Module talk:ru-common

The iotation or interchange of consonants

I've changed the line

stem = mw.ustring.gsub(stem, "д$", "жд")

to

stem = mw.ustring.gsub(stem, "д$", "ж")

As is the common interchange in the conjugation, e.g. бредить -> брежу. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing a line, "ё" should not be replaced with "е"

Removing a line. This shouldn't happen. Russian header words also use "ё".

-- Change ё to е
word = mw.ustring.gsub(word, "ё", "е")

If this is used for another puprose - sorting, then their should be a similar function with this line above.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's done because if a word has an ё in it, and you want to make it unstressed, then it has to become е. Say for example that you have a module that receives a verb stem where sometimes the stem is stressed, sometimes the ending. If the stem is stressed, it should either contain an accent or have an ё. But if the ending is stressed, then the stem should not contain any ё's or accents. If this is removed from this module, then the following will happen:

• A module receives a stressed stem.
• The module needs to add some stressed endings, so it removes the accents from the stem.
• Because ё is no longer removed, there are now two stressed vowels in the word.

—CodeCat 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. The verb module hasn't using this part of function yet. It actually creates a small issue - when a link of inflected forms instead of e.g. берёт will link to берет. For verbs where "ё" alternates with "е" in the stem, like нёс/несла́ (нести), I'll make a similar function with this alteration, so that transliteration and inflection call different functions. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

One could be called remove_accents, the other could be make_unstressed. remove_accents only removes accents, make_unstressed also converts ё. —CodeCat 12:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. "make_unstressed" will only be used in "make_table" function. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It could also be used in future modules for nouns and adjectives. —CodeCat 13:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to make the verb module as comprehensive as possible, hopefully to include of all irregularities, eventually all existing verb entries can be converted but current noun and adjective templates are much simpler to use than old verb templates and we have already many thousand entries, so I'm not sure, I want to work on that, at least at the moment. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you switched them around accidentally. Removing accents should not remove ё, but making a word or form unstressed should remove it. —CodeCat 13:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, yes. I'll have change back and do a lot of replacements in the test module. "make_unstressed" is currently only used once. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

main function to call other functions directly

Testing removing accent function called directly. Remove accents from "желе́зная доро́га" by using "{{#invoke:ru-common|main|remove_accents|желе́зная доро́га}}", result: железная дорога --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Letter "ё" in the pre-1918 reform orthography and in the English Wiktionary

@Benwing2, Cinemantique, Useigor, Fay Freak, Tetromino Letter "ё" in the pre-1918 reform spellings and inflections is denied status but is used in displays. For example, if you compare modern and pre-reform inflections of трясти́ (trjastí), then you'll see that трясёшь (trjasjóšʹ) is linked to трясешь (trjasešʹ) in the pre-reform declension. We also use special symbols for forms like гнѣ̈зда (gnjǒ́zda), plural of гнѣздо́ (gnězdó) in the declension, which is fine.

I wonder if this is right to replace "ё" with "е" in the pre-reform spellings. Yes, "ё" was used even less before 1918 but already had a status and was accepted. I think as a dictionary, we should use the normalised spellings. Maybe we should use "ё" without removing it from the links and consider, for example самолётъ (samoljót) (with ё) the pre-reform spelling of modern самолёт (samoljót) and treat самолетъ (samolet) the same way we treat самолет (samolet), i.e. Category:Russian spellings with е instead of ё? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev This is fine with me, I've never liked the different handling of ё in pre-reform declensions. Benwing2 (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Thanks. Pls change it when you have a chance. I also wonder if inflected forms could be automatically labelled (without {{lb}}) differently (if they differ from the modern spelling) and are auto-created (accelerated) from the "old" tables. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I think that can be done. How would be suggest labeling the inflected forms? Do you mean a footnote in the tables where the pre-reform forms differ from the modern ones, or some sort of label attached to entries for non-lemma forms? Benwing2 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Let's compare Россі́я (Rossíja) and гнѣ̈зда (gnjǒ́zda) I have just created. What can be done to add (obsolete) Pre-1918 spelling to the definition line? Or the headword itself (also missing at Россі́я (Rossíja)). Whatever is not terribly complicated, I guess. Footnotes may be good as well. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I played a little with дѣ́ти (dě́ti) (not perfect), which is a form of both modern and old lemmas. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I see. Yes, that's possible. Benwing2 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)