Template talk:de-conj-weak

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

Parameters[edit]

4=e for verbs with stems ending in d/t and 5=t/st for those with s/ß/whatever stems? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You got it. 5 is for s/ß/z, btw. -- Prince Kassad 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what else might fall into there so I just said "whatever" lol... and 6= is for seperable bits? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
correct, 6 is the separable part of separable verbs. -- Prince Kassad 21:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd ps. sg. dropping of s[edit]

"5. The fifth parameter (optional) is t, used only if the second person singular present ends in -t instead of -st. For example, for du büßt"
In older usage the "s" wasn't always dropped, after the e got dropped: "du büßest" also became "du büßst" instead of "du büßt". How should this form be mentioned?
(Of course, not to mention "büßst" is no solution as 1. one might encounter it and then one might look it up here and 2. "Wiktionary [...] aims to describe all words".)
How about something like "du büßt (archaic büßst)" or "du büßt [comma (",") or slash ("/"), and/or linebreak] du büßst (archaic)"? -eXplodit (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

We aim to describe all words, but that only goes as far as having entries for them. We don't have to include them all in inflection tables. —CodeCat 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
+1. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@CodeCat: To say that "büßst" is an (old) inflected form of "büßen" is a part of the description of "büßen". So the descriptions of some words would be incomplete if one doesn't mention (all attestable) inflected forms. This would be in contrary to Wiktionary's aim.
IMHO it would be okey, not to mention (all attestable) inflected forms in entries, if there would be an information page which either should be easy to find (that's unlikely to be the case) or be mentioned in or near the inflection table.
-eXplodit (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC discussion: May 2015[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (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.


Please 'clean up' this incorrect template. Present indicative is "du -[e]st, er -[e]t" and not just "du -st, er -t" (e.g. "lieb[e]st", "lieb[e]t" and not just "du liebst, er liebt").
Exemples of usage:

  • [1]: "Die du liebest ist fern!" (the one you love is far away)
  • [2]: Du liebest mich, ich liebe Dich, / So treu und ganz herzinniglich. (you do love me, and I love you, / ...)

Maybe kind of famous grammar books in which German conjugation is explained:

  • books from Johann Christoph Gottsched
  • Johann Balthasar von Antesperg's Kayserliche Deutsche Grammatick

-93.196.237.158 17:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)