Conversa usuario:Calq: Diferenzas entre revisións
Nova páxina: ==Benvida== Benvido ó Galizionario. Se precisas axuda andamos por aquí. Un saúdo. ~~~~ |
Sen resumo de edición |
||
| Liña 1: | Liña 1: | ||
==Benvida== |
==Benvida== |
||
Benvido ó Galizionario. Se precisas axuda andamos por aquí. Un saúdo. '''[ [[User:Furagaitas|<font color="008000">Furagaitas</font>]] [[User talk:Furagaitas|<font color="FF0000">*</font>]] ]''' 8 de decembro de 2012 ás 16:54 (UTC) |
Benvido ó Galizionario. Se precisas axuda andamos por aquí. Un saúdo. '''[ [[User:Furagaitas|<font color="008000">Furagaitas</font>]] [[User talk:Furagaitas|<font color="FF0000">*</font>]] ]''' 8 de decembro de 2012 ás 16:54 (UTC) |
||
==tong and en.wikti== |
|||
Thank you Calq. Unfortunately the English wikti is not a reliable source when it comes to Dutch words. They have their own ideas about our language and I have been in many arguments over that. I am no longer going to waste my breath on that. The ''tong'' page is a good example. [http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/tong Etymologieboek]] clearly gives that the fish is probably named after the anatomic organ and [http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article_content&wdb=WNT&id=M069150 Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal]<ref>This dictionary originally intended to be ''comprehensive'', i.e. it was going to analyse ''all'' writing in Dutch. Around 1928 they realize that the amount of published material was growing faster than they could keep up with and so they took a perticular date (1928) I think as cut off. Even then the work wasn't finished until -I think- the 1990s. It is now fully online and very useful, but mostly reflects the Dutch of the 19th century and older</ref> -the most complete, but rather dated dictionary- gives both meanings in the same lemma. |
|||
It also gives the gender as f for both cases. That is the ''historic'' gender. In modern Dutch the f-m distinction has become very small after the collapse for the inflection system.<ref>This happened in the 1500-1600s in the spoken language, but our beloved grammarians and school teachers tried to preserve or even 'restore' case endings. The official spelling was full of that artificial nonsense until 1946/47. For 350 years the writen language had a different grammar than the real, spoken one, resulting in huge educational problem and a political one too, because it helped to stymie the emancipation of the working class</ref> In the south people still know which word is masc and which is fem, because the local dialects preserve the difference. But even in the south the difference is very small. It simply means that there people would still call a tongue "zij" ("she"). Otherwise there are no grammatical consquences. In the north the difference is 90% gone and people do not even remember which noun is f and which is m, except for some words like those on -ing that are all fem. This is why it has become legitimized to treat fem words as masc and say "hij" ("he"), although most northerners don't even do that and preserve hij/zij for ''persons'' (as in English). We usually refer to an inanimate object with "die", the common gender demonstrative pronoun. |
|||
We indicate historic f-words-that-may-be-treated-as-masculine by f/m. Of course this is a kind of compromise, but the situation is too complex to call it "common gender" (that infuriates the south) or too maintain the historic fem (that is insulting to the north). |
|||
I have tried to explain this many times to the English wikti and they tell me rather arrogantly that I am an idiot and ignore me or revert me if I tried to correct their mistakes. On the German and Russian wikti I often run into the same problem as here: people will look at the mess at en.wikti and 'correct' me. |
|||
{{refs}} |
|||
Revisión como estaba o 13 de xullo de 2014 ás 16:05
Benvida
Benvido ó Galizionario. Se precisas axuda andamos por aquí. Un saúdo. [ Furagaitas * ] 8 de decembro de 2012 ás 16:54 (UTC)
tong and en.wikti
Thank you Calq. Unfortunately the English wikti is not a reliable source when it comes to Dutch words. They have their own ideas about our language and I have been in many arguments over that. I am no longer going to waste my breath on that. The tong page is a good example. Etymologieboek] clearly gives that the fish is probably named after the anatomic organ and Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal[1] -the most complete, but rather dated dictionary- gives both meanings in the same lemma.
It also gives the gender as f for both cases. That is the historic gender. In modern Dutch the f-m distinction has become very small after the collapse for the inflection system.[2] In the south people still know which word is masc and which is fem, because the local dialects preserve the difference. But even in the south the difference is very small. It simply means that there people would still call a tongue "zij" ("she"). Otherwise there are no grammatical consquences. In the north the difference is 90% gone and people do not even remember which noun is f and which is m, except for some words like those on -ing that are all fem. This is why it has become legitimized to treat fem words as masc and say "hij" ("he"), although most northerners don't even do that and preserve hij/zij for persons (as in English). We usually refer to an inanimate object with "die", the common gender demonstrative pronoun.
We indicate historic f-words-that-may-be-treated-as-masculine by f/m. Of course this is a kind of compromise, but the situation is too complex to call it "common gender" (that infuriates the south) or too maintain the historic fem (that is insulting to the north).
I have tried to explain this many times to the English wikti and they tell me rather arrogantly that I am an idiot and ignore me or revert me if I tried to correct their mistakes. On the German and Russian wikti I often run into the same problem as here: people will look at the mess at en.wikti and 'correct' me.
Ligazóns externas
- ↑ This dictionary originally intended to be comprehensive, i.e. it was going to analyse all writing in Dutch. Around 1928 they realize that the amount of published material was growing faster than they could keep up with and so they took a perticular date (1928) I think as cut off. Even then the work wasn't finished until -I think- the 1990s. It is now fully online and very useful, but mostly reflects the Dutch of the 19th century and older
- ↑ This happened in the 1500-1600s in the spoken language, but our beloved grammarians and school teachers tried to preserve or even 'restore' case endings. The official spelling was full of that artificial nonsense until 1946/47. For 350 years the writen language had a different grammar than the real, spoken one, resulting in huge educational problem and a political one too, because it helped to stymie the emancipation of the working class