you to read Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Header? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTICE: Because of this and other unsavoury incidents, I will not be answering that user in future. Donnanz (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I thank Renard Migrant for raising the issue with Donnanz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Labeling as American[edit]

Please stop labeling entries as American. You seem to be doing it wrong. See also Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/March#Concerned about Donnanz's misguided crusade against non-British spellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

jail cell[edit]

Read your statement on the "nominated for deletion" page, if there was a friends list button I would add you! Well said -:) WritersCramp (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • A friends list button, eh. What an idea! Thanks for the flowers, but I've probably stirred up a hornet's nest. Actually I'm surprised there is no translations section under either entry. Food for thought, if these entries survive. Donnanz (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

{{delete}}[edit]

This template is only for things that are obviously wrong. Tagging Danish inflected forms that were created by a native speaker of Danish is probably inappropriate; you should be using WT:RFV instead. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I created RFCs for these back in February, nothing was done, and now you're saying I should use RFV. They may have been created by a native Dane, but they're still wrong and I have checked them thoroughly; in one case (maybe both) the wrong template was used. Thanks for undoing the deletions, it will all have to be done again, we don't need inaccurate entries. Donnanz (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, RFC is notoriously bad for getting things done. I don't know Danish, but I think it's reasonable that when a da-1 editor says that entries created by da-N editors are wrong, there's room for doubt. Maybe they're dialectal, colloquial, or obsolete — who knows. But the real point is that {{delete}} should not be used in these circumstances; reserve it for mistakes of your own, obvious vandalism, promotional material and the like. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    I don't like making false claims, but maybe my knowledge is better than da-1. So what should happen now? My use of {{delete}} for other inaccurate entries has been accepted in the past. Donnanz (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    If I don't hear any more from you, I will revert your edits in the morning (British time). Donnanz (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    I wouldn't. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    Not only were they created by people who know way more about Danish than you do, a cursory check of Google Books suggests that they are easily citeable. I made suggestions earlier, but since you were unreceptive, I will now say it more bluntly: Stop misusing {{delete}} as you have been doing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    Very well, I have moved them to RFV. Let's see how many months / years they remain there. Donnanz (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Help Needed[edit]

Would you be so kind as to take a look at Category:Pages with module errors? Most of those are due to CodeCat's addition of parameter checking to Module:nn-verb-irreg, which causes module errors in all the entries with obsolete parameters. I'm sure it's a good idea to clean these up anyway, but I wish she hadn't broken so many entries to do it. Thanks!

  • I'll do my best, but it is a good idea to rope in User:Njardarlogar as well (if you haven't already), as he is the Nynorsk specialist. Donnanz (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • CodeCat contacted him a few days ago, and got a rather shirty answer. But I think he's the man for the job. Either that or revert the edit to the template made last year. Donnanz (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"There are some Nynorsk entries that have invalid parameters on this template, and they are now showing up as module errors. Could you fix these please? —CodeCat 16:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Throwing errors for unused parameters seems rather draconian. Is this a new policy? --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)"

You seem to get plenty of criticism.[edit]

In the RFD on "tennis player", you wrote, "I have reread what I have written, and I can't find one word which constitutes a personal attack. Yes, I have given criticism, but we all have to take that whether we like it or not, and I seem to get plenty." I would dispute your impression that you didn't make any personal attacks, merely criticism, because it's precisely the criticism you're giving that others consider personal attacks. But I can see that you get your fair share of unkind words, and that you find it as distressing as other people do when it happens to them. So I'm offering my point of view here as a kind of olive branch, rather than posting it in reply to your last comment, and I hope you'll take it as well-intentioned and not another assault on your opinions.

The problem is that the type of criticism you give is infused with insinuations that other people's opinions are bad, and that they are wrong to voice them. For instance: "The 'good of the project' is not being served by RFDs like this" says that even discussing whether this or similar terms should be deleted is harmful to Wiktionary, and necessarily implies that everybody in favour of deletion is working to harm Wiktionary, which is a very provocative thing to say. Mr. Migrant's comment, "Is it really all about you, Donnanz?" was rather rude and I can understand why it would offend you, but -sche called him out on it: "Let's not personalize the debate like that." It was not necessary to follow up with "RM needs to be reminded...", which was certain to produce a backlash, which asserted that you were voting based solely on your personal preferences, and so on. He says an unkind thing, someone points out that such comments aren't helpful, and you could have been done with it.

