Talk:נשים

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Robert Ullmann in topic נשים
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion has been moved from the page user talk:Msh210.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


נשים

[edit]

Are you sure about this? I really could have sworn the construct form was nashot — there's a dorm on the Technion campus that's dedicated to nashot kakh-v'kakh, and an episode of one of the Law and Order series mentioned the phrase nashot khayil as meaning "women of valor" (so, apparently the plural of eshet khayil). —RuakhTALK 02:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just my two cents, I thought that both were valid -- nashot being used far more often than nashim, but still. --75.28.22.235 02:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oddly, the form given there is neither nashot nor nashim … —RuakhTALK 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
See [1] and [2] (where the "intitle" restrictions are to restrict to Hebrew texts (i.e., to exclude the Babylonian Talmud, etc.)). It seems very likely from those pages that n'she is the only form in older Hebrew.—msh210 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Perhaps all these parameters should support a value of usage, that would direct readers to the usage notes section? —RuakhTALK 08:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Or allow multiple pl and cons parameters — e.g., pl and pl2, cons and cons2 — with an explanation parameter; so that pl=foo|plnote=jocular|pl2=bar|pl2note=archaic would yield (plural foo (jocular), bar (archaic)). Or does that make the templates just way too complicated?—msh210 07:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Conceptually, that would be awesome. In practice, the code to do that well would make my head reel. Any simpler thoughts? :-P   (Alternatively, we could make Robert Ullmann do it for us, heh.) —RuakhTALK 08:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
hmmm, think that would be at least a pint. Going to be in Nairobi soon? Need a precise specification. Note that doing it is easy, making in understandable to those who have to use it is not so easy. Robert Ullmann 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply