User talk:DrJos

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

Hi, Dr. Jos. I looked up "carburator" (English) after encountering it in the newspaper, thinking it was a misspelling. (In American English we use "carburetor.") Should the Wikt entry "carburator" (Dutch) point to "carburetor" (English)? Thanks. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know it already does: the "English" entry carburator doesn't even exist in Wikt. In Dutch we also use the word carburateur. --DrJos (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)



Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions 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.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide to Wikipedia users useful.
  • 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.

Also, please add a BabelBox to your userpage so we can help you with the languages you'll be working in.

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! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


While this is understandable, this sort of move needs more discussion (created by a native speaker). Also even when you're really sure about a move, when you research it, sometimes the original form (the renamed form) does actually exist. Also if you create User:DrJos you can indicate what language you speak. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I am a native Dutch speaker and know the word isn't used in Dutch in the singular form. The Dutch dictionary (Woordenlijst) only knows the plural form.
But the word is widely attested in a quick Google search. Just because a word list doesn't list the form doesn't mean nobody uses it. —CodeCat 23:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You just did it again. The plural of diarree is not only attested though a Google search, but even in a medical publication on Google Books, which makes it fit Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. I've added a quotation now. Please do not remove information just because your own gut instinct tells you it's wrong, because there are other Dutch speakers out there who may disagree. Research first, then remove. Thank you. —CodeCat 11:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen that in the Dutch wiktionary no plural is added? "Het groene boekje", the official Dutch word list also doesn't have a plural. The fact that someone somewhere uses a prural doesn't make it Dutch language. --DrJos (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Um... according to English Wiktionary, yes it does. What counts on Wiktionary is only attestation according to WT:CFI. So if a few people use it, and their uses make it into sources that meet CFI, then we consider it attested and it's eligible for an entry. Even if it doesn't appear in any of the standard word lists; we don't follow standard word lists like "het groene boekje" here, nor do we follow what other dictionaries say. Wiktionary is descriptive, it describes languages. It doesn't prescribe or proscribe it. So we don't say what is right or wrong, we only say what exists and is being used by speakers. "Het groene boekje" is quite clearly a prescriptive source, it tells people how to use language. But everyone is free to ignore it, including you, me and Wiktionary. —CodeCat 16:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, have you read w:nl:Groene Boekje? That says more or less what I said; specifically it says it is not an indication of whether a word exists or not. It only covers about 10% of total Dutch vocabulary according to the page. —CodeCat 16:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
In that case one should add another meaning to the English word "Lay": a lot of people use the word in stead of the word "Lie" in a sentence like: "I have to lay down for a while". It is incorrect of course, but it is used frequently. Wiktionary adds words that are in use, so shall I add the other meaning? --DrJos (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would be ok, although you probably should mention that it's nonstandard because people might confuse it with the more common meaning. —CodeCat 21:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


Please do not remove headword-line templates. If you disagree with them, feel free to take it up with a native Dutch speaker who knows how they work, like User:CodeCat. 21:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss your changes instead of reverting other users without explanation. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


For diminutives, we have the special template {{nl-noun-dim}} which automatically chooses the right gender and plural, and puts it in a different category. It might be useful. —CodeCat 22:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen it being used. I will put it in. It doesn't work for "jongen-jongetje" however. --DrJos (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
But the page jongetje already has it. Also, another note, please do not write {{head|nl-noun}}. This is simply incorrect and does not work. It should be {{head|nl|noun}}, or better yet, {{nl-noun}}. For plurals use {{head|nl}} instead, with no 'noun'. Could you please fix this in your past edits? —CodeCat 22:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what happened on kubieke centimeter. For a start, you can't use things like kubiek(e) because it generates a link with the e in brackets. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I will change it. --DrJos (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition lines[edit]

Please remember that all definition lines must begin with a #. For example, see this change I made to kruisbogen. Dank je! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Template for adjectives used as nouns[edit]

I have created a new template, {{nl-noun-adj}}, which can be used for nouns like aanwezige that are really adjectives that are used as nouns. I hope it is useful. —CodeCat 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Looks good: I certainly will use it. --DrJos (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


Why did you remove the ==language== heading from this word. Every entry has to have a ==language== entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry, probably the result of an edit-conflict. It's now Ok, isn't it? --DrJos (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png Barnstar
For your tireless work in fixing hundreds and hundreds of Dutch entries! —CodeCat 14:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Quite al lot to do still! --DrJos (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I really want to give you another barnstar. Because it's almost two years later and you are still hard at work. —CodeCat 10:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm checking my own contributions now and then start with the Index of Dutch nouns. --DrJos (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Index? —CodeCat 12:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This Index:Dutch: it contains all Dutch words that should be in the dictionary. --DrJos (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I wonder where all those words came from. The indexes we have for most other languages only list what entries were available for Wiktionary at the time (so only blue links) and many are horribly out of date. It's one of the reasons we created the "lemmas" category. —CodeCat 13:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominalized adjectives again[edit]

