Module talk:grc-conj

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

Movable nu[edit]

Forms with movable nu don't show up in search results. Searching e.g. "ἐποίησεν" yields nothing, whereas "ἐποίησε" or "ἐποίησε(ν)" does. I suggest that instead of parentheses fully expanded spelling is used, i.e. "ἐποίησε, ἐποίησεν". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. (Sorry it took so long... for some reason this wasn't on my watchlist.) ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 19:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In irregular verbs like εἶμι (eîmi), can the module be made to recognize the forms with movable nu (ν) such as εἶσι (eîsi) and give a link to the form with movable nu on the nu, as in {{grc-decl}} (for instance, with αἰξῐ́(ν) in αἴξ (aíx)? At the moment, εἶσι(ν) just links to the nonexistent page εἶσι(ν). The alternative is to say εἶσι/εἶσιν (basically as is done in the table in εἰμί (eimí)). — Eru·tuon 22:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, never mind. Per @Ivan Štambuk's comment above, the table should have expanded spelling. — Eru·tuon 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a distinct problem with this, however: certain forms vary in multiple ways. Namely, the perfect active subjunctive 3pl, which can be -ότες ὦσῐ(ν) or -ωσῐ(ν). Similarly, the Epic present active indicative, which may vary between as many as five forms: -ειν, -μεν(αι), -έμεν(αι). This is all to say nothing of the fact that one cannot find λύουσιν by searching anyway, because the form displayed in the inflection table would be λῡ́ουσῐν. Which is why my prescribed solution is to actually make an inflection bot. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 17:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Handling πλέω[edit]

@ObsequiousNewt The template documentation says to use {{grc-conj|pres-con-em|πλ}} and {{grc-conj|imperf-con-em|ἐπλ}} for the present and imperfect of πλέω (pléō), but when I tried to do so I got a module error: diff. Any ideas? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Angr In all honesty, either code it as pres-con-e, or just leave it for now. I'm actually working right now on recoding the entire module (partly because it's kludgy, and partly so I can add diacritic support like in grc-decl.) —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 22:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, from πνέω (pnéō) I learned that what works is {{grc-conj|pres-con-e-mono|πν}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
...That would work. Note to self, put more descriptive error messages in the module. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Dialectal forms of contract verbs[edit]

@JohnC5, I'm so meta even this acronym, Erutuon, Angr, etc: Each major dialect of Ancient Greek basically has its own separate rules for contraction (Epic/Herodotus doesn't contract but uses ευ when it does, or uses assimilated forms; severe Doric uses η/ίο, Æolic uses athematic verbs...) which makes it very hard to display all possible forms in a single table (or even multiple tables, although that's largely a difficulty in programming) and in any case that's a lot of information to be displayed, especially for a class of verbs that is not only productive but probably the most common type in Greek. Given this, I would like to propose that we display only the Attic contracted forms (alongside the uncontracted forms)—anyone who wants a dialectal form is probably knowledgeable enough to be able to derive it from the uncontracted form. If a dialectal form is attested, it would warrant its own page anyway, and therefore the relevant table can be displayed there instead.

Thoughts or alternate proposals? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 20:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I can only comment on Attic and Epic, since I haven't had any experience actually reading Aeolic or Doric, and don't really know the forms.
I personally think the εο > ευ synaeresis should be displayed somewhere. We shouldn't assume the reader is knowledgeable. There are bound to be newbies reading Greek works in Ionic or Epic who don't know all this stuff. I sure hope so, at least. And displaying the synaeretic forms lets someone search Wiktionary and find the right lemma, if there's not an entry on the form.
The "uncontracted" forms are used in Epic and Ionic, and the synaeresis naturally goes along with these forms. It is weird that we don't show it. It wouldn't add too much to the table in, say, ποιέω (poiéō), since εο only occurs in a few forms:
  • ποιεῦμεν, ποιεύντων, ποιεῦμαι, ποιεῦν, ποιεύμενος (-η -ον)
  • (ἐ)ποίευν, (ἐ)ποιεῦμεν, (ἐ)ποιεύμην, (ἐ)ποιεύμεθα, (ἐ)ποιεῦντο
Well, there are quite a few cases in the imperfect, actually. But only a half or a third of the forms in each table can have synaeresis, so it wouldn't add too much height to the table.
I certainly think it would be nice if the inflection tables could be made more readable somehow (I mean, there are so many present and imperfect tables in ποιέω (poiéō)), but not sure how. — Eru·tuon 21:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I say go for it. There are so many present and imperfect tables in ποιέω (poiéō), a few more won't matter. We already have several labeled Doric, Epic, and Ionic. The only other thing I can think of would be to have separate subpages for inflection like de-wikt has for German verbs; then we could have ποιέω/Ionic forms (poiéō/Ionic forms), ποιέω/Doric forms (poiéō/Doric forms), ποιέω/Aeolic forms (poiéō/Aeolic forms), and so on, keeping the main page for the "classical" Attic/Koine forms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: I can add those forms, but adding all of the "assimilated" άω forms would basically require a separate page.
@Angr: For something like ποιέω, perhaps (although the Doric and Ionic forms should probably be on separate pages), but I'm a little more hesitant to do it with, say, μοναυλέω, a typical compound with only one citation in LSJ. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, no, there's no reason to do it for verbs that aren't even attested in the minor dialects. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: I like the idea of having subpages. I was considering the possibility of, say, putting Attic contracted forms at φιλῶ (philô), but that would make it hard for people to find the forms. Best to have them as subpages off the same main page. — Eru·tuon 19:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Contraction[edit]

Seems like the parameter |cform= does the opposite of what it should; in ἀφαιρέω (aphairéō) adding |cform=con to the Koine future ἀφελ- (aphel-) makes the template only display uncontracted forms. — Eru·tuon 22:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The new version of {{grc-conj}} will have cform= folded into form=. I can fix the old one until I get the new version done. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 18:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Parameters for selecting forms displayed[edit]

Is there a way to turn off, say, the non-indicative forms for an aorist iterative like φύγεσκον (phúgeskon)?

For that matter, it would be nice to have a way to simply remove the cells for various moods from a table. Say, a parameter |noshow= that takes two letters: then s for subjunctive, o for optative, c for imperative, i for infinitive, n for participle; then a for active, m for middle, p for passive.

I also wish it were possible to specify just active and passive in |form=. And it would make more sense if the parameters were just a, m, and p, and then you'd just choose from those or the combinations am, mp, and ap. It's weird that active and passive have three-letter abbreviations. while active-middle and middle-passive have two letters. — Eru·tuon 21:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

(Sorry I didn't see this section before.) There is a parameter indonly= for certain aorists (e.g. ἔδωκα), and this can be extended to iteratives. I can add greater customizability of moods, but I know of no reason to. Changing the code of form= is possible, but I am hesitant to do so given the existing standard. What verb has only active and passive aorist? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 17:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Verbs that are transitive and can be passivized, but don't have a distinct middle meaning: for instance, νῑκάω (nīkáō, win), ἔρδω (érdō, do), πέρθω (pérthō, sack). — Eru·tuon 19:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, of course. I will add form=ap. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 19:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! And I'm excited for the updates, whenever they come. — Eru·tuon 20:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Athematic with stem in -υ-[edit]

ῥῡ́ομαι (rhū́omai) has athematic imperfect and present or perfect forms in addition to thematic present and imperfect: for instance, εἰρύαται (eirúatai), ἔρῡσο (érūso). Cunliffe and LSJ disagree on whether the former is present or perfect. I could encode them using the special form parameter, but it would be nice to have a way to generate them with the template. I think there are other verbs like this, but I can't remember them at the moment. — Eru·tuon 22:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any other verb that conjugates quite like ἔρυμαι, unless the conjugation is identical to verbs in -νυμι. I suspect the prudent course of action will be to manually write an incomplete table. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I went with creating tables with tons of different stem forms and manually entering the divergent ones. Not sure if LSJ and Cunliffe give enough forms to manually create an incomplete table or not. — Eru·tuon 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Parameter prefix= not working[edit]

@ObsequiousNewt: The prefix= parameter isn't working at προσεῖπον. Even though I've specified prefix=προσ, the module is still throwing the stress onto the initial syllable in the lines where the augment is contracted with the root-initial vowel. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Angr Fixed. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Uncontracted o-stems?[edit]

@ObsequiousNewt: {{grc-conj|pres-con-o|...}} and {{grc-conj|imperf-con-o|...}} show only the contracted forms, not the uncontracted ones. Is that on purpose? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Smyth just answered my question: "Verbs in -οω never appear in their uncontracted forms in any author." Never mind! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
However, that being the case, shouldn't we lemmatize the contracted form, e.g. shouldn't the lemma be κοινῶ (koinô) rather than κοινόω (koinóō)?
Dictionaries always (well, except [sometimes] in the case of ζῶ and a few others) cite by uncontracted form. This is of course preferable since otherwise κοινῶ is ambiguous. Smyth says that the verbs always contract; Buck says that ο+ο "regularly contracts" but does mention that uncontracted ο+ε exists. Pharr (§944) says "These verbs [referring to all of them] may be contracted as indicated above, and are regularly so contracted in later classical Greek." He doesn't mention any special treatment of ο-contracts. He does however mention the existence of gen. sg. -οο. ObſequiousNewtGeſpꝛaͤchBeÿtraͤge 21:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of lemmatizing the contracted forms, but it is problematic for the reason that ObsequiousNewt states. It would be possible to lemmatize contracted forms if we switched to the infinitive (this is what my St Andrews Attic vocabulary does). With the infinitive, we would have τῑμᾶν (tīmân), ποιεῖν (poieîn), and κοινοῦν (koinoûn). I like the idea because it would show that the contracted forms are the default in the most important dialects (Attic and Koine), but since Wiktionary already has the first-singular lemmatized, it would require a huge amount of work. — Eru·tuon 22:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I really meant only lemmatizing the contracted form in the case of -όω verbs, since the uncontracted forms are (if Smyth is right) purely hypothetical. In the -άω and -έω verbs, the uncontracted forms are attested, so the lemma can remain uncontracted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Auxiliary verbs in perfect mediopassive subjunctive/optative[edit]

@Erutuon, JohnC5, ObsequiousNewt: The forms of the auxiliary verb in the perfect mediopassive subjunctive and optative now link to the corresponding participle instead of to the verb form itself. For example, at αἰνέω, the 1st singular perfect mediopassive subjunctive ᾐμημένος ὦ is linked as [[ᾐμημένος]] [[ᾐμημένος|ὦ]] instead of as [[ᾐμημένος]] [[ὦ]]. Is that intentional? Is it a good idea? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

ὄλλυμι etc.[edit]

@Erutuon, JohnC5, ObsequiousNewt: Would it be possible to modify |pres-numi and |imperf-numi to change the ν to λ when the preceding consonant is λ? That would allow us to add the present and imperfect of ὄλλυμι and its compounds. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on code[edit]

@ObsequiousNewt: I have a number of questions on the code, and I will post them here rather than commenting on the code. What do pstem, ctable, and pctable stand for? — Eru·tuon 20:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Third plural perfect mediopassive indicative forms[edit]

{{grc-conj|perf||γεγελᾰσ|form=mp}} generates γεγελᾰ́σᾰται; {{grc-conj-perfect-σ||||γεγέλα|γεγελά|γεγελα|form=mp}} generates γεγελασμένοι εἰσί. Which is right? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, there's a discrepancy between {{grc-conj|perf||τεθαπ|form=mp}} and {{grc-conj-perfect-labial||||τέθα|τεθά|τεθα|form=mp}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Pluperfects too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Dialect parameter[edit]

The dialect (|dial=) parameter does not work as I would expect it to. |dial=att or |dial=koi should make {{grc-conj}} display (Attic) and (Koine) as the titleapp text, and cause the table to only have contracted forms, because uncontracted forms are never used in Attic or Koine.

For instance, {{grc-conj|pres-con-a|form=mid|θε|dial=att}} displays the following:

Eru·tuon 18:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Aorist Ιnfinitive of κωλύω[edit]

The aorist active infinitive of κωλύω (kōlúō) should have a circumflex accent over the 2nd syllable in the stem κωλῦσαι, rather than the spurious form listed with an accute accent over the first syllable (*κώλῡσαι). {{grc-conj-aorist-1|ἐκώλῡσ|ἐκωλύσ|ἐκωλῡσ|κωλύσ|κωλῡσ|κώλῡσ|ἐκωλύθ|ἐκωλῡθ|κωλῡθ|κωλύθ|PC2S=κωλύθητῐ}}

  • Fixed; thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Epic first-person plural middle ending[edit]

When |dial=epi is set, the first-person plural middle ending (all tenses except perfect) shows up as "με(σ)θᾰ(σ)θᾰ" instead of "με(σ)θᾰ", and the link doesn't behave as desired. For example, at ἔδω, the first-person plural middle active indicative displays as "ἐδόμε(σ)θᾰ(σ)θᾰ" and links thus: [[ἐδόμε(σ)θαθα|ἐδόμε(σ)θᾰ]]([[ἐδόμε(σ)θασθα|σ]])[[ἐδόμε(σ)θαθα|θᾰ]]. Instead, it should display as "ἐδόμε(σ)θᾰ" and link as [[ἐδόμεθα|ἐδόμε]]([[ἐδόμεσθα|σ]])[[ἐδόμεθα|θᾰ]]. Can anyone fix this? It seems to be happening in the "-- Epic forms (not in Buck)" section of the main Module:grc-conj page (not the /data subpage, surprisingly enough), but I don't understand Lua so I can't fix it myself. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Angr: Fixed. The problem was in the linking function: Module:grc-accent was outputting a form with combining diacritics in ἐδόμε(σ)θᾰ (alpha + combining breve), while the search-and-replace function to find the stem was using the composed form of , so it never found the stem and just added -σθᾰ and -θᾰ to the "stem" ἐδόμε(σ)θᾰ. Simple but took me a while to figure out because the combined and uncombined letters look identical. — Eru·tuon 18:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Glad you found it! It's odd, because on ordinary pages, even if you type alpha + combining breve in the edit box, it's automatically converted to precomposed alpha-breve. But apparently that isn't true within module code. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)