Module talk:uk-verb

@Atitarev This is live now. Benwing2 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Super! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev I converted all {{uk-conj-manual}} to {{uk-conj-table}} and deleted the former template and supporting module. Benwing2 (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Great! Verbs are fine. Perhaps to automate anything the way the Russian or Bulgarian words are, will take a huge effort. I will create more entries with inflections, perhaps that will make the effort easier for you if you decide to work on it but I won't blame you if don't or give up. The entries are beneficial for users, in any case. I couldn't find a good downloadable grammar reference, so many rules must be inferred. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Should biaspectual be supported by the table, or should I split роди́ти (rodýty)? Also pf2 is not working. Pls let me know. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev Not quite sure how to support biaspectual verbs given the differences in present vs. future, if you can come up with a good scheme I can implement it. Not sure what you mean by pf2. Benwing2 (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see, you are referring to {{uk-verb}}. I'll fix that tomorrow, going to sleep now. Benwing2 (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Thanks, don't worry about biaspectuals in one table. I've split it. Yes, pf2 in {{uk-verb}}. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Hi. Could you please add the pf2/impf2, etc. params at {{uk-verb}} and 1st plural future tense have two alt future forms: -мемо and -мем, e.g. бі́гати (bíhaty)->бі́гатимемо, бі́гатимем. Thanks in advance! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev Yup I'm working on the pf2/impf2 support. Apologies for not getting to it yesterday. Benwing2 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev Both things should be done (maybe). I'm not quite sure how pf2/impf2 are supposed to work, as they don't work for Russian verbs as far as I can tell. Currently specifying pf2= is the same as specifying pf=; let me know if you want some other behavior. Benwing2 (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thank you! They do work on Russian verbs as well. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Hi. This verb is very irregular and has some awkward or theoretical forms. Are you able to make forms labelled with * (imperatives) displayed as e.g. plural forms of горе#Declension (Russian, etymology 1)? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev Currently you can put a * or other symbol after the form and use |footnote=, |footnote2=, etc. to add footnotes, and the form will be linked correctly without the *. I made a change on this verb to show how to do it. I can implement hypothetical-form support that displays like горе (gore), either using a * preceding the form or using parameters similar to what currently exists in Russian, e.g. |plhypall=, |imprhypall=, etc. Benwing2 (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev I'm going to try to do this. I have a copy of the Routledge book "Ukrainian — a Comprehensive Grammar". It isn't as comprehensive as its title claims, but it has a lot of info on Ukrainian, and the verbs don't look too complex. Nouns seem trickier. There doesn't seem to be a standard classification of Ukrainian verbs beyond Conjugation I = present in -ю/-єш/-є or -у(-ю)/-еш/-е and Conjugation II = present in -у(-ю)/-иш/-ить so I will probably try to adopt Zaliznyak's Russian scheme:

Benwing2 (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thais is great news! I will help you if I can.

• Is надісла́ти (nadisláty) "to send (here, to this place)" a 6b? (надішлю́, надішле́; past надісла́в, надісла́ла)? conjugation link. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: You seem to be getting on top of it! Good job. I have been adding new verb entries matching different classes but probably not fast enough:). I need to catch up on work in real life, he-he but I will be adding verb entries. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Recently I've encountered this article by Valentina Krytska. It seems there've been a comprehensive grammatical dictionary for Ukrainian for over a decade now.

Taking into account the experience of using A.A. Zaliznyak's dictionary (the only grammatical dictionary of Slavic languages at the end of the 1970s), we developed our own way of describing the types of word-change paradigms.

This should definitely be a subject for research. I do not have the dictionary on hand though, just wanted to leave it as a sidenote here. Steffuld (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev I made the following changes, which are now mandatory:

Benwing2 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev I pushed my module to production. It's accessed using {{uk-conj}}. It supports classes 1 through 8 so far. It knows how to generate the past passive participle as well as both adverbial participles. The other two participles (present active and past active) aren't yet generated, and if you need them you will have to add them using overrides (which work exactly as for {{uk-conj-table}}). I may eventually implement support for generating them automatically provided a flag is given to request them, similar to the current ppp indicator. It looks like the rules for generating the present active participle are similar to the present adverbial participle, and the past active participle is similar to the l-participle (aka past tense). See User:Benwing2/test-uk-conj for examples of classes 1 through 8; I will create proper documentation soon. Note in particular that (a) the format is similar to {{bg-verb}}; (b) for non-reflexive verbs, you have to specify whether the verb is transitive or intransitive; (c) for transitive verbs, you have to specify whether the verb has a past passive participle. This includes for imperfective verbs. For {{ru-verb}}, you only have to specify whether perfective transitive verbs have a past passive participle because paired imperfective verbs don't normally have one, but this doesn't appear to apply in Ukrainian, where I've seen plenty of paired imperfective verbs with past passive participles specified in goroh.pp.ua. (BTW that site is pretty amazing; besides declension tables, it has definitions, rhymes, synonyms and comprehensive etymology, which lists the etymologically related terms in all other Slavic languages as well as often in Latvian, Lithuanian, Greek, Sanskrit, etc.) Benwing2 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: This is amazing! Another of your achievements.

I can often arrive at participles from adverbials, goroh site often includes adverbials with stresses and sometimes participles but there are not always many hits in Google. slovnyk.ua includes дієприслівник (past and present (for impf)) in the conjugation tables without a stress mark but then you need to go to goroh to verify the stress. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev I took a look at slovnyk.ua. The participles included there are purely adverbial participles. I have not seen a single example that includes any adjectival participles (including the past passive participle). Per Routledge, most of the existing past active participles listed in the manual conjugation tables are wrong; they claim that participles in -вший are Russianisms that do not belong in Ukrainian, and that actual past active participles in Ukrainian end in -лий. Also, many of the present active participles are incorrect in that they are listed as ending in -чи́й when the stress should be on the preceding syllable. E.g. реві́ти "to roar" has present adverbial participle ревучи́ but present active participle реву́чий. I have also seen many cases of adverbial participles listed under adjectival participles, of past active participles listed under present active participles, etc. I'd suggest we scrap all mention of present and past active participles and only put them back when we have a reliable way of verifying that they actually exist for a given verb. Benwing2 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thanks, I thought you could arrive at this. Yes, not using participles is either described as a common trend or a Russianism. I'm OK to scrap active participles. If Ukrainians don't want them, we don't want them either, even if you still find them here and there (note that many are attestable but Russianisms and rare terms can be attestable too). You'll find that even some Ukrainian textbooks use active participles like "роблячий" (pres.) or "роблений" (past), probably not aware of the trend or not vigilant enough with Russianisms :) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://goroh.pp.ua/Словозміна/роблений and https://goroh.pp.ua/Словозміна/шукаючий are in Goroh. The latter is defined as прикме́тник (prykmétnyk, “adjective”)--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: болі́ти (bolíty), just like the Russian cognate боле́ть (bolétʹ) has two senses and two conjugation types. I will try 5b later for the sense "to ache". Currently it's a mix (mess) between the sense and the conjugation table. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev Please take a look at User:Benwing2/test-uk-conj, in particular the verb активува́ти. I implemented support for biaspectual verbs in a single table. I'm not sure if there's a better way to format it. I'm not completely happy with the way I notated the fact that the same forms serve as present imperfective and future perfective, but I can't currently come up with a better way. For example, I'm not sure if I like the horizontal black line in the middle; I put it there to make it clearer that you should read across, not down. Benwing2 (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Maybe remove labels imperfective and perfective (before the personal inflection parts) on the left and change the two column names to read:

1. Col #1 - present tense (imperfective), future tense (perfective)
2. Col #2 - future tense (imperfective)

"активу́ю", etc. is both present tense (imperfective) and future tense (perfective).

