Template talk:es-conj-ir (abolir)
Change in status as a defective verb[edit]
The Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas (here) says the following concerning the verb abolir:
‘Derogar [una ley, precepto o costumbre]’. Aunque tradicionalmente se ha considerado verbo defectivo, ya que solían usarse solo las formas cuya desinencia empieza por i, hoy se documentan, y se consideran válidas, el resto de las formas de la conjugación: «Se abole la pena de muerte» (VV. AA. Grupo [Esp. 2001]); «Los nuevos poderes abolen la soledad por decreto» (Paz Laberinto [Méx. 1950-59]). Como se ve en los ejemplos, es verbo regular: abolo, aboles, etc., y no abuelo, abueles, etc.
- TRANSLATION:
- "To repeal [a law, rule or custom]". Although it has traditionally been considered a defective verb since we used to use only those forms whose ending started with -i-, today all the other forms of the conjugation are documented and are considered valid: «Se abole la pena de muerte» (The death penalty is being abolished); «Los nuevos poderes abolen la soledad por decreto» (The new powers abolish loneliness by decree) (Paz Laberinto [Mex. 1950-59]). As you can see in the examples, it is a regular verb: abolo, aboles, etc., and not *abuelo, *abueles, and so on. —Stephen (Talk) 16:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (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.
Is this necessary? According to Spanish Wiktionary, abolir is entirely regular. Esszet (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- After doing some research, I've found that the RAE is not entirely clear as to whether abolir is a defective verb or not: according to the Diccionario de la lengua española, it is, but according to the Diccionario panhispánico de dudas, it used to be but no longer is. I'll send them an e-mail once their contact service is back up (it's disabled until Monday). Esszet (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I think this entry for the conjugation of "Abolir" should not be deleted but marked as "colloquial" and not "RAE approved" which defines this verb as defective.(defectiveness rendered mute)
The only reason this verb is defective is because of the lack of a consensus on how to conjugate it, not because of a logical impossibility.
None the less if supposed conjugation are called here upon; five possible verbal templates could be called forth.
I'll make example of the present, past historic and present subjunctive tenses of each since the other verbal tenses can be deduced from it:
I HAVE PLACED MY DEFINITE NOMINATION AT THE BOTTOM
FIRST possible conjugational paradigm,
by making it analogous to "poder" (to be able to)
I think of this template as very objectionable the least fit one of all.
PRESENT TIME (1.1)
1st person singular "abuelo"
2nd person singular "abueles"
3rd person singular "abuele"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abuelen"
PAST HISTORIC (1.1)
1st person singular "abolí"
2nd person singular "aboliste"
3rd person singular "abolió"
1st person plural "abolímos"
2nd person plural "abolísteis"
3rd person plural "abolieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE (1.1)
1st person singular "abuela"
2nd person singular "abuelas"
3rd person singular "abuela"
1st person plural "abolamos"
2nd person plural "aboláis"
3rd person plural "abuelan"
The problem with the above conjugational analogy is the striking homophony with the word
"abuelo" (grandfather)
and "abuela" (grandmother)
which actually if this conjugational model is followed, the form
"abuela"would arise in the present subjunctive and mean alternately "were he, she or it to abolish at this present time" and "were I to abolish at this present time",
also "abuelas" which means "grandmothers" would mean "were you (thou) to abolish at this present time".
For these reasons I think of this template as very objectionable the least fit one of all.
SECOND possible conjugational paradigm,
by making it analogous to "tener" (to possess)
PRESENT TIME (2.1)
1st person singular "abolgo"
2nd person singular "abueles"
3rd person singular "abuele"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abuelen"
PAST HISTORIC (2.1)
1st person singular "abule"
2nd person singular "abuliste"
3rd person singular "abulo"
1st person plural "abulímos"
2nd person plural "abulísteis"
3rd person plural "abulieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE (2.1)
1st person singular "abolga"
2nd person singular "abolgas"
3rd person singular "abolga"
1st person plural "abolgamos"
2nd person plural "abolgáis"
3rd person plural "abolgan"
The above template doesn't have the homophony problems of the former and would theoretically be much fitter than the former template.
