Afrikaans

Please update the documentation of {{af-verb}}. I'm not sure all the changes you've made, but accelerated past participle creation seems to be broken and I can't specify a second past participle.

Also, please see the note at the Afrikaans entries you RFV'd. In short, please don't RFV stuff that is easily demonstrable to be real.

Ok, I just wasn't sure because I couldn't make much sense of the Google results. I will update the documentation.

I assume you can read Afrikaans as well as I can, right? Anyway, thank you for your work on this. Maybe we can also make the past participle default the same as the headword when the word has a prefix that usually triggers that? The list of such prefixes in a grammar I found is: aan-, agter-, be-, deur-, er-, ge-, her-, om-, onder-, ont-, oor-, ver-, voor-.

That isn't as easy as it seems, and the Dutch templates don't do that either. Instead, they just take another parameter pref= for this purpose. The problem is not that the prefix can't be removed, but that it might be removed when it shouldn't be. It certainly not always clear from the spelling when something is a prefix or actually part of the stem, or even whether something is separable or not. Dutch has some notorious pairs like this, such as voorkomen (separable or prefixed), bedelen (prefixed or normal). I assume such ambiguous cases exist in Afrikaans as well. So it's better to be explicit in this case rather than risk removing a prefix that isn't a prefix. We could add the pref= parameter to the Afrikaans template, but I don't know if it's necessary.

The danger isn't as grave as it seems. Because Afrikaans is a pluricentric language (or was until recently) unlike Dutch, there is almost definitely going to be part of the speakership that treat it as a prefix even when it isn't. So you won't be truly wrong, and you'll save editors a lot of trouble.

I don't think so. Look closer at the two entries I gave. The ambiguity doesn't exist in the spoken form at all, because they are stressed and pronounced very differently. It's only in writing that the ambiguity arises. Nobody is going to confuse vóórkom (separable: vóórgekom) and voorkóm (prefixed: voorkóm), the pronunciation distinguishes them clearly.

You're right, I'm just thinking/hoping that those are the rarer cases that we hardcode individually.

Some stuff about {{af-noun}}:

• I really don't like the message that it displays when no plural is specified. I would much prefer that you get rid of it, but if you insist on keeping it, shorten it greatly and use a tooltip.
• Also, shouldn't we allow plurals to be entered as |e and |s and have the template append them to the pagetitle?

I've just followed the same approach as the Dutch templates, which show the same notice. I've found that it works quite well; since adding it, a lot of editors have taken notice and added the missing forms on Dutch nouns. Some have even become regular Wiktionary editors after doing so. So I really don't think it should be removed unless there is a very pressing reason to.

The plural is really a lot like the present participle, except even less predictable. You can't generally know whether to add -e or -s, but even for plurals in -e there are also spelling changes that you need to account for, which the template can't predict or account for (even a module could not). This is why I opted to make the plural just required in full for Dutch nouns, and I don't think it is any problem to do it for Afrikaans nouns as well. The only downside is that you have to type a bit more, but I'd rather be correct than lazy.

I really dislike it, but it's less of a problem with Dutch because most common words have full inflection. Not so with Afrikaans. If we reduce the size of Category:Afrikaans nouns needing inflection, it'll bother me less, but I still think the ??? is excessive, and the wording could be reduced to plural form needed or something similar.

Actually, the module could predict a lot of regular spelling changes. But that's neither here nor there. We don't need to choose between correctness and less typing, and you're making a false dichotomy. This approach has worked well in {{yi-noun}} and will cover the majority of cases.

I realise that, but I'm also trying to reduce the number of errors. How many people would add {{af-noun|e}} to jaar and not correct themselves afterwards? Would you spot it?

I for one would. Look, the exact same kind of problem happens in Yiddish, and I haven't seen an error from it yet.

Do vowels get dropped or consonants get added when adding a vowel to a word? I thought that was a peculiarity of Dutch spelling, but Yiddish uses another alphabet altogether so I didn't think it would happen there.

Well, the problem I'm thinking of is that certain consonants change form when in final position, so you can't just add a suffix, but instead have to change the last consonant's form. But back to the original point, why don't we just add it in?

That's much different from what happens in Afrikaans though. I'm talking about things that distinguish the two words spelled bedelen in Dutch. One becomes bedel when the ending is removed, the other bedeel. From the spelling alone, you can't tell the difference. It's purely based on stress which the spelling doesn't indicate. This also happens in reverse with Dutch and Afrikaans nouns, and also with the present participle of Afrikaans verbs, or with the inflected form of adjectives. So essentially, you would not be able to use "e" for all of those cases anyway; you'd have to give the full form.

Well, yes, obviously. My point is that for more than 50% of Afrikaans nouns, we can save a whole lot of typing, and for the rest, we can assume that people who already know enough to put in e or s will also know enough to see when it's wrong.

Ok then, I'll add it in.

Now here's the next step: prediction. When supplied with |e it should be able to shorten doubled vowels, at least. Maybe it should be able to do things like oog-->oë as well, although that might be more difficult. We could use the same logic to make the inflected forms of adjectives.

Oh, and we forgot to include the subjunctives of wees in the headword line. I suppose we need a table now, since 6 forms is a bit much.

Can you check the IPA at leerarea for me? I think I made a mistake, or at least it doesn't look right.

I'm not really too familiar with Afrikaans pronunciation, sorry.

And I present to you... the most stupid-looking, tiny inflection table ever.