Wiktionary talk:About Swedish

I want to create an article listed in the grammar section, but I don't really know what to put in it and so... can somebody help me? Smiddle / TC@ 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How to format the archaic spellings using e.g. 'fv', 'hv' or 'f' instead of the modern 'v'? Would bref be a decent way of formatting it? \Mike 07:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I added instructions under Wiktionary:About Swedish#Obsolete spelling. --LA2 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also trying to figure out how the work on Swedish words should be continued. We have very few active users and IMO each word tends to get a *very* brief article before attention is turned elsewhere. Of course that is not very strange, as there is little point, usually, in chasing blue links just because they correspond to a Swedish word, if one feels that chances are that it already contains the Swedish section. Hence I'm thinking of doing something slightly more systematic; some ideas of what needs to be done are present on that page, but I think there may be more issues we will have to deal with. So, if anyone interested reads this, please take a look and let's see what we can do about those issues. \Mike 13:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC) (oh, and please disregard the fact that the page is located in my user space: if you want to, please move it to a more suitable location.) \M

I could need some help...

The Swedish templates have been criticized for being right-floating. I loathe the naming of both templates and parameters. The verb templates misses too many of the forms (most notably the passive). The adjective templates are actually somewhat misleading (compare {{sv-adj-reg}} and the new {{sv-adj}}).

Thus, I have for some time been thinking about recreating the templates, and to think through first and foremost the naming a bit. I have some thoughts and ideas here. But, often I come up with two or three ideas, without being happy with either. So before I tear my own hair any further, could you please help me with some input:

Background

• There are to be two templates for each headword: one on the inflection line, and one under a ==Conjugations==/==Declensions== header. (I have not been able to sway the Olde Users, so this may be considered as non-negotiable).
• I'm thinking of using the following forms on the inflection line:
  • Verb: [infinitive], present, past, supine, imperative (all in active voice)
  • Adjective: [positive common singular], comparative, superlative (all in predicative)
  • Noun: All nominatives (or whatever one would call the non-genitive group.)
  • Adverb: All forms

Questions, verbs

1. Which verb forms to add to a main conjugation table? (I would liken this to a six-step rocket - how many of the steps should we use?) [Personally I'm an inclusionist who would draw the line between 5 and 6]
   1. Active forms of infinitive, indicatives, imperative + participles.
   2. Passive forms of infinitive, indicatives (imperatives?)
   3. Active subjunctive forms
   4. Reciprocal/habitual forms
   5. Passive subjunctive forms
   6. Historical forms/plural forms
2. Should one try to obtain a small set of templates, each with a slightly more involved parameter use, or a larger set of templates, each with fewer parameters?
3. I have created an inflection line template at User:Mike/sv-verb. Please have a look - does it appear to be too complicated? (It is after all based on the "one template, complex use of parameters" doctrine...)
4. By the way, I asked in sv:WT:FR about the nature of forms such as "säljes" or "skrives" - are they really indicative, or are they subjunctive? That would influence the decision where in the table to put them...
5. How many conjugations templates would we need? After writing the inflection line template, I start to think that we'd be better off with at least two templates, one for weak, regular ones and one for the rest. Perhaps also split in deponent/non-deponent. One for verbs lacking passive? Or should there be a "no-passive"-parameter? If we include the reciprocal/habitual, the same for them? Perhaps one parameter for each voice... ("no-active", "no-passive", "no-habitual/reciprocal") True, is there a joint name for habitual/reciprocal voices? Or should all the "s-forms" be put under one header "passive/habitual/reciprocal", similar to what was suggested earlier? (The parameters would then at most need to modify the name in said header)
   • Else it would be nice to have as similar use of the inflection line template and conjugation template as possible...
6. Should all the forms of the past participle (or should they be called perfect participle?) be included in the verb template, or do we put them at the participle's page?

Ok, I'll continue on this later. I think this could be sufficient for a start... Now: Discuss! \Mike 23:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

Graph 2007-2014

Accumulated from historic versions of Wiktionary:Statistics and Wiktionary:Statistics/generated.

