Eiliv

I want to thank you for creating East Norse forms separate from the Old Icelandic/West Norse forms which we are so used to seeing, especially on Wiktionary. It has been frustrating seeing Swedish and Danish forms listed as being descended from East Norse variants, such as Swedish/Danish "vi" being listed as descending from "vér" (which is a specifically West Norse R-mutated form; EN had wíR), so I really appreciate it. Cheers! Mårtensås (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad it is appreciated! I too have been irritated by the imprecise etymologies, especially with this type of characteristic East / West difference. Others like it are for instance djur supposedly coming from dýr (instead of simply eu > iū > ju) and East Norse regaining the Proto-Norse nk after Old Norse turning it into kk (sjunka < søkkva < *sinkwaną). Luckily, the language codes for Old East and West Norse work with {{desc}}. --Eiliv (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just checking (because I'm not knowledgeable about Norwegian enough), is the "plural present tense snjova" in snjova a typo or something else? I'm going through some machine-read tagged data taken form heads and tables to search for bugs in our code and correct mistakes on wiktionary itself when the opportunity arises, but although I can only find a couple of places in our data where "plural" and a tense marker is present and not a participle (mostly those unparseable historical tables in Norwegian; syngja and tre), your edit to snjova is the only one where I believe I found "plural present tense" at first glance. Thanks in advance! Kristian-Clausal (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, while I’m not sure if the correct term is plural present tense or present tense plural, snjova is indeed the plural of the present tense. Eilífr / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᚱ 13:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the confirmation, I'll leave the entry be. Sidenote, I found an annoying etymology issue, which looks like it's just up your wheel-house: dokker has as its etymology listed ykkr, which seems pretty obviously kind of wrong, or at least incomplete (analogous formation modelled on something else later on??). Kristian-Clausal (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is wrong yes. Dokker comes from *þokkr, influenced by okkr. The þ is from þykkr, which is from ykkr + the verb ending in second person plural present (e.g.hafið ykkr > hafið þykkr). Eilífr / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᚱ 06:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain the reason for this? It seems like these would be very useful to have. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 15:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I moved them to the Norwegian Nynorsk entry, so they’re not gone. It just seemed cleaner than having them all in the descendants tree. If you think this was a mistake, I’ll add them back. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ – Write to me 16:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

I see you have made many edits for Nynorsk, thank you for that! Not many people do. I did some a while back, including a bit of pronunciation. It can be difficult because there are so few editors of Nynorsk entries, so there is no real "consensus" to be had, and one has to "be bold", as they say in the Wikipedia guidelines. But I noticed that you have changed the pronunciation for the entry grei from [æi̯] to [ɛ̝ɪ̯]. I don't agree with this change. You say yourself (I think it is you who wrote it?) in the Nynorsk pronunciation appendix, that "The diphthong ei has a smaller amount of variations, and is most commonly pronounced [æi̯] or [ɛ̝ɪ̯]". Now, it has been most common here to transcribe this phoneme as /æi̯/. So why remove a good transcription? And do you intend to replace all instances of /æi̯/ in all Nynorsk words, for consistency? Otherwise the impression will be left that the diphthongs in grei and e.g. meir are different (which they are not). Barend (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. While [æi̯] is a totally fine as a phonetic realisation, I think it’s best to stick to one phonemic realisation when there isn’t any actual phonemic difference between the different realisations. I’ve used /ɛɪ/ since it similar to a common realisation (used in all of Trøndelag and Northern Norway, as well as lots of South Western Norway, and the East Norwegian Midlands), and to the written form <ei>. Also, the diphthong, unless directly following a long consonant sound, should be long. Otherwise, it means it’s pronounced like in greitt. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the reasoning that one phonemic translation is enough, since there is no complementary distribution here. Regardless of the merits of /ɛɪ/ or /æi/, when both are reasonable possibilities, I think it's a bad idea to start changing from one to the other. This is a recipe for unnecessary discussion - there are literally hundreds of details of the same kind that could be argued about in Norwegian transcription. We have to try to cooperate here - and live and let live is a much better principle. But if we can't agree on one version, it is better to include the two versions after all, although not strictly necessary. Barend (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

A thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of phonemic transcriptions were in fact phonetic, using /ɑ/ for /a/ and /ʋ/ for /v/, and occasionally /ɾ/ for /r/, so I’ve pretty much tried to make new phonemic transcriptions, and if useful, more narrow phonetic transcriptions as well. The realisation of /a/ is not even [ɑ] in most dialects, but [ɐ̞] (also written [ɑ̈]). [ɑ] is a rarity found along the Swedish border.

I’m pretty cautious about how big an influence the Urban East Norwegian transcriptions are, and I don’t want that to restrict anything. When writing pronunciations, I want to show the full width of the Norwegian sound system, which for the most part is not found in South East Norway. Many dialects retain a difference between ⟨ò⟩ and ⟨å⟩, ⟨ù⟩ and ⟨o⟩ and ⟨ì⟩ and ⟨i⟩, and I want to show that. This would for instance require two sets of phonemes for what’s often written the same way. The way I’ve done that is that I’ve written ⟨å⟩ like /ɔ/, then ⟨ò⟩ like /o/. It could be /ɞ/, akin to the realisation [ɞ̞] (like an å that’s a little closer to ø), but /o/ is closer to the spelling, and easier for people to read. Norsk Ordbog by Aasen shows this difference pretty well, and he would tell if a word written with <o> was pronounced with <å>, for instance son pronounced like /sɔːn/, rarely like /soːn/, while hol retains the old pronunciation /hoːl/, /hoːɽ/. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 21:11‎, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

My main problem here is that this seems a lot like "original research". In Wikipedia that is frowned upon, and I have assumed that to be the case in Wiktionary as well, (although I don't know Wiktionary as well). One clear problem that I see, is that if each user creates his own phonological system, it makes it hard for others to contribute. Or the contributions of different contributors are in different systems, and users are given an impression that there are differences in the language that are not really there. But I don't have the time or energy to contribute much more to Wiktionary, so I will leave it here. Barend (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Eiliv, not everyone needs to be onboard with {{bor+}} -- it's not mandated. I've never used it for the hundreds of West Germanic entries I've created, and I don't plan to. Please respect that and abstain from reverting me any further. -- Skiulinamo (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

When {{bor+}} is used first, why would you remove that and then guard against anyone putting it back? It doesn’t make any sense to me. You’re free to not be on board with it when you write the etymology, but please don’t interfere with already existing ones because you “don't plan to” use it. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Word, so is it OK if I revert you from adding {{bor+}} to Norwegian entries that had "Borrowed from" previously? That is the argument you're making. Also, I didn't simply replace one for the other, I improved on the etymology. That same can't be said for you edit. Let it go dude. --Skiulinamo (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It would be a fitting comparison if the {{bor+}} template was the exact same as Borrowed from {{bor}}, but it does have a link to the appendix simmilarly to templates like {{lbor}} and {{slbor}}. It may be obvious by now, but I like the consistency between these templates. I have not yet understood why you don’t want to use the {{bor+}} template, only that you know you don’t need to, and I get that you don’t have to give any reason, but it would be nice so see where you come from. I personally tend to try explaining why I do something a certain way, even when I have the right to do it that way. Maybe it’s a lack of confidence, but I also believe it contributes to understanding. It’s not like I don’t want to understand why you do what you do, but I simply fail to do so at the current moment. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

You do not own entries. Please keep that in mind. If this is actually a community decision, then put it at WT:AGEM. AG202 (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you want to read up on why some users don't like {{bor+}}, let me direct you to Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+. -- Skiulinamo (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm well aware of that vote and have read it many times before, and have participated in subsequent discussions. My point still stands. AG202 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@AG202: I wasn't talking to you. --Skiulinamo (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well it was a direct reply to me (per the formatting, and I got a notification for the reply), and there was no ping, please either ping them or format the reply differently if you're directly talking to them. AG202 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hei! What is your position about Trøndersk forms? As ya've seen, i made some editions into Nynorsk articles to put some alternative and trøndersk forms of words. But it looks very chaotic. Maybe it can be better to make some separate graphs like in case Westrobotnian? Or is it just a dumb idea? /////// Kva er ditt syn på trønderske formar? Som du hev sikkert sett, la eg til alternative og trønderske formar på sume nynorske artiklar. Men så ser det jo mykje kaotisk ut. Kan det vera lurt å lage åtskilt gruppe av artiklar (som i fall med Vestrobotnisk)? Eller er blir det kanskje uklokt å gjera?)Tollef Salemann (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hei sann! I’m very supportive of adding Throndish forms on Wiktionary, and I’ve created a category for it which is automatically added with {{lb|nn|trøndelag}}. The way I’ve done it is using a more standardised spelling, then adding various pronunciations, including one from Trøndelag. An example being vuku. More local spellings that you may find can then be added under usage notes. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

So, am done. Did i rite now or i have again messed up something? ////// Sånn, no er eg meir eller mindre fredug med rettinga. Hev eg gjort alt riktig no eller igjen rota eit eller anna? Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi again! Now Bokmål has two ancestorships. We still didn't got your opinion on this case, so in case you don't seen it: wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2023/February#Bokmål_and_Danish What do you mean about the Nynorsk-Bokmål relations? Are you agree on examples of etymology change like eik, mjøl, bru? What is your position about merging Bokmål, Nynorsk etc?

Hello! I agree with User:Mårtensås on this. Bokmål is a descendant of Danish that borrowed some Norwegian words in the 1900s. Nynorsk and Bokmål are from different branches (as you wrote), with completely different histories. However, these people who don’t speak a word Norwegian, but still advocate for merging Nynorsk and Bokmål, have deprived me of all energy to debate further. The supposed duplicates some people mention are no more of a problem than similar entries in other related languages. Your point about merging the Nordic languages was good, as they have a lot of these “duplicates”. It would indeed be very foolish to do that; as would it be to re-merge of Bokmål and Nynorsk. Should anything be merged, it should be Danish and Bokmål. At least that would be a true continuum. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agree on this one, but Bokmål is de-jure a Norwegian language, so it's gonna be kinda unfair as well. As well as Jamtish, cuz i've met Jamta who said they speak Swedish dialect, and Jamta who said they speak Trøndersk. For me it seems as a very old variant of Trøndersk with a lot of Northern Swedish stuff. Some modern Swedish linguists are not sure about status of Jamtish either. Tollef Salemann (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

To the first sentence: Merging it with Danish would of course be unfair, and was just to prove my point, but labelling it as a descendant of Danish would be totally okay. Even Bokmål sources state this, and Wiktionary is the only place I’ve where this simple fact is disputed.

Whenever Middle Norwegian is listed in the desctree, Jamtish fits under that. It’s traditionally a Norwegian dialect, closely related to Throndish, but has of course been quite influenced by the newer Swedish dialect of Jamtland. Some Swedes may even call this dialect “Jamtish” (cf. how “bondska” is sometimes used for a Bothnian-influenced version of Standard Swedish), similarly to how some Norwegian city dialects eventually become a regional Bokmål with minor deviations. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, so now is Bokmål been derived both from Middle Norwegian and Danish, so at least one problem is solved.

I have seen some cool books on old and new Jamtish, but i feel me not a right person to speak about this dialect so much. I know some people from there who speak the old way, but i self never been in Jemtlann except the harry-travels to Monopolet/Bolaget in Storlien :) I hope some more knowlegible people can decide about the Swedish L2-situation. Tollef Salemann (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, some words in Bokmål are derived from Middle Norwegian, but from how I see it, only Danish-derived terms can be inherited. Bokmål had a stage where none of these Middle Norwegian-derived terms existed, and those are later additions. One can therefore not say they’re inherited from Middle Norwegian. Inherited terms should be there all the way. A language’s current form does not change its history and development, which I’ve tried to explain, but it fell on deaf ears.

Bokmål only being a written language seems to be used as a reason for allowing Middle Norwegian as direct ancestor, since the Norwegian spoken language inherited Middle Norwegian terms, and that Wiktionary apparently should describe spoken language only. This is a flawed argument, mainly because Bokmål does have a spoken variant, which was the basis for the written standard. This spoken variant arose when Norwegians spoke Danish, and applied pronunciations that felt more natural to them, e.g. bløt for blød. Bokmål is in no way disconnected from the spoken language, and it has standardised pronunciations, which people speak natively. These spoken forms have the same origin as the Bokmål written forms. An example of this is mose (/⁠móse⁠/, “moss”), which resembles the Norwegian word mose (/⁠mòse⁠/), but not the dialectal form in Oslo (mòsa). Nor does it have the same vowel sound. It’s a reading of the Danish word, and this has become the standardised pronunciation of the Bokmål word. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Jamtish is its own middle thing. It shares innovations with both Swedish and Norwegian dialects. The Frösö runestone for instance is much more Swedish than Norwegian in style and language, with clear parallels to Uppland inscriptions. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 18:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wow, thanks for the information. I can recommend ya to read "Trøndersk språkhistorie" from 2008. It showes a lot of the similaritis between Trøndersk and Jamtish without any political agenda. Have you seen this weird Swedish robot-audio-book with every Swedish dialect? The guy who made it - he wrote that Jamtish is kinda Norwegian dialect. I think it's a kinda creole, so please don't be offended of it. We had a Jamtish guy in my valley in 1770-s, and we considered him as a poor Trøndersk refugee from Sweeden. But the modern Jamtish is kinda different. So i'm neutral in this question. I know that my valley wasn't happy of any Swedish invasions, but it's a political/national questions. I wanna hear opinions from the educated people about the dialect classification --- not the political stuff. Tollef Salemann (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Then I reckon there are lots of modern Jamtish forms that won’t fit under Middle Norwegian, but in the cases where there hasn’t been any apparent earlier split, would it be wrong to put it in the Middle Norwegian desctree? Or is it too distinct? Forms like stjaga and vuku are particularly similar to Throndish, but the vowel levelling seems to stem from the Middle Norwegian stage. At least it’s my impression from written sources (which we know don’t always reflect the current status). Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's a total mess, like in Northern Russian or Odessit Yiddish. I have no clue how to register stuff in these language areas. So we must to improvise :) Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. jatta points to the main entry at jatte. (?) Should jatta be made the main entry instead ? Leasnam (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see you've done it ! :) Leasnam (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I noticed “jatte” was the main entry too after your addition to the desctree. It’s truly a big mess, this, but I’m slowly clearing it up. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is it any reason why you choose the -a infinitive as the main verb form even on split infinitive? Has the gubment came with some new spelling rules? Am aksing just in case I'm gonna create new entries, so I ain't gonna use the -e ending or what for been consequent.

Er det noko særskild grunn for at du bruker -a infinitiv som hovudform for verb til og med for verba med kløyvd infinitiv? Har regjeringa kome med nye stavingsreglar? Eg lurer på det i fall eg ska lage nye verbsidor, ska eg helst ikkje bruke -e endinga eller kva for ending sånn at me ska vera konsekvente?

(Eg tykkjer at ettersom dei avskaffa kløyvd infinitiv i nynorsken, kan me like greit bruke -a infinitiv som hovudform på alle verb, sjøl om eg personleg misliker det. Eg spår at det vert mykje jobb å gjera med alle dem omredigeringane som krevjast på allereie eksisterande e-infinitiv-sidom) Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

A-infinitive is simply the most neutral alternative, as it’s shared by all forms of Nynorsk. And it’s used as main form by the by far largest dictionary Norsk Ordbok. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

If the headword and declension templates are throwing errors, then you need to raise the issue at the Beer parlour as to how we should handle this, and whether we need to make an exception. What you should definitely not do is manually bypass the templates to create a lemmatized entry at a non-lemma form (which doesn't actually match the format we use), while not raising any kind of discussion; especially when it's mandatory to have a headword template on all entries.

I get that it's attested, but you're going about this in completely the wrong way. Theknightwho (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

An anon has been editing this entry but their additions seem odd and and silly to me tbh. As a native speaker can you comment on whether their edits are valid or not? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can confirm the definition they added is at most a very rare way to use the word. I have never seen it before, or anything like it. Eiliv / ᛅᛁᛚᛁᚠᛦ (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not me eather, maybe except of some obscure neo-nazi slang. Tollef Salemann (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I notice you've been using the |tag= param and/or <tag:...> inline modifier in {{syn}}, {{ant}} and/or {{desc}}. These are changing to be |lb= and <lb:...> now that dialect tags have been unified with labels; the values of these parameters are handled just like labels in the {{lb}} template. Benwing2 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Howdy! Maybe we should make a list of when we can say a Bokmål word is derived from Danish? Otherwise, it’s gonna be removes back and forth all the time. Current practice we both are using is

1) check grammar and pronunciation similarity

2) -nn- in Bokmål is just Danish -nd- changed during Samnorsk policy

3) same with æ, ld, gj, øj, øy, ei, au and "bløde konsonanter"

4) check development of spelling in Riksmål

Probably some few more. Should also discuss it with @PotatoKing147. Tollef Salemann (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Before I do something with male names, I will ask what is your reasons behind the given names format you use? For the first, why are you using given name as template instead of using head|nn|proper noun? For the second, why are you using definite form of male names like Abrahamen and Endren while it is not standard, but only a dialectal feature? What do you think about my edits on Eirik and Lars? Tollef Salemann (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, first of all. There is no distinction between standard and dialectal use when it comes to the possibility of a given name being declined in definite form. While it is mostly associated with certain regions, we cannot say it’s non-standard when we nonetheless would write «den andre Abrahamen i bygda». Won’t you say that’s a natural feature of all Nynorsk? I made the {{nn-given name}} template because it makes it easier to keep a unified layout for given names, as it automatically adds the definite form based on the gender added.

I do feel Eirik and Lars should display the definite form in the head. Eiliv (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok! I keep it in the headline as before, but also add the usage notes. "Den andre Abrahamen i bygda" sounds as a colloquial and rare example, but still possible (especially in the coastal dialects?). The adding of pronoun before the name (like "han Ola", "ho Kari") is not a common feature in European languages (or any languages?), so it can be a good idea to mention it in the usage notes. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply