Template talk:fr-conj-auto
Note: See also Module talk:fr-verb.
RFDO discussion: September 2016–February 2017
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I have converted all usages of almost all the old French conjugation templates to use Template:fr-conj-auto, and will shortly be done with the few remaining usages. I did this by bot, checking to make sure that no conjugated forms changed in the process (and doing it that way, caught some bugs both in the old templates and new module code). One of the big advantages of the new module code is that it provides pronunciations of all the forms, which the old templates didn't do. It's also generally easier to add new verb types, or at least it is a few lines of code vs. having to manually enter all the forms into a template. I would like to delete all the old templates since they have become lots of hard-to-maintain cruft. When working on similar conversions to Russian noun, verb and adjective inflection templates I just went ahead and deleted the old templates but I know that Dan prefers keeping old templates so I want to make sure there is consensus to delete them.
The full list is here: Category:French verb inflection-table templates Benwing2 (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support, but not to be done hastily, only when the module is ready. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- BTW currently absolutely everything is converted except for copier-coller. Benwing2 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Any objection to me removing everything except for Template:fr-conj-copier-coller? Benwing2 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, feel free to do away with obsoleted templates if you're sure everything is as it should be. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I'm going to delete them. Benwing2 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, feel free to do away with obsoleted templates if you're sure everything is as it should be. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Any objection to me removing everything except for Template:fr-conj-copier-coller? Benwing2 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- BTW currently absolutely everything is converted except for copier-coller. Benwing2 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I assume Benwing has deleted these. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't actually delete them. I'll have to recheck them before deleting to make sure new verbs haven't been snuck in. Benwing2 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Past imperative
Could anybody add the past imperative? --Paris91 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Why is this verb claimed to be "especially irregular"? I'd say it's pretty regular for a "re"-verb, and it's certainly less irregular than a lot of other verbs. The circumflex is a bit peculiar, but it's not really part of the conjugation; and at any rate there's a simple rule for that as well, namely that it always takes the circumflex unless the stem is croiss-. 88.64.225.109 00:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Relatedly, the notes at accroître and décroître are also less than optimal. They vaguely say that these verbs "take fewer circumflexes", when in fact there's only one form that it is different, namely "accrois"/"décrois" vis-à-vis "croîs". 178.4.151.86 07:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
On sortir and other pages (Special:WhatLinksHere/avoir_or_être) the table links to avoir or être instead of avoir and être separately LinguisticMystic (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- @LinguisticMystic: I think I have fixed it. --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The future and conditional forms appear to have pronunciations generated for them in IPA that differ from the recordings on the linked verb pages, and from other similar verbs like parler. I don't know much French; if this is a mistake in generation or if pronunciations with dropped /ə/ are permissible. 2A00:23C7:5D1B:5601:E1F6:7F05:972F:C5C 17:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @2A00:23C7:5D1B:5601:E1F6:7F05:972F:C5C: Some schwas are optional; see this website for more information. --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
@Nicodene: Should “first-person singular present indicative and imperfect subjunctive in inversions” forms be included in the conjugation table? J3133 (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @J3133 I don't see why not, as long as a note can be added explaining it. The general rule is that silent -e becomes -è (traditionally spelled -é) in inversions with the pronoun je. I'd ask the main French editors before implementing it. If we're going to indicate this kind of thing, we should add a note for pouvoir pointing out that peux can't be used at all in inversions with je, only puis can. Nicodene (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- (Notifying PUC, Jberkel, Nicodene): @Nicodene: I do not know the main French editors but I pinged the French workgroup. J3133 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicodene: After over two weeks of no replies, should the forms be added? J3133 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Seems to be a typical 'go ahead, as long as you don't break anything' situation. I would if I had the technical expertise. Nicodene (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicodene: Which form should be listed first? Also, pensè does not use an inflection template (pense does). J3133 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Certainly pense should go first, as pensè is a rare and situational variant of it. Nicodene (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicodene: I meant the two forms of diacriticked e—I am not sure which is more common (now?). J3133 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, French Wiktionary seems to regard the è spelling as canonical, given the 1990 reform, but in practice é remains quite often used. I would provide either only è or both è and é. Nicodene (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicodene: I meant the two forms of diacriticked e—I am not sure which is more common (now?). J3133 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Certainly pense should go first, as pensè is a rare and situational variant of it. Nicodene (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicodene: Which form should be listed first? Also, pensè does not use an inflection template (pense does). J3133 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Seems to be a typical 'go ahead, as long as you don't break anything' situation. I would if I had the technical expertise. Nicodene (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicodene: After over two weeks of no replies, should the forms be added? J3133 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- (Notifying PUC, Jberkel, Nicodene): @Nicodene: I do not know the main French editors but I pinged the French workgroup. J3133 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kc kennylau: I see you created Module:fr-verb. Would you be able to add these forms? J3133 (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @J3133: I am a French learner and I have some questions about this:
- Does this only affect the first person singular?
- Why would the imperfect subjunctive "(que) je pensasse" turn into "pensè-je"?
- Why doesn't the present subjunctive "(que) je pense" turn into the same "pensè-je"?
- Are there example usages of these inverted subjunctive cases?
- Thanks. --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am also a learner—@Nicodene, can you answer these questions? J3133 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- 1: Correct. Or to put it another way, it requires a following je.
- 2–3: I am not sure. I do not remember having ever actually encountered a subjunctive like pensè. Perhaps a native like @PUC could elucidate.
- 4: The following all bring up a fair number of search results on Google: fussè-je, puissè-je, dussè-je, eussè-je, pussè-je. (Also try replacing ⟨è⟩ with the traditional ⟨é⟩.) Nicodene (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kc kennylau: What is the current status of the addition of these forms? J3133 (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am also a learner—@Nicodene, can you answer these questions? J3133 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @J3133: I am a French learner and I have some questions about this:
before 1990
we currently have the text displaying on some -er verbs as
- Before 1990, the future stem of such verbs was written...
I would suggest changing it to
- Before 1990, the future stem was written...
since it appears on the page for an individual verb. I could edit the module text myself (line 624), but i'd rather not as I am not comfortable with coding and even something that looks like a string literal might somehow be a mistake on my part. Also, perhaps others think the page is fine the way it is, and I've heard we might be deleting this soon anyway. Thoughts? —Soap— 08:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
suppress double message
can the duplicate message on plaire#Conjugation be suppressed? mostly a cosmetic issue, i think, but it still bothers me just a little bit. —Soap— 19:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)