Template talk:ru-decl-adj
Converting adjectives
@Wiki.
I can use this module from now on for new adjectives or old ones, as I see you're converting my edits. I won't use {{ru-adj-old}} as I'm not familiar with the pre-reform spelling, I don't have reliable resources and not very keen to do them much. I hope you know what you're doing or check them thoroughly. There's hardly anyone to check pre-reform spellings. Not concerned about transliteration for exceptions either, as this spellings go very far back, to the time before the Moscow shift and borders with Old Russian (orv).
These lists: Appendix:Russian Frequency lists and Appendix:Frequency_dictionary_of_the_modern_Russian_language_(the_Russian_National_Corpus) arrange terms by frequency, in case you wish to work with them, so that we don't interfere with each other. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I created this because I think it's easier to use and also looks better. You don't have to worry about pre-reform spellings, I only add them when I'm sure about them anyway. If you're not sure about how to do something, you can check the test page for examples, but it's pretty straightforward. The only caveat is when adding the short forms, the neuter comes before the feminine, rather than after. As for the frequency lists, I'm too disorganized to do things in order like that. I add words when I come across them or happen to think of them. --WikiTiki89 00:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Can I suggest to add categorisations based on declension types? It would also help for noun declensions - to see, which ones belong to which stress pattern and declension type, animacy, spot errors, see frequencies and other grammatical analysis? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- First we'd need to figure out which categories we want to have, then adding them will be easy. --WikiTiki89 01:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Can I suggest to add categorisations based on declension types? It would also help for noun declensions - to see, which ones belong to which stress pattern and declension type, animacy, spot errors, see frequencies and other grammatical analysis? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Documentation updated
@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89 The documentation for this template has been updated to correspond to its current usage, and examples added. Benwing2 (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for all your efforts! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed change of design for easier viewing?
Forgive me, as I am new to editing Wiktionary, if this is the wrong pace to suggest this, but I think that the table can be better designed to more clearly show its information. The table as a whole should have a white background, and each non-heading table cell should be coloured what the background currently is, as so to create a table that is easier to peruse and view.
The end result would look something like this:
If you agree, let me know and also inform me as to how to go about changing the template....
- @TDanino That looks fine to me. If you want to change things, look in Module:ru-adjective. At the bottom of this file is all the template info, just look for things like
style="background:#d9ebff", etc. Benwing2 (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Pre-reform -аго, -яго vs -ого
@Benwing2: Hi. I have discovered that some pre-1918 reform endings incorrect. In w:ru:Русская_дореформенная_орфография#Орфография_отдельных_морфем_(приставок,_падежных_окончаний) there is a clause regarding -ого, which should appear for -о́й-adjectives. So большо́й (bolʹšój) should produce "большо́го", not "больша́го", like the post-reform. Are you able to fix it, please? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: Further on the same page: 1882 год: в середине XIX века ещё можно встретить такие формы слов, как рядоваго, втораго (произносились как рядово́го, второ́го), которые к началу XX века были заменены на рядового, второго. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Atitarev OK, I'm confused now. The quote you just mentioned says that forms like втора́го (and hence presumably больша́го) do occur in the 19th century even though pronounced as -о́го. This doesn't surprise me; the differences between pre-reform and post-reform spellings are purely spelling issues, and the pronunciation didn't suddenly change, so the modern pronunciations must have prevailed (more or less) in the 19th century as well. But our pre-reform conjugations and declensions should reflect the pre-reform spelling, not the pronunciation. Benwing2 (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: I am confused as well (a little) but getting clearer. It seems the -о́го spellings have become standardised before the 1918 reform (by the beginning of the 20th century). They say that in the middle of the 19th century, -а́го still occurred. It's not clear, if they dominated or what the frequency was. I think the best way is to provide both -о́го and -а́го for -о́й adjectives (adjectives with a stressed -о́й ending in the lemma). It may be the case that -а́го was dominating the ecclesiastic texts, not the regular literature. I will check a bit further. The best confirmation might come from e.g. Pushkin's original texts. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, priests in their services often also pronounce -а́го endings and don't replace "г" with "в". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: Google Ngram suggests (using втораго,второго) that's about right. I have checked Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment". Most -о́й adjectives use "а́го" (but тако́го, како́го, того́, э́того, самого́). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, priests in their services often also pronounce -а́го endings and don't replace "г" with "в". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: I am confused as well (a little) but getting clearer. It seems the -о́го spellings have become standardised before the 1918 reform (by the beginning of the 20th century). They say that in the middle of the 19th century, -а́го still occurred. It's not clear, if they dominated or what the frequency was. I think the best way is to provide both -о́го and -а́го for -о́й adjectives (adjectives with a stressed -о́й ending in the lemma). It may be the case that -а́го was dominating the ecclesiastic texts, not the regular literature. I will check a bit further. The best confirmation might come from e.g. Pushkin's original texts. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Atitarev OK, I'm confused now. The quote you just mentioned says that forms like втора́го (and hence presumably больша́го) do occur in the 19th century even though pronounced as -о́го. This doesn't surprise me; the differences between pre-reform and post-reform spellings are purely spelling issues, and the pronunciation didn't suddenly change, so the modern pronunciations must have prevailed (more or less) in the 19th century as well. But our pre-reform conjugations and declensions should reflect the pre-reform spelling, not the pronunciation. Benwing2 (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
однѣ
@Benwing2 Thanks for implementing the alt gen/acc forms!
One more request, please!
оди́нъ (odín) should also have feminine plural forms (a separate column), which disappeared in the modern Russian. Similar to онѣ́ (oně́, “they (feminine)”). The declension is the same as masculine/neuter, only the stressed "и́" is replaced with "ѣ́" in all cases, as in this link --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Suppressing inanimate forms for adjective-like surnames
@Benwing2: Hi. Would it be possible to add a way to suppress inanimate forms for surnames, just like the neuter forms are suppressed with |noneuter=y? Thanks. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: Hi. Sorry to remind you, not sure if you received the original ping. I hope it won't take you long. What I need is to suppress accusative/inanimate of surnames like Чайко́вский (Čajkóvskij), which is incorrect. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Atitarev Apologies, I've been busy with work and such and things have been a bit crazy the last few days in Texas :) ... anyway I should be able to get to this today or tomorrow. I also have the vocative plural stuff on my radar as well. Benwing2 (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)