Template talk:es-verb form of

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Name[edit]

I don't like the parentheses much. Why not simply "es-verb form of"? Dmcdevit·t 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% fine with that; please feel free to make the change. (Note that there are a few subtemplates that should be moved as well; see Special:Prefixindex/Template:es-form of (verb).) —RuakhTALK 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Third person verb forms with second person pronouns[edit]

Spanish grammar books describe usted and ustedes as second person pronouns that take third person verb forms. Could these templates be updated accordingly? Rod (A. Smith) 07:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is the inherited tradition: e.g. tosen. You are correct that the forms usted takes are the same as the third-person forms. However, functionally, there is nothing third-person about them. Nowhere are they referred to as third-person in the modern day, only conjugated as such. Don't confuse the grammatical form with the word meaning. Therefore, splitting the third-person definition line into the second-person sense and the third-person sense allows us to give the accurate meanings of the word. We're here to give the meaning of the word, not obscure it with etymological traditions that insist on calling the form a third-person one. Dmcdevit·t 07:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That's absurd. Should our English verb forms ending in -s be described as second person formal verbs because they are used with "Your Honor" and "Your Majesty"? Spanish grammar books describe the verb form as third person. There's no need for original research here. Rod (A. Smith) 07:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Er, what? The exact words I used, that the usted forms are "functionally second-person", are how it is taught.[1] When I say "ustedes tosen," I am talking about using a form expressing the second-person, you cough. That is what the word means. Just because we include them in the same article does not mean we must give them the same definition line with the wrong meaning. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The very link you provided supports my position in saying, “[usted and ustedes] are third person in form but second person in function and that they take a third person subjunctive in the functional, second-person imperative.” Our non-lemma definitions are given only in terms of their grammatical relationship to the lemma (their "form", as described in your link). When you say, usted tose or ustedes tosen, you are saying something very similar to Your Majesty coughs or Your Majesties cough, which are second person in function but contains third person verbs. We should not add a second definition to coughs to show that it can be used functionally in the second person, neither should we add a second definition to tose or tosen to show that they can be used functionally in the second person. Rod (A. Smith) 16:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bare infinitive[edit]

I do not know why you insisted for the infinitive to be entered as a wikilink. I removed that condition, making sure both forms are ok, but I’d prefer the infinitive not to be wikilinked, it makes the usage of the template more confusing. Maybe I should put the page in the cleanup category if the wikilink is there? H. (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think Spanish has any defective verbs, so we'll always want to have the template link to the lemma infinitive entry, i.e. we shouldn't need to specify the link ourselves. It might be better to use {{wlink}} around that parameter, though. Rod (A. Smith) 18:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This is apparently a convention for templates, though not one I'm fond of, for technical reasons. Indeed, last time I asked about it, I ended getting roped into adding the brackets for all {{past participle of}}s with pywikipedia. :-) I don't mind either way, but I think you might have to make your case on GP/BP if you don't want to have to face objections in the future when others notice. Dmcdevit·t 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If memory serves, the reason Connel asks editors to add brackets around the lemma argument in {{form of}} definitions is to force MediaWiki's stats to count the page as a valid entry. Nobody, so far as I know, opposes having {{form of}} templates automatically wikify their arguments, and I'm pretty sure that {{wlink}} is the easiest way to make everyone happy. Rod (A. Smith) 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand why it's good to have compatibility with both forms, but I'm just saying that, even though I don't like it either, it seems that wikifying the parameter entries is always preferred. So having it be put in a cleanup category for having wikilinks is wrong; in fact, the opposite is more correct. Dmcdevit·t 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
That is correct. The discussion is rather convoluted now though. The English form-of templates are supposed to consistently use the brackets. The Spanish templates ran into problems when they were missing, because of the added "#Spanish" hooks, right? And the reason Dmcdevit got roped into doing that was for consistency. I don't see how {{wlink}} has crept back into the discussion, precisely. But I'll try to look deeper, later. --Connel MacKenzie 03:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Output wording[edit]

This should return the phrase "second-person plural informal" instead of "Informal second-person plural". An informal plural means an informal or colloquial way of speaking, while 2nd-p pl informal refers to the use of the form. The syntax in the template is too difficult for me to fix it myself. —Stephen 17:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding the explicit pronoun to clarify still does not make it right. The term is the second-person informal and the second-person formal. Moving the adjective to the front gives a different meaning, namely a formal or informal term or speaking style, not the tú/usted form. Adding the pronoun only makes it sound like a formal way of saying the usted form, as though there should also be an informal way of saying the usted form. "Deme la manteca" is informal (although it uses the second-person formal), and "dame el dinero" is formal (although it uses the second-person informal). —Stephen 20:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Capital wrong[edit]

As of now, on manes, there is no capital, though the nocap parameter is blank. H. (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Matthias Buchmeier 08:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Language-specific links[edit]

This template previously did not use language-specific links. This is less than optimal when linking to headwords with multiple languages on the page, such as orar. I just tweaked the code to point to [[verb#Spanish|verb]] instead. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 16:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)