Russian verbs type 3, test module
A short example:
крикнуть - крикнул, крикнула, .., never крик, крикла
For other verbs of type 3 the short forms are more common than long one. исчезнуть - исчез, исчезла. Forms исчезнул, исчезнула are attestable but rare. Grammar book specify only long one but I'm OK to give both.
Still analysing type 3.
Please continue at Module talk:ru-verb-testmodule, dedicating this module for type 3, when done will do others.
We have a big time difference, I'll have to go to bed soon. Hopefully can do something tomorrow.
Re: ... I don't know which type is more common Both are about equal.
So if I understand it correctly, about half of the type 3 verbs have no -nul in the masculine past form, and no -nu- in the other three past forms, while the other half does have it?
Yes, that's right. Various combinations of (5) and (6) in the Russian templates in User:Atitarev/Russian_verb_templates#Class_3 shows that some verbs are considered to include "-ну(л)-", some not. Masculine short forms don't have "л", except for "вял" and "стыл". Only (6) in the template name means in the past tense no "ну" but participles use them. Symbol "°" definite drop of "ну". Some decisions there are arguable judging on what I found out. This group causes problems to native speakers as well! Like people ask, which form is correct - исчезнул or исчез.
Is there any relationship between whether the suffix appears or not, and the last consonants of the stem? Like, maybe the forms that don't exist are because they sound awkward to say?
There's no relationship whatsoever, as far as I can see. The verbs that never have short forms just need to be known.
Hi,
The further research shows that it's even more complicated that I thought.
Numbers 5 and 6 in Zaliznyak's book mean the following and in ru:wikt are supposed to mean (often inconsistent):
5 - short forms are allowed for past tense forms 6 - short forms are allowed for past active participle - дости́гший, дости́гнувший
One is not always dependent on the other.
The stress pattern "a" is more diverse than "b" and "c" where the ending is stressed, so I will have trouble with those.
I'd like to be able to control this and make additional parameters to show both and short form or just one of them. What do you think. To make some reference to perhaps the only serious reference that documents this feature, I would like to use numbers 5 and 6 or their combination. What do you say? It's much better to set up a more flexible function then trying to fix it when a lot of verbs start using the template.
Maybe it would be better to skip this class, or focus only on the verbs with "regular" forms (no short forms). We can return to it later? I am not really feeling very enthusiastic to work on this right now, sorry.
I just wish to explain that I feel I can make this template work with varieties of forms for this type but I thought I'd run this by you first because you did the hard job of creating the module and templates and justly criticised me for some inefficiencies. I partially disagree with the handling of молоть and полоть, though, which should have two different params for two stems (not three as I did originally).
This group 3 is quite big and I'd like to do this one first before moving to others.
It's not only a technical problem here. The challenge is that there are various views on what makes the norm on a large group of these verbs. I don't want to make the template too generic, so it gives incorrect information. Having additional params will make it possible to look at verbs one at a time.
I don't blame you for the lack of enthusiasm to work on this but I'd like to continue. Thank you very much for your help so far.
I will also need your help on working with irregular verbs and their derivatives later and about some minor coding problems.
It's not that I am not happy to work on this generally, it's just right now, this moment. I have been having a very hard few days with a lot of stress and it's weighing on me. And I guess I also feel pressured because I feel a responsibility to help you and guide you with Lua. It's partly because you're not really fully aware of its capabilities so you might be doing things that are not necessary, and I feel a need to do things "right". I am kind of a perfectionist...
I won't do it too fast and will try to document what I do. I've got other commitments and interests, of course. I'm sure, you'll be able to quickly fix if I do something wrong or inefficiently. Also, the most important is the result - the conjugation tables. If your solution gives the same result as mine and more efficiently, then your solution is better. Also, because I'll probably have to maintain and fix the module in the future, possibly train someone and document what it does and how, add new functions, it's important that I, whoever does it, knows the module well.
At the moment, I will just concentrate on the varieties of type 3 - I also think you wouldn't enjoy this part. The reference book, ru:wiki, and online references show a bit contradictory info on this type of verbs, so I'll have to decide on some verbs individually. Will think about two exceptions later. It'll be more fun when I start working with interchange of consonants.
Wishing you to resolve all your current problems and come back recharged. You don't have to answer if you're busy.