Wikidata talk:Wikidata Lexeme Forms/Danish

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@So9q: Kommentarer:

  1. Jeg var involveret i en diskussion om danske navneord skulle have genitiv. Det var en der argumenterede for at s-formen skulle anses some enklitisk.
  2. Spørgsmålet er, hvis genitiv findes, hvad hedder så den normale form? grundledsfald står der nu, men formen bliver jo også brug i andre fald.
  3. "nominativ singular, ubestemt". Bør "singular" ikke være "ental". Der er flere af denne type.
  4. Jeg var ikke klar også at man adskille navnemåde i aktiv og passiv.
  5. Jeg har hidtil brugt kort tillægsform i stedet for supinum. Er det nødvendig med "aktiv" i her? Er det fordi at det er en oversættelse fra svensk? Så vidt jeg forstår adskiller svensk supinum og kort tillægsform.
  6. "Det ska [læses]" -> "Det skal [læses]"
  7. "Det har [læsts] hela dagen." Er det en undersættelse fra svensk?
  8. Skal lang tillægsform ikke med?
  9. "bestemt (Q53997851), ental (Q110786), hankøn (Q499327), 1. grad (Q3482678)". hankøn?
  10. Det er vist ikke nødvendigt at adskille mellem trum/neutrum (eller amskulinum) i bestemt ental 1. grad.
  11. "bestemt (Q53997851), flertal (Q146786), 1. grad (Q3482678)". Bestemt er vist ikke nødvendig.

Der er nogle oversættelseselement. Create kunne være opret i stedet for skab. Ligeledes med masseopret.

— Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Finn.
Tak for alle dine kommentarer.
Jeg er desværre ikke så stiv i det med grammatik, så det overlader jeg trygt til dig.
  1. hvad betyder det helt konkret for os? (jeg har læst på om enklitiske pronomer i svensk, men fandt ingenting og dette i dansk)
  2. ?? fix det gerne, jeg ved ikke hvad grundledsfald er.
  3. jo
  4. jeg ved ikke hvad du mener så lad os fixe det også
  5. fix det gerne
  6. ok
  7. mener du hela? den skal selvfølgelig være hele. Ok?
  8. Hvad er det? Lægg den gerne til selv :)
  9. væk med den.
  10. ok fixer du det?
  11. ok.
Ret gerne alt du synes på siden. :)
Jeg fandt netop https://sproget.dk/raad-og-regler/typiske-problemer/genitiv-ejefald/genitiv-ejefald-uddybning og eftersom der tydeligvis ikke er en eneste undtagelse så foreslår jeg at vi lader en robot skabe alle ejefaldsformer på danske leksemer ifølge retskrivningsreglerne. Dvs. vi slipper manuelt monotont arbejde :)--So9q (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Skal vi have alle de her verbeformer med? https://sproget.dk/raad-og-regler/typiske-problemer/verber?--So9q (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@fnielsen: Nu har jeg ændret det du påpegede ovenfor. Kan du fixe adjektiv? Skal vi ikke ha en med komparativ også? Jeg fjernede kønnene, men her står det at de bøjes i køn også. Hm.--So9q (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nu er jeg klar at be Lucas lægge det til. Er det noget du vil ændre?--So9q (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@lucas Werkmeister, fnielsen: Hi, the Danish version is now ready for inclusion.--So9q (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done with 3 adjective forms[edit]

Hi @fnielsen:, I think we are good to go on the 3 adjective forms. Decisions taken during the work:

  • no "more " "most " syntactical comparation forms because they can be generated downstream (no irregularities)
  • no P31->comparable adjective as it is redundant. Comparable adjectives can be searched by the grammatical features of the forms.

Could you check if you are happy with it now? See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Lexeme:L37094 for an example.--So9q (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@So9q: I have now taken the liberty of changing the adjective form schema. I have erased two of the three schemas and changed the third. This is to conform with the suggestion of COR. For instance, for lilla, see https://ordregister.dk/id/COR.20424, they record forms separate even though they are homographs. I have erased one of the forms: there are now only one second degree form, - also corresponding to COR. I think that the "adj.adv" of COR should be moved to another lexeme with a adverb lexical category. I also changed annotation from, e.g., morphological comparative (Q106322767) to just comparative (Q14169499), likewise for the two third degree forms. For nouns, we do not have "morphological definite", so I do not think we should introduce "morphological" annotation for adjectives. Also other languages do not do this, see e.g., smart (L3609) ("most smart"/"smartest"). I wonder if you could take a look and give critique or catch errors? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Example COR for an adjective: 

COR.20435.300.01        gyselig         adj.sg.ubest.fk gyselig 1
COR.20435.301.01        gyselig         adj.sg.ubest.itk        gyseligt        1
COR.20435.302.01        gyselig         adj.sg.best     gyselige        1
COR.20435.303.01        gyselig         adj.pl  gyselige        1
COR.20435.304.01        gyselig         adj.kompar      gyseligere      0
COR.20435.305.01        gyselig         adj.superl.sg.ubest     gyseligst       0
COR.20435.306.01        gyselig         adj.superl.sg.best      gyseligste      0
COR.20435.307.01        gyselig         adj.superl.pl   gyseligste      0

— Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Werkmeister: We have finally finished a template for Wikidata Lexeme Forms for Danish adjectives. It is under "dansk adjektiv". I am wondering whether I could persuade you to deploy that new template in Wikidata Lexeme Forms? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fnielsen, So9q: deployed :) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alignment with COR[edit]

@So9q: Dansk Sprognævn er så småt ved at udgive Det Centrale Ordregister (Q112174921) her https://ordregister.dk/. Og det kunne påkalde en revision af vores skema. I første omgang kunne det være at inkludere genitiv for navneord. COR har for eksempel: 

COR.56433.110.01        synstest                sb.fk.sg.ubest  synstest        1
COR.56433.111.01        synstest                sb.fk.sg.best   synstesten      1
COR.56433.112.01        synstest                sb.fk.pl.ubest  synstest        1
COR.56433.112.02        synstest                sb.fk.pl.ubest  synstests       1
COR.56433.113.01        synstest                sb.fk.pl.best   synstestene     1
COR.56433.114.01        synstest                sb.fk.sg.ubest.gen      synstests       1
COR.56433.115.01        synstest                sb.fk.sg.best.gen       synstestens     1
COR.56433.116.01        synstest                sb.fk.pl.ubest.gen      synstests       1
COR.56433.116.02        synstest                sb.fk.pl.ubest.gen      synstests'      1
COR.56433.117.01        synstest                sb.fk.pl.best.gen       synstestenes    1

Det er muligt at det at det danske 's' er enklitisk har en vis betydning i nogle sammenhænge, men leksikografisk tror jeg det giver mere mening med ejefaldsformen. Skal vi ikke inkludere ejefaldet? Der er flere andre ordklasser hvor vi kunne tage skemaet op. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And for ikke-genitiv I suggest non-genitive (Q98946930) rather than nothing or nominative case (Q131105). — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hej. Thanks for pinging me on this. Unfortunately, I'm not at all competent to be any kind of help in making this decision. My danish grammar knowledge is weak. Maybe you could ask one of these who perhaps can give advice? I trust your judgement in this area :) So9q (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Werkmeister: I would like to add genitive forms to the Danish nouns for the Wikidata Lexeme Forms. How should I best do that? For those already present I would like them to be interpreted with the non-genitive (Q98946930) grammatical feature. The four new genitive forms should be with genitive case (Q146233). I have made an example on bil (L36385) for how I would like it to appear. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fnielsen If you edit the template on-wiki, I can update the tool accordingly. I don’t have anything for updating existing lexemes – there’s probably some existing bot that can be repurposed for it, ask on Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data maybe? Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucas Werkmeister: Thanks! I have now updated the two Danish noun specifications. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fnielsen: Thanks! I have a few issues / questions:
  1. In the examples Det her er en [bil]s hjul., Jeg ser flere [biler]s lys. and [bord]et står der., is it intentional that part of the word (s / et) is not going to be part of the input field / form representation? That seems pretty strange to me, and on bil (L36385) the s seems to be part of the form representations in F5 and F7, and likewise on bord (L37480) for F2.
  2. I think the neuter labels are missing the ikke-ejefald / ejefald?
  3. Some of the placeholders / input fields are now at the beginning of the sentence; to avoid people writing them in uppercase, it would be good to rephrase the sentences to put something else first, if possible.
Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucas Werkmeister: Thanks very much for spotting these errors.
  1. I didn't quite understand what the [] was for. I think I get it now. Now the entire word is surrounded by [] for all forms.
  2. Fixed.
  3. Fixed.
— Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@So9q, Lucas Werkmeister: I have taking the liberty to add a new form for the Danish verb so we now also have "infinitiv passiv (infinitiv lideform)" which is now Form 6. This scheme corresponds to what is used in COR, see, e.g., https://ordregister.dk/id/COR.30712. As far as I can tell the form is always the same as "presens passiv (nutid lideform)" form, but as far as I can understand Wikidata Lexeme Forms it is not possible to use that during entry. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! Should be deployed now. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on this Finn 😀 I’m lookout forward to type in more words now that we got the form setup to the best of our ability. Thanks Lucas for this great tool.--So9q (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Hi @User:Lucas Werkmeister I changed form 4 of the first form. Could you update and ensure that the genitive information is also in the label of that form? Thanks. So9q (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@So9q: Should be deployed now. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Actually only deployed now – it looks like I forgot to run git rebase last Thursday.) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adverb template[edit]

@Fnielsen: Is the template you added in Special:Diff/1980747042/2095334115 ready or are you still working on it? Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukas Werkmeister: It is ready! — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fnielsen: And deployed! Feel free to ping me directly next time ^^ Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lukas Werkmeister: Thanks! — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Wikidata_Lexeme_Forms/Danish&oldid=2102726254"