Talk:dorpsgenote
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Alexis Jazz
@Mnemosientje, Rua, Morgengave, DrJos, Alexis Jazz, Voltaigne, Mofvanes An editor has changed the definition in this and several other entries with {{female equivalent of}}, which is mainly used for Romance languages and wasn't previously used for Dutch. I don't mind the changes per se, but it good to check whether there is support among Dutch editors for large-scale changes like that. There is also the matter to what extent it should be used; in my view using this template for prinses, koningin would go too far. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- If the word's meaning is the same except that it refers to a female-gendered individual, then I think it's fine to use the template. For prinses and koningin that applies too, doesn't it? —Rua (mew) 09:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't it a bit discriminating? You should use a template on "dorpgenoot" a "male equivalent of dorpsgenote". --DrJos (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to unify lemmas which have a masculine and a feminine variety you are going to have to make a choice - a choice which is typically made in favour of the masculine as norm for lemmatizing purposes in dictionaries, although this tends to apply to adjectives more universally than nouns. So, if we want to unify these masc./feminine noun entries in Dutch as well, that will again mean choosing either the masculine or the feminine form as the default lemma to refer to with the otherwise gendered form as a soft redirect (via the equivalent-of templates). This would logically mean choosing a masculine default form as that is the relatively neutral (i.e. status-quo) choice, as opposed to taking an explicit and relatively activistic stance of making the feminine entry the default lemma with the masculine entry as secondary. Since we want to describe language and not take activistic stances per se (as far as I know), I think going with the masculine default makes sense.
- What is your view on unifying the lemmas though? I'd interpret you as "don't mind", perhaps "soft support"?
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- What is your view on unifying the lemmas though? I'd interpret you as "don't mind", perhaps "soft support"?
- If you want to unify lemmas which have a masculine and a feminine variety you are going to have to make a choice - a choice which is typically made in favour of the masculine as norm for lemmatizing purposes in dictionaries, although this tends to apply to adjectives more universally than nouns. So, if we want to unify these masc./feminine noun entries in Dutch as well, that will again mean choosing either the masculine or the feminine form as the default lemma to refer to with the otherwise gendered form as a soft redirect (via the equivalent-of templates). This would logically mean choosing a masculine default form as that is the relatively neutral (i.e. status-quo) choice, as opposed to taking an explicit and relatively activistic stance of making the feminine entry the default lemma with the masculine entry as secondary. Since we want to describe language and not take activistic stances per se (as far as I know), I think going with the masculine default makes sense.
- Isn't it a bit discriminating? You should use a template on "dorpgenoot" a "male equivalent of dorpsgenote". --DrJos (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- As to whether we should want to unify the lemmas to one main lemma and thus use this template; it does fit with the precedent on Wiktionary (in Romance languages and elsewhere). And if we were to go against that precedent by choosing a female default lemma, I think we should first gain some sort of consensus for that, because without a clear sitewide policy to enforce I can smell the culture war bs shouting matches between woke people and conservatives flaring up a mile away. For the record, I do agree that using this for prinses and koningin goes too far, these terms have connotations which their male equivalents don't have. It's probably safest to use this template on forms that have a very close semantic and morphological link with their male equivalent entry. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think it can be considered discriminating, yes. But another problem with lemmatising the other way round, beside the ones mentioned by Mnemosientje, is that the masculine form is often used as an unspecified gender, which isn't how the feminine form is used. In addition, the feminine forms are very often less common than the masculine counterparts, and in the case of some suffixes (-in, -es, -e) the feminine nouns are often derived from the masculine forms. And many print dictionaries don't include a lot of the feminine nouns for persons we include, so our practice would be extremely out of step with other dictionaries.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think it can be considered discriminating, yes. But another problem with lemmatising the other way round, beside the ones mentioned by Mnemosientje, is that the masculine form is often used as an unspecified gender, which isn't how the feminine form is used. In addition, the feminine forms are very often less common than the masculine counterparts, and in the case of some suffixes (-in, -es, -e) the feminine nouns are often derived from the masculine forms. And many print dictionaries don't include a lot of the feminine nouns for persons we include, so our practice would be extremely out of step with other dictionaries.
- Can't we just have something like "A
{{variable gender|woman}}from the same village,{{variable gender|female}}fellow villager." and then have a bot synchronize that with dorpsgenoot, replacing woman with man and female with male? (and girl with boy etc) And vice versa? (the bot would read the other form from the nl-noun template parameter) Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)- In that case, the masculine variant should often produce "man/person from the same village, male or not gender-specific fellow villager", because it is also often used in gender-neutral contexts, at least in Northern Dutch. Compare the "beste reiziger" used by the NS, whose explicit purpose is that it doesn't mean "dear male traveller" but "dear [gender not specified] traveller".
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)- I had overlooked that. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- In that case, the masculine variant should often produce "man/person from the same village, male or not gender-specific fellow villager", because it is also often used in gender-neutral contexts, at least in Northern Dutch. Compare the "beste reiziger" used by the NS, whose explicit purpose is that it doesn't mean "dear male traveller" but "dear [gender not specified] traveller".