Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:nl-verb. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:nl-verb, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:nl-verb in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:nl-verb you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:nl-verb will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:nl-verb, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
I'm not quite sure what cleanup you're asking for. The list you've given are the Dutch pronouns "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." Each pronoun should proceed the corresponding verb inflection. I don't see anything to clean up. --EncycloPetey23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think Connel's saying we should use the English labels "first person singular" and so on. I'm inclined to agree, actually, though I see both ways. —RuakhTALK00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
That would make the table very messy. Instead of saying "jij/u", we would have to say "second person singular familiar preceded by pronoun and third person singular formal preceded or followed by pronoun". Dutch has two second person familiar verb forms that differ depending on which second person pronoun is used; one (jij) precedes the verb while the other (je) follows the verb when it appears in a question. --EncycloPetey02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
The table is already messy, but that aside: it is described in Dutch, not English. At least link the things to a special appendix, or do something to describe them in English. My preference, would be to see "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." instead of the Dutch currently there. A less acceptable compromise would be "I (ik); we (wij); you (jij); you (formal; jiju); you (plural; jullie); etc." But listing only in Dutch belongs on nl.wikt, not here. --Connel MacKenzie23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have by now provided such a unification. Conversion is as follows: {{nl-verb-xxx|yyy|zzz}} converts to {{nl-verb|typ=xxx|yyy|zzz}}. You might want to change the named parameter for typ= to, say, t= or type= or something else. —AugPi15:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
To accommodate verbs which have more than one type of conjugation (yes, they exist) I wanted to do something more like this. {{nl-verb|st-1}} for strong class 1, {{nl-verb|wk|sep=1}} for a separable weak verb, and for a verb like zeggen you'd have {{nl-verb|irr|wk}}. So the numbered parameters specify the basic type and category (st-1 to st-7, st-i, wk, wk-cht, mix, irr) and then sep=, refl= etc. specify the other information. I suppose the class could also be specified separately using cl= or something. --CodeCat16:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
What about using named parameters st=, wk=, mix=, and irr=. This way, the coding would be simpler. Also, st= could be assigned a number from 1 to 7 or i in order to specify the class. —AugPi14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I suppose I just have a different approach to the problem (being a programmer does that). I think it's more important to make things simple for the users than for the developers. So I think that having somewhat more complicated coding in the template is worth it if it makes using the template for the majority of wiktionary users easier. --CodeCat16:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, let wk, wk-cht, mix, irr be input through unnamed (numerical) parameters, in any order, but let st= be set to a number from 1 to 7 or to i. How about that? —AugPi00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
You would object to my last proposal if... there are Dutch verbs which simultaneously belong to more than one class of strong verb. Are there such verbs? Keep in mind that If the different classes are due to different meanings or different etymologies of the verb, then that can be handled with multiple inflection lines, not with multiple st-x parameters in the same template/inflection line. —AugPi00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
But you yourself proposed possibly using a cl= parameter, which suggests that you might agree to using an st= parameter instead. —AugPi01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not quite sure what cleanup you're asking for. The list you've given are the Dutch pronouns "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." Each pronoun should proceed the corresponding verb inflection. I don't see anything to clean up. --EncycloPetey23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think Connel's saying we should use the English labels "first person singular" and so on. I'm inclined to agree, actually, though I see both ways. —RuakhTALK00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
That would make the table very messy. Instead of saying "jij/u", we would have to say "second person singular familiar preceded by pronoun and third person singular formal preceded or followed by pronoun". Dutch has two second person familiar verb forms that differ depending on which second person pronoun is used; one (jij) precedes the verb while the other (je) follows the verb when it appears in a question. --EncycloPetey02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
The table is already messy, but that aside: it is described in Dutch, not English. At least link the things to a special appendix, or do something to describe them in English. My preference, would be to see "I, we, you/you (formal), you (pl), etc." instead of the Dutch currently there. A less acceptable compromise would be "I (ik); we (wij); you (jij); you (formal; jiju); you (plural; jullie); etc." But listing only in Dutch belongs on nl.wikt, not here. --Connel MacKenzie23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
