Template talk:de-decl-noun-n

Dimunitives
Dimunitives ending in -chen currently can't be properly declined with this template. With these nouns, there's only an "s" in the genitive singular, the plural stays the same for all cases. Thus, the dative plural needs to be fixed. --The Evil IP address 15:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. . See Mädchen. —  [Ric Laurent] — 16:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"No plural" case is not correct
Giving as option "pl=-" results in the dative plural an "-n". This is obviously wrong. See Fletschen or Gemurmel. Sae1962 (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Use . SemperBlotto (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions
I just started the documentation for this template, but there are some things I don't understand.
 * 1) One of the options for the genitive singular is , but what noun has the ending -ses in the genitive singular?
 * 2) Does this template work for weak nouns like Herz (genitive Herzens, dative Herzen, plural Herzen)? —Angr 09:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Genitive -ses: e.g. Kürbis, gen. Kürbisses, pl. Kürbisse; or more common: -nis, gen. -nisses, pl. -nisse (earlier it was also spelled -niß, gen. -nisses, pl. -nisse, so it was like adding genitive -es).
 * Herz: gen. -ens and dative -en looks like a mixed noun (genitive -ens instead of -en) rather than a weak noun (always adding -en or -n). But well, there are different views regarding strong/weak/mixed nouns...
 * -84.161.40.96 20:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Dative plural
... is wrong if plural ends in -ien (no extra "n" should be added). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Counterintuitively, the way to suppress an extra n in the plural is to add the parameter  to the template. The template does know not to add the extra n if the plural is formed by adding ien to the singular, but in cases like Tellurium where something has to be dropped before the ien is added, then you have to explicitly tell the template not to add the extra n. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dative singular ending -e
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)

The template has been changed again, this time to "maybe archaic". I would, again, speak in favour of reverting that to just "archaic". The recurring misconception in my point of view is that some of these forms, such as Hause, Sinne,, etc., are common in contemporary German; but they are only in fixed expressions (zu Hause, im Hause, in diesem Sinne, im Sinne von). There is no form with dative -e that is not archaic in free use. Kolmiel (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh, it's predictable who made the change. I hate to think about blocking an editor who is clearly knowledgeable and is helping to expand our German coverage, but basically everything they do has to be checked by another German speaker because of their archaizing POV (which has included tagging currently-standard spellings as having been deprecated in previous reforms, without bothering to note that the spellings were subsequently re-accepted). - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I sigh with you. Kolmiel (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The forms with E are common to standard in central eastern Germany - which has always and consistently pronounced every MHG [ə], including minority standard forms like Türe and non-standard forms like Bette - and do occur in educated and formal speech outside of that. I do not think it fits our glossary's definition of 'archaic', nor is it confined to fixed expressions. Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * True, and -e was still common in writing within living memory (as I noted above); even from 1980 to 2008 "der Türe" was still [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%28der+T%C3%BCre*10%29%2Cder+T%C3%BCr&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=20&smoothing=10&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28der%20T%C3%BCre%20*%2010%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cder%20T%C3%BCr%3B%2Cc0 1/10th] of the uses of "der Tür(e)", although it's difficult to know how many of those uses are in set phrases or even reprints of older works... but "uncommon, archaic outside some dialects, set phrases, and some literary registers" is a bit much to cram into the template. Let's just say something along the lines of "uncommon, see notes" with a link to About German, and spell all this out in detail there! - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's something I can settle on, though in case of Türe I was referring to this. Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "now uncommon", etc? That way you give a glimpse of the complexity, so readers might be more motivated to click on the link. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've implemented that wording and [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3AAbout_German&type=revision&diff=35507374&oldid=33809036 taken a stab at a note]. Please critique / improve (ideally, we'd add references). - -sche (discuss) 17:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To me there can hardly be a discussion about these forms being archaic. The fact that they are still used in dialects means nothing. Ripuarian also has special dative forms, which are distinguished by tone, rather than an ending. Obviously, this is completely irrelevant for standard German. But, well. "Now uncommon" means more or less the same as archaic, so it seems acceptable. I've edited the notes. See if it's okay. Kolmiel (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with your recent edits. Our current gloss for 'archaic' for usage on entries is: No longer in general use, but still found in some contemporary texts that aim for an antique style - That is simply not applicable to the dative-e. I heard it used - coincidentally - just tonight twice in 'am Tage', from a speaker who was speaking normally and does not use 'am Tage' as a fixed phrase but freely varies between 'am Tage' and 'am Tag'. He's Pomoranian, classic full ə-drop region, and has little dialectal competence, so this was genuine and not regional influence. Furthermore, the usage of the dative-e is quite or even very common in formal and official texts, which do not aim to be historical, since that wouldn't be very formal, but as it stands to reason aim to be very formal. And that is fully my view of the situation. I do not see it as archaic at all; it's rare as fuck, but it's not producing an 'antique style' for me. I connote it with nothing but formality, with its old-fashionedness being solely a side-product of a sharply declining level formality in conversational German, comparable to the widespread switch to Duzen in many situations. Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What recent edits? Please be a bit more precise. -- The definition for "archaic" is perfectly applicable, in my opinion, but we don't use that tag anymore, so what's the point? -- "Am Tage" is a fixed impression. -- I've spoken to a speaker of East Central German, and he said that nobody uses the -e anymore. He even found "im Bette" very strange. So even your regional stuff doesn't seem to be quite right. -- But anyway: What recent edits are you referring to? Kolmiel (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, no, no, I'm so sorry. I had many travels and little sleep recently, and in my exhaustion I confused something in my watchlist, I'm sorry to have bothered you. On a side note: The form 'Bette' is not a case of dative-E, 'Bette' is also the nominative/accusative form. I'm not surprised some or many people wouldn't know it, dialectal influence seems to have dropped to shortly above zero in some regions around the 60's. I recently spoke to a 40yo Berlinian who thought it sounded very odd to say 'een Steen' despite the city's streets being plastered with people speaking like that in some parts of the town. Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC discussion: February 2016

 * See Wiktionary talk:About German.