User talk:Martin123xyz

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

Your Macedonian entries[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to add all these. There's a few things that you probably want to fix though:

  • The parameter for languages on context labels like "transitive" is lang, not language.
  • When adding "impf" or "pf" to verbs, could you do it like this instead? {{head|mk|verb|g=impf}}

Could you fix any entries you already created or edited so far? It would be much appreciated. —CodeCat 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing these. I noticed a few more things:
  • When you edit an existing entry, sometimes there are links to the same word in different languages right at the bottom of the page. Those should stay at the bottom, so if you add a new Macedonian entry, it should go above those, not below.
  • We normally separate sections for each language by putting ---- on a line right between the two sections. (I'm not sure if I agree with doing this, myself, but it's the normal format and it has been this way for years, so we should probably do it)
I've made an edit here to demonstrate these changes. —CodeCat 20:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You can also add word stresses, like this: {{head|mk|head=разго́вара|g=impf}}, like in this edit. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello to both of you and thank you for the advice. I am sorry for the mistakes I've been making - I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around the codes for making entries. I'll fix the remaining aspect codes soon (and the language parameters too). By the way, I found the undesirable method of marking the aspect (i.e. adding Template:impf at the end, after {{head|mk|verb}}) in another page about a Serbian word and thought I'd copy it from there - I assumed that the already existing entries were all in accordance with the standards. As for the word stress, I hardly think that it is necessary to mark it on Macedonian words. Macedonian stress (unlike Bulgarian, for example) is fixed on the antipenultimate syllable so marking it would be redundant save in exceptions, which are generally only loanwords (and some other miscellaneous ones, like all adverbial participles). As I have only been entering regular words which conform to the stress pattern, I don't think I need to mark anything. --Martin123xyz

Thanks for the reply. Macedonian templates are not developed well, unlike most other Slavic languages. We have a productive translator but he hardly worked on entries - User:Bjankuloski06en. As for the stress, it's up to you but it's helpful for those who doesn't know and may make assumptions. Stress is one of the things that make Bulgarian and Macedonian different. I know it's predictable but sometimes I have doubts and I know you have liquid consonants stressed as well- р́ (ŕ)? @CodeCat could you add pf/impf categories to Macedonian verbs? BTW, please add Babel to your user page. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to mark stress. After all, we don't mark it for Latin or Polish either, both of which also have predictable stress. —CodeCat 10:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that the number of entries in Macedonian is exceptionally low. I have, however, resolved to help remedy the problem by entering as much as I am able to. In relation to the stress, I suppose that one may indeed make incorrect assumptions, but then again, one who is looking up Macedonian words in Wiktionary would likely have some previous knowledge of the language and would in all likelihood know about the stress rule. Even if s/he doesn't would learn soon enough. I think that actually marking the stress on all words may even be misleading - it may suggest that stress is unpredictable and marked for that reason only. As for the stressed liquid, it does indeed exist, but it is predictable as well. It is easy to deduce when "r" is syllabic based on the surrounding letters - if it followed by a consonant without being preceded by a vowel, it is always syllabic. In cases where it's syllabic under other circumstances, an apostrophe is written before it. Once one has deduced that "r" is syllabic relying on this, one can take it into consideration when counting to find the antipenultimate as though it were any other vowel, so I don't think it would interfere in any way with discovering the stress.

Having said that, I realize that these fact aren't actually obvious and that they do need to be learned at some point - it is simply that I believe that someone looking up Macedonian entries would in all likelihood already know them or learn it soon enough. I don't really think that people who explore foreign languages simply make assumptions about stress without verifying them elsewhere, anyway. Thus, I believe that adding the stress would be of minimal benefit and consequently it isn't something I'd focus on right now - I think it's much more important to add more entries with definitions. Likewise, I don't think that IPA charts for Macedonian are necessary because the orthography is fully predictable. It isn't fully phonemic, i.e. the script doesn't directly reflect the pronunciation on a one phoneme to one grapheme pairing system, but it is regular nonetheless. For example, whereas "в" is devoiced in the syllable coda and thus not pronounced [v] as one may expect, there is a rule about final devoicing that accounts for that. Anyway, once I'm relatively done with adding entries, I may revert to details such as pronunciation and the like. By the way, I have added Babel (provided I have properly understood what that is exactly - I just added my level of Macedonian and English). --Martin 123xyz


I have some questions and concerns about using Wiktionary - I am hoping someone can help me out.