"бу́ду активува́ти", etc. is future tense (imperfective)

What do you think? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev I actually tried that before the current approach. But let me restore that way and you can see what you think. Benwing2 (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) @Benwing2: Compare with a Russian biaspectual verb модифици́ровать (modificírovatʹ) where "модифици́рую" is both present tense (imperfective) and future tense (perfective) and "бу́ду модифици́ровать" is future tense (imperfective). I think that was your intention but I find it a bit harder to read. (Two tables for each mode is also fine, just in case). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

After the ec, OK. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev Take a look now. Benwing2 (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Perfect! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Hi. Would these two be irregular? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev I don't see anything irregular about родити. хоті́ти is a bit irregular: (1) it's class 6a but irregularly has suffix stress in the infinitive; (2) it has irregular alternative 2sg хоч and 2pl хо́чте. Interestingly, the compounds перехоті́ти and схоті́ти have (1) but not (2), and похоті́ти is completely different (class 5b). I've already added a special hack to allow хоті́ти and compounds to be class 6a without throwing an error about the suffix stress; perhaps we should handle the alternative 2sg and 2pl forms with overrides? Benwing2 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thanks, I didn't choose the right stress pattern on родити. Yeah, maybe overrides are OK. Russian хоте́ть (xotétʹ) is totally irregular. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Hi. Should alternative main stresses be covered by one template call? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev Yup, I just added support for this, see коштувати or висіти. Benwing2 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Hi. I was just going to ask about the present tense stem "розітр-" but you have it already! I used {{uk-conj|розте́рти<9*b.pf.tr.ppp>}}. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Sorry for many pings. Can't determine the class. I think it's irregular?

Also, will the irregular бути be covered by the module? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev I think чути is just class 12a. So far the module supports compounds of бути but not бути itself; I'll get to that next. Benwing2 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thank you! відповісти (vidpovisty) and бу́ти (búty) are the only two verbs using the old templates. {{uk-conj-buty}} has too much archaic stuff, not sure if we need to keep it in the current template. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev I added support for відповісти and other verbs in -повісти (including ви́повісти). My Routledge book gives a 3pl form відповідя́ть so I included that. Note also the support for "mixed transitive" verbs, which are indicated using mixed in place of tr or intr. Benwing2 (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2:: Great. Thank you for that! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Hi. It's 4b. The past passive participles should be зупи́нено, зупи́нений but I got a wrong stress. Does it require an override or a module change? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev Use retractedppp for this situation. There's also -retractedppp for the converse situation (a 4c verb with past passive participle stress -е́ний). Benwing2 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Hi. I had to override |past_m==тряс and |past_adv_part==тря́сши but I don't quite understand why it was trying to insert "тріс" and "трі́сши". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev It took me a little while to figure out why it was doing that. Basically, verb classes 7 and 8 converted е, о and я to і in the past msg unless you specify -і. This was being done because of class 8 verbs like лягти́ (past msg ліг) and запрягти́ (past msg запрі́г). I changed it so that class 7 verbs in -я- don't change to і in the past. However, I will probably change things further so that you have to explicitly request the і in the past rather than it coming up by default; less surprising that way. Benwing2 (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thank you for fixing! This is mind-boggling for me, LOL, I am not even trying to follow the module's logic any more but will rely on the documentation, examples and your help :) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Huge thanks for your work on this. The imperative forms of imperfective verbs дава́ти (daváty) and впізнава́ти (vpiznaváty) appear to be stemming from the present tense rather than the infinitive stem and as a result are happening to show as identical to the imperatives of their perfective partners да́ти (dáty) and впізна́ти (vpiznáty) respectively. So for давати (davaty), the imperatives are showing as:

as opposed to:

