Last modified on 18 July 2014, at 22:23

User talk:Stardsen

Return to "Stardsen" page.

WelcomeEdit

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TranslationsEdit

Hi! I noticed you've been adding translation sections to Dutch words. We don't do that on Wiktionary, only English entries have translations. Could you please remove the ones you added? Thank you! —CodeCat 17:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and all the 'see also' terms you added aren't really necessary, either. We have categories for such things, like Category:Dutch pronominal adverbs. —CodeCat 17:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Old Saxon spellingEdit

There is currently a discussion on the normalisation of spellings of old languages such as Old Saxon: WT:BP#Normalised spellings of ancient languages. It seems that the consensus is that for such languages, the spelling may be normalised/standardised, and any other spellings may be treated as alternative spellings. This means that you won't need to add such alternative spellings to pages like Template:termx. The spelling with just v is enough. —CodeCat 13:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the discussion and the section on WT:AOSX about orthographical normalisation, before you continue adding Old Saxon words. Thank you. —CodeCat 18:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles in Old SaxonEdit

Old Saxon didn't have articles yet, it only had a demonstrative determiner which later came to be used as a definite article. —CodeCat 14:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

MistakesEdit

Please pay closer attention to the information you copy from other articles. Quite a lot of your Old Saxon entries have incorrect languages and pronunciation, and your use of templates is very inconsistent as well, which others then have to fix. —CodeCat 18:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Unattested Old Saxon termsEdit

On Wiktionary, we require that all terms have attestations in real texts showing them in use. See WT:CFI. Several terms that you've added recently, such as threskan, fōlian and hullian, are not found in any Old Saxon texts according to my sources, and so they've been submitted for verification at WT:RFV (down the bottom of the page). I invite you to participate in the discussion there and to provide attestations for those terms, or they will be deleted. I would also like to ask that you check this yourself before adding terms, as it gives other editors more work to have to verify your terms and it may eventually lead to a block from Wiktionary if other editors have to check on your work too often. I also notice you've not replied to any of my previous messages... I strongly encourage you to reply, as our work on Wiktionary depends heavily on discussion. —CodeCat 22:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

They were shown on Proto-Germanic pages, if you want to delete the pages, do so. User:Stardsen 00:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't want to delete the pages... it's just that they don't meet our requirements. It would be against the rules to keep them. But I have something that may help. If you know some German, then maybe Gerhard Köbler's Old Saxon dictionary is useful to you. As far as Old Saxon terms go it is very complete, and it also notes related terms in other languages, and even Germanic etymologies (although they are not always entirely correct). It also shows when a word is not attested: a * before a word means that the word hasn't been found at all in any Old Saxon text, while a * after a word means that the word shown hasn't been found, but inflected forms of that word have been (for example, the infinitive might not be attested but the past tense could be). Terms with * before them in Köbler's dictionary are not allowed on Wiktionary, but terms with * after them are ok. The three terms I mentioned all have a * before them, though. Do note, though, that his dictionary uses both macrons (ō) and circumflex accents (ô) to mark long vowels. I'm not quite sure why he does that, but in any case, on Wiktionary we only use macrons (so ō, not ô). —CodeCat 22:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you CodeCat, I will be careful with * before words. User:Stardsen 00:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

ana-Edit

Is this Old English or Old Saxon you've added here, because it's a mix of the two. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Old Saxon plurals?Edit

I saw you've been adding plural forms to Old Saxon nouns. I'm wondering though which plural form it is. Most nouns have 3 or 4 different plural forms. —CodeCat 14:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

tebrekanEdit

You added faran and glidan on the page? —CodeCat 13:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

gastEdit

You added the wrong word again... —CodeCat 21:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:osx /scriptEdit

Hello, it was as far as I can tell because of all the spaces you put in {{cardinalbox}} that this happened. The reason is that template names can have spaces in them, but not as the first or last character. So [[Template:osx]] and [[Template:osx ]], the server treats them both as {{osx}}. But not so for {{osx/script}} and {{osx /script}} as the space is not the final character here! Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the server also strip spaces from the arguments of templates? —CodeCat 17:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused too! I'm not 100% sure I'm right but whatever I did, I seem to have fixed it! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Old SaxonEdit

