Answer:

by dholz (AT/DK), 2009-07-30, 13:49  Spam?  ...

Halmafelix already opened that discussion also on the DA-DE-Forum, so I simply quote and translate my statement from there:

As a non-dane I refer to online-dictionaries like ordbogen.com or offline-dictionaries like Langenscheidts, both representing the majority of other dicts are not using the 'at'.

As we also use 'to' in English - mainly for the purpose of clearly dividing between verbs and substantives - this could be a reason to use it also in Danish.

Personally I'd like to handle this matter as most of the dictionaries, but of course I'll have no problem to use 'at', if the majority wishes to do so.

P.S.: My danish colleagues would also prefer my proposal, therefore not having any problems without the 'at'.

Answer:

by sesc (DE/SE), 2009-07-30, 14:40  Spam?  ...

Davs! Ditto from me (Thanks for the pointer to the DA-DE discussion -- sorry that I hadn't noticed it yet. Having my job to do & trying to contribute to 4 dict.cc's in parallel... I'm spreading myself a bit too thin maybe ;-))

4;dholz, exactly, as in English, clearly dividing between verbs on the one hand and nouns (and def./pl. forms of adjectives, which tend to end on -e too, don't they?) on the other, that would be one advantage I had at the back of my mind when deciding I liked the idea.

Then I think English "TO know" and Danish "AT vide" have both the very same function, in contrast to German where the same is accomplished by the suffix "wissEN".
Cf.
http://da.wiktionary.org/wiki/at#M.C3.A6rke : "infinitivens mærke dvs. det ord man sætter foran et verbum for at indikere at det er infinitiv form af verbet f.eks. at løbe."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/to#Translations : "German: zu, -en"

So personally I tend slightly towards using "at", but I'll submit to whichever majority decision we may reach.
One possible 'Solomonic' ;-) solution I could offer: mirror 'at<>to' in the English dictionary, leave out 'at' in the German. :-)

Answer:

by Paul (AT), 2009-07-30, 15:03  Spam?  ...

1. because it corresponds to the English "to"
2. because it's a nice optical guide for users, reducing the "page scan" time needed to find the correct term on the screen
3. because it makes it possible for me to auto-detect verbs, so I can treat them differently if needed (grouping, sorting, maybe filtering for word classes later)

Answer:

by catmamma (GB/DK), Last modified: 2009-07-30, 21:39  Spam?  ...

My main reason for voting to keep 'at' is to bring it in line with 'to' in English, as they both have the same function. Agreed 'ordinary' dictionaries don't make use of it, but the advantages have already been described in previous answers. I'm not surprised that Danes with their relaxed attitude to language, especially grammar, have no problem leaving out the 'at'. I say this as native Brit, but naturalised Dane for the best part of 40 years.
PS. If we are giving both gender forms of adjectives, I suppose there would also be an argument to give the plural forms?

Answer:

by Paul (AT), 2009-07-30, 23:45  Spam?  ...

What does "for verbs" mean in Danish? I'd like to add this as a short description.

Answer:

by sesc (DE/SE), 2009-07-31, 10:17  Spam?  ...

Catmamma, I independently made your point on the plural of adjectives on the German-Danish forum last night. I'm all for it! The plural belongs to the adjective just as the intetkøn form does, so if we list several forms, we should list them all!
(If pressed, I'd be willing to allow simple entries, with only the stem, for regularly inflected adjectives, but I think it's easiest, and most telling for users of the dictionary, if the only adjectives we give without inflected forms are the ones that are not inflectable.)
As to Danes being relaxed toward language, I am happy to name at least one example to the contrary: When I asked a good Danish friend about this last night, her reply was prompt, the gist being: "'To be' is 'AT være' and nothing else!! Without AT it doesn't make sense, it isn't an infinitive, it isn't anything!" There are native speakers who do care! :-)

Answer:

by sesc (DE/SE), 2009-07-31, 10:18  Spam?  ...

Answer:

by Paul (AT), 2009-07-31, 10:49  Spam?  ...