Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:en-conj. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:en-conj, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:en-conj in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:en-conj you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:en-conj will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:en-conj, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
To be
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is an unused template that contains only a schoolboy exercise of the conjugation of do, mostly perphrastic, of course, and incomplete as a table of all periphrastic equivalents of all tenses and aspects that can be expressed in English. Thus it is misnamed and misleading. If anything it ought to be in the creator's user space, renamed as {{en-conj-do}}. DCDuringTALK14:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you plug in other terms, it outputs the forms of the verb you've plugged in. Observe: {{en-conj|love|loved||loving}} yields:
I was so annoyed that it didn't work as it used to, as the inflection-line template (or redirect thereto) for English conjugations, that I didn't bother to look. That it has no documentation makes that particularly easy. It needs the "principal parts" (3, 4?) in order to generate the periphrases that it covers.
Were it deployed in English L2s I think it would be a great way to ensure that we get fewer native speakers to use Wiktionary, to continue phase one of the linguistic cleansing process. DCDuringTALK16:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean the inflection-line template for English conjunctions? That's now at {{en-con}}. Anyway, I have no objection to deleting this (it's unused anyway) since we already provide the principle parts on the headword line and everything is derivable from those parts, especially if we have an Appendix:English verbs for the benefit of learners. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't think so. There is so little value to English conjugation tables that it doesn't seem to me that it merits taking a name that should be used for English conjunctions. Mindless uniformity across languages might be fine for other languages, but not for English on English Wiktionary. Why not rename it as {{en-conjugation}}? DCDuringTALK14:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm split. The template is too well made to delete, but on the other hand it is entirely useless since we don't conjugate English verbs in entries (and I would be opposed to doing so). I guess I would support moving it to {{en-conjugate}}. But I definitely oppose moving {{en-con}} to {{en-conj}} and would also oppose redirecting {{en-conj}} to {{en-con}}. If {{en-conj}} doesn't contain a conjugation table, then it most certainly should not contain a conjunction template. This is not mindless uniformity, this is to avoid confusion. --WikiTiki8914:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Another way to avoid confusion would be to rename "xx-conj" templates to "xx-conjg". We know have confusion among contraction, conjunction , and conjugation templates, which could be avoided by other shortcuts "xx-contr", "xx-conjct", and "xx-conjg". This template name has the most potential for confusion. DCDuringTALK15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you're right, but using different abbreviations for each language is much more confusing than having ambiguous abbreviations. --WikiTiki8915:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Could we rename -decl and -conj to -infl instead? Then the problem would be sidestepped. And "infl" is more general, because it can apply to things that aren't conjugation or declension, like Dutch pronominal adverbs or Irish prepositions. Declension and conjugation are primarily Indo-European-biased terms and don't fit well in many other cases, nor is it even clear what should be done when they're mixed together. —CodeCat16:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Delete, I see no value in having a conjugation table that only contains periphrastic forms; this makes English conjugation look needlessly complicated. PUC – 12:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think we should have English verb conjugation tables; it's bizarre that the English Wiktionary has tables for French and German (which contain plenty of multiple-word inflected forms that could be seen as making the conjugation look complicated) and not English, while the French and German Wiktionaries do show how English verbs conjugate. Perhaps we should have a much simpler table than this (and indeed, we do have some simpler conjugation tables, so I'm fine with deleting this particular one), and ones that list archaic forms with appropriate tags, but we should have something. - -sche(discuss)22:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other It may be worth incorporating the future, conditional and imperative tenses in a brief way so that they're covered, for the sake of completeness. Laboriously laying out every form as {{en-conj}} does is obviously ridiculous, but they do deserve mention. Theknightwho (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm not on board with adding future and conditional (will X/would X). The formation of these tenses in English is a matter of grammar, not morphology (or lexicography). I have thought of putting a link to Appendix:English verbs at the bottom of the {{en-conj-simple}} conjugation box; do you think that would be enough?
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
@Theknightwho: the template no longer displays the archaic past tense form ending in -edst (for example, walkedst. Could you please reinstate it, as it is used by some entries? Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: wait – do you mean that without the parameter no archaic forms are displayed at all? That is not a good idea, because the only reason for using the conjugation table is to indicate in entries what the archaic forms are. If a verb has no archaic forms, then the table shouldn’t be used at all since all the information about inflection is provided by {{en-verb}}. — Sgconlaw (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
You've got to be joking. Forms like 'returnedst' don't need to be glossed at all on the main lemma entry for modern English. At most, they should be linked as archaic alts from the past tense entry (here, 'returned'). What is the possible value of this template? — LlywelynII00:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
It says “may be used”, not “to be used”, and yes, it should only be used in entries of irregular verbs or verbs with archaic forms. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sgconlaw This template should only be used for verbs with archaic forms; this is what we agreed to previously, and I have fixed the documentation accordingly. Benwing2 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: apart from entries of verbs with archaic forms, isn’t the template also used in entries of irregular verbs like be? There can’t be many cases like that where a separate conjugation table is required, though. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Omitting the archaic second-person singular past tense form of a word
Latest comment: 26 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, @Benwing2. Is there a way to have the template omit the archaic second-person singular past tense form of a word? At set about, I tried to use |past_2sg_old=- but it displays as "-†". I don't think there is a form *settedst about, and if I omit the parameter the template comes up with *set aboutst! — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