I appreciate that copying over from Old English entries is a good practice (like I do with Anglo-Norman/Old French) but please check a little harder that you change the header to Old Saxon from Old English. Thank you, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Old Saxon ioEdit

I noticed you've been marking the i in io as long. Why? —CodeCat 12:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

FormatEdit

There is a long-standing inconsistency in our prescribed (See WT:ELE.) structure of headings. For single-etymology L2 sections, the PoS headers are at level 3. For multiple-etymology L2 sections, the PoS headers are at level 4, with corresponding adjustments to subordinate headings. Most of us have internalized this and live with the peculiar logic. Perhaps you could, too. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

EtymologiesEdit

When adding etymologies, could you please use the proper etymology templates instead of writing out the words manually like you did at helsith? We have a set of templates such as {{compound}}, {{prefix}} and {{suffix}} for these situations. Could you also add them to the entries you created already? Thank you! —CodeCat 21:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

bigiotanEdit

Hi, could you fix up the entry please, and others like it? The pronunciation isn't right and the template has parameters that don't exist. Thank you! —CodeCat 20:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss some issues that me and other editors are having with your editsEdit

It is really great that you are adding so many new Old Saxon entries. For that I have nothing but praise, it is very helpful. But me and a few other editors have expressed concern that there are still some mistakes in your edits that need fixing. We can fix the occasional mistake, everyone makes them of course. But you are making edits so fast that they are piling up and it is very hard for is to keep up; and that means that while you are making new entries, other editors have to spend a lot of time to "babysit" your edits and check them, while we would rather be doing something else. Apparently, you have copied most of your entries from existing Old English entries. While this is fine, you need to be careful that you don't make any false assumptions about the meanings of certain words, their pronunciations, and also about the templates they use. Quite often (moreso before than now, thankfully), you have left part of the original Old English entry in the Old Saxon entry, which just seems sloppy. On some occasions you have also copied over mistakes that were also present in the original Old English entry. Not all of our entries are up to standards yet, so you can't assume that what you copy is correct. Always check and fix up what you copy first! (And if you are feeling generous, you could fix up the original entry you copied from too. :) )

Judging from your talk page, you have received several messages about this in the past, but you have not responded to them at all, leaving us to guess at your intentions. I have noticed that you have fixed some entries when requested, but you have not fixed any mistakes you made before that, and many of your earlier edits still need to be fixed. This gives the impression that you are not willing to stop and talk to discuss problems, and instead just cruise on without regard to the rest of the editing community on Wiktionary, which is rather worrying.

User:Ruakh suggested that we should undo most of your edits and even that you should be blocked. But your edits are gradually improving, and the entries you create are invaluable despite the mistakes they still contain, so I would rather not block you. So, after some discussion we came up with (hopefully) a better solution. We would like it if you could stop creating any more entries for now, and focus first on correcting earlier mistakes. Those mistakes include at least the following:

  • Pronunciations. There is little known about how Old Saxon was actually pronounced. And even then, some of the pronunciations you have added are clearly wrong, such as the one you added to bigiotan (which you since removed, thank you!). So, to err on the side of caution, I would ask you to remove all pronunciations from the entries you have created.
  • Etymologies. Some of the older entries you created still have etymologies written in plain text, rather than templates. The templates are important, because they add the entry to the appropriate categories, and also help us keep track of things and format things consistently. So I would ask you to fix the etymologies of all entries you created, so that the etymologies use {{compound}}, {{prefix}}, {{suffix}}, {{etyl}} and {{proto}}. Please make sure to check that you used the correct language code when using those templates, so that the entry does not end up in the categories of another language. Please also use {{term}} to link to cognates in other languages, again with the proper language codes. Some examples of incorrect etymologies you created are fiur, heldor, helligithwing.
  • Alternative spellings and alternative forms. There is a difference between {{alternative spelling of}} and {{alternative form of}}, although with ancient languages it is hard to tell at times. An alternative spelling would be, for example, c instead of k, or ƀ instead of v. We call something an alternative form when we have reason to suspect that the difference in the spelling reflects an actual difference in pronunciation. For example gibarion and gibarian are not just alternative spellings, because they have an extra "i" to indicate an extra sound that was not present in the pronunciation of the word when it was written as gibaron. So again I would ask you to check, and if necessary fix, any entries in Category:Old Saxon alternative forms that are marked as "alternative spelling". If you are not sure if something is an alternative spelling or an alternative form, alternative form is a safer bet, as all alternative spellings are always alternative forms (but not all alternative forms are alternative spellings). One final note: when listing possible alternative spellings in the main entry, the heading should always be "alternative forms", even for alternative spellings.
  • Headword-line templates. This is a point where it seems you have copied information from Old English entries without fully understanding how it works. The template {{ang-verb}}, which is used to create the headword lines of Old English verbs, has a set of parameters that do not exist in the {{osx-verb}} template. In fact, the only parameter that {{osx-verb}} has is the head= parameter. So I would ask you to fix those templates in entries so that they only use head=, not type= or class= or any other parameters. This includes bigiotan (which you fixed) but also bifithan where head= is missing. Also, if the headword is the same as the name of the entry, then you should not add head=.
  • Macrons in headword lines. I noticed that in some entries you created in the past, you added macrons to the diphthong "io" (and maybe "iu" too). In Old English, there is a difference between ēo and eo, but this difference does not exist in Old Saxon, so macrons are not normally placed on that diphthong. Could you remove it in the entries where you added it?

