Module talk:form of

New declension tag needed

Under -- Cases, could someone add ["obl"] = "oblique", (between ["nom"] = "nominative", and ["par"] = "partitive",), please? It's needed for Old French. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 06:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Added that, and also most cases listed at Wiktionary:Coding conventions#Grammatical cases. — Keφr 11:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kephir: Thank you kindly for fulfilling my request so promptly. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mutation labels?

Maybe this module could cover Celtic initial mutations, such as lenition, eclipisis, h-prothesis, t-prothesis, soft mutation, nasal mutation, aspirate mutation, provection, etc. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Cover in what sense? —CodeCat 23:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I thought this module was for all recognized forms-of, but now I realize it's just for expanding abbreviations. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Replacing gloss= with t=

@CodeCat, DTLHS: In linking templates like {{l}} and {{m}} and the etymology templates, gloss= is deprecated in favor of t=. In {{inflection of}}, however, only gloss= is accepted, and t= throws a module error. Could this be changed so that t= is accepted (even preferred) here too? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. DTLHS (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinate tags

@Benwing2: I noticed you made it so that coordinate tags like nom//acc//voc translate to a list with serial comma (nominative, accusative, vocative). I've been using nom|and|acc|and|voc, as can be seen in this page of Ancient Greek inflection-of templates. (Other people have been using nom|acc|and|voc, which is not optimal unless the module can safely be really smart and guess that two tags of the same category next to each other are really coordinate, rather than representing separate inflection categories.)

I wonder if it would be a good idea to translate tags separated by and into a proper list with commas and and at the end, or if the like of nom|and|acc|and|voc should be replaced with nom//acc//voc. If many other people use the and method of indicating a list, it would involve less work and be less disruptive to editors to support it than to convert it to the double slashes. I can probably do a survey from my file of {{inflection of}} templates. — Eru·tuon 19:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Another technique (which ends up looking bad) is using commas in various ways. Here are all cases of {{inflection of}} with commas in the inflection tag parameters. Some of them use commas inside a single parameter, like m,f,n. Maybe that would be more intuitive than m//f//n. However, it would probably frustrate people who wanted to use a comma and not have it converted to a list. — Eru·tuon 19:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Erutuon I thought of using comma as a separator, but as you point out, I was concerned that people might want a legitimate comma in the tag. It's definitely possible to change foo|and|bar|and|baz into a proper list. Note also that I just posted a whole bunch of changes to Module:form of and friends, to support upcoming rewrites of lang-specific form-of templates to generic templates (hopefully I didn't break anything ...). Benwing2 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Erutuon BTW can you make a list of all uses of the tr tag? It used to mean "trial" and I changed it to "transitive" (formerly not existing as a tag); I assume there are few if any uses of tr=trial but I'd like to make sure. Benwing2 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, the handling of commas is smarter now and should look OK, but we should still fix up the uses of commas. Benwing2 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I didn't find a single use of the tr tag. — Eru·tuon 22:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Glossary type = wp

@Benwing2 This is totally pointless because the Wikidata ID already gives you the Wikipedia page. Glossary links should only link to our glossary, so can you please remove that? —Rua (mew) 11:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed all the Wikipedia glossaries where a Wikidata ID already existed. I've also created some new Wikidata IDs for concepts that weren't covered before. The only remaining one is "personal infinitive", which I'm not sure is actually a separate concept. These are simply infinitives that have person-and-number endings, so they can be called "infinitive". All in all, I feel like you've tried too hard to cater to the idiosyncrasies of individual languages with your recent overhaul and haven't put enough consideration into whether all these new grammatical categories actually make sense. Ironically, this has created the same kind of cruft that you've been working over the last few weeks to get rid of. Further examination is definitely needed. —Rua (mew) 12:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Some things that need examination:

• Transitive, intransitive and ditransitive: Are there really separate inflections for these for a single lemma in any language? I'd like to see a list of uses.
• Causative: As above. Causatives are normally treated as lemmas, not inflections.
• Personal infinitive: This is redundant to just "infinitive", because personal infinitive forms are not actually a separate grammatical category, just a regular infinitive with pronouns stuck to it. Should be orphaned and deleted.
• Pronominal: This is apparently a form that exists in Romanian, but what exactly is it? It can probably be respecified in terms of something else.
• Augmentative and diminutive: These aren't inflections, but rather separate lemmas, so they shouldn't be using {{inflection of}}.
• Pejorative: Is this seriously a grammatical form?
• Simple: This is only there for English I'm assuming, and it has no grammatical meaning: simple present = present, simple past = past. This is a good reason not to include it here but instead change how we define English verb forms.
• Short and long: Needs more information about what these mean.
• Form: Uh, what? Delete with prejudice.
• Adjectival and adverbial: Probably legit, but I'd like to see where this is used to make a call.
• Single-possession and multiple-possession: These are actually just singular and plural restated in the context of possessives. However, because possessives can have number both in the noun and in the possessor, this may be useful for distinguishing them.
• Nominalized: In which language is this an inflected form?
• Nominalization: Obviously the same as the above.
• Root: Again, what is this actually needed for?
• Stem: Same.
• Dependent and independent: If these are for continental West Germanic verbs, they are better stated as V2 and non-V2 forms, given that that's the rule that distinguishes them.
• All the shortcuts to multiple tags combined: I don't know why these were added, as they were never needed in the first place. Explicitly stating all of the individual tags is preferable and more clear. These should be orphaned and deleted.

I would like to see a list of all uses of the above tags, so that we can examine whether they are really needed and whether they might be better restated in other terms. —Rua (mew) 12:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Add stative as a verbal aspect

Can someone add stative as a verbal aspect please. It's needed for adjectival verbs in a bunch of languages /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Also dubitative as a verbal mood? /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)