Template talk:la-verb

Yes, conjugation templates can definitely allow for different forms for missing parts, etc. I'll be done with class in an hour, and I can give you a more thorough run-down then. Take a look at how the Ancient Greek conjugation templates are set up, paying particular attention to the fact that there are multiple layers of templates (i.e. Template:grc-conj-present and Template:grc-conj-present-blank-full). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's not where I need help. The template I'm asking about is the inflection line template. --EncycloPetey 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, well my inflection line template does that too. The Greeks were always a bit ahead of the Romans. :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ugh, do I have to spoon-feed you everything? ;-) {{grc-verb}}. Bear in mind that my template simply says "unknown" for a blank parameter. It shouldn't be difficult to have it simply say nothing. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, that format is too simple for the complexities of Latin verbs (which have macrons to display) The current {{la-verb}} noticed when the number of arguments drops from 8 to just 6 and recognizes it as deponent automatically. The problem is that sometimes such a verb is semi-deponent instead, so the template need to check for this information. In similar fashion, if all 8 parameter are present, but there is also a ninth parameter, the template notes that the verb is irregular, however sometimes the verb will simply be "no passive" and the template doesn't currently support this option. --EncycloPetey 21:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

My Latin grammar is a bit rusty. Could you give me a concrete example? Perhaps a page or two which doesn't look the way its supposed to, or even better, a page which has been made to look correct manually? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The verb soleō is semi-deponent, but the inflection line says "deponent" because that is what the template is currently designed to do. The verb fluō has no passive, but the inflection line doesn't indicate that anything is unusual. --EncycloPetey 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

To begin with, may I ask why the supine is being used as the fourth principle part? It looks like Wheelock is using the past passive particple instead. Is the supine more of the standard in other Latin works? Secondly, it doesn't look like the template is being given enough information to make these types of decisions on its own. You may want to add parameters which allow the editor to help it along, such as an optional non-numbered input. So, the user puts in |form=semi-deponent}} (or perhaps |form=SD}}), and this overrides the templates first instinct of putting "deponent". This would fix the other one as well, as this would override the template's instinct to put nothing, when it should be putting "deponent." Does this sound feasible? I apologize if this idea is completely nonsensical. My mastery of Latin grammar is nonexistent, but my roommate took two years of Latin and is assisting me (but he's a bit rusty). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are two schools of thought on the fourth principal part. About half of the Latin scholars use the supine and the other half use the past passive participle. The problem with using a participle is that it will have a masculine, feminine, and neuter form, whereas the supine will not. This is why we (and about half the Latin scholars) prefer the supine.

OK, you've grasped the problem with the {{la-verb}} template, but can you help to fix it? (Maybe set up a "dummy" template for testing) I don't have the skill to set up the kinds of solutions I imagine would work best. A named argument such as "pattern=" (not "form=", which is ambiguous) would be great, but I don't have the skill to implement it. --EncycloPetey 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Will do. I've dropped the code on {{grc-test}}, and I'll try and fiddle with it there. Do you know of an example of a verb which uses the "irregular" portion of the template, just so I can look at it and get a feel for how that syntax works? Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The quintessential irregular verb in Latin is sum (“I am”). Also timeō (“I am afraid”), which I am currently editing, is irregular in a slightly different way. --EncycloPetey 22:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you know if any verbs need both the "irregular" and "deponent"/"semi-deponent" tags, or can a verb have, at most, one of the the preceding three? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can't think of any that would ever need more than one. If there were an irregular deponent or semi-deponent verb, I would list the fact that it was deponent / semi-deponent in the inflection line, with a note aboiut irregularities in the Inflection section. So, let's have the template display only one. --EncycloPetey 22:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so my initial thoughts run thus: If no supine is entered, the template automatically say "deponent." However, regardless of whether a supine is entered or not, the editor can always specify "deponent," "semi-deponent," or "irregular." (or anything else they like, actually, the template will simply link whatever input is entered into the "pattern" parameter. Does this sound ok? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes. --EncycloPetey 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another question. I have it set up in {{grc-verb}} so that I can enter multiple inputs for a single parameter. So, for example, if there are multiple aorists (as there not uncommonly are), I can enter them both. The way it works is thus: if there is simply one aorist, I enter that aorist, and it links it for me. If there are two aorists, I enter them both linked, and it doesn't try to link them. Basically, if the input can be linked, it links it, if it can't, it doesn't. As an example, take a look at the inflection line of ἄγω, which has both single and multiple principal parts. Would this be useful for Latin, or does each lemma basically only have one version of each of its principle parts? And perhaps more importantly, is this paragraph intelligible? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That would only rarely be useful. 99%+ of Latin verbs have only one form for each principal part. (And keep in mind that the template would have to accomodate multiple macron forms then!) --EncycloPetey 22:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Phew, that's a relief. It would be some messy (and complicated) coding to achieve that. I'm glad its not necessary. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at User:Atelaes/Sandbox3. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mostly good, but see the line I've added. --EncycloPetey 23:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, take another look. Code's getting a bit messy now, but that really doesn't matter, as no one but extremely masochistic editors should ever have to see it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It all seems to work now. Notice the extra little test I made, linking to the Appendix on Latin irregular verbs. Looks good to go as far as I can tell, but it will require looking through all the pages that currently use the template to add "pattern=" to those that will need it. Currently, some templates have an argument of "irregular" in there. --EncycloPetey 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you like I might be able to make "irrgular" or "ir" or something automatically link to or something, and perhaps "dep" autolink to , etc. Note, I said may be able to. That's a bit more complicated. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that would be worth the trouble yet. We have an appendix on irregular Latin verbs, but not for any other sorts. The current setup allows a user to add the link in anyway. --EncycloPetey 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool beans. Would you like me to transfer this to the actual template, or would you prefer to wait on that? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you do the honors? That way the edit (and accompanying work) is credited to you in the edit history. --EncycloPetey 00:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to temporarily put in some code which puts all the words which use parameter 9 (which isn't in the new version) into Category:Latin verbs needing attention, so we can fix them. That sound ok? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