Though Spanish euphonic patterns would weaken the tonic "o" vowel thusly:
PRESENT TIME (2.2)
1st person singular "abulgo"
2nd person singular "abueles"
3rd person singular "abuele"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abuelen"
PAST HISTORIC (2.2)
1st person singular "abule"
2nd person singular "abuliste"
3rd person singular "abulo"
1st person plural "abulímos"
2nd person plural "abulísteis"
3rd person plural "abulieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE (2.2)
1st person singular "abulga"
2nd person singular "abulgas"
3rd person singular "abulga"
1st person plural "abolgamos"
2nd person plural "abolgáis"
3rd person plural "abulgan"
The above template (2.2) would arguably be along with (3.2) the fittest within the five possible paradigms.
THIRD possible conjugational paradigm,
If the irregularity of the second template's past historic were to be a problem then it could be conjugated
by making it analogous to: "salir" (to exit)
Which would be exactly like the former one, including the euphonic weakening of the tonic "o" vowel, with the exception of a regular historic past. Like so:
PRESENT TIME (3.1)
1st person singular "abolgo"
2nd person singular "abueles"
3rd person singular "abuele"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolis"
3rd person plural "abuelen"
PAST HISTORIC (3.1)
1st person singular "abolí"
2nd person singular "aboliste"
3rd person singular "abolió"
1st person plural "abolímos"
2nd person plural "abolísteis"
3rd person plural "abolieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE (3.1)
1st person singular "abolga"
2nd person singular "abolgas"
3rd person singular "abolga"
1st person plural "abolgamos"
2nd person plural "abolgáis"
3rd person plural "abolgan"
PRESENT TIME (3.2)
1st person singular "abulgo"
2nd person singular "abueles"
3rd person singular "abuele"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abuelen"
PAST HISTORIC (3.2)
1st person singular "abolí"
2nd person singular "aboliste"
3rd person singular "abolió"
1st person plural "abolímos"
2nd person plural "abolísteis"
3rd person plural "abolieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE (3.2)
1st person singular "abulga"
2nd person singular "abulgas"
3rd person singular "abulga"
1st person plural "abolgamos"
2nd person plural "abolgáis"
3rd person plural "abulgan"
In general I deem (3.2) just as fit as (2.2).
I would argue for the dual alternate past historic both regular and irregular as many verbs already do.
FOURTH possible conjugational paradigm,
by making it analogous to "comer" (to eat)
This template is cacophonic and ambiguous
PRESENT TIME (4.1)
1st person singular "abolo"
2nd person singular "aboles"
3rd person singular "abole"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abolen"
PAST HISTORIC (4.1)
1st person singular "abolí"
2nd person singular "aboliste"
3rd person singular "abolió"
1st person plural "abolímos"
2nd person plural "abolísteis"
3rd person plural "abolieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE (4.1)
1st person singular "abola"
2nd person singular "abolas"
3rd person singular "abola"
1st person plural "abolamos"
2nd person plural "aboláis"
3rd person plural "abolan"
The above template aside from being most cacophonic
would in the present and present subjunctive tenses give to the notion of "to make ball-like" from the hypothetical but perfectly understandable verb "abolar" "to make ball-like" since "bola" means "ball, round mass, sphere".
FIFTH possible conjugational paradigm,
by making it analogous to "poner" (to place down)
PRESENT TIME (5.1)
1st person singular "abolgo"
2nd person singular "aboles"
3rd person singular "abole"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abolen"
PAST HISTORIC (5.1)
1st person singular "abule"
2nd person singular "abuliste"
3rd person singular "abulo"
1st person plural "abulímos"
2nd person plural "abulísteis"
3rd person plural "abulieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE (5.1)
1st person singular "abolga"
2nd person singular "abolgas"
3rd person singular "abolga"
1st person plural "abolgamos"
2nd person plural "abolgáis"
3rd person plural "abolgan"
This template isn't that objectionable but in the present tense it would partly also give to the notion of "to make ball-like"; and I reiterate; from the hypothetical but perfectly understandable verb "abolar" "to make ball-like" since "bola" means "ball, round mass, sphere".
- We don't really comment on what other dictionaries write, as there as so many of them! Name one dictionary that comments that another dictionary has an entry or has no entry. Also, your comment its pretty much unreadable. Also, is anything being nominated for deletion here? Move to RFC? Move to Talk:abolir, even. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
User_Gesælig Æsc : The conjugational template for the verb was nominated for deletion, probably because there is no consensus on how to conjugate it and is regarded as a defective verb though it can technically be conjugated as I have shown above within many verbal paradigms but a consensus is needed, I find (2.2) and (3.2) the fittest, which are basically one paradigm with an alternate dual historic past.
User_Gesælig Æsc :
DEFINITE NOMINATION
In conclusion I'll argue for the following conjugational template not only the fittest but completely unambiguous, most euphonic and completely analogical with Spanish verbal paradigms:
As with every verb with dual or multiple forms, which one to use and stick to, is left to the discretion and preference of the speaker.
Optimum verbal paradigm of ABOLIR
PRESENT TIME
1st person singular "abulgo"
2nd person singular "abueles"
3rd person singular "abuele"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abuelen"
PAST HISTORIC
1st person singular "abule" and dually along with "abolí"
2nd person singular "abuliste" and dually along with "aboliste"
3rd person singular "abulo" and dually along with "abolió"
1st person plural "abulímos" and dually along with "abolímos"
2nd person plural "abulísteis" and dually along with "abolísteis"
3rd person plural "abulieron" and dually along with "abolieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE
1st person singular "abulga"
2nd person singular "abulgas"
3rd person singular "abulga"
1st person plural "abolgamos"
2nd person plural "abolgáis"
3rd person plural "abulgan"
- So... you're arguing for a keep, right? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
User_Gesælig Æsc:
I am sorry Renard Migrant I don't really know what you mean by "keep" in that context.
But if you mean that the verbal paradigm I placed as my definite nomination is the one that definitely should be kept for usage then I would have to agree.
PRESENT TIME
1st person singular "abulgo"
2nd person singular "abueles"
3rd person singular "abuele"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abuelen"
PAST HISTORIC
1st person singular "abule" and dually along with "abolí"
2nd person singular "abuliste" and dually along with "aboliste"
3rd person singular "abulo" and dually along with "abolió"
1st person plural "abulímos" and dually along with "abolímos"
2nd person plural "abulísteis" and dually along with "abolísteis"
3rd person plural "abulieron" and dually along with "abolieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE
1st person singular "abulga"
2nd person singular "abulgas"
3rd person singular "abulga"
1st person plural "abolgamos"
2nd person plural "abolgáis"
3rd person plural "abulgan"
- I've just heard back from the RAE, and they said that the Diccionario de la lengua española's latest edition, which was published in 2014 and isn't available online yet, recognizes that abolir is no longer defective:
abolir. (Del lat. abolēre. ♦ U. m. las formas cuya desinencia empieza por -i). tr. Derogar, dejar sin vigencia una ley, precepto, costumbre, etc.
- As for the correct conjugation of the forms that may diphthongize or otherwise, they also gave me a selection from Nueva gramática de la lengua española, and it says:
Su conjugación es regular, no sujeta, por tanto, a diptongación (yo abolo, no *yo abuelo).
- Therefore, the template is entirely unnecessary and should be deleted. Esszet (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- The regular conjugation is in cases such as this no more than just an uncreative default resort, not always an optimum one, the RAE's wish to Latinise Spanish rejecting patrimonial qualities in the alleged interest of global comprehension of the Castilian tongue is ludicrous.
- Verbs, specially a verb that has so recently become no longer defective ought not be subject to a default conjugation when there are other far more elegant conjugational paradigms this verb can follow, which if I may say so are only rejected for being patrimonial.
- Besides like I mentioned above "abolo" sounds more like "I make ball-like" than it ever does "I abolish"
- This conjugation template makes perfect analogy with "tener" and "salir" and does not deviate from the conjugational patterns Spanish verbs follow.
- At the very least, this verbal paradigm is an alternative.
- As most Castilian speakers know the RAE is wildly assuming and rejective of whatever deviates from making Castilian more like Latin.
- If it were for the RAE, all languages of the Iberian peninsula would be classified as dialects of Castilian under the name of Spanish, that's why as you may have noticed I switched from saying Spanish to Castilian.
- If ever proof should be called upon, one ought but to look at the patrimonial irregular conjugation patterns other tongues have followed in the Iberian peninsula for the same verb. It is only natural and dignifying that Castilian should embrace it's equivalent, many verbs have completely dual conjugations and I never knew a person who having Castilian as their mother tongue couldn't understand a completely irregular conjugation even were it ever unheard by them.
PRESENT TIME
1st person singular "abulgo"
2nd person singular "abueles"
3rd person singular "abuele"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abuelen"
PAST HISTORIC
1st person singular "abule" and dually along with "abolí"
2nd person singular "abuliste" and dually along with "aboliste"
3rd person singular "abulo" and dually along with "abolió"
1st person plural "abulímos" and dually along with "abolímos"
2nd person plural "abulísteis" and dually along with "abolísteis"
3rd person plural "abulieron" and dually along with "abolieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE
1st person singular "abulga"
2nd person singular "abulgas"
3rd person singular "abulga"
1st person plural "abolgamos"
2nd person plural "abolgáis"
3rd person plural "abulgan"
Gesælig Æsc (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is no "real" consensus on this verb's paradigm, most people don't know this verb is no longer defective. I am merely hypothesising all possible conjugational paradigms and trying to argue about how this one is best among all possibilities. For reasons of unambiguity and euphony. Anyone trying to conjugate the verb will choose any of the five possibilities. I my self have only heard people leaning towards the FIRST one; on the other side the RAE has decided that the verb should be assigned a regular paradigm represented in the FOURTH one. I my self lean towards the SECOND and THIRD with a euphonic weakening of the tonic vowel "o" in the likes of the verb "podrir" (to rot).
Gesælig Æsc (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
In as much of what I have been made aware:
PEOPLE tend to make ABOLIR analogous to verbs such like "poder" (to be able to), "soler" (to do usually) and "doler" (to pain).
PRESENT TIME (1.1)
1st person singular "abuelo"
2nd person singular "abueles"
3rd person singular "abuele"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abuelen"
PAST HISTORIC (1.1)
1st person singular "abolí"
2nd person singular "aboliste"
3rd person singular "abolió"
1st person plural "abolímos"
2nd person plural "abolísteis"
3rd person plural "abolieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE (1.1)
1st person singular "abuela"
2nd person singular "abuelas"
3rd person singular "abuela"
1st person plural "abolamos"
2nd person plural "aboláis"
3rd person plural "abuelan"
The RAE says ABOLIR ought to be made analogous to "comer" (to eat), "beber" (to drink) and "romper" (to break).
PRESENT TIME (4.1)
1st person singular "abolo"
2nd person singular "aboles"
3rd person singular "abole"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abolen"
PAST HISTORIC (4.1)
1st person singular "abolí"
2nd person singular "aboliste"
3rd person singular "abolió"
1st person plural "abolímos"
2nd person plural "abolísteis"
3rd person plural "abolieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE (4.1)
1st person singular "abola"
2nd person singular "abolas"
3rd person singular "abola"
1st person plural "abolamos"
2nd person plural "aboláis"
3rd person plural "abolan"
I personally lean towards making ABOLIR analogous to "poner" (to put down), "tener" (to have) and "valer" (to be worth)
PRESENT TIME
1st person singular "abulgo"
2nd person singular "abueles"
3rd person singular "abuele"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abuelen"
PAST HISTORIC
1st person singular "abule" and dually along with "abolí"
2nd person singular "abuliste" and dually along with "aboliste"
3rd person singular "abulo" and dually along with "abolió"
1st person plural "abulímos" and dually along with "abolímos"
2nd person plural "abulísteis" and dually along with "abolísteis"
3rd person plural "abulieron" and dually along with "abolieron"
PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE
1st person singular "abulga"
2nd person singular "abulgas"
3rd person singular "abulga"
1st person plural "abolgamos"
2nd person plural "abolgáis"
3rd person plural "abulgan"
Well, since the RAE is the official authority on the Spanish language, it would be best to make their preferred conjugation the ‘official’ one (at least here) and include a footnote that says that other conjugations of ‘abolir’ (especially abuelo, abueles, etc.) are common in colloquial speech. We're not supposed to try to change languages, only index them. If you'd like to discuss this further, the discussion should probably be moved to the tea room; otherwise, for the reasons outlined above, I say delete. Esszet (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
{{look}}
- Keep for now. If this really should be deleted, let someone nominate this anew, and let's hope the discussion will not be dominated by multi-page typographical salad. As for "RAE is the official authority", what do we care: we are a descriptivist dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, this is an unreadable 'discussion' by the way. Keep mostly per Esszet, who is the only person but wants to delete but makes a watertight argument for keeping also. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Kept for now, without prejudice to a new discussion being opened because no one seemed to have strong feelings in this discussion, except the user whose walls of text took it over. As Renard notes, Esszet seems to make a case for keeping this: if multiple conjugations are possible, then we benefit from a table that could list all of them, or whatever ones may not be listed by the "regular conjugation" table. - -sche (discuss) 02:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)