Ruakh and I have agreed to allow you to fix these mistakes before taking any measures against you. So please take care of them before creating anymore entries. You can find a list of all of your edits at Special:Contributions/Stardsen. It would probably be easiest to go all the way to the end of that list (it has several pages) and fix your oldest edits first, as your newer entries are generally better and have less mistakes than your older ones. This will take a while to fix, unfortunately, but if you don't do it, we will have to, which doesn't quite seem fair. Once you have corrected all the entries, please let me or Ruakh know on our talk pages so we can review it. Until then, please don't create anymore entries. —CodeCat 21:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it is obvious that I have still a lot to learn with templates, for the moment I will try to fix my older entries and I began to delete all the pronuntiations, I also shall fix the meanings of words but the only dictionary I have of Old Saxon is written in German so sometimes the meaning from German to English is a bit different... but still I shall clear it. I also have to learn about alternative spellings and forms, thank you for letting me fix them. User:Stardsen 00:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You can always ask in WT:GP if you have any questions or problems with templates, or ask another editor. I agree that they can be confusing, but you can actually go to the template and click edit to see what is 'inside' it. That might help you understand a bit better how that template works (if you understand how template code works in general). The template {{osx-verb}} is fairly simple, so if you are interested in learning how templates work (which is always a useful skill around here!), then you can start there. —CodeCat 22:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the help I think it will help me :). User:Stardsen 00:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

slutaEdit

Did it really mean "to use" in Old Frisian? —CodeCat 20:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Cognotates"Edit

"Cognotates" is not a word. —RuakhTALK 15:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Etymology headers.Edit

When you add an etymology, be sure to add an ===Etymology=== header. —RuakhTALK 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

injuryEdit

FYI:

  • {{t-}} means that the foreign-language Wiktionary exists, but doesn't have the appropriate entry. {{}} means that the foreign-language Wiktionary doesn't exist (yet). There's no Old Saxon Wiktionary, so we always use {{|osx|...}}, never {{t-|osx|...}}.
  • the xs= parameter is no longer used, and should not be specified.

RuakhTALK 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

AttestationsEdit

I hope you're aware that Old Dutch is not attested very well, and often in very inconsistent spelling. So make sure that you know that the word is attested (just seeing it mentioned in an etymology isn't enough) before you add it. —CodeCat 18:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Language codes in linksEdit

When you link to other terms using {{term}}, can you please remember to include the language code? Like this: diffCodeCat 23:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Entries with level or structure problemsEdit

As I write this there were several Old Saxon entries of yours that are on the list. You seem to have the habit of putting PoS headers at level 4 when there is only one Etymology. That gets flagged as non-compliant with WT:ELE, our formatting standards. DCDuring TALK 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please clean up the items of yours in the category. It has been three months. DCDuring TALK 02:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't, I understand barely nothing of these blimming level 4 or PoS-whatever thingies... --Stardsen (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
What he means is if there is only one ===Etymology=== section, then you should write ===Noun=== instead of ====Noun====. --WikiTiki89 02:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you--Stardsen (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Please take the trouble to learn from the corrections made to your entries by having items you edit automatically put on your watchlist and paying attention to the list. It is easier than trying to understand WT:ELE, which is also worth reading and understanding however. I think you make only one or two kinds of errors - but you seem to keep on making them. DCDuring TALK 03:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

ginathariEdit

The suffix and the header say that it is a noun, but the definition is an adjective? —CodeCat 15:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Merciful can be either an adjective or a noun. --Stardsen (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
True, but it confused me, so it would probably confuse others too. —CodeCat 16:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It's ok I put someone merciful instead of merciful only. --Stardsen (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

wiþquethanEdit

Are there really texts in Old Saxon that use the letter þ? Also, even if there are, why did they use þ for one th but not the other? wiþqueþan seems more likely... —CodeCat 20:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recycling a useless and false pageEdit

Hi, I don't understand what you're trying to do here. We don't move false pages to a different title, we delete them. We don't want pages to have histories for entirely unrelated words. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes but I don't know how to delete them and I don't want them on the Old Saxon wordlists^^ maybe you could help me delete them? --Stardsen (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes add {{delete}} to the page (where you're the only human editor to the page, otherwise we need a deletion debate). The ones you've already moved will be harder. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much!! For the ones that I already moved will you keep the new words I submitted? --Stardsen (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Please don't include temp| as that's how we display the template without it categorizing in Candidates for speedy deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, will they be deleted then? --Stardsen (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes I can find them. More importantly, how did you manage to create so many wrong entries? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

FormattingEdit

You've got to learn how to format etymologies. See here and if you have any questions, please ask. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Diacritic stripping in links for Old SaxonEdit

Since you seem to keep mostly to yourself, I'm not sure if you kept up on the changes that have been happening on Wiktionary over the past months. A scripting language called Lua was installed, and we can now write "modules" in them. Modules are much like templates in the way we use them, but they can do a lot of things that templates can't, so we've been working on converting a lot of our templates into it, starting with the most important and heavily used ones. One of the templates we've converted is {{l}}, which creates links. In its new form, it is able to strip diacritics from words, depending on the language. For Old Saxon, that means that it could remove macrons from words when linking to them. So you could write {{l|osx|mīn}} and it would correctly link to min and not mīn, although the link would still display as mīn. So it would be the same as {{l|osx|min|mīn}}, but without the hassle of writing the word twice. This has to be added and enabled for each language individually, and it hasn't been done for most languages yet. Do you want this to be done for Old Saxon as well? If so, which replacements should be made? From what I can tell, it should only remove macrons from ā, ē, ī, ō, ū, and nothing else. Is that correct? —CodeCat 20:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

RedirectsEdit

Do not create redirects for capitalization differences. DTLHS (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

why?? --Stardsen (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Please refer to Wiktionary:Redirections. DTLHS (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Low GermanEdit

Good day to you, fellow user. You recently put in several tables of declension for Low German verbs. As with every project where written Low German comes into play, there are quite some problems with it. Maybe it would be time to gather the Low German authors in this site and have a general discussion about spelling standards? This was brought up at some point in the past, but people felt that Wiktionary should not impose a pseudo-standard onto a living language. Then again, a dictionary needs a way to represent a language. I know that -she is working on them too and I think a user called Bleifrei. Maye we could lay out rules for an acceptable spelling? I would be willing to propose a draft of the trans-dialectal phonetic situation to serve as a start point for the discussion. Korn (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Good dag to di ook. Yes sorry for these Low German entries, I recently started to look at Plattdeutsch to see how it writes Low Saxon phonemes... I think the idea to gather all Low German authors to decide of a common spelling for Low Saxon/German is great, and I would be proposing my points of vue concerning Low German/Saxon^^ it's a shame so much different German- or Dutch-like writing systems exist, but none of them being official and fitting a different language^^ --Stardsen (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a bit like asking all Slavic/Romance contributors to decide on a common way to write Slavic/Romance words, stuff like whether plural present tense ends on "t" or "n", whether plural and/or diminutive nouns get an Umlaut or not, is usually seen as a language border. --80.114.178.7 22:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/NominationsEdit

