Talk:δίδωμι

@ObsequiousNewt: |indonly= seems to be malfunctioning here in the aorist, yielding [[Category:|ΔΙΔΩΜΙ]]. — Eru·tuon 16:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Fixed. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 18:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Conjugation tables

Automated conjugation tables aren't appropriate for such an irregular verb, and I'm sure there are inexistant forms in there. For example, we build a complete table from the 1st person aorist active indicative ἔδωκα (édōka), which isn't a good idea. Only the singular forms ἔδωκα–ἔδωκας–ἔδωκε are common; the plural ἐδώκαμεν–ἐδώκατε–ἔδωκαν are very rare, and ἔδομεν–ἔδοτε–ἔδοσαν are the usual forms. Conversely, the singular forms without kappa are very rare. For the middle voice, my grammar doesn't even give forms with kappa (the same goes for τίθημι~ἔθηκα and ἵημι~ἧκα, btw). Also, the way we do that means that we have no synchronically consistent complete paradigm: there are Epic/Ionic forms peppered amongst Attic ones, and the reader is left to choose among them. @Erutuon, JohnC5, any thought? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: The conjugation tables are very flexible, so isolated forms can be added in to a table otherwise showing the usual forms. And really, anything attested at all can (and should) be listed, not just the common forms. If ἐδώκαμεν–ἐδώκατε–ἔδωκαν are attested at all, they should be there. A note can be added to the table indicating that they're rare. And if the κ forms are attested only in the active, we can add a parameter form=act to the template to suppress the middle. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Angr: Fair enough. I also think that all attested forms should be listed, but the way it's currently done gives every form an identical "weight"; that's what's bothering me. Adding usage notes would be an improvement, but I find that solution rather cumbersome. I'd still like to show in a single table a "synchronically consistent" paradigm (by that I mean essentially the Attic paradigm, the one most people are looking for), which is the way it's usually done in grammars, where other forms are given as an "aside". It would also take account of suppletion cases (not relevant here, but very much so for a verb like ὁράω). --Barytonesis (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Angr: after a little musing, I finally agree that our current conjugation tables should be kept as is, as their exhaustivity makes them very useful to those who read texts. But I also maintain that we should add in a separate table this "synchronically consistent" paradigm I've been talking about, which would be aimed to another kind of users: those who wish to write in/translate to Ancient Greek (who are currently left to choose between a mountain of forms). --Barytonesis (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)