Talk:etnisk udrensning
Add topic"etnisk udrensning" is a noun phrase.[1] I understand noun phrases are deprecated. The inflection is different from nouns, so I think it should be classified as a phrase. The adjective becomes "etniske" in definite and plural, and the noun can't be definite except by specifying with a definite article (den, de).
| Infl. | phrase | adjective | noun |
|---|---|---|---|
| s. indef | etnisk udrensning | etnisk | udrensning |
| s. def | den etniske udrensning | etniske | udrensningen |
| pl. indef | etniske udrensninger | etniske | udrensninger |
| pl. def. | de etniske udrensninger | etniske | udrensningerne |
I wasn't able to find any policies or guidelines relevant to this. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 08:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Note: the below discussion was moved from the Wiktionary:Tea room.
It was listed with a "noun phrase" POS header, which I changed to "noun". Please see its talk page.—msh210℠ 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I changed it to noun phrase in the first place, not realizing that noun phrases are deprecated. Danish has some combined nouns, like "golden retriever" that is inflected like other nouns (golden retriever, -en, -e), but "etnisk udrensning" behaves differently. So I propose to classify it as a phrase. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't that somewhat analogous to (deprecated template usage) singulare tantum vs. (deprecated template usage) singularia tantum, and also (deprecated template usage) attorney general vs. (deprecated template usage) attorneys general? These are all listed as mere nouns. __meco 10:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, yes it is somewhat analogous; but "singulare tantum" is latin, and "attorney general" is a long time attested noun, and further more (deprecated template usage) attorney generals is an accepted alternative plural form. "Etnisk udrensning" has taken a new specific meaning by influence from (deprecated template usage) ethnic cleansing, since about 1990. It is not yet in any dictionaries, so no help there. To me it feels wrong to label it as a noun, thats all. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 14:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Basically, although for linguistic purposes separating phrases for single words is relevant, for our lexicographical purpose, it is not (and this applies to all languages and POS's). Circeus 04:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)