FYI: cite=1 means the article has citations, and pron=1 means the article has a pronunciation. The article nahtagala has neither. --WikiTiki89 19:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

thrīe, thrīaEdit

Hello Stardsen. Can you please explain why you moved the Old Saxon entry for thrīe thence to thrīa in this revision? Please note that the entry is still written as if it were at thrie and that your moving the page left behind an undesirable redirect to thria from thrie. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Marking pages for deletionEdit

I've been finding pages of yours where you added the temp template rather than the delete template. The temp template is just a way of displaying the names of templates instead of the output of the templates- you were supposed to copy what was displayed on the page, not the wikitext that produced it. In other words,You added: {{temp|delete}} where you should have added: {{delete}}

I hope I don't need to tell you not to copy the "nowiki" parts...

Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Low German (2)Edit

Pursuant to a number of discussions, the various Dutch dialects of Low German were unified into "Dutch Low Saxon", while the various German dialects of Low German were unified into "German Low German". The erstwhile macrolanguage header "Low German" is no longer used; please use either "Dutch Low Saxon" (code: nds-nl) or "German Low German" (code: nds-de). Thanks, - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This is completely stupid. Why call Low German "German Low German"?? I guess "Low German" already mentions "German", no need to say it twice it just looks awkward^^ the general language is Low Saxon, when spoken in Germany call it Low German or Plattdüütsch as you wish and when spoken in the NL call it Dutch Low Saxon... French is spoken in Belgium, so what?? Call French from France "French French", as opposed to "Belgian French"?? A little bit more of thinking is expected on that subject, you can't really say "German Low German" without laughing and I think such indecision/stupid in-urge-decided gateway solutions are obstacles that prevent Low Saxon dialects from being considered seriously and respected. No wonder then, why there are scarcely only 50 Low Saxon or Low German entries on this site, most of them following at lest a dozen of different writing styles, and why people who tried to improve that situation like me give up quickly. This isn't just my opinion, this is logic. --Stardsen (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There are no really satisfactory options- I think the present setup is a reasonable compromise between the linguistic realities, the sociolinguistic realities, and the way our site handles lects, even if it has its problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

hepEdit

What does hep mean (on your user page)? It looks as though we might be missing a French slang entry! Equinox 23:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

gisetEdit

Same old mistake. Please fix it. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

TranslationEdit

Hello Stardsen,

I translated a song of Evanescence from English into Old High German. I wondered whether you want to take a look into it and correct possible mistakes? That would be much too kind of you :)!

Like You
Stay low.
Soft, dark, and dreamless,
Far beneath my nightmares and loneliness.
I hate me,
For breathing without you.
I don't want to feel anymore for you.
Grieving for you,
I'm not grieving for you.
Nothing real love can't undo,
And though I may have lost my way,
All paths lead straight to you.
I long to be like you,
Lie cold in the ground like you.
Halo,
Blinding wall between us.
Melt away and leave us alone again.
The humming, haunted somewhere out there.
I believe our love can see us through in death.
I long to be like you,
Lie cold in the ground like you.
There's room inside for two and I'm not grieving for you,
I'm coming for you.
You're not alone,
No matter what they told you, you're not alone.
I'll be right beside you forevermore.
I long to be like you, sis,
Lie cold in the ground like you did.
There's room inside for two and I'm not grieving for you.
And as we lay in silent bliss,
I know you remember me.
I long to be like you,
Lie cold in the ground like you.
There's room inside for two and I'm not grieving for you,
I'm coming for you.
Wiu Du:
Bilīb tiuf
Semfti, tunkal unti troumlōs
Wīt untar album mīn unti einōtin mīn
Ih haȥȥōm mih
Dāra furi āno dih zuo ātamōn
Ih willu niowiht mēro furi dih fuolōn
Ih trūrēm furi dih
Ih trūrēm ni furi dih
Niowiht ist, waȥ wāriu minna ni intweban kan
Unti mit diu ih wëg mīn firloran habēm
Alo stīgūn leitent zuo dir
Ih langēm dara nāh wiu du zuo wesan
Kalt in dëru erdu zuo liggen
Houbitskīmo
Want blententiu zwisken uns
Zirenn unti laȥȥ unsih widar frist
Die liudōnte, die gijagōte ionēr dar ūȥana
Ih giloubu daz diu minna unsih duruh dën tōd sehan kan
Ih langēm dara nāh wiu du zuo wesan
Kalt in dëru erdu zuo liggen
Dār ist wītuobili furi zwei unti ih trūrēm ni furi dih
Ih quimu furi dih
Du bist ni suntaringon
Undrāti ist, waȥ siu dir gisagt habēnt, du bist ni suntaringon
Ih wirdu zi altare reht in ebanī dir wesan
Ih langēm dara nāh wiu du zuo wesan, swëster
Kalt in dëru erdu zuo liggen
Dār ist wītuobili furi zwei unti ih trūrēm ni furi dih
Unti danne wir in dëru stillūn wunnia liggemēs
Weiȥ ih, daȥ du mih gihuggis
Ih langēm dara nāh wiu du zuo wesan
Kalt in dëru erdu zuo liggen
Dār ist wītuobili furi zwei unti ih trūrēm ni furi dih
Ih quimu furi dih

