Template talk:la-noun

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

For use as the tag-line under the header of a Latin noun. The current five oparameters are as listed below. It would be ideal to reduce this to four parameters (see below), and if this change is made, this section will need revision or replacement. --EncycloPetey 04:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

{{{1}}} = dictionary header form with macrons; note that the page name may not include these.

{{{2}}} = genitive (singular) form, without macrons, to link to the entry page for that form

{{{3}}} = genitive (singular) form, with macrons, to show the dictionary form

{{{4}}} = gender of the noun, usually m, f, or n

{{{5}}} = Latin declension of the noun, which will identify the pattern of declension and link to a page of forms (eg "first", "second", etc)

Specifications for the ideal template[edit]

I've been giving a lot of thought as to what this template should do and look like. I don't have the skill to write the template myself, so for la-noun I'm writing up the specifications. Please put comments below the sections of specifications, rather than among them. --EncycloPetey 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Parameters[edit]

There should ideally be four parameters instead of the current five. See B through D below under "needs of the template".

(1) - nominative singular form with macrons
(2) - genitive ending for standard set, OR the full genitive singular
(3) - gender (m, f, n, c = m & f)
(4) - declension (first, second, ..., fifth, BUT see existing templates)

Needs of the template[edit]

A - display nominative singular form (1) in bold
B - recognize standard genitive endings in (2) and attach them correctly to (1) ELSE use the full genitive singular form given
C - take resulting genitive form from B and create a form stripped of macrons
D - display genitive form (with macrons) in bold, but linked to page name without macrons
E - identify the gender (3)
F - link to the appropriate declension page using (4)

Examples[edit]

Here are some same inputs and outputs, including the most common genitive form endings so that whoever writes the code will know how to handle them. The first key point is that if parameter (2) is not one of the standard set, the code should assume that (2) is the full genitive form. The second key is that the display form and link form of the genitive are different. Standard dictionary and textbook forms contain macrons, but we have chose to have the names of entry pages lack such macrons, since written Latin does not actually include these markings. Each genitive must therefore be dealt with in two forms, and I'd rather not have to enter a form with and a form without macrons. Macrons occur only over vowels, as: ā, ē, ī, ō, ū and over y (both in capital and lowwer case.

Some Latin entries in Wiktionary use breves (eg ă). These are not standard in most Latin dictionaries, and are not currently found in the Latin/Roman section of the edit tool. We may choose to not use them in Latin, but the tool should be able to handle these without going haywire.

Examples with standard genitive forms to be accomodated[edit]

Below are examples of what I would like the input and corresponding output to look like for this template. All of these examples are standard constructions of common regular forms. The template (3) information follows what a standard Latin dictionary would give, so having it as the accepted input will be intuitive for those familiar with Latin.

One additional feature that won't be obvious unless you look at the markup up the text below is that #Latin is used to link the genitive. While many, or even most of these words will appear only in Latin, there are Latin words which occur in derivative languages like Spanish, Italian, and French. It would be nice to be certain that the link goes to the appropriate language instead of simply linking to the right page.

There is really just one way that the first declension genitive is formed, and two for the second declension. There is a wide variety in the third declension.

{{la-noun|lacūna|ae|f|first}}

Desired output:
lacūna (genitive lacūnae) f, first declension

{{la-noun|equus|ī|m|second}}

Desired output:
equus (genitive equī) m, second declension

{{la-noun|oleum|ī|n|second}}

Desired output:
oleum (genitive oleī) n, second declension

{{la-noun|expīlātor|ōris|m|third}}

Desired output:
expīlātor (genitive expīlātōris) m, third declension

{{la-noun|stercus|oris|n|third}}

Desired output:
stercus (genitive stercoris) n, third declension

{{la-noun|dēbilitās|ātis|f|third}}

Desired output:
dēbilitās (genitive dēbilitātis) f, third declension

{{la-noun|cōnsitiō|ōnis|f|third}}

Desired output:
cōnsitiō (genitive cōnsitiōnis) f, third declension

{{la-noun|cīvis|is|c|third}}

Desired output:
cīvis (genitive cīvis) c, third declension

{{la-noun|strāgēs|is|f|third}}

Desired output:
strāgēs (genitive strāgis) f, third declension

{{la-noun|partus|ūs|n|fourth}}

Desired output:
partus (genitive partūs) n, fourth declension


Irregular and unusual genitive forms[edit]

These are examples of odd and irregular entries. They should be easy to handle; the length of the list makes it look harder than it will probably be. I simply wanted to include a sufficient number of test examples.

