Talk:aalmoezenierskamertje

RFV discussion: March–August 2015

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

aalmoezenierskamertje

compare Talk:canontje

Dutch would-be diminutive. Since diminutives are not inflected forms, they need attestation as words in their own right, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Diminutives are inflected forms in Dutch. Every word can have one, it's fully productive and fully predictable what the diminutive of a given word is. —CodeCat 14:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Every English adjective can in principle have a -ness form, but some -ness forms are unattested and we don't include them. The fact that a morphological derivation process is very regular and predictable does not make it an inflection process. Diminutives are not inflected forms even in Dutch; rather, diminutives themselves are inflected in Dutch. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Dutch Wiktionary includes diminutives in noun inflection tables. —CodeCat 15:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is a rather dubious practice. Is this a tradition in Dutch dictionaries? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is it a rather dubious practice? —CodeCat 15:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a dubious practice because they are not inflected forms. They are not inflected forms because they are themselves inflected. Is it a tradition of Dutch dictionaries to present diminutives as inflected forms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You haven't yet established that diminutives are not inflected forms in Dutch. In fact I'm not sure you really know enough about Dutch to judge it. Being inflected themselves is not an argument, compare participles. —CodeCat 15:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's possible for inflected forms to be inflected themselves. Latin superlatives (e.g., pravissimus) and Esperanto participles (e.g., manĝanta), for example, are inflected forms that can themselves be inflected. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The term that has been used for these on Wiktionary is "sublemma". They are lemmas in some ways, like having inflections, but are themselves inflections of another lemma. —CodeCat 15:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (after edit conflict) It is true that some forms considered by some to be inflected forms can be further inflected. Nonetheless, I would argue that if a form is further inflected, one must present a strong argument for it being an inflected form. Your argument was regularity and productiveness, but these two characteristics cannot serve to distinguish derivational process from inflection; derivational processes are often regular and productive as well. Then I would ask for the third time, is this a tradition in Dutch dictionaries? Can you point me to at least one online Dutch dictionary containing Dutch definitions, so I can check what their practice is?

One more thing. Comparatives and superlatives are forms that can be inflected, and that some might consider to be inflected forms nonetheless. But for these, our practice is to require attestation. I submit that even if diminutives can be seen as some sort of quasi-inflected forms, they should be subject to attestation requirements. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• I can't help noticing that CodeCat is a native speaker of Dutch, whereas Dan Polansky isn't. Are these diminutives confined to the Netherlands, or they used in Flemish as well? I may be able to find out if I manage to get to Belgium this summer. Donnanz (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker and we've deleted English inflected forms before because they don't exist. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As the creator of this page and thousands of other diminutive Dutch nouns I can mention that most of these words are not in any dictionary for the simple reason that it would make the dictionaries very large. For the same reason many compound words are not in Dutch dictionaries but they are used. Diminutives in Dutch are "made", inflected if you like by the Dutch speakers themselves. Probably nobody ever used the word "aalmoezenierskamertje" but it can be "made": my idea of these words is that if someone would make a small scale model of a military base, the room the chaplain would be in would be called "aalmoezenierskamertje" because it is a small version of "aalmoezenierskamer". The WNT has a section about "the making"of Dutch diminutives, therefore they can exist. I am, as CodeCat is, a native speaker of Dutch. --DrJos (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's an excellent explanation as to why this should be nominated for RFV. I'm not sure you intended to do that, but thank you anyway. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the Flemish use the same diminutives although sometimes they end with "-ke" of "-ken", like the word "manneken", little man, the origin of the word "mannequin". --DrJos (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that answer about Flemish usage. Dictionaries, as I'm well aware with Norwegian, don't contain every word that's in use, and I sometimes wonder whether some words are used more in the oral form than in the written form, especially regarding inflections. Donnanz (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrJos: Is there any monolingual Dutch dictionary online where I can see Dutch definitions for Dutch words? Or is there at least one in Google books that you can recommend? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is Van Dale’s Great Dictionary of the Dutch Language. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The most obvious is of course is the Dutch wiktionary, or you could use the limited Van Dale's dictionary online [[1]]. It doesn't contain all the words though. --DrJos (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This page gives a comparison of inflectional and derivational morphology, and points out that the two types are on a spectrum, so that some formations can be somewhere in between. Dutch diminutives (1) do not change lexical category, which is a property of inflection, but of course not all derivation changes lexical category (e.g. child and childhood are both nouns); (2) occur next to the root and inside of inflection (the plural of kamertje is kamertjes, not *kamerstje, which is a property of derivation; (3) contribute lexical meaning, which is a property of derivation; and (4) occur with all or most members of a class of stems, which is a property of inflection. I can't figure out what the "Productivity" line is trying to say; since when may inflectional affixes "be used to coin new words of the same type"? At any rate, the Dutch diminutive affix can be lexicalized, e.g. in broodje which means more than just "bread + DIMINUTIVE". Dutch doesn't have enough inflectional morphology to judge the "Grounding" line, except that diminutives do have to marked with a plural ending (outside the diminutive suffix) wherever they're plural in meaning. The "Affixes used" line is thus the only property that makes diminutives inflectionlike; all the other properties are either derivationlike or indecisive. I don't think being fully productive alone is sufficient to call Dutch diminutives inflectional; they don't fall completely at either end of the spectrum, but they are closer to the derivational side than to the inflectional side of it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Unlike some other diminutives which have gotten at least one or two hits, this gets none, not even on the raw web. RFV-failed? - -sche (discuss) 23:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed, deleted. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

aandeelhoudstertje

Dutch diminutive. Appears unattested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed, deleted. See discussion above. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)