Our exchange started innocently enough: I gave an opinion, noting that other dictionaries didn't tend to include this sort of construction for obvious reasons, and two types of examples, incorporating as many tennis terms as possible in my reasoning (a joke which clearly fell flat). You replied by saying that a "dictionary" which does include such words "leaves Wiktionary in the shade", a statement implying that Wiktionary should emulate this particular example. My reply attempted to distinguish a wordbook from a dictionary, and asserted that by following your apparent reasoning, we would need to add entries for scores of similar terms, without achieving much for the effort. Did I go overboard in my examples? Perhaps, but my whole point was that it would be absurd to include all of the words in said lexicon as Wiktionary entries simply because they translated words or phrases from other languages. A very long list of not very useful potential entries seemed like a logical way to make that point. Your response was to imply that my post was a "waste of space" and "a silly question"; and as Mr. Migrant subsequently pointed out, the answer "NO" (which suggests shouting, also a bit provocative) doesn't make much sense given your suggestion that we look to the wordbook as justification for "tennis player". If you had simply said, "no, that's not what I meant, I just think that 'tennis player' should stay because it's a useful translation target for a fairly common word," then I wouldn't have had any reason to complain, even if I disagreed.

Since my point was called "silly" and a "waste of space" and you clearly thought I would understand your point better if you shouted at me than if you simply explained it, I replied, perhaps a bit sarcastically; but I think I at least refrained from attacking anything other than that characterization of my post. To which you replied, "I have noticed that you tend to waste a lot of space wherever you leave your four tildes", which cannot be described as anything but a personal attack: "your other arguments are wasteful and pointless, therefore this one should be ignored too." I shouldn't have to point out that "wherever you leave your four tildes" makes it sound rather like you're comparing me to a spaniel leaving "gifts" in your garden, instead of an editor signing a comment. How do you expect people to respond to comments in which they're described like something dirty and offensive? You then went on to characterize my comments as "venting my spleen" rather than arguing a legitimate point. But as the sarcasm in my words was a direct response to your personal attack, this could hardly be anything but the pot calling the kettle black.

All of which should serve to show that, with the exception of an uncharitable comment by RM, for which he was immediately poked by a third party, you could have avoided any personal criticism in this discussion simply by refraining from it yourself. None of your other comments were provocative, and none of the other replies personal attacks. If you can just make your point without suggesting that anybody else's points are silly, bad, harmful to Wiktionary or wasteful of your valuable time, then a great deal less invective will be hurled at you in return. I realize that it's natural to to think of criticizing the language of a comment or the person making it when you strongly disagree. But if you resist that temptation whenever possible, then you will find yourself facing much less of the type of personal criticism.

Again, I truly hope that we can simply bury the hatchet and move on. You don't like personal attacks any more than I do, so I very much hope you'll read this in the spirit in which it's offered, and not as an attempt to get under your skin. P Aculeius (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • First of all: yes, I'm prepared to bury the hatchet. Yes check.svg Done
Right, where do I start? OK, RM. I have quite often clashed with him, now and in his previous life as Mglovesfun. He can be rather condescending and tends to treat me as a lesser mortal, which is something that has to be dealt with firmly (sometimes I just ignore him rather than answer, as it always adds fuel to the fire) , he is a hardened deletionist (along with others) whereas I am anti-deletionist. I don't take part in debates that don't really concern me, but he is the opposite. That's enough about him.
My main concern was that what was said with umpteen examples could quite easily have been said just as forcefully with just a few (adding ad infinitum or something), and I felt it ended up being bumph. That was the main point of my criticism, and I hope you can take that on board.
"The good of the project is not being served by this RFV". Fair enough, it's good to have a debate about it, but if the term is deleted, which is possible, a term has been lost. My main concern is that it's a translation target, and I notice that otherwise it lacks substance - it could be built up with one or two quotations but no one has bothered, and that is something I don't specialise in - I am concentrating on Norwegian instead.
I'm sorry I clashed with you, and I hope you accept that. I can take criticism, it can be upsetting initially, but I get over it; I'm 68 now so I've experienced life. Donnanz (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your willingness to put this behind us. I agree that Mr. Migrant can be very rude, although not on every occasion. His first reply to you was certainly rude, although on the later occasion he actually did something nice by supporting me, even though I understand if you wish he hadn't. Some people seem to have a very hard time dialing back their personal feelings; I try to respond as impersonally as I can, until someone starts poking me, and if I can shrug it off then, I do. Although as you can tell, that's easier said than done sometimes. I don't consider myself for or against deleting terms in general, and I'm willing to be persuaded that my initial view was wrong. I just want to feel confident that terms kept have a sufficient reason for being here. It doesn't have to be an earth-shaking reason; I quite enjoy silly words, provided they don't feel too contrived and have some practical utility. I think translation targets can be considered good reasons to keep terms, although I don't think it's very useful in this case, since tennisspieler can simply be translated as two words in English, each of which is the direct equivalent of half the German word. Anyway, I don't like seeing anybody bullied, so I thought maybe it would be better to reach out to you than to keep fighting. I'm glad to see I was right! P Aculeius (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
No more bullying, we're mates. I can't help wondering why RM has picked on just tennis player, and none of the other derivatives listed at player (and I've just added another one, see if you can spot it). Is this just to test the water? Who can read that bloke's mind? Yes, a translation target is a jolly good reason and is probably the reason some entries survive. Tennisspieler (hmm, no entry) is a compound word in common with many German {and Norwegian) words, but non-compound foreign-language words can sometimes translate only to two-word terms in English, as English doesn't have a single-word equivalent. It's swings and roundabouts. Donnanz (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

