Template talk:de-decl-noun-m

Dative plural -n
I believe this template is missing a parameter for the dative plural form. I don't know how to add it though. Longtrend 19:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like I messed something up, I'll try to fix it. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 20:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I was typing too fast and missed a | :) Thanks for pointing it out, it might've taken me a while to catch it. Fixed now, though. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 20:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks for fixing it! Longtrend 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wide
Gee, what a wide table. The columns could easily be less wide, compare e.g. Template:el-a-ος-η-ο-Cπιο, but I don't know how to do that. --JorisvS 20:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Leave it.
 * German has some long words and can use the space.
 * What else is going to be used by the white space that would be over on the right hand side if the table were narrower? In most cases - nothing. So, just leave it. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 21:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What else is going to be used by the white space that would be over on the right hand side if the table were narrower? - the table of contents, if you have it set so it's on the right side. -- Prince Kassad 21:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you like your TOC interfering with right-side images and inflection tables, that's your phailbucket. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 22:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Greek template I showed for comparison has columns that widen as needed, which is ideal also for long words.
 * Having the forms closer together makes for much easier comparisons between the various forms, due to the eyes not having to move all across the screen. --JorisvS 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bold nominative plural if equal to nominative singular: Fenster, Dosenöffner
I'm not sure how to fix this, but we shouldn't attempt to link to the nominative plural page if that's identical to PAGENAME: there's a spurious bold entry in the declension table for that case. Note that there's no extra ''' in the template. I think the trick would be to replace

|np=

by something that makes the part optional.

46.115.44.243 20:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed this for all three genders, though it would be easier to handle all cases in de-decl-noun. Test cases are Dosenöffner, Fenster, Spezies. Since it's a lot of added code, it might make sense to do something else.
 * 46.115.44.243 13:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Gen. & dat. sg.
What's when gen. sg. -es exists, but dat. sg. -e does not exist, or when dat. sg. -e exist, but gen. sg. -es doesn't exist? Gen. sg. -es does not exist for the following words or is very rare: -rich (e.g. Fähnrich), Frisör, Grenadier, Kapitän, Kurier. google book search gives 3 results for "des Kapitänes", but 89 for "dem Käpitäne", and 1 for "des Kurieres", but 12 for "dem Kuriere" (though some aren't dat. sg. but plural like "Gästezimmer, in dem Kuriere [...] untergebracht wurden"). -20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: February 2014–February 2015

 * See Template talk:de-noun-f-unc.

"Archaic"
Cf. Appendix:Glossary.

The term "obsolete" is more fitting, esp. in case of forms like "im engeren Sinne" which aren't used for "for an antique style" and which aren't only "sometimes understood by educated people".

Also: -91.63.241.84 15:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it could be something like "archaic/obsolete" (or even "archaic/obsolete/dated"?) as it might differ depening on the word.
 * In case of some words the dative -e forms might be unattestable (e.g. in case of modern words, including anglicisms), thus something like simply or a label like "archaic"/"obsolete" isn't fitting. In linguistics, unattestable forms are usually mentioned with a * before the word, but such a mentioning most likely doesn't belong here.
 * If anything, that makes "obsolete", which includes "no longer likely to be understood" in its definition, less fitting than "archaic". For most words, the dative in -e is archaic, but it's still found in some fixed phrases like im engeren Sinne. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-relevant discussion from User talk:-sche: Hi. Do you know why the tag for the dative -e in declension tables was changed from "archaic" to "rare"? I think "archaic" is much better than "rare". It wasn't rare in the 19th century; and it isn't just rare today. "Rare" implies that it's not common but still freely applicable. Which is not the case. With the exception of some fixed expressions, the dative -e is dead in contemporary German and using it doesn't just make you sound formal or antiquated, but downright ridiculous (Da ich morgen einen Termin beim Arzte habe, kann ich leider nicht zum Betriebsfeste kommen...) I don't know if some of you discussed this, but I would urgently recommend to change it back to "archaic".Kolmiel (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, since changing these templates seems to be easy (which I didn't know it was): The present subjunctive forms of the 2nd person need a tag "archaic", or preferably "obsolete", as well. Something like du wollest, du sprechest, du zeigest or ihr wollet, sprechet, zeiget doesn't exist in contemporary German. It's even more ridiculous than the dative -e. (Only exception: du seist.)Kolmiel (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the tag was changed. I would guess that someone felt "archaic" was too strong a term for something that was still common in writing within older peoples' living memory, and which is still found today in very formal contexts and many common set phrases. I can think of several possible tags, of varying strength, that might constitute a middle ground between "archaic" and "rare" (the latter of which I agree is insufficient): "dated", "now rare", "now literary", "chiefly archaic" ... one could even go for a combination like "archaic, now only literary", but that might be too wordy to fit in the template without looking bad. Perhaps we should move this discussion to WT:T:ADE for broader input? As for wollest, etc: "obsolete" is definitely too strong a word; the issue is really that it's literary, not used in speech or informal writing. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The tag on Template:de-decl-noun-m-s-es-unc and Template:de-decl-noun-m-es-unc says "archaic", and seems never to have been changed from saying that. Which templates have been changed to say "rare"? - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All that I have seen in practice now say "rare". Check or, or most any one.
 * As to the present subjunctive, I think you are mistaken. What you are talking about is the form ending in -e (wolle, müsse, schreibe, esse). This form is literary. But any other form that still exists theoretically (wollest, wollet, müssest, müsset, schreibest, essest, etc. etc.) is dead and indeed obsolete. I don't know what the contemporary DUDEN grammars say, but my DUDEN grammar from as early as the 1960ies defines them as unused, and says that verbs (with the exception of sein), in practice, only have one present subjunctive form (the one ending in -e). This form is used for the 3rd person singular, and in six irregular verbs (können, wollen, müssen, dürfen, sollen, wissen) also for 1st person singular. All other forms are phantoms and don't occur in practice. It would be preferable to delete them altogether, but they need to get a tag. Everything else would be deceiving and indeed making people's German worse.
 * I'm going to check a contemporary grammar as soon as I get one in my hand...Kolmiel (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sein retains all forms except the 2nd person plural: ich sei, du seist, er sei, wir seien, sie seien. Only ihr seiet is obsolete.
 * Yeah, and mögen is another exception. But du mögest etc. is only possible for the optative: Er sagte, du mögest ihm bitte die Kopien schicken. Otherwise the same applies as above: Er sagte mir, du *mögest Käse. doesn't work.Kolmiel (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I happened to come by a bookshop this afternoon and got a look at the current 8th edition of Duden – Die Grammatik (2009). On page 535 they give an overview of the present subjunctive forms that they regard as relevant for current German. (They say “im Wesentlichen” because, of course, some archaic form may still on a rare occasion be seen in poetic or deliberately antiquated usage). Those forms are:
 * All forms of sein.
 * The singular forms of dürfen, können, mögen, müssen, sollen, wissen, wollen.
 * The 3rd person singular of all other verbs.
 * And they add a note: “Viele Schreiber ziehen außerdem den Konjunktiv II in der 2. Person Singular und Plural vor.“
 * This is just the same as what I said before, with the only difference that there are 8 forms (ihr seiet and the 2nd singulars of the preterite-presents) that the Duden people won’t consider archaic/obsolete—but just dated or avoided.Kolmiel (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the dative -e: aha, thanks for the links! I had just looked at the templates themselves, but most of them default to not showing any dative -e or tag (see e.g. Template:de-decl-noun-n), and I had a brain fart and didn't think to check the guts. It looks like [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Template:de-decl-noun-n&action=history an IP edit-warred the "rare" tag in] based on "im Sinne". I changed it back to "archaic"; it may take a while for the change to propagate out to entries, but if any entries are still showing "rare" even after you clear the cache and refresh them by editing them, let me know. (I'll respond to the rest of your comments later.) - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Angr: Yeah sorry, my error. I choosed "obsolete" in the sense of "unnecessary", but several English dictionaries don't list that meaning so it might be some kind of false friend, and accourding to the glossary the word "obsolete" was wrong at this place anyway. Still "archaic" doesn't fit here and especially doesn't always(!) fit here: Thus it should be changed to something else, maybe "dated" or "archaic/dated" (as it might depend on the word) or "dated/rare". Also: What's with non-attestable dative -e forms? Using that template in "Bonsaibaum" leads to the claim that there was the form "(dem) Bonsaibaume". But it might be that the word "Bonsaibaum" is younger (like 20th/21th century) and that "(dem) Bonsaibaume is not attestable: zeno.org doesn't have the word Bonsaibaum (including declined forms), google books search has 0 results for "dem Bonsaibaume" and google web search has only 1 result for "dem Bonsaibaume", namely de.wt. -91.63.241.84 11:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "it's still found in some fixed phrases like im engeren Sinne" -- It is also found in non-fixed or only semi-fixed phrases, like using "Sinne" with another specification which isn't common (common expressions include "im engeren Sinne", "im weiteren Sinne", "im Sinne des Gesetzes").
 * "Still used in contemporary texts that aim for an antique style" -- In case of e.g. "Sinne" it's not used for an antique style. Thus what the definition of "archaic" implies here, namely that it's only used for an antique style, isn't true, at least not always.
 * "although sometimes understood by educated people" -- also less educated people can understand the dative -e. Maybe not all, but understanding dative -e isn't limited to some educated peoples, even though less educated people might find it more irritating or awkward. Thus what the definition of "archaic" implies here, namely that an archaic word is only understood by some educated people, is wrong.

