Talk:oerwoud

@-sche I was thinking of removing the notext parameter here, but then I thought that this might be better categorised as a partial calque. What do you say? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

On the face of it, the two elements of the German word are changed to two Dutch morphemes, so it seems like a full calque; I suppose the issue is that because one of the Dutch elements which the German elements are equivalent to (oer-) is ultimately itself borrowed from German, it's not clear whether Ur- in this case was "calqued" or just adapted? (But then both elements could be viewed as adaptations of the German elements...and since they're specifically being adapted to be spelled like the counterpart Dutch elements, that's just describing a calque again, isn't it?) Unless other dictionaries prefer to interpret it as a partial borrowing, I would just leave it as a calque, I reckon. We have things like ablative absolute and canicular days listed as calques from Latin although in the first case both elements ultimately go back to Latin and in the second case one element goes directly back to Latin. - -sche (discuss) 17:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@-sche Yes, that and because it looks like this word was borrowed before oer- really became a productive element in Dutch. It is interesting to note that the EWN regards them de facto as partial calques; they call the oldest derivations wholesale borrowings from German with the second element translated. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, based on that, I suppose it makes sense to change it to a partial calque. Or something like "An early calque or partial calque of German Urwald, equivalent to[...]"? - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)