Greets from Germany HeliosX (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi HeliosX

Thanks for your translation, it is by the way a great idea to translate into Old High German, a rather underremembered language (like Old Saxon) comparared to the amazing popularity of Old English still nowadays! And for this I feel respectful towards you! Your translation is very good, using a lot of vocabulary. I only could see a few small mistakes ;)

  • line 3: Wīt untar album mīnum unti einōtin mīnemu
  • line 5: (Dāra furi) āno dih zuo ātamōn(ne)
  • line 8: Ih ni trūrēm furi dih - negation was before the verb
  • line 11: (a detail ;) I would rather see an inversion from zuo dir to dir zuo, this is also typical of Old Saxon and Old English) Alo stīgūn leitent dir zuo
  • lines 12 and 13: zuo wesanne and zuo liggenne with old dative endings added to infinitives, also present in Old English and Old Saxon after preposition ; however, all three languages tended to make this old dative ending disappear, zuo wesan and zuo liggen were thus also possible ;)
  • Ih giloubu daz diu minna unsih duruh (dën) tōd sehan kan
  • Dār ist wītuobili furi zwēna unti ih ni trūrēm furi dih
  • Du ni bist suntaringon

I was very impressed by the style of your poem, the clever use of vocabulary, all the mistakes I saw were only tiny mistakes or details, I must say this is very impressive :D May I ask, are you going to use this translation for something? --Stardsen (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much in turn for your nice words :)! Yes, it may be that Old High German is a bit underrembered but however I don't mind ;D. I'd rather help it be more remembered :). And thanks a bunch for your constructive correction, it really helped me nontheless still I have a question: is the term minna reserved to romantic love? If so we are obliged to use liubi cuz in this song the familiar love is meant.

No, actually not. It's just for myself, and I think that I also won't sing that as on this songs very many childhood memories of mine are saved and I want them to stay there, if I listened to it they were replaced with the present time, do you know this feeling too?

Greets HeliosX (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Another song translationEdit

Hello again Stardsen :),

I translated another song into Old High German and I wondered if you could check it again :)! It would be really glad if you could check it! I actually translated the song in both genders and I added "or him" after "her" in the original lyrics :).

Solitude:
How many times have you told me you love her or him?
As many times as I wanted to tell you the truth
How long have I stood here beside you?
I lived through you, you looked through me
Ooo, solitude
Still with me is only you
Ooo, solitude
I can't stay away from you
How many times have I done this to myself?
How long will it take before I see?
When will this hole in my heart be mended?
Who now is left alone but me?
Ooo, solitude
Forever me and forever you
Ooo, solitude
Only you, only true
Everyone leaves me stranded
Forgotten, abandoned
Left behind
I can't stay her another night
Your secret admirer, who could it be?
Can't you you see all along it was me?
How can you be so blind as to see right through me?
Solitude
Still with me is only you
Ooo, solitude
I can't stay away from you
Solitude
Forever me and forever you
Ooo, solitude
Only you, only true
Einōti:
Wiu ofto habēst du mir gisagt, daȥȥ du inan or sia minnōst?
Sō ofto wiu ih gibigon habēm, dir diu wārheit zuo sagēn
Wiu lango stām ih hiar miti dir?
Ih habēm duruh dih gilebēt, du habēst duruh mih gisëhan
O einōti
Noh miti mir bist ein du
O einōti
Ih ni kan fona dir inttwellen
Wiu ofto habēm ih dësiu mir zuo gitān?
Wiu lango wirdit iȥ werēn unz ih sëhan wirdu?
Wanne wirdit dësiu loh in mīnēm hërzen gisloȥanaȥ wesan?
Wēr ūȥana mir ist nū ein?
O einōti
Ēwigo ih, ēwigo du
O einōti
Ein du, ein wāriu
Giwelih firlāȥit mih gistranditēr
Firgeȥȥanēr, gileibitēr
Firlāȥanēr
Ih ni kan hiar eina furdara naht bilīban
Dīnēr touganēr wuntarōntēr or dīniu touganiu wuntarōntiu, wēr or wiu kondi ër or siu wesan?
O, ni kanst du sëhan, daȥȥ ih ër or siu al diu zīt war
Wiu kanst du ekkorōdīgo blintēr or blintiu wesan, wiu eben duruh mih zuo sëhan
Einōti
Noh miti mir bist ein du
O einōti
Ih ni kan fona dir inttwellen
Einōti
Ēwigo ih, ēwigo du
O einōti
Ein du, ein wāriu

Greets from Germany HeliosX (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi HeliosX and sorry for the late, I didn't go often on wiktionary this month :/ Here are a few mistakes I saw:
  • daȥȥ du inan odo/odar sia minnōst?
  • zuo sagēn(ne)
  • ekkorōdīgo blintēr odo/odar blintiu wesan
  • mih zuo sëhan(ne)

Really well done, impressive, I couldn't have done that good in Old Saxon!! Oh and here is a site that provides a free-content dictionary for most ancient Germanic languages: [1] hope it'll help you, it helps me a lot!! Greetings from France :) --Stardsen (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

*rardaEdit

Hi. You added an unattested descendant to *razdō for Old Saxon. Do you have a sourced Middle Low German or perhaps a borrowed descendant (in Scandinavian, Frisian, etc.) which clearly points to its existence? Leasnam (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

fyi, i've removed it for the time being Leasnam (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Low German inflectionsEdit

Please don't write the inflections in plain text like you did at vörbikamen (I already removed it). Use a template to show this information instead. —CodeCat 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't edit the template thing, seems far too complicated, especially since the introduction of that module thingy that is unworkable with^^ --Stardsen (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You don't always need modules to create templates, let alone use them. The template {{head}} is made specifically to format headword lines and it's not so hard to use. You can basically write this: {{head|nds|verb|past|(put past form here)|past participle|(put past participle here)}}. As you can see, all the unnamed parameters after the part of speech ("verb" here) occur in pairs, the first saying the name, then the second giving the actual form. You can also group alternative forms together using "or" as the form name. The documentation of {{head}} should help you further. —CodeCat 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Massive Unexplained Deletion RequestsEdit

Could you please include some explanation of why you're requesting deletion? The {{d}} template is for obvious, non-controversial cases, and there's nothing obvious about deletions in a language few of us know much about. When someone suddenly marks large blocks of their contributions for deletion, the natural interpretation is that it's being done to make some kind of point having nothing to do with the entries themselves- so some explanation is required to let the admins know that you have a reason for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I based myself on the really well-done Old Saxon dictionary [[2]] to see which entries were attested in Old Saxon and which ones I had mistakenly thought to be real. Sorry for not letting explanations when I deleted them, I'll leave some when I further will do. --Stardsen (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that's reasonable, since you added the words yourself. Next time do something like this: {{d|mistakenly added}}. --WikiTiki89 17:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the indication, I'll follow your advice --Stardsen (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Köbler is sometimes wrong, e.g. on WT:RFV#uton it was pointed out that he marks Old English uton as unattested, but it is in fact attested. If you ever see him put an asterisk beside something and you think "huh, I thought for sure that was attested", it's worth checking Google / Google Books (you may be doing this already). When I say "checking Google" — obviously random websites aren't acceptable citations, but they might transcribe/cite manuscripts that are. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll follow your advice --Stardsen (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)