Wiktionary talk:About Danish

The Return of Noun Capitalisation to Danish Orthography

 * I've read at TV Tropes & Idioms that constant grammar and spelling problems of (presumably Danish) netizens gave the pre-1948 practice of noun capitalisation an unexpected comeback. What are your thoughts on that? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Consider the lemma, for example. The non-lemma form "stemmer" could either be a noun form or a verb form. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

My guess is, whoever wrote that is referring to German and thought "comeback" meant "decline".__Gamren (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm reading this article right. Is it saying that noun capitalization is returning to the Danish web? 'Cause I haven't noticed that (and cannot understand how "constant errors" should lead to the reinstatement of an old practice), although I could be convinced with sources. And for the record, the lack of a distinction between verbs and nouns rarely leads to misunderstandings.
 * : The person/user (or Troper, as we say there) lordGacek, who wrote the note, wasn't talking about German orthography. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I made an edit on, hopefully to demonstrate what I mean. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt it. I have never observed this phenomenon, nor heard of it. I have not read anything about this on http://www.dsn.dk/nyt/nyheder nor just http://www.dsn.dk/. A search on Google did not give any useful results. I am confident that the claim is invalid. --ContraVentum (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to hear your thoughts. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it is pretty well known that Danish and German were the only two languages featuring noun capitalisation before WW2, and that it was removed from Danish due to the association with German. Even nowadays, you may sometimes be able to dig up old texts or books written in the pre-WW2-period, where nouns are written capitalised. As has been said before me, however, I have never in my life observed contemporary practice of noun capitalisation in serious discourse. Especially not on the internet. VladVP (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * : To be honest as a part Danish and part German resident of Michigan, I think that the abolishment of noun capitalisation in Danish orthography was plain irrational and should never have happened in the first place. Besides, if I were to write and type in Danish, I could capitalise the nouns if I wanted to for any reason. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I took the liberty of removing your comment on, since it didn't seem appropriate to me.__Gamren (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You most certainly can; such is the glory of free will. I myself have no strong emotions towards this change, it having happened long before my birth -- if anything, it seems sort of unnecessary. Since you seem to be a Troper, I suggest you correct the page in question unless this "lordGacek" may enlighten us.


 * @VladVP, 13:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC): Before WW2 many other languages also capitalized nouns, like English and Latin (well, 17th-19th century was before WW2...)
 * @Gamren, 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC): That comment at bly ("Alternative forms: Bly (if the noun capitalization rule is made official again)") wasn't good, but "Alternative forms: Bly (maybe some qualifier)" would be correct. Else there should ad least be a note here at "About Danish" or at a more general page.
 * @Lo Ximiendo, 15:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC): Yes, noun capitalization is usefull.
 * -84.161.7.120 09:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This page should, among other things, outline the history of the Danish language. Common en.wikt practice seems to be that noun entries are always uncapitalized, which I support, as it spares the trouble of having to manage two pages for some words. The presence of alternative forms is then implicit.__Gamren (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Declensions of nouns with adjectives?
How should we handle declension tables for nouns modified by adjectives, like or ? The definite forms of these do not really seem useful, and do not seem to constitute truly separate forms from their indefinite equivalents. I suggest an indefinite-only variant of. Does anyone have better ideas?__Gamren (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Some issues

 * You, as well as everyone else who wishes to chime in, are invited to share your thoughts on the following issues:
 * 1) Should verbal nouns formed by appending, as in the examples below, have a special designation (when they are attestable, of course)? If so, should they be included on conjugation tables?
 * 2) * 2014, Else Marie Post, Peter Post's Dagbog: En sønderjyde i tysk krigstjeneste og russisk krigsfangenskab i 1. verdenskrig, BoD – Books on Demand ISBN 9788771458749, page 44
 * Den ene fange ville trykke sig mere som den anden, råben og skrigen blev ved hele eftermiddagen.
 * 1) * 2015, Ole Sønnichsen, Rejsen til Amerika 2 Jagten på lykken: Fortællingen om de danske udvandrere, Gyldendal A/S ISBN 9788702161366
 * Vores løben rundt på gaderne havde været den bedste vej at reklamere for os selv.
 * 1) * 1935, Hakon Stangerup, Litteraturen rundt
 * Altsaa viser den nye syntetiske Metode sig til sidst at være en gammel Kending: den uvidenskabelige, tilfældige Skriven løs om et litterært Stof uden Analyse, uden Metode, men med tilstræbt aandfuldt Helhedssyn og i en »kunstnerisk« Stil.
 * 1) How should we deal with declensions of nouns modified by adjectives, such as  and ? Philmonte101 is of the opinion that form-of entries should be made, though it is not clear what she intends to do about definite forms. I have suggested a derivative of  that linkifies each word, which obviously depends on both the adjective and the noun having inflections in their own right. It has also been suggested that declensions are foregone entirely.
 * 2) Should the adjective form that appends, which was formerly referred to as the "definite and plural form", be separated into two forms, as has recently been done? If so, should  be modified correspondingly? Or should  be revived, renamed and rephrased for clarity?
 * 3) Should we differentiate between the two superlative forms (værst/værste, grummest/grummeste)? If not, should we document only one? __Gamren (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, User:Gamren. Thank you for bringing all of these things up. To give you a short and basic introductory answer as to what I feel should or shouldn't be included here in regards to these types of things, here it is. I feel like any term that is technically not SOP and is attested should be here. I view things from a really technical standpoint. I feel like elektronisk fodspor (digital footprint) should have an entry, then so should all its inflected forms. I do not like how many editors have backed away from this when making inflection/conjugation templates, and though I totally understand where they're coming from (it'd probably be a pain in the ass to do all the inflected forms for a two-worded verb in Finnish, for example), but it still must be done in my opinion. As I like to say, there are some things that are no fun that must be done.

As for some specific notes, I'll give my opinion on each of your 4 questions.

1. To be quite honest with you, I have studied many years of Danish, but still do not quite understand the whole -en appended to adjectives thing. I knew they existed, but never quite understood why they're used or what they're for. If you could care to give me a short lesson about the -en thing on my talk page, then I would be very happy. :) As for the question though, again, if it's attested, it should be included by all means. And yes, inflection templates should also include them. This will be more informative to the readers. Someone who doesn't know what råben means may want to look it up here.

2. As I said above, elektroniske fodspor is no less of an SOP than elektronisk fodspor, so technically I believe this inflected form merits an entry. Though they may be almost useless and trivial to have entries for those, I feel like it is still necessary because of my inclusionist standpoint. Although, to be honest, I really don't care all that much if they're here or not, I mean like I said, they're trivial. Almost no one would care if these were or weren't here. But if I was the one making the decision and had a lot of template knowledge, I'd pick to include them.

3. I support the Template:da-definite and plural of idea. I find it very unfortunate how User:-sche has deleted the previous template for this so rashly, and how User:Angr agreed and also is paranoid about there being one "extra" template here. I quoted extra because he seems to see the template as something trivial that could "easily" be said with Template:inflection of (though inflection of is cool for what it is, I don't really like using it because it makes things much more complex. Only useful for languages that have really extensive conjugations and where it'd be silly to make 30+ inflection of templates for them each, such as Spanish or French). I believe we really, really need to keep this discussion going. Something like this should probably go to BP and we may even have to go as far as making a formal vote, since some people who don't really understand Danish at RFDO aren't really fully understanding us. I mean, I suppose someone could just go ahead and create Template:da-definite and plural of, since it wasn't the one that was originally RFDed, but I have a feeling somebody is going to RFD that template again and it may unfortunately have the same result as last time.

4. Yes. Actually, I believe that some people already have been listing these in some inflection template, maybe Template:head, perhaps? Anyway, I definitely believe these forms should be included, as, again, it's more important to the readers.


 * If I have failed to make myself clear about my opinion somewhere, please feel free to ask me. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have Danish as my native language and I feel that use of verbal nouns is old and formel and not used much anymore except perhaps on signs but it is still part of Danish as you can see here in the official Danish dictionary:. Kinamand (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Old? I can find plenty of recent usage. Formal? Perhaps, a little. However, my central question was not whether they should be included, but whether they should be entered as noun inflections of verbs, like råbte is past tense of råbe. Also, do you have anything to say on the other topics? P.S. Why do you refer to DDO as "the official Danish dictionary"? P.P.S. Surely you do not mean to imply that being in DDO is a necessary criterion for existing as a word? @Philmonte101, they are pretty much equivalent to English gerunds, as in the yelling and screaming never stopped, but they usually do not have inflections.__Gamren (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a common (mis)conception that the DDO is "the official dictionary". It's not, however, even if the name leads people to that impression. It's just the most comprehensive modern dictionary of Danish. Nothing but Retskrivningsordbogen has any sort of semi-official status, and even that doesn't claim to be an exhaustive list of Danish words. —Pinnerup (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'm sufficiently familiar with the workings of Wiktionary or the implications of these questions to really offer qualified commentary, but here's an attempt at least.
 * I've never really thought of these verbal nouns in -en as being part of a conjugation, but I can't seem to find any compelling reason to rule out their inclusion in a conjugation table. They can sometimes have a rather old-fashioned or formal air about them, but I wouldn't say that they're not used anymore. I think it'd be fine to include them in a conjugation table as a verbal noun and then create separate entries for the more common and attestable instances.
 * I'm not sure I entirely understand the question, but ideally sydlig nattergal should have an inflection table listing "sydlig nattergal, (den) sydlige nattergal, sydlige nattergale, (de) sydlige nattergale", I think. I don't know if this is feasible at all, though.
 * I think I prefer listing "røde" as two different forms, definite singular and (indefinite and definite) plural. I think the wording "definite and plural" will be confusing to some. The same goes for.
 * I've not given it much thought previously, but is there any reason to not just treat "værst" as the basic lemma and "værste" as the definite form of same, i.e. to treat "værst/værste" as we treat "rød/røde"? —Pinnerup (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. 2) Yes, but the question seems to be whether we should actually make separate pages for the "forms" (e.g., ). If we include some forms (e.g. kunstige intelligenser) then consistency would demand that we include all seven, even those with articles, which seems silly to me. What I suggest is something like


 * 3) Are you aware that this will probably preclude WT:ACCEL (although we'll see)? And do you have a suggestion for how to change ? What we used to call definite and plural is apparently called e-form by several books, but I don't know if that is in use by linguists. 4) Lemma ~= "basisform", in this case "positive common gender singular"; rødest is definitely not a lemma (værst was a poor choice on my part, what with it not being similar to any positive form). Also, definiteness doesn't really seem to have anything to do with inflection of superlatives, rather it depends on attributiveness/predicativeness, cf. kagen er lækrest, en kage er lækrest, den lækreste kage (since it can't be used attributively in an indefinite environment).__Gamren (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:Gamren about 2, I think I should clarify that I do not want to make entries for, for example, den elektroniske fodspor, because including den would just make the entry an SOP, see den + elektroniske fodspor. "den" seems to just be a modifier and not an actual component of the noun. However, in the inflection templates, I'm inclined to say I'd agree with putting something like this: den elektroniske fodspor. I also would like to say that in the actual entry itself:


 * 1) (used with det) singular definite of '')


 * This is what I was trying to say. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)