your name[edit]

What’s your name from? Does it mean something? --Romanophile (contributions) 05:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

  • NZ means New Zealand. Donnanz (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
So Donna is your given name? --Romanophile (contributions) 09:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
No. Donnanz (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Norwegian "riste"[edit]

I added an entry for Danish riste. It looks like the Norwegian section needs an update. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lo Ximiendo: It definitely needed doing, and it took quite a while to disentangle that lot, creating separate entries for Bokmål and Nynorsk. Anyway, I think it's OK now. Donnanz (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Installering and Installasjon[edit]

Hi Donnanz, I think that installasjon means something installed whereas installering means the act of installing. It's a bit confusing in Norwegian because sometimes the noun and the grundium of the verb are the same but sometimes they are not.
- Teodor (dc) 11:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Teodor605: OK, thanks, I wondered about that. I have changed the translations listed at installation. So they can still be treated as synonyms, as shown here? [1] Donnanz (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Donnanz Many people use these and similar pairs as synonyms. However, I don't think they really are. I am not a scholar in the matter, just an above average careful user of my own language :) I would treat them as "See also" or "Relaterte termer". Regards,
- Teodor (dc) 13:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Teodor605: Fair enough; I have altered the synonyms to "Related terms" (beslektede termer). Donnanz (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Donnanz What do you think of the changes I just made to the definitions?
- Teodor (dc) 14:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Teodor605: I think installation is correct and should be reinstated, and "the act of installing" clarifies the meaning, so that can remain. See here also - [2]. Donnanz (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Spellcheck[edit]

I notice on your user page that you complain about "Wiktionary's spellcheck". Wiktionary does not have a spellcheck feature. Any red underlines that you may see when editing this site are provided by your Web browser, not by Wiktionary. If you use another browser to edit Wiktionary you will most likely find that different words are recognised as being right and wrong, and different suggestions are offered when you right-click on unrecognised words. This, that and the other (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: I haven't updated my user page for a while, and the situation seems to have improved dramatically since I wrote that, so I may remove that comment. But some sort of spelling "corrector" still kicks in, especially with i in Norwegian which gets changed to capital I, so I still have to be on my guard. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

umboðsmaðr[edit]

Your edit makes the page more difficult to read and less informative. The page should remain as it was. Rikskansler (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC).

  • I only went to the page to add the Norwegian word. With your revert you deleted the Norwegian entry, and that is what I objected to. What you're trying to say, and it's still not that obvious in the entry, is that Dutch and English are derived from the Swedish word, a fact I already knew with English. As long as the Norwegian entry is not removed again I will leave things as they are now. But you still need to double-check before reverting edits. DonnanZ (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't notice you added Norwegian. I thought you only reformatted the text and removed the Swedish-English-Dutch relation in the process. Do you object to me restoring the old layout while retaining the Norwegian addition? Rikskansler (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Under the circumstances, no, I don't object. I have found and added the Nynorsk word though. DonnanZ (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Norwegian noun templates[edit]

I've made a change to the way Norwegian templates handle stems different from the indefinite singular, see e.g. here for more details. The previous template design wasn't particularly intutive, so I decided to change it. Basically, now the first argument is either both for the singular and plural, or it's only for the singular if the second argument is provided. --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Njardarlogar: Oh thanks! That's very useful for strøm and its derivatives. I see you have modified both m1 templates to deal with -el endings too - all good stuff. DonnanZ (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
All templates allowing stems as argument and that use Module:nn-noun and Module:nb-noun are affected in the same way. I believe I have fixed all pages ending with -el, other types of nouns may still need tweaking. I'll add temporary maintenance categories to all pages using the two arguments to see if I can catch all other relevant nouns. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Njardarlogar: OK, I caught up with your changes, replacing |bok and |bot with ||bok and ||bot, and incorporated it in parkeringsbot. All right now, cheers. DonnanZ (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Those examples above didn't actually use templates for irregular nouns - I believe those templates aren't effected as they explicitly ask for the inflected forms rather than generating them from a pattern.
Here is the maintenance category for Bokmål. A lot of the pages in that category are from a time when the -e suffix was not automatically removed by the template and are thus not examples of pages with incorrect inflection. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, all now-incorrect use of the templates has hopefully been fixed now. I used my bot to eliminate the pages where just the -e had been removed in the argument. --Njardarlogar (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Njardarlogar: I see that category is now empty, and thanks for all the work you've done. If I come across any more problems I'll let you know. The verb and adjective templates for Bokmål need updating sometime (the old ones don't record lemmas), I'm writing entries out manually so I can control things properly (allowing for alternative forms), and in the order I like personally. I have started adding a few Nynorsk verbs where the spelling is the same as Bokmål, but I haven't added any inflections. They are not up to your standard, but it's a start. A dictionary is never finished. DonnanZ (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

newentrywiz[edit]

Hi. How are you using this to make automated entries? I tried copying it into my JS in User:Philmonte101/newentrywiz.js but it doesn't seem to be doing anything. How does it work? What does it do? Sounds pretty handy. (I'm asking you because I can't seem to find documentation for it.) Philmonte101 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I haven't got a clue I'm afraid, I don't make automated entries. All my entries are manually generated. DonnanZ (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    • It says on one entry (namely undergruppe) "(cur | prev) 20:12, 3 August 2016‎ Donnanz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (295 bytes) (+295)‎ . . ((NEC) +nb:noun:) (thank)" NEC linked to newentrywiz.js . Do you know why it did this if you weren't using that gadget? It seems odd. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Oh, that's a template created by Yair rand. All you have to do is type in a search term. If there is no entry already you will get the message "You may create the page "xxxxxxx" on a blank page, "request its creation" or "create it" using the New Entry Creator!" Click on "create it" and there you go. But that's just a template, you still have to enter the contents of the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

spyd[edit]

I updated the Danish entry for spyd, and the Norwegian section needs an update. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Lo Ximiendo: Yes, it needed an update alright. It may need some fine tuning, but the basics are there. DonnanZ (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The term gaupe needs an update as well. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Lo Ximiendo: Yes check.svg Done. I'm pleased to get a Tbot entry out of the way, only 26 left now. DonnanZ (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

livvakt[edit]

I have added a citation to the entry, but could you translate it (just add it on a line below the quote starting off with #*::)? Also feel free to ask me to look for citations in the future. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, @Metaknowledge: What makes that a durable source and not the one I added? Anyway, I'll have a go at the translation later. There's an awful lot wrong with FWOTD, and I won't be making any more nominations. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This one came from a Nynorsk newspaper (or more precisely, its website), so it has been printed or at least digitally archived. The earlier citation came from Wikipedia, which could be removed by a contributor there. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: OK. It's very hard to find books written in Nynorsk - most Norwegian books featured on Google Books are written in Bokmål. I have added quite a few quotations to Bokmål entries, but I can't do the pronunciation. DonnanZ (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
That's what I expected, so I went and checked some newspapers instead. I have also added citations to sval (all senses) and nyår (one sense). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Translation done - I had a little trouble with "heldt på med", and excursion could be substituted with walkabout. Thanks for the other quotations; I can't find anything meaningful for finnmarking on Google Books. DonnanZ (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
halda på (med) = do, perform an activity --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, cheers! DonnanZ (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: As an aside to this, I don't see any harm in using Nynorsk Wikipedia for quotations when a word is not being nominated for FWOTD. If the Wikipedia text is later changed the quotation can be subsequently removed as redundant. DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

True, though it's better to use the template ux for such intents, so it becomes a usage example (which do not have to be sourced and all), not a quotation. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

finnmarking[edit]

I've added a provisional pronunciation, but I'd appreciate it if you could find somebody else to check it before updating it on FWOTDN. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I only transcribe r's broadly (/r/), so I can't comment on that sound; but the rest looks normal to the extent my knowledge of IPA goes. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Njardarlogar, @Lingo Bingo Dingo: Many thanks, I'm pinging LBD. DonnanZ (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both. I've changed the pronunciation parameter now. Could you remove the strikeout, Donnanz? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done DonnanZ (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)