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)