Genitive of Firnis
I came across the term Firnis, and figured that the genitive parameter could use some added new detail. How did I do? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks right to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC discussion: February 2016

 * See Wiktionary talk:About German.

bs and vs

 * What are  and   that you added ? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In, you'll notice there are ablative and vocative cases used occasionally by nouns like . Are you going to Luacize these templates? That would be a great idea, if so. — JohnC5 22:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I sure wish someone would luacize the German inflection templates, but it can't be me. I have no idea how to write Lua modules. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ß → ss

 * The template is changing ß to ss in the genitive and dative singular in cases where it shouldn't: see Schoß, for example. Ideally it would treat Schoß as the normal case (i.e. not changing ß), but there could be a parameter for cases like Schloß where ß does change to ss. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I was unsure what the rules around that particular alternation were. I've added a parameter ss which will convert ß to ss. Could I ask you to go through Category:John's testing category 3 and add it where necessary (it may take a bit for it to fill up completely)? I'm don't know which ones are which. Also, at present, I am only adding the dative plural n when the plural does not end in a member of this list: [abcdfghikmnopqsßtvwxz-]. Would it be safe to say that the n is only added after [elr]? I hope you don't mind my reïmplementing these templates in Lua! — JohnC5 20:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I just add  to the places where it should change to ss? AFAIK, yes, -n is added only to plurals ending in -e, -l, and -r, though there may be cases of plurals ending in one of those letters where the -n is not added, e.g. plurals borrowed from Italian or Latin. I can't think of a real case off the top of my head; I'll let you know if I come across a plural in -e, -l, or -r where the dative plural is not -en/-ln/-rn. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * has the plural ; should the dative plural be or just ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * will do perfectly. I'll make the change in the module since  is much clearer. Stracciatella is an example from Italian. I'm not sure what the behavior should be. I dislike the extra parameter just to disable the n but n is currently being used for the number. — JohnC5 20:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't the faintest idea, and I bet 98% of native German speakers don't either. Even Duden gives only as the plural. I find a tiny amount of usage of "den Paparazzen" on the Internet, but then I find about the same amount of "die Paparazzen", suggesting that some people treat "Paparazzen" as the plural (all cases) of "Paparazzo" (just like some people have  as the plural of ). I find an even tinier amount of usage of "den Paparazze", but I strongly suspect those are misspellings of "den Paparazzi". It's not like this word is often used in the feminine in the first place, let alone the feminine plural, let alone the dative feminine plural!, , , you guys are native speakers, what do you think? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How about ~ to mean "dative plural is unexpectedly identical to nominative plural"? At least that way people don't have to write out the whole plural form all over again. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your idea would work, though I think it may be wasted effort for only a handful of forms. Indeed, Category:John's testing category 1 contains all the terms that currently use "override parameters"—I'd really appreciate if you could take a look at them. I'm considering adding  as a valid genitive parameter based on . If I did add   functionality, I think I'd just make it grab the nominative of the number in question (  grabs the nominative singular,   grabs the nominative plural). Also, I'm gonna have to write out the documentation for all this at some point. — JohnC5 21:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Those all sound like good ideas. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Foreign words take the weak plural (-en) or the nonstandard plural (-s, seeped in from some dialects) per default. Everything else is learnèd language. You can safely assume any word ending in -a to have a weak plural -en since that is how must naturalised words are treated. Pizza/Pizzen, Thema/Themen, Schema/Schemen... The rule for ß/ss is that ß marks a long vowel, ss a short one. The rule for dative-N is not based on phonology but on grammatical class. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When you say “The rule for dative-N is not based on phonology but on grammatical class”, I am aware of this, but are there any specific ramifications in this case (i.e. are there native German words whose plurals end in [elr] but do not take a dative-N)? Also, in the words that take a “'” genitive (Fritz, Matthäus, Antioxidans, etc.), may we safely assume that there is normally a variant without the apostrophe as well? I'd also like to add a note about the apostrophe, but I don't know what it should say. — JohnC5 21:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In the standard language, the apostrophe-genitive is the only correct spelling of the forms where it's used; using Fritz or Matthäus as a genitive is considered wrong. Thus means only "the house of Andrea" and  is the only correct way of spelling the phrase that means "the house of Andreas". (And  is simply an error.) Of course, real-world usage in unedited writing will differ from the prescriptive norm. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) There's nothing wrong with including learnèd language as long as it's attested. And it's much easier for the Lua module to see the final letter of the nominative plural than for it to know the grammatical class, and it is true that the vast majority of plurals ending in -e, -l, or -r form the dative plural by adding -n, and the vast majority of plurals ending in any other letter have a dative plural identical to the nominative plural. Exceptions are few enough that they can be specified by manually added parameter. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't personally consider "Paparazze" a legitimate German plural. It's not learned but ridiculous. But well, if it were used, the dative should probably be "den Paparazze" without the -n. A more relevant group of nouns that reguarly drop the -n is southern German diminutives in -le (e.g. den, even in standard German). And then it is definitely wrong to say that any noun in -a can be assumed to have plural in -en. Korn may take this personally if they want to, but it's simply wrong. Many have them, many - probably a majority - don't. More common ones tend to have them, but even there not without many an exception, as e.g. . Kolmiel (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you stop your freakish behaviour of always sprinkling topical discussions with personal commentary without any reason or cause? You always go out of your way and then an extra mile to make sure that you put in some personal attack, some you are wrong, you, personally, not the info, I'm accusing you of having made an error', in some form or another, that isn't required, like some accusatory clockwork device. It's annoying, it's pointless and, as in this case, it's even more nauseous when it's the result of you misunderstanding something. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As Angr predicts, I don't think I've had occasion to mention eine Paparazza in any grammatical case. On leo.org, an Italian says they hardly use the word even in Italian! By the way, I can also find "paparazzen" used rarely, possibly not CFI-meetingly, as a verb, and then "das Paparazzen" equally rarely as the noun for the action of "paparazz-ing". - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * (22:05, 22 November 2016), "the apostrophe-genitive is the only correct spelling": That's not completely correct. It depends on the way, how it's used. It's Fritz' Haus or Fritzens Haus, but also das Haus des Fritz. Real example: "Daher könne dieser letztere als Gläubiger des Fritz auch keine Forderung gegen ihn, Geswein, geltend machen." (GB). The general rule which can also apply to foreign names like Cicero and foreign words like Adverbium (from Latin Adverbium or adverbium) is that these words can be uninflected in the singular, if the article is used, so der Fritz, des Fritz, das Adverbium, des Adverbium. (des Adverbium might nowadays be less common, but that's because Adverbium is nowadays less common as Adverb or Umstandswort are the words usually used.)
 * @Angr (22:05, 22 November 2016), "(And Andrea's Haus is simply an error.)":
 * It is said that in the traditional spelling since the 20th century it is an error to use the so-called Deppenapostroph or Idiotenapostroph. I can't give a rule for that, but it should work in the other way: There most likely is no rule allowing such genitives, so they are incorrect.
 * In the 19th century and before, where proper nouns could also have a dative and an accusative ending and where genitive -ens was more common, it wasn't an error. One reason could be that one could differ between Voßen's (of Voßen) and Voßens (of Voß).
 * Since the 1996 reform these apostrophe forms can be correct. It's quite often said, e.g. at www.idiotenapostroph.org which opposes these apostrophe, that the apostrophe is correct since 1996 in certain cases, like for Andrea as to differ between Andrea's (of Andrea) and Andreas (Andreas). Quote from the official rules as of 1996 and 2011, § 97: "E: Von dem Apostroph als Auslassungszeichen zu unterscheiden ist der gelegentliche Gebrauch dieses Zeichens zur Verdeutlichung der Grundform eines Personennamens vor der Genitivendung -s [...]: Carlo’s Taverne". I guess one could argue that because of that word "Verdeutlichung" the apostrophe can now be used in any case, like Karl's instead of Karls.
 * @Korn (21:32, 22 November 2016), "The rule for ß/ss is that ß marks a long vowel, ss a short one.": That's not completely correct. For the reformed spelling since 1996 that's correct. For the traditional spelling since Adelung (ca. 1800) and older spellings is not.
 * Traditional spelling since Adelung has der Fluß, des Flusses, dem Fluß or Flusse, die Flüsse; or with long s, des Fluſſes, dem Fluſſe, die Flüſſe.
 * Reformed spelling since 1996 has der Fluss, des Flusses, dem Fluss or Flusse, die Flüsse.
 * Old spellings - more or less before Adelung - can also have der Fluß, des Flußes, dem Fluß or Fluße, die Flüße. But old spellings maybe don't have consistent rules and might switch between Fluß and Fluss etc.
 * There might also be other rare variants like spelling daſz and muſs or muſſ (Adelung has daß, muß, 1996 reform has dass, muss). But I have seen these forms just once. After 1996 one can find daß and muss in the same text (and too often to be just single accidental misspellings), but that might be inconsistent much like in old times before Adelung.
 * @Kolmiel, "I don't personally consider "Paparazze" a legitimate German plural": Maybe it isn't even attestable by GBS. Paparazza can be found, but I didn't not found Paparazze in German and duden.de doesn't have the form too. Paparazzas I found twice, so that wouldn't be enough to attest it too. However, maybe my search settings or the terms I searched for weren't good and there are other sources besides GBS.
 * @Kolmiel, "drop the -n is southern German diminutives in -le": Diminutives in -le when used in High German can have the n, e.g. "den Mädlen". Though they can also have the whole plural with n. So there are three ways of declining them in the plural: (a) -le, dat. -le, (b) -le, dat. -len, (c) -len, dat. -len. (Not all of these declensions are necessarily attestable for all words with -le.) Real examples: "das Mädle", "die Mädle müßten", "mit anderen Mädlen" (GB); "die Frauen und Mädlen [...] viele von den Mädlen und Frauen wären ihr fremd gewesen" (GB); "das Mädle", "die Mädlen", "den Mädlen" (GB). Even Spätzle can rarely be found with dative plural Spätzlen, though there is also rarely the nominative Spätzlen. But except from Spätzle these words are very rare in High German anyway.
 * @Kolmiel (07:39, 23 November 2016) and Korn (21:32, 22 November 2016): There is a third variant besides plural -en and plural -s: plural -. E.g. it's der Manga and plural die Manga or (most likely colloquial as an anglicism) Mangas. The plural - isn't restricted to foreign words, e.g. it's also der Uhu and die Uhu (already in the 18th century) or (most likely somewhat colloquial) Uhus. Of course there are also original plurals, like Spektrum and plural Spektra (besides Spektren).
 * -84.161.26.173 23:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While you are per se right, our header German describes current day official German per default. Archaic and obsolete forms don't normally feature in our tables unless current speakers would recognise them as valid current forms. Thus they normally don't inform our considerations. Further, as far as I know, muſs is not recognised as a spelling different from muss by Wiktionary. Long S and round S are considered to be different encodings of the same letter. As for Manga, I would also count the unmarked plural Manga as learned language, just like Paparazze and any other plural which uses the form of the original language rather than a native German ending. (Note that Computer uses the native -er + 0 ending found in Rechner, Mörder etc.) Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that the -s found in so many foreign words is not actually a borrowing from English or French, though it's probably been helped out by them. It is a regular plural ending in Low German, and is found in some native words like and, not to mention colloquial plurals like , , and . Even when it's attached to English loanwords, it doesn't necessarily follow English morphological rules, e.g.  without the e of 🇨🇬. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes; a bit more history of -s (for anyone interested) can be found in what Angr and I and others said at Tea room/2015/June. - -sche (discuss) 23:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting example of how our backgrounds decide where we wear our blinkers. I would never have gotten the idea that the -s might be from a foreign language, but of course for Angr as a (linguistic only) Englishman, that track of thought makes sense. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Case order
Any reason for the unusual case order? NomAccDatGen (or possibly NomAccGenDat) seem to be most customary. Listing the accusative last seems weird to me. Fytcha (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * NomGenDatAcc is the order most familiar to me. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * NomGenDatAcc is the standard order as you learn it in a German school. Textbooks teaching German as a foreign language may have NomAccDatGen, as the accusative is the case of the direct object, which is more useful than the indirect object or to indicate some owner. -- Martin Gühmann (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)