View source for Thread:User talk:Leolaursen/Email

Please use English for conversations on this page. If the subject is of a more limited scope that doesn't concern others, feel free to contact me by email.

Archives: 2009 2010a

Hej! :)

Vil du hjælpe mig med at gennemgå denne liste og tilføje danske oversættelser? Der er ca 5000 artikler og de har alle mindst en nb-oversættelse som ofte er meget lig den danske.

Jeg har netop begyndt med -, A og W.--So9q (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I've replied to you on my talk page.

¶ May I please be entitled to a complete explanation on why you want to keep that page, sir?

The page contains interwiki links, and we do link to redirects for interwiki. It is also a potential German entry.

Hi. Do you dislike the existence of categories like Category:English colloquialisms and Category:English archaic terms, or do you dislike only Category:English lexicons?

It is the subcategories that bother me. E.g. Category:English nouns contains terms that are nouns, whereas the subcategories of "Category:English lexicons" contains terms that have a colloquial or dated sense. It seems to me, that this structure implies that terms are colloquial or dated, which is mostly not true. When they were topical categories it didn't bother me quite so much. Ideally we would use labels or tags, but I don't think it's possible with the current software.

For now I'll simply limit my use of {{colloquial}} and {{dated}} to terms where it really describes them, and use {{qualifier}} when it is only a minor sense of the term that's colloquial or dated.

Please don't ever use {{qualifier|archaic}} in archaic senses because it would not categorize their respective entries.

If you're going to mentally separate the entries that are archaic from the ones that merely have an archaic sense, you should also note that most members of Category:English nouns only have a noun sense, in addition to other senses.

Therefore, you didn't actually gave any reason for "Category:English nouns" to be more appropriate or less bothersome than "Category:English archaic terms".

1. The point of using qualifier, was to avoid categorization.
2. To my mind nouns and verbs that are homographs, are distinct words, not merely different senses.
3. I did give a reason. That you think otherwise is simply an indication of us disagreeing.

There are ways for you to try to solve the conflict that arises from that disagreement, such as either actively requesting new categories that are more precise to your tastes, or passively using only the current ones.

Deliberately denying easy coverage for some highly-used categories is bad, not only because you have to waste some time and a tiny amount of server resources by typing and saving "qualifier|", but also because other people expect to find archaic senses there. In fact, it becomes worse if you don't actually use that category, because you are only denying categorization for everyone else.

I actually suspect that the template "qualifier" uses a lot less server resources than any template calling "context", so it's just a minor inconvenience for my self.

You may see it as deliberately denying coverage, but I see it as trying to save users from getting false impressions. As an example pølse ("sausage"), can have a minor sense of "poop", which could be labeled dated, colloquial, humorous, childish, rare, slang and vulgar; but I don't think the term belongs in any of those categories. But as I think childish merits mention I used qualifier. Anybody who thinks differently may edit the page. I just don't want to be responsible for categorization that I don't approve of.

So, Danish wiktionary says the neuter of this one is 'blind' where I would have guessed 'blindt'. So for now I'm trusting da.wikt, but if it's wrong could you let me know? — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 15:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, neuter is blindt. Apparently it was added to da by an IP in 2007, and never fixed.

Alright, I've fixed our entry and theirs. Thanks :) — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant. BTW you can basically use the same style on the Danish Wiktionary as here. Most entries are different, but the new ones generally use the same format; so it is easier to copy from here to da.

Hej du, hvorfor må jeg ikkje redigere penge?

There was several errors in your edit, so it was easier to just revert.

1. Heading Pronunciation was H4, with an extra = (should be H3)
2. Heading Noun was H4 (should be H3)
3. The etymology was questionable. My source say it's the plural of penning, from Old Saxon pending.

Ikke ifølge ordbog over det danske sprog: http://ordnet.dk/ods/ordbog?aselect=Penge&query=Penge

Men så må du da bare bede mig om at rette de skriftstørrelser hvis det er et så enormt problem at du føler dig nødsaget til at fjerne mit arbejde. Fnidner 03:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. That source lists Late Old Norse pengr (sg) as a cognate, not the origin as you did. For the correct heading level, see Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. For the format of the etymology section, see Wiktionary:Etymology; it should have bee something like "from Late {{etyl|non|da}} {{term|pengr||money}}", if penge was derived from pengr.