I am currently working on converting the Dutch templates to Lua, and I have a question about the adjective inflection table, {{nl-decl-adj}}. Do you think that the nominalized form should be considered as part of them? Or would it be better not? The main question is whether every adjective automatically has a nominalized form, or whether only a few of them have. —CodeCat 22:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hallo CodeCat. Ik begrijp de vraag in het Engels niet echt. Kun je hem ook in het Nederlands stellen? --DrJos (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Ik ben op het moment bezig Nederlandse sjablonen om te zetten naar Lua (WT:LUA), en ik heb een vraag over de vervoegingstabel voor bijvoeglijke naamwoorden, {{nl-decl-adj}}. Denk je dat de zelfstandige vorm ook in die tabel thuishoort? (ik denk dan aan woorden waar je {{nl-noun-adj}} voor gebruikt) De hoofdvraag is eigenlijk of die vorm automatisch deel uitmaakt van de verzameling vormen die (de meeste) bijvoeglijke naamwoorden hebben, en dus eigenlijk "automatisch" bestaat, of dat hij alleen bestaat voor een beperkt aantal woorden. Anders gezegd: als je een willekeurig znw neemt, kun je er dan vanuit gaan dat de zelfstandige vorm van dat znw bestaat? —CodeCat 23:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Ik heb zitten denken. Maar het lijkt me lastig met woorden als "menselijk", "economisch". Dit soort woorden komt niet zelfstandig voor. Misschien geldt het zelfs voor alle -sch en -lijk woorden.--DrJos (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Ja, dat is inderdaad een moeilijke, en bovendien ook een problematische. :) Maar je hebt wel gelijk, het komt zeker niet voor alle bijvoeglijke naamwoorden voor. Misschien dat het dan niet in de tabel thuishoort, óf dat we besluiten een extra parameter toe te voegen zodat je expliciet kan aangeven wanneer de zelfstandige vorm wél bestaat? Ik heb ook over iets dergelijks nagedacht bij het werkwoordelijk naamwoord (verbal noun) van veel werkwoorden. Die vorm is vaak onregelmatig en onvoorspelbaar, zoals zingen > zang, slapen > slaap, jagen > jacht, maar vaak ook regelmatig met -ing. —CodeCat 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Gender in Dutch[edit]

Hi DrJos, just for your information, you can find the agreed wiktionary guidelines on gender in Dutch here: Wiktionary:About Dutch. Could you please check all edits that you have made and align them with the guidelines accordingly? That would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Morgengave (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ik volgde de NL wiktionary, die v/m aahoudt. Daar kreeg ik al opmerkingen als Van Dale v(m), dus v aangaf. Ik zal nu c gebruiken. -- 19:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Here, the guidelines could be different. We almost never use "c" as there are few words that really have a common gender. Morgengave (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
If the "Woordenlijst" gives the article de and nothing else, what should I use: v/m or c? --DrJos (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have completely rewritten the gender section on that page, hopefully to make it clearer. To answer your question: if you find de, use c, but I think the "Woordenlijst" actually considers de to mean v/m, you should check. If you really don't know, you could check other sources to see if they tell you more. —CodeCat 20:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The WNT [1] often only considers one gender - and if it does it's often m-n - a common f-m gender is fairly rare there. So personally I recommend to use that source when in doubt. Hope that helps. Morgengave (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Etymology can also help but that gives less guarantees. If a word was feminine in Germanic, it will probably be feminine in Dutch. Somewhat older loanwords also tend to preserve the gender from the original language, in particular words from French, German and occasionally Latin and Greek as well. There was a tendency for masculine words ending in -e in Middle Dutch to become feminine, because it was seen as a typically feminine ending at the time and most nouns with that ending were feminine. But that didn't always apply and it is more random which words were changed... some only changed to feminine in some areas but stayed masculine in others. bloem is a good example. —CodeCat 22:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you changed the gender to c on markt. Why? —CodeCat 15:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
See above: the WNL (I've checked) says words with de are words that are used with either hij or zij, so v/m should be used. On the other hand, if hij or zij is common, c could be used. To avoid endless dicussions I won't change gender in these cases and revert c on markt. --DrJos (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
But that's what the story at WT:ANL is all about. It specifically says that words that are used with either "hij" or "zij" are always used with "zij" in places where 3 genders still exist. So "c" doesn't cover all of Dutch, whereas "f" does (because all f nouns are c, but not all c nouns are f). —CodeCat 22:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
So... Category:Dutch nouns with common gender should ideally be empty, and the number of nouns that have "f/m" should be limited only to those nouns that are used with both f and m gender in areas where 3 genders are still used. In areas where there are only 2 genders, this distinction is gone so you can't really use it to determine the gender of something, those areas only have "common" gender. —CodeCat 22:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The reason for avoiding c is in short that we give preference to the most informative description: a three gender split gives more info than a two. (1) A common gender only exists in one part of the Dutch language area. If we would use the Netherlandic Dutch gender split as a basis, Flemish Dutch users and learners would lose out on information. Even in many Netherlandic dialects, a three gender split survives (Zeeuws, Noord-Limburgs, Gronings) (2) Wiktionary reports usage since the inception of a language (in this case modern Dutch). In the past centuries of modern Dutch a three gender structure existed in all parts of the Dutch language area. (The loss in the NL's is only a recent phenomenon.) Readers of older variants of Dutch could find use in the three gender split. So in short, we prefer to follow the WNT and not the WNL. Morgengave (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, technically, Gronings isn't Dutch at all but Low Saxon. But it's likely that those speakers will use the genders of their own dialect when speaking Dutch as well, so they might also count as 3-gender speakers. Kind of like how a German speaker might say "het auto" because it's neuter in their own dialect. And concerning the dating: I think the common gender may have existed since the 16th century, but only in a few dialects and only in the informal speech in rural areas. It has taken several centuries to spread to the normal language and even today it's far from complete. But I do think it will be gone in a few hundred years, unless the remaining 3-gender dialects somehow survive against the pressure. —CodeCat 22:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In a few hundred years, we are going to have a genderless language I think. I have noticed that there are already many Hollandic and West-Flemish speakers that use the masculine gender where they should use the neuter one. Too bad, I kindly like the three-gender structure myself. I do find it interesting from a linguistic point to see "live" how gender confusion slowly creeps into a language. Morgengave (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't forget...[edit]

When you use templates like {{etyl}}, you need to also specify the source language. I have fixed ammunitie. —CodeCat 09:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, forgotten: fixed munitie myself. --DrJos (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

butyl etc.[edit]

I'm not really sure if these are independent nouns. I've only ever seen these in compounds like "butylgroep". I added them that way because that's how they were treated in English, but I'm starting to think that may be wrong too. What do you think? —CodeCat 12:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been googling and seen them used in sentences like "een molecuul met een extra methyl", but usually there more like prefixes. Methyl en ethyl are both in the WNL. --DrJos (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


When adding this template, can you make sure to put a * before it? —CodeCat 22:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen it being done in other articlesw, but I can start doing it from now on. --DrJos (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you also place the pronunciation section below etymology, according to WT:ELE? And leave an empty line before each header. —CodeCat 00:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know about this page, I will follow it. I just copied the order that was used in other articles, first pronunciation, then etymology --DrJos (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Some entries have pronunciation before etymology, but either that's wrong, or it's because there are multiple etymologies that have the same pronunciation. —CodeCat 14:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


Is this really a separate suffix? I would see it as -ling + -e. —CodeCat 15:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be like -ster, which is also a seperate suffix apart from -er. -ling + -e would be a double suffix. --DrJos (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Misspellings in page names[edit]

You don't need to add a request at WT:RFD for speedy deletions using {{d}} or {{delete}}. --WikiTiki89 16:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi DrJos. Can you have a look at the page tonijn please. I was very surprised not to have the entry already! --Type56op9 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Unattested Dutch diminutives[edit]

I noticed some of the diminutives you are entering are not attested. I created WT:RFV#aalmoezenierskamertje and WT:RFV#aalmoezenierskamertje; maybe you want to join the discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Dutch verbal nouns[edit]

I've added an option for a "verbal noun" to Dutch verb inflection tables. The verbal noun is usually an unpredictable form and verbs may not even have one. It is often a form ending in -ing, or sometimes -(a)tie, but some verbs have other forms like zien > zicht, dringen > drang etc. I've only added it to a few verbs so far, and before I add it to more of then I wonder if you think it's a good idea to include these forms or not. If you want to add them yourself, use the vnoun= and vnoun2= parameters. —CodeCat 15:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If I encountered them I usually put them in the section "Derived terms". I'm not as experienced in working with verbs as yet. Looks good though. --DrJos (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for verification[edit]

Hi. Please be careful not to edit an old version when you post a message: [2]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)