The latter forms appear to be the correct ones, as per https://goroh.pp.ua/Словозміна/давати and https://www.kyivdictionary.com/en/words/conjugation/?word=дава́ти&lang=uk . Grateful for any advice you may have about overrides, fixes, any omissions on my part. @Atitarev: FYI. Many thanks. Voltaigne (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Voltaigne: Thanks for spotting! I'm sure this will be easy to fix for User:Benwing2. The Russian and Belarusian cognates дава́ть (davátʹ) and дава́ць (davácʹ), also of type 13b, are handled correctly. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Voltaigne, Atitarev Should be fixed; please verify and let me know if anything is wrong. Benwing2 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2, Voltaigne: Thanks for the quick fix, @Benwing2! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 @Atitarev: Many thanks for fixing this so quickly @Benwing2, greatly appreciated. Voltaigne (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Hi - I have a query about how the module handles verbs with infinitives ending in -уювати. A created example is евакуюва́ти (evakujuváty); others are реконструюва́ти (rekonstrujuváty), градуюва́ти (hradujuváty). I assume these are class 2a, please correct me if I'm wrong! When assigned to 2a, Template:uk-conj generates past passive participle forms ending in -уьо́ваний / -уьо́вано, whereas and indicate that these should be -уйо́ваний / -уйо́вано respectively.

Examples:

Grateful for your input. @Atitarev: FYI. Many thanks. Voltaigne (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Voltaigne, Atitarev Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Benwing2 (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Voltaigne, Atitarev Great, many thanks again. Voltaigne (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Hi - For verbs of class 3b and 3c, Template:uk-conj doesn't generate a live category link, it instead prints text onto the page as follows (example одягну́ти (odjahnúty)):

c verbs|ОДЯГНУТИ]]

Is this caused by the use of square brackets in the conjugation class property? Grateful for your thoughts on how to fix/work around this. @Atitarev: FYI.Voltaigne (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Voltaigne Hi. Yes, this is due to the brackets. There are two solutions, either don't categorize verbs of this class into a more specific category, or change the notation. For example, we could use two parens like 'Class 3((°))b', or use superscript parens 'Class 3⁽°⁾b', or any of a number of other possible chars. There's a fairly complete list here: What do you think? Benwing2 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 I lean towards the first approach, such that verbs of class 3(°)c or 3c all get categorized in ]. The difference between (°) and only affects the order in which the alternate past forms are displayed in the conjugation table, which is perhaps not enough of a difference to merit separate categorization. Voltaigne (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have been looking all morning for information on the status of the alternative reduced-form infinitives which we are auto-generating. So far as I can tell, -ти is the only form promoted in modern literary Ukrainian, however this paper talks about the Ukrainian dialectal (as opposed to Russian) origins and prevalence of the -ть forms as part of the background for their study of infinitive distributions in Surzhyk. They note that in all but the westernmost regions it is actually quite widespread either as a less-common alternative or—in some cases—as the dominant form. So unless I've missed something big, I think these forms are a) definitely worth including due to their widespread prevalence but b) should possibly be marked as dialectal or some other indication they are not considered part of the literary "standard". Any thoughts? Helrasincke (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Helrasincke: In my observation the infitive ending -ть is not uncommon in Ukrainian, is standard (not only Surzhyk) and can be used even by the same speakers alternatively. Ukrainian reference grammars include -ть (incosistenly). Ukrainian uses some linguistic harmony adjusting vowels according to what is before and after a word. -ти is way more common but -ть is not uncommon at all, in literature, folklore, etc. (Notifying Benwing2, Underfell Flowey, Voltaigne, Zombear): Please suggest if any label is appropriate. E.g. on шука́ть (šukátʹ) with -ть vs шука́ти (šukáty) with -ти. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

In case someone thinks I am biased please do some Google book searches in Ukrainian texts on verbs with -ть. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Anatoli T. Sorry if I was unclear, I didn't mean to suggest that it was in any way wrong or substandard, just that it's the (far?) less-common variant, at least in the literary language, which to my understanding was codified mostly on the basis of the westernmost dialects (and the article above mentions that some of those western dialects seem to almost or completely lack the -ть ending form). So I was inferring that the choice may be based on dialectal considerations. But Hentschel & Palinska write:

"Dialectal influence seemingly plays a role in the occurrence of the t’ ending in some oral forms of the Ukrainian Standard (cf. UkrPrvp, 2019, p. 153; ZHovtobriukh et al., 1980, p. 220). The latter source furthermore reports the sporadic occurrence of t’ in literary Ukrainian. Summarising, it may be stated that in the linguistic landscape of Ukraine, t’ cannot unequivocally be seen as a phenomenon mirroring Russian influence." (p.7)

I should mention further that web searches will be complicated by the fact that for a lot of verbs the alt. infinitive is written exactly the same as the 3rd person singular (even if spoken it may carry different stress). For example, the search заявить/заявити, most of the -ть forms are either Russian infinitives from Ukrainian-Russian bilingual dictionaries, or Ukrainian 3sg.pres. forms.

Same goes for додать/додати, where the first result is from a dictionary of 16th and early 17th century Ukrainian. The only plausible match I could find is here from 1893, but it's not clear the greater context of the statement.

So yes perhaps the label "dialectal" doesn't really seem the correct choice here (certainly not without much more context), since although it may have dialectal origin there is nevertheless sporadic occurrence even in the literary language. But it's still a question in my mind: do we somehow indicate that it's generally the less common form or leave it completely ambiguous? On the other hand, if they are fully equal & similarly widespread forms, I'd like to include them as co-forms in the headword line like we do for alternative stress paradigms, rather than tucked away shyly in the conjugation tables. I'll be happy to defer to the expertise of others and should add that I'm not especially attached to either outcome, but I do think we could be more explicit on the matter than we are currently. Helrasincke (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Helrasincke: The verbs are already correctly lemmatised with -ти. -ть is only used as alternative infinitive form in tables. What label to make, I don't know. Maybe someone will suggest. We already removed some archaic, non-used forms. The current table only includes the forms in use. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I also personally think that it may be anything, not just the Russian influence, if it is. Ukrainians are surrounded by Slavs who use the infinitive endings without an "i" - Slovak -ť, Polish "-ć", Czech "-t" (formerly "-ti"), Belarusian "-ць" + Russian -ть. Also, there is a number of verbs in all these Slavic languages where "-ti/-ty" is the only possible infinitive form, including Russian.

The rare coincidence with 3rd person singular, plural or imperatives are not causing any issues. (Typically it's just the last two letters, which coincide, not the whole form). Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The headwords are of course lemmatised with no problems at the headword. 3sg.pres doesn't create problems for pages but for attestation of the alt.inf., see those google books links. However I am generating accelerated forms for 3sg.pres., and the infinitives are auto-included because of the way the module works. For example see зазначить, where I am getting the following:

зазна́чить or зазначи́ть • (zaznáčytʹ or zaznačýtʹ)

1. inflection of зазна́чи́ти (zaznáčýty):

1. infinitive

2. third-person singular future indicative

My point was that it just seems a little incongruent to have an infinitive marked as an "infinitive of another infinitive" without further explanation. Maybe I'm just being too pedantic but I know if I was a casual reader I'd be wanting to know what's the difference, is it a mistake, etc.

Btw, I didn't at all suggest this is due to Russian influence (or that of any other Slavic language for that matter), although historically it is interesting that in Russian (at least for the literary standard) eventually this infinitive ending was reduced in all stem classes except for the end-stressed subset of the obstruent stems (there are some 20 in all in the modern standard language, not including prefixed derivations: блюсти́, везти́, грести́, пользти́, etc. but c.f. лезть, красть) and it appears (based on data in the article I linked) that a similar process has at least partially occurred within central and eastern Ukrainian dialects without fully displacing the full variants. Whether the two are connected or coincidental, I don't really have an opinion, so I'll leave to the philologists. Helrasincke (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Helrasincke (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

We should also take into account the official orthography: "in the spoken language, and thus also literature, the short form of the infitive -ть is used, when there is no consonant before it" (i.e. before -ти, forms like *лізть from лізти are not used ) Underfell Flowey (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's common in the spoken language, common in the standard (spoken) language, thus it's not dialectal. Underfell Flowey (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply