Talk:aalborski

RFV

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

aalborski

Polish meaning "from Aalborg". Tagged for speedy deletion, it gets too many Google Hits (also two Google Book hits) for me to be comfortably speedy deleting this. Though I think it's more likely to fail than pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• If it gets b.g.c. hits, why should it be "more likely to fail than pass" verification? Why shouldn't Polish have a word meaning "from Aalborg"? Or is it more likely to actually be aalborgski? —Angr 12:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Most likely not "aalborgski". The adjective from Norymberga (Nuremberg) is "norymberski" and from Hamburg (Hamburg) comes "hamburski". Dropping the "g" appears to be rule. --Hekaheka 15:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

One (of the two Google Book hits) seems to be clearly a mention as it's in a table of contents, I can't read the other, one because it's Polish, two because it's a poor quality scan. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather than a table of contents, the first-mentioned looks like a table of statistics listing the counties of Pomeranian Voivodeship. That which looks like "aalborski" is most likely "malborski", from Malbork county. The other may refer to Malbork as well, at least the title of the book mentions it. However, "aalborski" gets a few reliable-looking Google hits ( could recognize Aalborg from the pictures under which "aalborski" appears), albeit it clearly would not appear on any list of frequently used Polish terms. Also "aalborskiego" gets even more reliable-looking hits. I would say keep and move to something more essential. --Hekaheka 15:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the nature of the table of contents, I wouldn't necessarily say that appearance there is clearly a mention as opposed to a use. Also, Polish adjectives are inflected, so all of the forms listed in the declension table (aalborskie, allborska, aalborscy, aalborskiego, etc.) need to be searched for as well, as they will count toward this lemma. —Angr 12:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Polish, but in Russian, adjectives do not work this way. To say "from Aalborg", you would use "из Ольборга". I imagine it must be similar for Polish. correct me if I'm wrong -- Liliana • 13:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's Хельсинский (helsinskyj, from Helsinki), and Aalborg is much closer to Poland than to Russia, just like Helsinki is rather close to Russia. --Hekaheka 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, correct, thank you, Hekaheka. We only write adjectives in lower case - "хельсинский" (xél’sinskij). An adjective from Ольборг (Ól’borg) is "ольборгский" (ól’borgskij). "из Ольборга" and the forms "из Хельсинки" are "from Aalborg" and "from Helsinki" accordingly. There are few proper nouns, which are not "productive" or sound weird, so a description like this (из (iz) + name in genitive case) would be more appropriate. Keep. It is a correct Polish adjective, "g" is dropped because of the awkward pronunciation in the consonant cluster, we Russians kept it (ольборгский) :). I have fixed the pronunciation section. --Anatoli 00:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The tagger was user Maro, who is native Polish. Perhaps he could explain what's wrong with this word. --Hekaheka 18:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I tagged speedy because I've seen six google hits. But now I see that "aalborska" gets much more hits (423), so it's OK. Keep it. Maro 19:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(Corrected) "aalborska" is the feminine form, e.g. kobieta aalborska "an Aalborg woman", mężczyzna aalborski "an Aalborg man". There are also neuter, plural, cases. --Anatoli 00:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The above examples are not perfect, a citizen/dweller of Aalborg would be different but I did it in a hurry. --Anatoli 00:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is RFV, so all the boldfaced keeps are of little value. Anyone care to provide citations that meet WT:CFI#Attestation? This term could be attested if one looks for the various inflected forms, but the attestation is nowhere easy if one looks for the lemma "aalborski". (A Russian example of this attributive class of adjectives is московский. A Czech example is moskevský. ) --Dan Polansky 06:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

московский is not cited either ;-) --Hekaheka 16:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A term that is obviously attestable does not need to actually have citations entered into Wiktionary in order to be attested; google books:"московский" shows the term is plenty attestable. Entering citations into Wiktionary is needed only if someone questions the term. Questioning clearly attestable terms is a poor practice; in such a case, I request that the nomination is withdrawn. Unlikely "московский", "aalborski" is nowhere trivial to attest. --Dan Polansky 16:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard but the word is correct. With Slavic languages, you can't find all forms because of the flection. --Anatoli 08:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There are three ways to attest a term. One is to assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. That's what I suggested in my comments. I said: 1) it is plausible as it follows the normal pattern of forming adjectives in Polish and 2) it appears to be used as it and its inflected forms get a reasonable number of hits in a simple Google search (about 700). Btw: is there something wrong in attesting by using inflected forms? I added the only quote for which I could find an English translation. Perhaps someone who actually knows Polish could find the other two? --Hekaheka 13:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The term is not clearly in widespread use. The formation of the term seems regular, but that alone does not make the term actually used. The number of hits on the world wide web alone does not satisfy attestation criteria; CFI mandates that the quotations need to be from permanently recorded media. There is nothing wrong with attesting a term using its inflected forms; I am just highlighting that a successful search strategy for attestation needs to look for inflected forms. The person best qualified for finding attestations seems to be Maro, a native speaker. --Dan Polansky 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "widespread" a relative concept? If, and nobody has stated otherwise, "aalborski" is the only Polish word meaning "of or pertaining to Aalborg", isn't it then World's most widespread Polish word that has this sense? --Hekaheka 02:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The term aalborski - "of or pertaining to Aalborg" is no different to warszawski - "of or pertaining to Warsaw" or Varsovian. It uses the same method to make adjectives from, only less common. BTW, for attesting Russian terms, Yandex is better than Google. --Anatoli 02:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, here a Google books search for the Russian form google books:"Ольборгский". The city is called W:ru:Ольборг. The Czech term "aalborský" seems as hard to attest as its Polish analogue; most hits are found by google:"aalborská", which mostly finds the term in the phrase "Aalborská charta", in Polish google:"karta aalborska", in English google:"Aalborg charter". --Dan Polansky 16:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If the attestation is still required, and inflected forms are acceptable I will try to search for the two missing Polish citations later, please remind me if it's the case. Polish adjectives derived from a not the largest city in Denmark are not likely to be a lot. --Anatoli 22:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I added two citations; there was one in the entry already; this is now cited. One of the citations also attests kopenhaski. - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

RfV passed, with three cites and everything. --Hekaheka 23:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)