User talk:Lingo Bingo Dingo

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive
Archive
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It 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.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for 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.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

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! --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimunitives[edit]

Hi Lingo Bingo Dingo, is there an official policy defined for unattested diminutives in Dutch? I would generally be more inclusive, as I don't want us to imply that a word such as "krijgsolifant" cannot have one - it does have the possibility of a (regular) diminutive. Morgengave (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgengave To my knowledge there is no policy specifically covering this. The general custom is that non-lemma case forms and derived forms have to be attested, but that plurals don't. So it kind of depends where you think the diminutives best fit. My view is that they are more like case forms. I personally don't mind showing unattested but potentially usable diminutives, but I am not a fan of having them as entries; but in my experience there are always a few users who create green links without checking for attestation, even some who do not state any proficiency in Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caution with regards to (e-)WLD[edit]

There is no problem using "dreen" as a lemma form, but please be cautious using WLD. The forms listed here and in the pdf version might actually not exist in Limburgish, as the bold forms are standard Dutch (or Dutch equivalent translations). For example dolletje only exists as "dø̜lkǝ (Urmond)", which is spelled as dölke and not as dolletje. For dreen specifically, this is no issue, as the form "drēn" (spelled dreen) exists in the area surrounding Maastricht and Geulle, where common ae is pronounced as ee just like in Dutch (f.e. laeve > leve). For the majority of dialects, "dręn", "drę̄ǝn", "drɛ̄n" (spelled draen or draeën depending on the schwa-diphthong) is used. Please keep this in mind in case you plan to use WLD in the future :) --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooswesthoesbes Thanks for the warning. Is ae the usual result of a sharp-long vowel (I'd guess <a>?)? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"ae" /ɛ:/ is usually either the result from Proto-Germanic short "e" or short "a" with umlaut. For example *etaną > aete "eat" and *makōn > make "to make" > maeker "maker". The short counterpart is e /æ/, often in plural, such as bal "ball" > bel "balls". Although the precise distribution is very complicated due to syncope, the arrisal of tonality, more extended i-umlaut è /e̞/ (for example valle "to fall" > vèltj "(he) falls") etc. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holograph[edit]

"Holograph" (n) has never meant "a hologram" - IIRC Gabor chose the latter specifically to avoid confusion with "holograph" which already existed (meaning sole hand-written document). I'm not familiar with how Wiktionary do things, but to support this claim I would expect a cited reliable source (and this definition isn't in any of my dictionaries!). 51.6.110.70 21:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your revision after I found the definition in some American online dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, American Heritage Dictionary). It is true that contents on Wiktionary should be verifiable (though usually not by means of references but rather quotations), I can RFV the sense "hologram" for you if you'd like. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in photonics for decades and don't recall ever seeing "holograph" used for hologram, even in US publications. Both the examples given by M-W are very recent - one is obviously referring to Bladerunner 2049 - while the bogus definition has been here for 15 years without supporting evidence, with risk of creating a self-fulfilling loop ("citogenesis" on Wikipedia). So I still believe this is a false definition. (I also don't understand why it's given as the first definition...) 46.208.55.219 16:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a RFV discussion where you can weigh in here. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yom HaShoah 2021[edit]

Hi,

Yom HaShoah 2021 is on the 8th, not the 9th. Sorry if this was a mistake on my part. It begins on the evening of the 7th, lasts until the evening of the 8th. Please move akodrar to the 8th. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@פֿינצטערניש Thank you for the timely notice. Yes check.svg Done It will take some time before the template has been updated, but it probably will be in time. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verwaarloosbaar[edit]

Hi,

I see you changed the pronunciation of "verwaarloosbaar" from /vərˈʋaːr.loːzˌbaːr/ to /vərˈʋaːr.loːsˌbaːr/, i.e. the /z/ to /s/. Please note that in Dutch all voiceless consonants get voiced before the voiced stops /b/ and /d/. This is a general phonological rule without exceptions (see e.g. "leesbaar", "huisdier"). This needs to be indicated in the phonemic transcription (and it always is, see dictionaries of Van Dale or Heemskerk and Zonneveld: Uitspraakwoordenboek (2000). Utrecht: Het Spectrum, and see the phonological literature, e.g. Geert de Booij: The Phonology of Dutch (1995). Oxford University Press) since the voiced counterparts of voiceless consonants are separate phonemes in their own right in Dutch, not just allophones of voiceless consonants. It does not matter that historically, the /z/ developed through the voicing of an /s/ in this specific word: synchronically, it is a /z/. As the general principle of phonemic transcription says: "Once a phoneme, always a phoneme." This means that if we indicate /z/ as a phoneme in e.g. "zoon" /zoːn/, then we have to indicate all occurrences of the sound [z] as a /z/ phoneme in the phonemic transcription as well. (The same applies to the glide /j/ in "theater", which we discussed before: if we indicate /j/ in the phonemic transcription of "jong" /jɔŋ/ (which means it is a phoneme), then we have to indicate all occurrences of the sound [j] as /j/ in the phonemic transcription as well, also if historically it occurred as a hiatus-filling glide, as in "theater" /teːˈjaːtər/.) Also, in my opinion there is no need to add the pronunciation of the prefix "ver-" with a full vowel, since the usual pronunciation is with a schwa (see pronunciation dictionaries mentioned above). Also, the possibility of a pronunciation with a full vowel is not a lexical peculiarity of this word only, but of all occurrences of the prefix "ver-", so no need to indicate that this specific word has both pronunciations.) Thank you for reading my comment. If you agree, please revert /vərˈʋaːr.loːsˌbaːr/ to /vərˈʋaːr.loːzˌbaːr/.

Leandro81 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leandro81 We usually transcribe this type of regressive voicing in square brackets, so phonetically. If you want this to be represented as the phonemic transcription (as I assume you want this to be our default from now on), that's probably a matter for the Beer Parlour. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingo Bingo Dingo Hi, thanks for the tip. I'll see if I have the time for more discussions in the Beer Parlour. Just wanted to add that phonologically, it cannot be demonstrated that this is a /s/ phoneme (morphological alternation between the various forms of this stem containing /s/ and /z/ is a different thing), it is only the spelling which has an "s", but spelling is not indicative of phonological structure. The same principle underlies the fact that we analyse /ŋ/ as a separate phoneme in present-day English and not just as an allophone of /n/. Since "sin" /sɪn/ and "sing" /sɪŋ/ are minimal pairs, /n/ and /ŋ/ are distinct phonemes. (In earlier English, when "sing" was still pronounced with a /ɡ/ at the end, the [ŋ] could just be analysed as an allophone of /n/). Therefore, today, we analyse all occurrences of the [ŋ] sound as a /ŋ/ phomene, even if historically it developed as an allophone of /n/ through place assimilation before velars. So today, "English" /ˈɪŋglɪʃ/ also has the /ŋ/ phoneme, not /n/, because synchronically, we have no reason to assume that it is not the /ŋ/ phonome, but an allophone of /n/. The same applies in Dutch as well, due to the "ton/tong" minimal pair, so "dank" has the /ŋ/ phoneme, not /n/. Leandro81 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leandro81 I can post your comments in the Beer Parlour if you like. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

prefixes and circumfixes[edit]

hi @Lingo Bingo Dingo, you mentioned me in your edit of ommantelen. I think this verb could be described as prefix 'om-' + verb 'mantelen'. See: https://www.ensie.nl/van-dale/mantelen I don't describe verbs with om- as circumfixes, because they can usually be seen as a combination of an existing verb and a prefix. I realize that this doesn't always work, in those cases the distinction between circumfixes and prefixed verbs + -en (denominative) is somewhat arbitrary. I'm open to idea of using circumfixes when no basic verb is available but this should be done consistently. --DerRudymeister (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I changed it to {{pre|nl|om|mantelen}}; the chronology checked out as well, so there was no reason not to. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there.[edit]

I'm not great with many of the templates, although I have begun using a small number of them lately. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. Tharthan (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tharthan I see. {{m}} and {{l}}, and the variant {{m+}}, are the most important ones to start using. One hardly ever uses bare double brackets in etymologies or usage notes. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction[edit]

The two sites Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/öküŕ and Reconstruction:Proto-Tocharian/wəkʷsó should be corrected, "Güntert, Anders H; Festschrift Fr. Panzer 10" actually describes a reverse loan, cf: Orel handbook, page 434 on top. Also consider the loss of initial /p-/ in Turkic (> *pökkVr-) and ToB. 10:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)~

Eh, okay? I do not know why you address this to me, but I'll ping an editor who can evaluate the claim. @Victar ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed sources, but this is perma-blocked user User:Altuunay. --{{victar|talk}} 18:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never heard of the user, but thanks for the information. I've read the CU discussion now. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWOTD: Help with nominating[edit]

Hello. I am finding it so hard to nominate a word there because the list is so long, and I could not make out if new nominations are put at the beginning or the end. So if I simply list a few ‘ready’ words on your talk page, would you be able to list those as FWOTD by yourself? Thank you! -- dictātor·mundī 10:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inqilābī Yes, that is all right. The practices are divergent and a little confusing, but at WT:FWOTDN new nominations are placed directly above the other nominations in the same language (so a new Chinese nomination is placed directly above the other Chinese nominations), but at WT:FWOTD/FW they are placed directly below the other nominations with the same ready/unready status. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Inqilābī The nominations have been put in the right place. However, in this case one nomination is the immediate ancestor of the other nomination, but we generally avoid featuring cognates with a similar semantic range. In this case I would prefer to feature the Bengali, because of its polysemy. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: If we feature the Bengali one now, then the Old Bengali may be featured afterward. Is there any rule that cognates can never be shown, even after a good while (just wondering)? Also, by the way, the ‘quote translated’ signal is not showing for this: diff. -- dictātor·mundī 17:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Inqilābī There isn't such a rule, but it will probably take a couple of years. And yes, if the cite parameter is greater than one, another text is not shown, but I don't know what the details are. It was probably implemented because for LDLs two quotations or citations are enough to qualify. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just informing you that there’s a new entry on that page: Middle Bengali ঘর (ghara); you might to want to make it the FWOTD as this word is also polysemantic. The Modern Bengali term is a very common word (which is why I nominated the Old Bengali at first), so you may choose the Middle Bengali instead. Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Inqilābī Considering that the senses currently in the entry are identical, I am in principle relatively indifferent about which of the two is featured. I generally dislike changing FWOTDs on short notice because the template takes ages to update, though that is less of an issue here because the entries have the same title. So, if you'd rather change the language code to Middle Bengali, be my guest. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

eunuch[edit]

Geachte Bingo, wat je daar in de edit history tegen me zei, vond ik niet bijzonder vriendelijk. Ik ben inderdaad geen moedertaalspreker van het Nederlands, maar ik denk wel dat ik van mezelf mag zeggen dat ik "the fucking language" een beetje geleerd heb. Het maakt echter niet uit. Alleen hoop ik dat je me dat misschien even kunt verklaren... "Eu" wordt over het algemeen /øː/ uitgesproken. Dus, dan zou het tenminste een beetje vreemd zijn als het in dit woord /œy̯/ was, want daarvoor schrijven we eigenlijk "ui". Maar, kijk, voor mijn oren klinkt het inderdaad als /øː/, ookal is het een beetje gediftongiseerd als [øʏ̯]. Misschien vergis ik me, dus dan had ik inderdaad niet moeten zeggen "clearly". Maar eigenlijk denk ik ook nu nog dat hij "eu" zegt en niet "ui". In elk geval, beste groeten. 78.54.16.104 00:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: En om eerlijk te zijn: Wat de beklemtoning betreft, daar zei ik al van tevoren dat ik er niet zeker was. Maar als je naar het meervoudsvorm luistert ("eunuchen"), dan vind ik dat hij dus écht de eerste lettergreep beklemtoont. Dan zou zelfs dat niet zo "idiotic" zijn. Tenminste niet om even te vragen. En dat hij hier inderdaad /øː/ zegt, lijkt me zelfs duidelijk te zijn. Dus ja, dan verwacht ik misschien zo'n kleine verontschuldiging van jou, als dat kan. 89.12.62.14 04:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, it was rather unfriendly, so sorry for that. Anyway, the dictionaries I checked both have initial /œy̯/ with final stress and that's the only pronunciation I've ever heard. /œy̯/ for 〈eu〉 is entirely normal in words derived from Ancient Greek, especially if they aren't everyday words, compare Zeus, hermeneut, deuterium, farmaceut, Pentateuch. It's true that the audio file has /øː/ with initial stress, but to me that sounds just like a spelling pronunciation by someone who doesn't know the word. There is unfortunately no shortage of audio files with errors like that, adding RFCs based on them isn't going to be helpful. It's in general a bad idea to rely on audios like that, IPA and audio probably have an error rate that's in the same ballpark. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kruis[edit]

Hey, I'd just like to inform you about two entries I added among the kruis page's derived terms before any confusion arises. The entries are "kruisblom" and "kruisblommig". Kruisblommig isn't a derivative of kruisblom as the latter entry is a passionflower whereas kruisblommig refers to a cruciferous plant. If you see any problems with the page's major edit, just point it out. Thanks in advance. AdjacentTriangle (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AdjacentTriangle It looks really good. By the way, don't you have green links on? You can enable it at Preferences > Gadgets > Add accelerated creation links (...). The plural surely deserves a non-lemma entry. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I'd like to bring up, unrelated to the Kruis page, is the dophou page. According to an etymological book I have on Afrikaans, it's derived from a Dutch saying "in de doppen/gaten hebben/houden", which sounds plausible enough. Is how I've set up the etymological section up good enough? AdjacentTriangle (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AdjacentTriangle Yes, I'd say it's all good. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{dercat}}[edit]

Do you have something against the usage of {{dercat}}? --{{victar|talk}} 16:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar No. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, *phew*. --{{victar|talk}} 17:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

Thanks, Lingo Bingo Dingo, I'm well! I hope I'll be able to stick around for a while. Looking forward to collaborating with you again. --Azertus (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding changes to Bronkhorst[edit]

Hello, I'd just like to mention that I've reversed some of the changes you made to Bronkhorst. The etymology was actually pretty much complete: I source everything from Berkel and Samplonius (2018), and that text pretty much indicates that the etymology is cut and shut. I never add personal conjectures or folk etymologies, even when it's very clear what a toponym is supposed to be (e.g. De Hoeve). If I don't have any professional etymology or attestation, I immediately indicate that the etymology is uncertain. The only thing the etymologies lack is a citation, but that's because I don't have the printed version(s) of Berkel and Samplonius to hand and thus can't add them (I could add hyperlinks to etymologiebank.nl, but that looks a little unprofessional and I might be able to get my hands on the printed work(s) at some point in the future anyway). Berkel and Samplonius are not infallible authorities of course, but they do have the maturity to say "we don't know" when they're dealing with an uninterpretable toponym and then offer a selection of older hypothetical etymologies, which I also indicate. I'm not mad that you changed the page or anything, just letting you know that I don't add conjectures or personal speculation under any circumstances.

Oh two more things. One: Bronkhorst is very aggressive in profiling itself as a capital C city based on its vaunted city rights (and to steal tourists from Staverden and Sint Anna ter Muiden) so I've reversed that too. Two: horst is a highly variable term depending on where in the Dutch linguistic area you are. A horst can be anything from a small sandy wall with a bunch of weeds on it to a bona fide hill or a kind of small dune plateau (e.g. de Vliehorst). I've deliberately chosen to copy Berkel and Samplonius and use "overgrown elevated place" ("begroeide hoogte") to ensure some degree of general applicability. The definition of "hillock" is not wrong per se (because most places indicated as "horst" are about two to three meters off the ground at most), but I think it's better to keep things general (the same reason why I translate lo as "light forest", because again the term carries different connotations depending on where you are). Nothing serious, just thought I'd let you know my reasoning. 030BeterHe (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@030BeterHe I don't really mind the changes a lot, especially not those to the etymology. My main concern is to prevent surnames to be placed under a neuter headword; whatever gender you can assign to surnames, they usually are not neuter. To be honest, I think it is very grandiloquent to call anything with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants a city and with Bronkhorst apparently having under 100 inhabitants, I'd say "f- their marketing". We do not and should not call Stavoren a "city" either and I think it is more important to adapt the terminology to the expectations of native English speakers (whose expectations are not uniform!) than to the external desires of Dutch speakers. But I won't change it back without further input. Your approach to generalising glosses in etymologies is entirely justifiable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that Bronkhorst's city status is entirely a joke at this point and is just done to lure in tourists, so if you want to change it back be my guest. As far as surnames are concerned: maybe a stopgap solution would be to create a separate etymology for the surname with the correct gender? Although that might clutter up the pages too much. 030BeterHe (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Water boards (waterschappen en hoogheemraadschappen)[edit]

Yo, I realised just now that it's technically possible to add definitions for water boards (seeing as how they're current and past administrative subdivisions with clearly defined territorial jurisdictions, i.e. they manage real dirt and aren't statistical districts or something). Do you think they should be added or will they clutter up the site too much? Most of them are hydronyms with the term "waterschap" or "college" added to them, so I'm 50/50 on them being included. 030BeterHe (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@030BeterHe I'm not sure either. There aren't too many anymore because of mergers, so the amount of content should be managable, but if historic ones are added as well it might be a bit much. And the ones with waterschap/college/(hoog)heemraadschap + [hydronym] are not very interesting (in this case just adding the hydronym or toponym seems more useful), but the ones with different names might be interesting. Perhaps you could ask for more input in the tea room or beer parlour. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWOTD अल्पप्राण[edit]

Hello Lingo Bingo Dingo,

I made some changes to the page Sanskrit अल्पप्राण (alpaprāṇa), in the hope of adding actual quotations when possible and make quotation stubs more precise. The definitions appear to have been taken from the MW dictionary (see Reference section) in a manner less critical than desired. There weren't much informative editing since the page's creation. For example, the sense for "unaspirated" (as in phonetics) were not used as such in Panini, but in Paninian scholastic writings (which the MW dict. indicated by using a shorthand). I also merged two definitions, about being fatigued or tired, while adding a full quotation. My addition of stub quotations are based on cursory readings and it is still desirable to examine how the word was actually used in context, and add the quotations with translations if possible. Meanwhile, the FWOTD may need updating. Thank you! --Frigoris (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Frigoris Thank you for the message, the FWOTD page has been edited accordingly. The changes may not show up in time though. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

putje winter[edit]

Hi LBD, happy to help. Is there anything in particular you wish me to comment on in this lemma? Everything looks good to me. Kind regards, Morgengave (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgengave: Could you perhaps shed light on the etymology (is the development like "drain" > "trough, minimum, lowest point" > "coldest part of the season") and check whether the entry putje is correct? Is bare putje for instance ever used for summer? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, you can't use "putje" (basically "in the deep of") on its own - not even for winter; you always need to add a time period; most Flemings in my opinion wouldn't understand it otherwise. If there are attestations with just "putje", I believe these are rare exceptions and I think the context must have made clear the meaning. To me, it's just the same as "hartje" ("in the center of"). My own hypothesis is that there was an intermediate step "(in het) putje van de" (you can find many attestations for "putje van de + [winter or another time period]") and that it just means "in the deep of". I would even argue that seen its productive use (putje zomer, putje lente, putje herfst, putje nacht, putje vakantie, putje Koude Oorlog, etc.) that putje winter is a SOP... but seen the predominant use with winter, I am not against the existence of the lemma. Morgengave (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Morgengave, I see. I have changed putje winter to a hard redirect, because that does seem justifiable. Ironically, it first caught my attention in the rare form "in putje". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]