WORD BY LETTER : English CROSSWORD SOLVER and others things ...
Words starting with : 
Words ending  with : 
Ledger Nano S - The secure hardware wallet
Find a definition : 

definition of the word User_talk:Leolaursen

by the Wiktionnary

IC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> User talk:Leolaursen - Wiktionary

User talk:Leolaursen

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives: 2009 2010a
Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Hej406:40, 29 August 2010
prins507:57, 4 August 2010
Fundamental interactions219:19, 16 July 2010
Christadelphian516:21, 6 July 2010
deliver222:06, 2 July 2010
Email212:27, 7 June 2010
Wiktionary:Votes/2010-04/Voting policy017:00, 21 May 2010

It's Mike Halterman; I didn't bother to log in. While forsvind is also a verb, it can also be used as an interjection, so why did you wipe it out? If anything it should have both on that page. 20:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC), 28 August 2010

I don't regard imperatives as interjections. The literal translation is "disappear!", would you regard that as an interjection? I don't think so.

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)21:34, 28 August 2010

We both should know that literal translations aren't what is used in common practice. Moment is literally "eye blink" but you don't hear anyone saying eye blink. ;), 28 August 2010

I have no idea why go away has an interjection section, since it is clearly an imperative. go, run or stop could just as easily claim to be interjections.

If you feel strongly about it by all means go ahead and revert my change, but I think it is stupid (no offence).

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)22:00, 28 August 2010

I also consider a possible reversion of Leo's edit not quite sound. To mine understanding, go away and forsvind are explicable by regarding them as imperative forms, whereas begone, lo etc. are not. There is a clear distinction between those two cases and yours belongs to the first group.

The uſer hight Bogorm converſation06:38, 29 August 2010

Hi Leolaursen. See this edit. Are you sure that Danish prins could mean "male ruler or head of a principality"? Norwegian and Danish are usually the same in such matters, and in Norwegian, using prins as "male ruler or head of a principality" is incorrect – prins means "son or male-line grandson of a reigning monarch". w:de:Prins seems to support my view, as it uses the word in the "søn af en regent eller en kvindelig regents ægtemand" sense.

Regards, Kjetil_r17:16, 28 July 2010

Hi Kjetil_r. Maybe I misunderstood something. DDO: prins has sense 1.b "(titel for) mandligt medlem af visse europæiske fyrstehuse". I took that for a principality, but I might be wrong.

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)17:47, 28 July 2010

Using prins in the "mandligt medlem af et europæisk fyrstehus" sense is seems correct, but it shouldn't be used to refer to the head of the principality.

Take Albert of Monaco as an example: As long as Rainier was alive, Albert should be referred to as prins Albert. When his father died and he became ruler, the correct title is fyrst Albert (even though many newspapers would get it wrong and still use "prins").

I just corrected "prins" here, as a "male member of an European princely family" definition better reflects the Danish "mandligt medlem af visse europæiske fyrstehuse" meaning.

Kjetil_r10:47, 30 July 2010

In Danish both "Fyrst" and "Prins" is a correct title for the ruler of Monaco, but "Fyrst" is exclusive to the ruler not other male members of the family.

{{gloss}} is for indicating which sense of the word is meant; you are using it here as {{non-gloss definition}}.

In my view, the sense "son or male-line grandson of a reigning monarch" covers the male members other than the ruler, so I'm going to revert your change.

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)11:22, 30 July 2010

Sorry if I mixed up the templates (or applied them wrong), I'm not used to the template naming conventions and usage at the English Wikisource.

I'm not going to spend more time arguing about what is correct in Danish, but I nevertheless still strongly suspect that the "Prins Albert" form – like it is in Norwegian – indeed is a mistranslation. It is probably like "w:da:prins af Wales" – a term properly translated as "fyrste af Wales" – where the translation error has gained common usage. We should of course not hide that "prins" now is used by some in the new "male ruler or head of a principality" sense, but we should make it clear that "fyrste" is the form traditionally preferred in the "male ruler or head of a principality" sense. I cannot remember seeing "prins" used in that sense when reading scholarly literature in Danish (for example in Politikens Forlag's many good books about history or politics, which I have often read at my local library).

Regards, Kjetil_r22:48, 3 August 2010

The Prince of Wales is hardly ever referred to as fyrste. The titel Fyrst is not more correct, but may be preferred when there is a risk of ambiguity. If anything the titel Prins is the most common.

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)07:57, 4 August 2010

Fundamental interactions

While I know you're around, would you mind making {{list:fundamental interactions/da}}? {{list:fundamental interactions/en}} has all the info you should need.

[ R·I·C ] opiaterein16:21, 16 July 2010

I'll have do some research to do that, and it would probably involve noun phrases, which I hate to introduce, because they will be treated as nouns.

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)17:36, 16 July 2010

So treat it as ===Noun phrase===... it's not the same in every language and if it needs to be different in Danish, it needs to be different. If someone tries to "fix" it, explain this to them... and if they insist on butting in where they have no knowledge, give them a short ban. People trying to formulate policies that affect things they have -zero- knowledge of us a big problem here.

[ R·I·C ] opiaterein19:19, 16 July 2010

Hi. I re-added your translation of Christadelphian, because I assumed it is correct. Please, delete it if you wish - I don't speak Danish, and I only wanted to help this new user.

Volants19:06, 27 June 2010

I think it is the responsibility of the contributor to ensure that the material is correct. I do not have the time or the inclination to prove that it is incorrect, so I still won't delete it. I think it is commendable that you wish to help him, but reinforcing his mistakes is not the way to go.

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)19:34, 27 June 2010

I understand. It has been deleted, I don't want to waste anybody's time

Volants19:52, 27 June 2010

Hi Leo, the word has been in use in Norwegian since 1911. The word appears in Danish editions of books from 2001, as in the paperback version of this.

In ictu oculi15:50, 6 July 2010

A link to a website is not a citation. The website gives no date or source. Our WT:CFI requires that words be citable in durably archive media. Also, you still have not indicated which languages you speak, and the list seems to be growing. If you continue to edit in languages that you do not speak, you will be blocked. --

EncycloPetey15:58, 6 July 2010

Perhaps, if it is published as a paperback, you have one citation. The fact that the Danish title "Bibelens Grund-Begreber" is wrong, doesn't add to its credibility. The correct title would be "Bib(e)lens Grundbegreber" (e is optional).

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)16:21, 6 July 2010

Hi, I divided a translation table into three here - could you please check out whether I haven't messed up the Danish translations? Thanks,

Thrissel20:14, 2 July 2010

It was fine. I added {{t}} and a few more translations. The many translations for the sense "bring or transport something to its destination" is because delivery to a person, to an address or of mail would be "different senses" in Danish.

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)21:46, 2 July 2010

I see. Thanks again!

Thrissel22:06, 2 July 2010

I've sent you an email. Please read it. Thanks!

Razorflame23:40, 6 June 2010

Hi Razorflame. I've replied per email. You can reach me here or on email as you please, and I'll reply in the same manner.

Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs)07:56, 7 June 2010

Yes, raise also works for this word, if you mean in the sense of increase or enhance.

Razorflame12:27, 7 June 2010

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.

​—msh21017:00, 21 May 2010

Definition from Wiktionary
Content avaible with GNU Free Documentation License

Powered by php Powered by MySQL Optimized for Firefox