But this template calls futūrum a supine... It is a future active participle. Is there some way of saying there is no available supine but there is a future active participle (as some dictionaries believe with valeo)? Harris Morgan 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

How common is this? I've noticed it only rarely, and in weird cases like this, I side-step the template by using {{infl}} or just hard-coding the information. --EncycloPetey 00:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Very, very rare. Can you show me where you have used {{infl}}? The documentation confuses me... Harris Morgan 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

Recalling where I used it would take a long time. If you can give a specific case where there is a problem, then I can put the template into the entry. This would be easier to do (and faster). --EncycloPetey 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

esse. Harris Morgan 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

Thanks, Harris Morgan 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

Sure, though I'm not sure why we wouldn't just use Category:Latin words needing attention, since the category is almost completely empty right now anyway. --EncycloPetey 00:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've gone with your suggested category. The words aren't in there yet, but should start popping up......sometime, when the job queue goes down. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Aren't all inflection templates supposed to begin with the headword? —Ruakh_TALK 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, there is no such requirement. Consider that the template {{en-verb}} first lists the particle to before it gives the headword. Certainly, the headword should appear first, or as nearly first as practical. In the case of Latin verbs, the lemma form is not the same as might be expected from people who haven't studied Classical languages, so addiitonal explanation of the header form is required. --EncycloPetey 23:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not opposed to the explanation, but it seems like the headword should appear before that stuff as well. (I take your point about {{en-verb}}, but I think the idea there is that "to" is essentially part of the headword.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

For most templates, I'm in agreement with you. But, for this template, consider what the alternative would look like when rendered on a page:

• Current display:

  present active amō, present infinitive amāre, perfect active amāvī, supine amātum.

• Display with headword first:

  amō, present active (present infinitive amāre, perfect active amāvī, supine amātum).

The alternative puts a lot of italicized grammatical text from two items close together in quick succession, making the whole more difficult to read. This isn't a problem for most templates because other templates either (a) have no grammatical information immediately following the headword, or (b) have only a single letter or two of code following the headword. Latin requires much more, and this makes it much harder to read in the usual format. --EncycloPetey 00:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, there is such a requirement. WT:ELE#Inflections: strict policy. The head word appears, then its note if needed and the other inflections in parenthesis. As is done properly in other templates, it should and must be:

amō (present active, present infinitive amāre, perfect active amāvī, supine amātum)

Thus. Having Latin be different from every other language we do very consistently by explicit policy is not a good idea. Robert Ullmann 00:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Umm... where do you see this "requirement" or "strict policy"? Could you quote it please, because I can't find it at the link you gave. You say it is "explicit" policy, but I see no statement to this effect.

Please remember that the explicit policy at ELE is: "Some languages do have characteristics that require variation from the standard format." Latin is not the only one whose verb templates are different in this regard; Ancient Greek verb templates do the same thing. --EncycloPetey 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agree with EP. The template should remain as it stands. Switching it around will only be confusing and will confer no benefits. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why doesnt it also add [[category:latin veb forms? I verb is actually a verb.--Dixtosa 13:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)