Hul i det. Så gider jeg sgu ikkje hjælpe jer.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that; but your contributions this year, doesn't seem that helpful IMO.

Maelstrom is supposed to come from the Danish word, malstrøm, but there's no entry for it. Is this the correct spelling? Are there alternative spellings?

The spelling is correct, and I don't see any alternative spellings in Danish. DDO has the Dutch maalstroom as the etymological origin.

My source SAOB also says Dutch maalstroom is the origin. See the new Swedish entry malström.

Thanks.

The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the Dutch spelling as maelstrom, rather than maalstroom. Do we have any Dutch editors around here?

Maalstroom is the modern Dutch spelling. aa often used to be spelled ae a few hundred years ago, but that's not done anymore except in some old names. The word maalstroom itself probably comes from malen (to grind) + stroom (stream).

Dutch Wikipedia has an article named w:nl:maalstroom, but none named maelstroom.

wikipedia:Maelstrom has, "derived from the Dutch maelstrom, modern spelling maalstroom", citing The Merriam-Webster new book of word histories.

See also w:Talk:Maelstrom#Etymology, w:Talk:Maelstrom#Etymology, again. I am not terribly convinced that Dutch cartographers gave it its name (Atlas Cosmographicae (Mercator) gives Maelſtrom), see e.g. w:Grottasöngr#Prose Edda, a name is often (much) older than the legend trying to explain it.

Thanks, Erik. That will take some time to sort through!

If you ask User:Conrad.Irwin, he can produce a more useful Index:Danish, similar to the existing Index:Swedish. This is a nice display of the Danish entries, and also a useful tool for improving them.

Hi LA2, thanks, I've made a request on Conrad Irwin's talk page. I actually thought about it some time ago, but as I recall, his bot had problems with the sort order for some languages.

Hi Leo, please acknowledge the receipt of my e-mail of Feb. 22 regarding mælkevejen and mirinae. Sincerely Mark.

Hi Mark, I'll look into it, but I don't know any synonyms for mælkevejen, apart from galakse ("galaxy").

Thanks. Regards Mark.

Hej! Är din wiki-break över? Hur ska vi göra för att få mer skandinavisk aktivitet i en.wiktionary?

Jeg holder stadig fri fra wiki, men holder dog lidt øje med det af og til. Jeg har forsøgt at forbedre kvaliteten af de danske afsnit, i håb om at det så ville blive mere interessant for folk med sprogvidenskabelig baggrund at bidrage. Det lader dog desværre ikke til at have nogen effekt.

Hejsa, Leo. En IP skabte idag artiklen indhøste og jeg afgjorde, at artiklen skulle gjemmes. Jeg har forsynet den med den danske verbums definition. Kan du irettesætte den, hvis jeg har begået nogle fejl?

Det ser godt ud, men betydningen pick up er måske lidt forældet; jeg ville selv bruge indsamle om frugt. Den oprindelige betydning er nok "to gather in", "harvest". I dag ses mest udtryk som "indhøste erfaringer" (to acquire experiences) og "indhøste trofæer" (to gather trophies).

Hi, Leo. Could you fix løj#Adjective, because a weak wind does not appear to be an adjective. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right. Problem is that I don't know any direct equivalent in English. It is somewhat better now though.

It's Mike Halterman; I didn't bother to log in. While forsvind is also a verb, it can also be used as an interjection, so why did you wipe it out? If anything it should have both on that page. 184.44.133.28 20:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't regard imperatives as interjections. The literal translation is "disappear!", would you regard that as an interjection? I don't think so.

We both should know that literal translations aren't what is used in common practice. Moment is literally "eye blink" but you don't hear anyone saying eye blink. ;)

I have no idea why go away has an interjection section, since it is clearly an imperative. go, run or stop could just as easily claim to be interjections.

If you feel strongly about it by all means go ahead and revert my change, but I think it is stupid (no offence).

I also consider a possible reversion of Leo's edit not quite sound. To mine understanding, go away and forsvind are explicable by regarding them as imperative forms, whereas begone, lo etc. are not. There is a clear distinction between those two cases and yours belongs to the first group.

Hi Leolaursen. See this edit. Are you sure that Danish prins could mean "male ruler or head of a principality"? Norwegian and Danish are usually the same in such matters, and in Norwegian, using prins as "male ruler or head of a principality" is incorrect – prins means "son or male-line grandson of a reigning monarch". w:de:Prins seems to support my view, as it uses the word in the "søn af en regent eller en kvindelig regents ægtemand" sense.

Hi Kjetil_r. Maybe I misunderstood something. DDO: prins has sense 1.b "(titel for) mandligt medlem af visse europæiske fyrstehuse". I took that for a principality, but I might be wrong.

Using prins in the "mandligt medlem af et europæisk fyrstehus" sense is seems correct, but it shouldn't be used to refer to the head of the principality.

Take Albert of Monaco as an example: As long as Rainier was alive, Albert should be referred to as prins Albert. When his father died and he became ruler, the correct title is fyrst Albert (even though many newspapers would get it wrong and still use "prins").

I just corrected "prins" here, as a "male member of an European princely family" definition better reflects the Danish "mandligt medlem af visse europæiske fyrstehuse" meaning.

In Danish both "Fyrst" and "Prins" is a correct title for the ruler of Monaco, but "Fyrst" is exclusive to the ruler not other male members of the family.

{{gloss}} is for indicating which sense of the word is meant; you are using it here as {{non-gloss definition}}.

In my view, the sense "son or male-line grandson of a reigning monarch" covers the male members other than the ruler, so I'm going to revert your change.

Sorry if I mixed up the templates (or applied them wrong), I'm not used to the template naming conventions and usage at the English Wikisource.

I'm not going to spend more time arguing about what is correct in Danish, but I nevertheless still strongly suspect that the "Prins Albert" form – like it is in Norwegian – indeed is a mistranslation. It is probably like "w:da:prins af Wales" – a term properly translated as "fyrste af Wales" – where the translation error has gained common usage. We should of course not hide that "prins" now is used by some in the new "male ruler or head of a principality" sense, but we should make it clear that "fyrste" is the form traditionally preferred in the "male ruler or head of a principality" sense. I cannot remember seeing "prins" used in that sense when reading scholarly literature in Danish (for example in Politikens Forlag's many good books about history or politics, which I have often read at my local library).

The Prince of Wales is hardly ever referred to as fyrste. The titel Fyrst is not more correct, but may be preferred when there is a risk of ambiguity. If anything the titel Prins is the most common.

While I know you're around, would you mind making {{list:fundamental interactions/da}}? {{list:fundamental interactions/en}} has all the info you should need.

I'll have do some research to do that, and it would probably involve noun phrases, which I hate to introduce, because they will be treated as nouns.

So treat it as ===Noun phrase===... it's not the same in every language and if it needs to be different in Danish, it needs to be different. If someone tries to "fix" it, explain this to them... and if they insist on butting in where they have no knowledge, give them a short ban. People trying to formulate policies that affect things they have -zero- knowledge of us a big problem here.

Hi. I re-added your translation of Christadelphian, because I assumed it is correct. Please, delete it if you wish - I don't speak Danish, and I only wanted to help this new user.

I think it is the responsibility of the contributor to ensure that the material is correct. I do not have the time or the inclination to prove that it is incorrect, so I still won't delete it. I think it is commendable that you wish to help him, but reinforcing his mistakes is not the way to go.

I understand. It has been deleted, I don't want to waste anybody's time

Hi Leo, the word has been in use in Norwegian since 1911. The word appears in Danish editions of books from 2001, as in the paperback version of this.

A link to a website is not a citation. The website gives no date or source. Our WT:CFI requires that words be citable in durably archive media. Also, you still have not indicated which languages you speak, and the list seems to be growing. If you continue to edit in languages that you do not speak, you will be blocked. --

Perhaps, if it is published as a paperback, you have one citation. The fact that the Danish title "Bibelens Grund-Begreber" is wrong, doesn't add to its credibility. The correct title would be "Bib(e)lens Grundbegreber" (e is optional).

Hi, I divided a translation table into three here - could you please check out whether I haven't messed up the Danish translations? Thanks,

It was fine. I added {{t}} and a few more translations. The many translations for the sense "bring or transport something to its destination" is because delivery to a person, to an address or of mail would be "different senses" in Danish.

I see. Thanks again!

Hi Razorflame. I've replied per email. You can reach me here or on email as you please, and I'll reply in the same manner.

Yes, raise also works for this word, if you mean in the sense of increase or enhance.

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.