Date	sv rank	Number of entries	Number of definitions	Gloss definitions	Form-of definitions	da rank	Danish entries	fi rank	Finnish entries	is rank	Icelandic entries	no rank	Norwegian entries	nb rank	Norwegian Bokmål entries	nn rank	Norwegian Nynorsk entries
2007-04-08	13	3727				36	830	10	7047	17	2410	22	1710
2007-07-20	15	3847				40	896	7	16260	17	2947	22	2172
2007-11-10	13	5000				39	1326	5	32330	18	4125	22	2877
2008-02-13	14	6145				38	1614	4	46083	18	4584	21	3367
2008-05-20	14	6950				35	1853	4	66281	18	5728	21	4100
2008-10-11	17	7752	10430	10037	393	37	2032	4	75364	20	6284	23	5088
2008-10-17	17	7765	10446	10053	393	37	2037	4	75421	20	6303	23	5095
2009-02-02	18	8473	11400	10468		28	3754	4	77519	20	6574	25	5218
2009-06-08	18	9292	12366	11637	729	20	7764	4	85483	23	6798	26	5814	97	341	116	208
2009-09-18	18	9689	12885	12119	766	19	8496	5	86280	23	7014	28	6007	97	353	122	213
2009-11-14	19	9902	13160	12388	772	17	12997	5	86666	22	7244	29	6083	100	357	126	213
2009-12-07	22	9944	13227	12452	775	17	14358	5	87605	23	7469	30	6111	101	358	130	213
2010-01-06	22	10217	13607	12808	799	18	15721	5	88173	23	7612	30	6142	108	370	93	469
2010-02-26	22	10228	13618	12819	799	18	16809	5	89426	23	7844	30	6167	108	370	93	469
2010-03-10	22	10250	13643	12844	799	18	17049	5	89854	23	7873	30	6175	108	370	93	471
2010-03-27	22	10359	13759	12960	799	18	17147	5	90525	24	7696	31	6204	108	370	95	471
2010-04-03	23	10396	13805	13001	804	19	17387	5	90762	24	7773	31	6248	105	375	81	669
2010-06-01	23	10642	14143	13297	846	17	18594	5	91204	25	7870	32	6480	101	413	62	1163
2010-06-14	23	10704	14229	13373	856	17	18826	5	91299	25	7923	32	6449	97	490	62	1212
2010-06-29	23	10725	14254	13393	861	17	18902	5	91395	27	7942	32	6346	84	648	62	1317
2010-08-12	24	10928	14471	13592	879	18	19209	5	91756	29	8078	32	6480	86	670	48	2258
2010-08-24	24	11464	15097	13803	1294	18	19284	5	91898	29	8099	32	6503	87	670	47	2280
2010-09-01	21	14617	18572	14127	4445	18	19320	6	91960	29	8103	32	6506	87	681	47	2281
2010-09-12	21	16890	21576	14443	7133	18	19434	6	92303	29	8112	32	6513	87	672	47	2284
2010-09-23	21	17799	22863	14648	8215	18	19519	6	92488	29	8128	32	6514	87	674	48	2286
2010-10-05	21	17813	22887	14668	8219	18	19592	6	92576	29	8139	32	6519	87	675	48	2290
2010-10-15	21	17847	22935	14704	8231	18	19687	6	92618	29	8151	32	6517	90	675	48	2295
2010-10-30	19	19412	24795	14803	9992	18	19745	6	92702	29	8173	32	6517	89	683	47	2343
2011-01-11	11	40596	47599	17107	30492	19	20625	6	93404	30	8250	34	6539	94	693	47	2396
2011-01-18	11	40946	48125	17488	30637	19	20793	6	93428	30	8259	34	6541	94	693	47	2398
2011-01-27	9	53844	62054	18153	43901	19	20860	6	99881	30	8271	34	6543	94	693	47	2400
2011-02-05	7	61827	70823	18827	51996	19	20907	6	99913	30	8299	34	6546	94	694	47	2402
2011-03-08	7	80342	89359	20232	69127	19	21293	6	100129	30	8299	34	6580	93	699	47	2424
2011-03-21	7	86095	96739	20100	76639	19	21434	6	100219	30	8315	34	6551	92	731	47	2485
2011-04-02	7	87660	98617	20512	78105	19	21655	6	100434	30	8331	34	6543	92	739	48	2498
2011-04-12	7	89307	100389	20625	79764	19	21832	6	100612	30	8346	34	6543	90	773	48	2551
2011-05-21	7	89352	100445	20668	79777	19	22079	6	101259	30	8377	34	6540	91	786	48	2643
2011-11-21	8	89606	100742	20812	79930	20	22745	6	104386	32	8859	35	6603	93	830	50	2817
2012-11-04	8	89903	101148	21074	80074	22	23977	6	108826	35	9689	39	6736	99	978	61	2949
2013-01-10	8	90260	101597	21358	80239	22	23985	6	109464	35	9855	40	6751	99	983	62	2968
2013-02-02	9	90322	101690	21450	80240	22	23991	6	109637	34	10010	40	6739	97	1034	62	3066
2013-05-03	10	90480	101952	21698	80254	22	24116	7	110834	34	10542	44	6199	80	1754	57	3473
2014-03-11	11	90983	102641	22256	80385	22	25001	8	113257	36	11147	47	5807	52	4804	42	7404
2014-05-05	11	91041	102712	22325	80387	23	25117	8	114752	36	11365	51	5427	43	7459	40	9297
2014-07-02	11	91071	102745	22355	80390	23	26502	8	115748	37	11369	53	5255	42	9353	39	10558
2014-09-09	11	91120	102800	22400	80400	23	26837	8	116450	39	11383	55	4765	36	13370	38	12204
2014-11-01	11	91191	102896	22492	80404	23	26914	8	116861	39	11388	56	4557	32	16148	37	13586
2015-01-03	11	91266	103002	22594	80408	23	27241	8	117635	39	11390	62	4127	29	19087	35	15399
2015-09-02	11	91606	103448	22956	80492	26	27940	9	120353	40	11996	66	3639	25	29129	32	19845

Etymology

This is frustrating. Swedish Wiktionary seems to hav little or no information on Swedish word etymology. This means that when looking up Swedish etymologies, if English Wiktionary has no information, i am more or less stuck. (Likewise, Finnish Wiktionary seems to hav little or no information on word etymology for Finnish, and likely by extension for languages other than Finnish. I know: i speak Finnish.) Could someone please start adding etymologies? It would be very useful for anyone interested in historical linguistics, such as i am.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

About the /ɧ/ sound

I think it’s time to move away from using the /ɧ/ sound in IPA transcriptions of Swedish.

This sound stems from a misconception of Swedish phonology, where someone somewhere along the line misinterpreted the fact that /ʂ/ and /x/ are sometimes allophones in free variation, as the false claim that the phoneme in question is a simultaneous /ʂ/ and /x/ and should be written with its own unique IPA symbol /ɧ/.

The Wikipedia article for the sound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sj-sound) is even made up in large parts of explanations of why this sound isn’t real.

In my opinion, Wiktionary is furthering this misconception by keeping the /ɧ/ despite the absence of evidence, and we should instead write out /x/ or /ʂ/ in such cases. If anyone is of the opinion that /ɧ/ should be kept, please present your reasoning. LivLovisa (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)