User talk:Morgengave

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


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution 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.
  • 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.

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! --EncycloPetey 22:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


Use {{alternative form of}} instead. Thanks JamesjiaoTC 23:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi morgengave, I see you've been creating Dutch verbs. (thanks by the way). After you finish creating a Dutch verb or adjective, can you please enter them in WT:MEW so that our feline bot can go through and create verb forms / adjective forms automatically? Make sure you understand the instructions on the page. If you have any questions, leave a message on my talk or CodeCat's. We will be glad to help. JamesjiaoTC 21:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! When you add inflection tables for verbs, be sure to check whether the form you get when you add -e to the stem is the same as literally the stem+e. In the case of schallen it's not, because schal+e = schale which isn't right, it should be schalle. You have to provide a second parameter in those cases, which the -e added manually. I did it for you now, but please take care of this in future. Thank you. —CodeCat 21:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, dt=dd means that the past tense of the verb has -dd-, which isn't the case here. It would be used for verbs whose stem already ends in -d, such as luiden. —CodeCat 21:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Etymologies and language codes[edit]

Many of the templates on Wiktionary use language codes to determine which language is being used. In the case of the {{etyl}} template there are two codes: the first is the language the word came from, and the second is the current language. If you leave out the second code, like you did at vrijdom, it assumes that it's an English word and adds it to the category for English words. That's not right in this case, so you need to use {{etyl|dum|nl}} instead. Can you please fix that and any other entries you did that to? Thank you. —CodeCat 22:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You just added *saiwalō to the category 'Proto-Germanic terms derived from Proto-Germanic'. That can't be right... —CodeCat 21:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
So how do I correctly link the two? Which template do I need to use? By the way, Wiktionary has quite a high level of entry. It's difficult to do things right. Morgengave (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The most important thing is to check things to make sure it's all correct. It's ok if you make mistakes or don't know how to do things, you can always ask. It's much worse if errors are left unfixed where they can sit around for months or even years. The template {{proto}} is just like {{etyl}}, it's used only when a term is descended or borrowed from another language. (It's actually a leftover from the time when we did not have proper language codes for reconstructed languages like Proto-Germanic, so we may get rid of it sometime in the future.) If you want to link to a Proto-Germanic term, you can use {{lx|gem-pro|word}} (in lists of words, shows in normal styling) or {{termx|word|lang=gem-pro}} (in running text, shows the term in italic). In the case with *saiwalō you should probably use {{termx}}. —CodeCat 21:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


Hello! I saw where you have added the Dutch word to the Appendix. You are certain that the Old Dutch word is feminine? I see that it is used in placenames, one being Dungus. I am not certain myself of the gender, but we have another entry at *dungaz for the masculine forms. Leasnam (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not 100% certain, and you could be right. The modern word is feminine: [1], which is also the gender it had in Middle Dutch and Early Middle Dutch (yet the related donc "cellar" was masculine). Direct attestations of Old Dutch words are rare, and much of our knowledge comes from toponyms, which are often unclear on word genders or were "Latinized". The WNT does not directly assign any gender to the old Dutch word: [2]. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on Old Dutch or Proto-Germanic can help? Morgengave (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, well if the Mnl word was fem, then prob the Onl was too. That's good enough for me. Leasnam (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


I had to revert your recent edit to *dawwan as dauw appears at *dawwaz. It is masculine is it not? Leasnam (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are completely right! Morgengave (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Header levels.[edit]

Please take care with header levels. If a "Noun" section contains a "Synonyms" subsection, then the "Synonyms" header needs to have one more set of equals signs than the "Noun" header. For example:


# ...

* ...


RuakhTALK 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


When you change a definition in a way that might invalidate the translations, please mark the translations with {{ttbc}}. —RuakhTALK 16:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

gruwzaamheid, werkeloos[edit]

When mentioning a word in running text, please use {{term}} rather than {{l}}. —RuakhTALK 16:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd reply to my comments here, to acknowledge them; just something as simple as "O.K." would be polite. :-)   —RuakhTALK 16:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
O.K. :) Morgengave (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


When you add etymologies to entries, please be sure to set the categories right as well. Right now it's classed as an English word, which isn't right. There are probably more entries you created/edited that need to be fixed, can you look at them? —CodeCat 20:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


Would you be able to provide citations that show this word being used in modern Dutch? —CodeCat 18:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi CodeCat, the word is clearly archaic or poetic, but it has been used in Modern Dutch, especially by late 19th century writers (as referenced by the WNT):
  • Waar sterft een groot en edel diet? (Rodenbach, 1876)
  • (...) nu bloeien kunst en kunde van 't Rhetorieklijk diet. (Rodenbach, 1877)
  • (...) 't roekeloos, zeeminnend vlaamsche diet. (Gezelle, 1882)
  • In onze gilde is 't jonge diet aan 't groeien (...)! (Gezelle, 1894)
Ok, could you add them to the citation page of diet, according to WT:CITE? —CodeCat 13:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternative forms[edit]

Can you please use the standard template, {{alternative form of}} instead? —CodeCat 17:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


Hello, what sort of lexicon is that word (eg. a slang word, a colloquialism, a pejorative, etc.)? I'm curious about that. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For me, it's a fairly neutral word, but I can imagine it being a bit pejorative for some speakers. It's mostly a colloquialism, but that's - I think - because not a lot is written about people leaving a restaurant without paying. Morgengave (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't seem like a slang or colloquial word to me, but it may be perceived as a kind of neologism because it's not used much. People are more familiar with zwartrijder and such, so they will probably catch on to the idea behind this word. —CodeCat 13:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I undid my edit as a precaution against misleading a future reader. On an off-topic question (maybe...), is there a way to share Wiktionary entries on Facebook? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, you could post a link. (Do you mean some JavaScript share buttons to the principal social networks in the corner? I would support that.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
What will the rest of the WMF think about the JavaScript share buttons in various projects? I'm not sure if I even know about them. (And BTW, Meta, Could we mingle about translating some more of Aung San Suu Kyi's quotes into Latin? Do I sound like I flirt?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean? they don't exist (yet). And no, Latin and flirting are somewhat mutually exclusive to me. But I'd be glad to make more translations for you, make a list on my talkpage. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, "zwart-" tends to be productively used to denote the illegality of an action, especially the non-paying aspect. The words zwartwerker and zwartrijder are well-established, and in recent years others are being formed like:

Also interesting, grijs ("gray") is being used in a similar way to denote the partial illegality of an action. Examples: grijsrijder (to use public transport for a longer distance than for which one has paid: [6]) and grijskijker [7]. Morgengave (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


This is a separate suffix but it was formed by attaching -ij to words already ending in -er, as well as from loanwords that already had -erie (from Latin -arium). It was only later that people started adding -erij directly to words following these examples. bakkerij for example is definitely bakker + -ij, not bakken + -erij. See [8]. —CodeCat 13:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Also the suffix -erij, like -arium, originally meant a place with a collection of something. A planetarium is a place with a collection of planets, an armarium a collection of weapons and so on. But bakkerij is not a collection of bakken! However, boekerij is a collection of books, so that is boek + -erij. —CodeCat 13:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Codecat, thanks for the comment. I will undo my edit. Just fyi: I have based my edit on the entry "bakkerij" in the WNT: "In het Mnl. nog niet aangewezen, althans noch bij VERDAM, noch bij STALLAERT voorkomende; waarschijnlijk eer afgeleid van bakken dan van bakker." Also, I never wrote that bakkerij denoted a collection (the suffix -erij however can). If bakkerij descended from the verb bakken, as I thought, it's clearly related to the activity/craft. Words like burgerij and boekerij on the other hand are indeed denoting the collection/group. Morgengave (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
burgerij is burger + -ij though, because burg + -erij would make little sense. Personally I think that at some point -er and -erij started to be perceived as pairs of related forms so that the existence of one would automatically imply the other. So any agent nouns in -er could then automatically form a noun in -erij for a place associated with that profession, and vice versa. However, I'm sure that bakker existed long before bakkerij did. The same situation happens in English too, but -ery says that bakery is probably baker + -y. Perhaps the difference is really irrelevant, but if we can show that the -er for existed before the -erij form, I think that the latter was probably formed by adding -ij to the former, rather than by back-forming and then adding -erij directly to the verb. So I'm more inclined to believe that bakkerij is bakker + -ij than bakken + -erij. After all, is it primarily a place associated with baking, or the place of a baker? —CodeCat 14:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Yet, for many words, it will be nearly impossible to prove that a word descended from the agent+ij or from the verb+erij. From the moment -erij was productive, I am not certain that people were still using the agent as the building block for a particular word. E.g., the word "visserij" is for me more connected to the act of fishing than to a fisherman. What would you suggest as a practical solution? It is not that important in the end, but it would be nice to be able to group words. Morgengave (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Not always denoting a place[edit]

Hi CodeCat, I disagree with this part of your edit: "Place associated with an activity" which replaced "Activity". For me, -erij can denote the activity itself, without fixing it to a place. Examples: kokerij, (veel)vreterij, vrijerij, denkerij (zwartwitdenkerij, hokjesdenkerij...). These words now sound a bit dated, yet they are still used and the suffix remains producing similar words. Morgengave (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That should be a separate sense then. kokerij doesn't seem that different from koken used as a gerund, really. —CodeCat 15:06, 25 December 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)

Sounds great! Good work, CodeCat! Morgengave (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

*falhaz (m.) vs. falgō (f.)[edit]

(I pasted this from the talk page on *falhaz.) I read in both The Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic by Guus Kroonen et. al. and on the website etymonline that the proto-form of the English word fallow should be *falgō and not *falhaz. I also checked on oldenglishtranslator that the grammatical gender of fealh is feminine and not masculine. May I see what source the editor of this appendix is using to cite information? For now I will create a new appendix page under *falgō to link to fallow and fealh instead.Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

au and auw not homophones?[edit]

If they are not homophones then we should probably split the rhyme page. But what is the difference between them? —CodeCat 18:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


I see you added a Dutch section for the word wers. As a native speaker I have never encountered the word wers, and I couldn't find it in any online dictionary. Given that the meaning is such a common one, it is at best archaic or dialectical and certainly not standard Dutch. Can you give me an account on when you encounter the word "wers"?Merijn2 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's archaic and only survives in West-Flemish dialects. One source would be the WNT: [9]. Morgengave (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I've added an archaic tag to the word. Merijn2 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

itryd2putITUNDRvlsHEDR,butwasRVd81.11.219.30 11:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello ! You have added Dutch bradem to the coordinate Descendants of Proto-Germanic *brēþiz; however, I am unable to locate a source for the Dutch word. Can you please enighten me? Leasnam (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leasnam, see:, which says about Dutch bradem: "(...) similar secondary derivations are (...) Old High German brâdam, New High German Brodem". Morgengave (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


Morgengave, heb je een bron voor de betekenis "woerd" van draak? Ik kan niets vinden in het WNT; etymologiebank noemt het met deze betekenis niet in het Nederlands. In elk geval lijkt het me ronduit misleidend om "draak" zonder enige waarschuwing als vertaling te geven voor drake in de betekenis "woerd"; dat is geenszins standaardtaal, en voorzover ik kan vinden is het dus zelfs niet regionaal of verouderd Nederlands. – gpvos (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ik heb de vermeldingen gemarkeerd als obsolete om de ergste misleiding te voorkomen, aangezien het volgens een ander lemma nog wel in het MNL voorkwam, ook al kan ik nergens een vermelding voor het NNL vinden buiten Wiktionary. – gpvos (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

PGmc *staigō[edit]

Hi. Are you sure that steeg derives from *staigō ? Most sources say it derives from *stigō, *stigǭ (staircase; path; ladder) However, in your support, there is the Old Dutch steyga (for *steiga ?) perhaps. Leasnam (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for your edits there. Do you know whether the word is formal or not in Belgian Dutch? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Dialectal/regiolectal hence colloquial only. In formal written language it is hardly ever used in Belgium, possibly due wanting to avoid confusion with the widespread colloquial use. Morgengave (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, are both meanings commonly used in Belgian colloquial language or only the second? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2016
@Lingo Bingo Dingo. The standard meaning is not commonly used in Belgium. However if the word would be used in formal written language like books or newspapers, it will carry standard meaning. However, this is not without risk with as readers could read it with colloquial meaning in mind. Morgengave (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll add country-specific labels to both senses then, and tag the standard meaning with "formal". Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way, is visse uncommon in print media for similar reasons (e.g. to avoid a colloquialism)? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Apparently straks has undergone a similar shift in meaning. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


Hej Morgengave,

Zou je me kunnen zeggen waarom jullie de woordgeslachten veranderen van mijn bijdragen? Zoals bij bouwlamp? -Grunnen (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Grunnen, see the guideline on: Wiktionary:About_Dutch#Gender. Morgengave (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah dankjewel, dat is verhelderend. Ik volgde idd de standaard van de taalunie. Groetjes -Grunnen (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

heardof"SUSKE en WISKE?[edit]

no"-n;ta4ureditstho213.49.48.220 16:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

What Sven's saying is that -ken be an archaic form, with -ke being the more current form. (I have no opinion on that.) Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
-ken is still used (e.g., Manneken Pis, restaurants like 't Heilig Huizeken and 't Appelken, the modern song "Een Aardig Vrouwken", etc.), and it is also very often encountered in older texts - Modern Dutch on Wiktionary covers the 15th-16th century until now. Normally, final -n after a schwa is not pronounced in Dutch (we lopen is often pronounced as we lope, same for twee bomen is often pronounced as twee bome). As such, -ken covers -ke, as -ken would in many situations be pronounced as -ke. I would prefer not to duplicate in our lemmas. Also take along that -ke(n) is not often used in writing, and hence there is no modern standard. Morgengave (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC) asw/shakesp.2.if1.line=STANDEDCONTEMPORARYlecct,i'dstilgo4-ke,fe. i'dsay(aftral,feREGT=stilMOD.DUTCHno?+-lYk(thouguyz=betrplaced,imainlynowNOWADAYSlects abit)-1idono:fe.BoomsCHe metaalwerken<we'dntputhisinsayDEFline,rite?(k,,damor=merier!)u=rite~silntfinal-n,prob=BRAB=mainlyspokn;as-ke=ofn iNAMES,sumAREritn,i'dsayonbalansmor=w/-ke+wedescrib,rite?(butys,urpoint=validõldrformsndad'dbnear-duplicatn,ys-i=nogonaRVorsuch,ijuslikd2say(aswelasposibl)my2cnts,mitegivsumorEXififind'm(buturpoints=valid2,m;prapswe'dalternat'm or,prapsbetr,jusleav'm asORIG.EDITRdid~US/BRIT.ENpolicy(i=nogonaDUPLCT,noworthit;orwego4-ke(n)<alredythinkuwontlikethat,but'dACOMODEITsus-wisEXnicelyNurEX(ifel=prapsbestsolutnow,hm-ta42daysmanyimprovmnts!@KLeio, Lingo Bingo Dingo, CodeCat62.235.174.135 23:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I gave it a quick try but I have no idea what you are saying. Can you switch to normal spelling? Morgengave (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
My try, with additions/conjecture in square brackets, I'm not sure about two parts labelled "[?]":
Yes. First, it is awkward that modern Dutch is so broad (early Dutch i very likely 've problems reading, just as with Shakespeare. Second, if first line is standard contemporary lect, I'd still go for -ke, f.e. [10] and other examples are findable [=can be found], I'd say (after all, f.e. regt (variant of recht) is still modern Dutch, no? and -lyk (variant of -lijk) (though you guys are better placed [to know], I mainly know nowadays-lects a bit) -- one I do know: f.e. "BoomsCHe metaalwerken"; we don't put this in say a definition line, right? (Okay, it's the English Wiktionary here [but you get the point].) Now it may well be that early Dutch is underrepresented (but I never look such entries up) in [the] English Wiktionary (and that is then [a] shame, the more the merrier!). You are right about the silent final -n, problem is that Brabantian is mainly spoken; as -ke often occurs in names, some are written though. I'd say on balance more are with -ke, and we describe, right?(But yes, your point is valid about older forms and that'd be near-duplicating, yes. I am not gonna RV [those] or such, I just liked to say (as well as possible) my two cents, might give some more examples if I find 'em (but your points are valid too, hm/yes; perhaps we'd alternate 'em or, perhaps better, just leave 'em as the original editor did, analogous to the US/British English policy (I am not gonna duplicate, not worth it; or we [could] go for -ke(n), [though I] already think you won't like that, but it would accommodate the Suske & Wiske example nicely, and your examples [as well] (I feel it's perhaps the best solution now, hm). Also, thanks for today's many improvements!
So Sven suggests either a compromise diminutive ending -ke(n) spelling (which would however be a problem in linking to entries) or alternating along similar lines as American and British spellings, leaving it to the original editors. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I have my own opinion evidently, but why not come all together (Sven, me, Kleio, CodeCat, Lingo Bingo Dingo, others) and make a consensus guidance page on dimunitives. For example, even if we include -ken and/or -ke, we should in any case add a qualifier that it's regiolectal, not standard. And what with obsolete diminutives like -lijn? What with Holandic -ie (makkie, dommie, jonkie, etc.)? Morgengave (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

'dALb.included asALwordz(wotevawichmanner-xcelntpropositn,ta!givinRANGE(HISTORIC+GEOGRAFIC)=indedway2go!:)(onnlynowsawuredit<v.CONSIDERAT1,ta! 18:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

boterschijte etc.[edit]

Hi, this has been in WT:RE:nl for a while, but it doesn't seem to have enough attestations anywhere to be included as a Dutch word. However, it (and the variant boterschijter) can probably be added as West Flemish. Could you perhaps add it? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, but believe it's obsolete rather than dialectal? Morgengave (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
That's certainly possible. It's shown in this map from the Dialectatlas, which uses a lot of old data. The data in this map must date to before 1927 because the Wieringermeer is shown in grey. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


=WFL(nodutch!=LANGUAG(nomychois,butISO's~LIMburgs@KIeio, Lingo Bingo Dingo

ta4sacochETY!:) 22:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
West-Flemish could be considered a separate language, but most often it's just considered a dialect of Dutch (see also: wikipedia:West_Flemish). For a normal user it's helpful to know that "jawadde" is a dialectal word, possibly from the West-Flemish dialect. (Could be good to have a source for this though as "jawadde" sounds very Brabantian to me (wadde, dadde, etc.). Happy I could add something to the "sacoche" lemma. Morgengave (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)<i'dntno,they'vbux2rsearch..2.i'duzLECT4evrth,w/GETABLorno asqualifier3.2day alotofBRABi+myFAMILYknow ijus'dntfind atestedanywhersigh81.11.219.200 22:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

groep, eilandengroep, doelgroep[edit]

I think these words may have undergone masculinisation in Belgian Dutch, perhaps under the influence of groupe. The WNT has "groep" as feminine and "der (eilanden)groep" is significantly more common than "den (eilanden)groep" on Google Books. I'll add both genders to them, in any case. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting. (Belgian) Dutch almost always takes the original gender in French (unless it's a Latin "neuter" word where Dutch, especially for "learned" words, tends to restore the original Latin gender), due to the interaction and active knowledge of French in school and work. And indeed "groep" is without a doubt masculine in Belgium. I am wondering where the feminine gender comes from? I am not doubting the sources, but just out of interest - I would really doubt that historically a (pre-)Belgian Dutch speaker would have mixed these genders up seen the high prevalence of the French word. Morgengave (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
That's indeed curious. (According to the Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands, the word probably comes from Italian gruppo, but that's also masculine.) The (Northern) Dutch word is already feminine in these texts from the 17th century. [11] [12] Spellings that resemble the French become more common in the 18th century, but feminine gender occurs even in combination with French-inspired spellings. [13] [14] The only clues left are that related words are also feminine in German and Yiddish, Scandinavian (originally), several Slavic languages and in the Rhaeto-Romance languages. Maybe it wasn't borrowed from Italian, but from a Rhaeto-Romance language? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Or because of the initial final -e, which is normally a marker of feminine words (cf masculine gaard vs feminine gaarde, cf advocaat vs advocate, etc. ). Even after the loss of the final -e in most Dutch words, the initial gender is usually kept (like zonne --> zon, spinne --> spin, etc. -- they all remain feminine). It's interesting how selective the WNT has been with its sources, with all used attestions being feminine, while Google Books shows a high prevalence of masculine forms between the 16th and 20th century (at first sight even much more than feminine?): [15], [16], [17], [18], etc. Morgengave (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, "der groep" certainly seems more common on Google Books than "den groep", and ditto for "eene(r) groep" and "eenen groep". 'Hits' for "den groep" in books before 1800 are so far invariably scannos for "den groey/groeij". [19] [20] Hits for "den groupe" before 1800 are scannos for "den gronde" [21] [22] or "den grouwel" [23] [24] The exception is "eenen group" which appears in a 17th century Belgian Dutch text by van Mander (the oldest attestation). [25] Bizarrely, the WNT does quote van Mander, but doesn't note he uses the masculine gender. I'm not sure the final -e explains the feminine gender in the Netherlands, because those spellings are generally quite late, being influenced by French. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


According to Etymologiebank, the first attestation is only in 1577, which makes it no longer Middle Dutch. WNT sometimes has post-1500 terms so you have to be careful for this. —CodeCat 18:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


Would this word be readily understood in Flanders in the sense “shepherdess”? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi LBD, I have never heard of that word before in Dutch, only have heard it being used in French. Morgengave (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Right, it looks like a sense that only appears in or up to the 19th century. Do you think "obsolete" is appropriate for Belgian Dutch? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok for me. It's certainly not part of Standard Belgian-Dutch nor of the Tussentaal. Could still be used in one of the local dialects. Morgengave (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


I wondered whether the pronunciations with back vowels and/or schwa are also valid for (Standard) Belgian Dutch. Some references from the Netherlands only transcribe the first 'a' as back, by the way. Would you mind having a look?

With respect to wieler, I'm not really sure modern speakers would recognise it as meaning "bicycle" rather than "wheeled vehicle". Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Lingo Bingo Dingo. Interesting question. As far as I know, the standard language doesn't prescribe pronunciation, but I'd agree that the word would never be pronounced like that in formal Belgian Dutch (nor would it in most dialects). On wieler, I just can't imagine any native speaker having difficulties understanding the word if it appeared in a normal conversation or a text (i.e. with some limited context). But if one encountered it as a single word you are likely right it would require some guesswork. What label do you propose to give it? Morgengave (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
All right, what pronunciation(s) would be used in Belgium? Only with an initial /aː/?
That's a good point, and when the word appears in a text it is often also called velocipède and it takes similar prepositions (op and van(af). But I have seen only one use that was more recent than the 19th century. What about "archaic"? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, there are separate Belgian and Dutch phonemic transcriptions now. Feel free to modify as needed. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)