{{la-noun|stīpes|stīpitis|m|third}}

Desired output:
stīpes (genitive stīpitis) m, third declension

{{la-noun|īnsīgne|īnsīgnis|n|third}}

Desired output:
īnsīgne (genitive īnsīgnis) n, third declension

{{la-noun|strēnuitās|strēnuitātis|f|third}}

Desired output:
strēnuitās (genitive strēnuitātis) f, third declension

{{la-noun|iūdex|iūdicis|c|third}}

Desired output:
iūdex (genitive iūdicis) c, third declension

{{la-noun|sūs|suis|c|third}}

Desired output:
sūs (genitive suis) c, third declension

Special cases[edit]

I would also like the template to work when the person entering the word is uncertain of the declension and leaves that parameter out, as:

{{la-noun|lībāmenta|ōrum|n}}

Desired output:
lībāmenta (genitive lībāmentōrum) n

And also to handle nouns that are indeclinable:

{{la-noun|nihil|-|n}}

Desired output:
nihil (indeclinable) n

As well as nouns that are exclusively singular (eg aurum), or exclusively plural (eg nūptiae). The key difference here is that if the template normally spouts genitive or singular genitive, it needs to have the option to note that the given genitive is plural because there is no singular.

{{la-noun|nūptiae|nūptiārum|f|first|plural}}

Desired output:
nūptiae (genitive nūptiārum) f, first declension, plural only

There are also words like filius that have more than one genitive form. The input is less certain here, but the output is.

{{la-noun|filius|filiī|f|first|g2=filī}} (the exact form for the input is not fixed)

Desired output:
filius (genitive filiī or filī) m, second declension

There are also some Latin words that consist of two parts, as in English. The template should have a means for handling these.

Additional nicetites[edit]

It would be nice to have an optional parameter (5) that would identify the sub-type of declension. But that can wait.

My comments / view[edit]

First of all, I'd like to notice that I appreciate the work on the template. Latin could use some work on the Wiktionary, especially with various conflicting forms of words provided, not to mention entries like TAVRVS which I've encountered (and fixed, or at least some of them, I hope).

However, I'd like to present an alternative view on the template - based on the "dictionary form" of Latin, that is, rather than using the form (genitive something), the genitive form could be listed after a comma, thus:

mater, matris f (third declension)

Alternatively, the genitive could actually link to the declension.

mater, matris f

I don't see much point in creating separate entries for genitives, as you could as well create them for nominative plurals or any of the other cases.

The above form also allows for a shortening in regular cases, e.g.

porta, -ae f

Of course, that's just my subjective view at the whole thing (but that form more closely resembles forms provided in traditional scholastic materials and Latin dictionaries). Some thoughts would be nice to hear.

Second of all, are there any plans for changing the template according to this talk page? Because I have actually introduced this template to several entries, and I guess I should refrain from doing so if in the near future, the number of arguments is going to change, for example. The above was posted by User:Filip on 28 August 2006

The (genitive something) form was chosen to mirror the standard form of other templates. However, there is on-going work being done to make the display form customizable via a user's monobook. Once the necessary code has been added, any of the above suggested forms should be selectable according to personal preference.
The philosophy of Wiktionary is all words in all languages, which includes plurals, genitives, and all the other possible forms. In English, there is already a drive to add plurals, third-person singulars of verbs, comparatives of adjectives and the like. I haven't tried to add alternative forms for most Latin words yet, but the principal reason is that I want to get the basics of lemmata forms settled before tackling non-lemmata forms. You might like to look at Wiktionary:About Latin, which I have started writing as a guide to entering Latin words. It's still very much in progress, but I plan to add a lot more text this weekend.
As for using the template, while the number of arguments is likely to change, go ahead and use the template. It will be a simple matter to have a bot clean up the existing entries once the new version of the template is up and running. --EncycloPetey 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think all words in all languages should be necessarily understood creating entries for all possible forms of words, especially in inflected languages - in most cases, the entry could be limited to the singular nominative, but provide a declension table of all forms (as it already occurs in most cases). English is a slightly different case, being an analytical language.
As for customization, it sounds great and I look foward to it. However, I think the main aspect of my proposition is the ability to shorten regular forms (e.g. porta, -ae), which I think won't be that easy to implement automatically (or maybe I just have little faith in that). It also takes generally less space and, as I said, is based on actual scholar / library form of Latin dictionaries. But I don't try to push my idea here: it's good to see some work being done in any way.
Thanks for the response and links. I'd love to see Latin get more organised here.