Talk:добыться

RFD discussion: June–July 2018

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

добы́ться (dobýtʹsja), добыва́ться (dobyvátʹsja)

These are pure passives and hence SOP. I can't find any definitions in any dictionaries other than as passives. Benwing2 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(Notifying Atitarev, Cinemantique, KoreanQuoter, Useigor, Wanjuscha, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Per utramque cavernam, Guldrelokk): Benwing2 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Another such pair: регули́роваться (regulírovatʹsja), отрегули́роваться (otregulírovatʹsja). Maybe these should instead be converted into non-lemma forms? Benwing2 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: No, I don't think we should delete reflexive passive verbs, they are considered words in Russian, included in dictionaries and are spelled сли́тно (slítno, “in one word”). Besides, they are not SoP at all - -ся (-sja) is a suffix, not a separate word in Russian. Keep all. It was discussed elsewhere. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev What I mean is that these are properly non-lemma forms and are entirely predictable, much like participles -- every transitive verb can form a passive in -ся/-сь. So IMO passives like this should be listed as non-lemma forms (verb forms rather than verbs). Benwing2 (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Yes, they are predictable but as for non-lemma, not sure. This is then not an RFD discussion. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Kept. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)