First of all, I would like to be able to do batch uploads, such that I can upload multiple terms at once, thus creating multiple pages at once. I can't just begin creating one new entry and type in code for multiple entries there, because they will all go under the same title, in the same page. There is some instruction as to how to do this in one of the help pages, but I don't understand it. I copied that code and tried to use it but nothing came out of it.
Second of all, I would like to know how to send others messages and write on their talk pages. I opened up a user but I don't see any appropriate button.
Third of all, I am having problems with redirection. When I tried to enter the Macedonian term "чита", meaning "to read", I was redirected to the page "Чита", with a capital first letter, where there was some Russian entry. I edited the page to enter the Macedonian word, but it ended up with a capital letter, which is unacceptable. How am I to create a page for it this way? Usually, I type in the word in the search bar, it tells me it doesn't have a page, I click on the word where it's underlined in red, and I'm sent to a blank webpage I can write out. With "чита", it didn't work out.

Thank you in advance

I've made an entry for чита, pls check. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. However, how did you do it? I would need to know in case of similar problems in the future. --Martin123xyz

There are a few ways to find but I made sure people can see both and select, which word they want. I opened Чита, added {{also|чита}} at the top, saved, чита had a red link. Created чита with {{also|Чита}} at the top of the page.
I'm not sure about mass-creation. You probably need to familiarise yourself with the environment first and add more templates, fix existing ones. Are you planning to add conjugation/declension at all? See пие (pie) with a conjugation, пријател (prijatel) with a declension table. Here's a standard welcome with some useful links for you and ... welcome :)


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2014/May (May is the current month) is used for technical questions. Choose the right month, click on + (plus) to add a new topic. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome and the advice. I will post a question in those discussion forums in regard to mass batching. Thank you for the explanation about "чита" - I think I understand what do now. By the way, I do plan to add conjugation and declension tables, but afterwards. Like I said, I think the most important things about words are the meanings, so I'll first deal with that and then go back for grammatical intricacies. Anyway, Macedonian noun declension is rather regular in comparison to certain other languages, so it isn't as critical as it may be, for example, for Albanian entries. As for the verbal system, it is a bit more irregular, so conjugation tables would be useful there. By the way, I opened the links you sent me and the declension table for "пријател" looks fine but the conjugation table for "пие" is completely empty. In fact, there are some symbols where the conjugated forms are supposed to appear, but they're not there. The only things that are filled out properly are the names of the categories, e.g. the ones where the number and person are written. However, when I click the edit button to look at the code, the forms are actually entered there, so I don't know why they don't appear in the conjugation table as expected.Martin123xyz (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That means there's some fixing to do, check мора. Here are Macedonian templates: Category:Macedonian_inflection-table_templates. You can open each of them and check how they're used by using special pages, like Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:mk-decl-noun, for example. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The entry for "мора" is in exactly the same condition - the conjugation table is completely empty (save for the miscellaneous code symbols). I will look at the templates and see if I can put them to use. Would it be, however, all right for me to produce my own conjugation tables? I suppose I could type up a code for a table relying on the code for a table for another language that actually works, e.g. Serbian, and then fill it in with the appropriate terms (and make the necessary modifications in the meantime).

Of course, it's OK, if you don't break anything else. Modules are more efficient than templates but I'm not a great expert in either of them. You can check also Russian, Slovenian, Polish, etc. templates as well. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I wasn't intending to break anything, but I was worried about the consistency between the pages, particularly in light of what CodeCat was telling me yesterday. Also, if I were to create my own table and begin using it, I would like to erase the faulty ones that are filled with random symbols and substitute them with mine that works. Would that be a violation of the original creators' rights? I wouldn't be doing any harm, since I would be actually providing a functional table, but I am still hesitant.

No, it wouldn't. Templates change all the time and are replaced with modules. The original creator may not be happy and dispute your edits but it's not the case with the current state of Macedonian. "Breaking" may not be intentional and be caused by adding errors (in modules), adding to wrong categories, like adding to Serbo-Croatian verbs, instead of Macedonian. It's minor, you just need to check. You seem to pick up quickly, though. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian Conjugation Template[edit]

Hi, have you ever considered making a Macedonian conjugation template? We could go for {{mk-conjug}}; so first off, we need an expert. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to create a template, but I don't know how. Should I just paste the code in the box in your link? Then, how would I be able to link to that template when making entries? Also, how would I be able to enter what needs to be filled in for each specific table on each specific entry.
By the way, one conjugation table isn't enough - there are three different verb classes, for both perfective and imperfective verbs. At least six tables would be needed, I think. Furthermore, there are many irregular verbs - how would they fit into a template?Martin123xyz
The best way to solve this would be to create one template that only displays the table, but does not fill in the forms. I created this now: {{mk-conj-table}}. We can then create as many more templates as necessary, which would then simply "fill in" that table template. So there would be a "chain" of two templates, one calling the other. —CodeCat 15:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I have seen the template you made and I think I know how to use it know. By looking at the codes for different templates, I understand how only the variable parts of the template need to be entered for each page, separated by the symbol "|" in a list. I've done this with "копа". Could you please take a look it and tell me if it's fine? I don't see what you mean by adding further templates. By the way, there were some problems with the template - it was missing the language code (so I added that) and the future in the past and future reported were incorrectly coded as though they were simply composed from the past and perfect forms respectively, whereas they actually use distinct forms for some verbs, e.g. "удри". I mended that too.Martin123xyz
Well, right now, you still have to fill in every single form on every page. But like you said, there are different verb classes which all inflect the same. So, it's possible to make a new template, which merely generates the forms that go into the other template. I can show you how that would be done, but I don't know much about Macedonian grammar. Could you give me an example of the inflection of a very common type of verb? I can then try to make a template specifically for verbs of that type. —CodeCat 16:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I know I have to fill in the data for every page - I was just waiting for approval to do so. As for the example of a common type of a verb, both "копа" and "плаќа" would do - they represent the class of imperfective verbs ending in "-а" and just about all such verbs seem to have identical conjugation. If we were to replace the "коп-" or "плаќ-" with any other stem, e.g. "скок-" or "умир-", we would get a correct conjugation paradigm. Does that help you in figuring out how to create the additional templates? Anyway, thank you for being so helpful. Martin123xyz
Ok, that would work, but before I start, could you also explain how perfective verbs ending in -a inflect? Is there a difference? —CodeCat 16:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is a difference. I have just created an example with "ископа", which is a perfective form оf "копа". You can view the table there and note the differences in the suffixes. The difference is basically that the present tense is absent, that the past tense has different suffixes in the second and third person singular forms, and that the future in the past uses endings different than the past ones for the same forms. Martin123xyz
I made a new template, {{mk-conj-а}}, and added it to копа. There is probably a lot that should be done to improve this template, like being able to support both imperfective and perfective verbs, and linking to each of the forms, but it shows the basic idea. —CodeCat 17:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much - I really like this final template. I just need to type in a single stem and the entire table is produced. Anyway, I don't think that this template needs to be fixed to accommodate perfective verbs as well. I'll just create new templates for all the different conjugation patterns and use them separately. I think I know how to. Martin123xyz
It's possible to create more templates, but you will need to create many templates that way even though the inflection of imperfective and perfective verbs is almost the same. So it's better to integrate them both into one template, with an extra parameter to specify whether the verb is imperfective or perfective: {{mk-conj-а|impf|коп}}, {{mk-conj-а|pf|ископ}}. This is also how the Russian verb templates work, so we know that it works well that way. It also makes it easier for people to work with multiple languages at a time if the templates work similar.
I had a look at w:Macedonian grammar, which says that there is a distinction between imperfect and aorist past-tenses. It says that while the aorist past is mostly used with perfective verbs, it is sometimes used with imperfective verbs as well. Should the template show separate rows for both? —CodeCat 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there would be that many templates - no more than six. Anyway, if you insist, I don't mind having one template with a dual function but I don't understand how that works (the "impf" and "pf" before the stem). If I figure it out, I'll implement it. As for the imperfect and aorist past tenses, I say there is no difference other than the fact that the imperfect is the past tense of imperfective verbs whereas the aorist is the past tense of perfective verbs. As each verb has a fixed verbal aspect, I don't see how a single verb could have both at the same time. Thus, I don't think the table needs any modification and I don't really understand what the authors of that Wikipedia page wanted to say by suggesting that the aorist may be used with imperfective verbs as well. Martin123xyz
I think what they mean is that in some rare cases, it would be ok to say "ти копа"? —CodeCat 17:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No - that is grammatically incorrect. Actually, it is correct in the sense of "he/she/it is digging for you", if we regard "ти" as an indirect object clitic for the second person singular, but that is not relevant here. Martin123xyz
I've split the rows anyway, mainly because even if the imperfective and aorist forms are both past, they do inflect quite differently so it may be more informative for users if they see that they are really distinct. They may get confused otherwise. They are also historically different, so it helps for people who are interested in that kind of thing.
I've also changed {{mk-conj-table}} and {{mk-conj-а}} so that they support both imperfective and perfective verbs. They also add links to the forms in the table now. Can you check копа and ископа to make sure everything is correct?
You said that for some verbs like удри the perfect is different when it's used in the reported future. Can you explain that?
Finally, the Wikipedia article says there are also participles. We should probably add those. —CodeCat 18:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that users should be able to see that the aorist and imperfect are distinct - I approve of the split, as long as we don't fill out both tenses for any given verb. As for "копа" and "ископа", they are fine. By the way, what do you mean by "add links"? The only thing that happens when I click the verb forms is that I get offered to create a new page for that term. Instead of this, is there any way to have these entries automatically created, so that, for example, when someone writes "копам", it automatically says that it's a form of "копа"? It seems to work this way for Spanish verbs, for example. See "quieren". Did someone actually write separate entries for all conjugated forms?
I agree on adding the participles - we'd need a gerund (копање), adverbial participle (копајќи) and a passive adjective participle (копан). The passive adjective participle usually works only for transitive verbs, though (there are also some rare intransitive verbs that use this for as a past active adjective participle; for example, whereas "копан" means "dug", i.e. that which has been dug, "спиен" means "having slept", i.e. he who has slept). There is also a present active adjective participle but it is limited in use and sounds unnatural with most verbs, so I don't think it's relevant (for "копа", it would be "копачки", meaning "digging", i.e. he who digs, but I can't imagine anyone actually using it - one would simply use a relative clause instead).
As for the question about "удри", I don't know how to create a new template to be able to create the conjugation for that entry. I therefore entered the conjugation using my own table (my original attempt at a conjugation table before I got your assistance) just so you can see the conjugation pattern. Note the discrepancy between "е" and "и" in both the future in the past and future reported. Could you now please make an appropriate template from the paradigm so that we can have a proper conjugation table for this verb and all future ones, or tell me how to make one? I don't see any "create template" buttons. Martin123xyz
Each of the verb forms is actually a separate entry that needs to be created. For Spanish, one of our users runs a bot script that automatically creates these. If we want entries to be created for Macedonian verbs, there would need to be a bot too, or you could create them all manually. A bot is much easier of course.
I created some more templates in Category:Macedonian verb inflection-table templates, which should hopefully be enough for most verbs. But I don't really understand the change in the vowel of the l-participle that you showed. Is there a reason why it changes? A way to predict when the change occurs? Is it always "е" and "и"? Or is it completely irregular and it just has to be remembered for each verb? —CodeCat 19:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional templates - I'll see how I can use them. Could you also please add the two participles and the gerund to the templates? As for the conjugation of "удри", the changes are the following: "удрив" > "ќе удрев" and "сум удрил" > "ќе сум удрел". I don't know why it changes - it's just that the future in the past and the future reported require a separate form, which is not distinct for many verbs (as you saw with "копа"). Anyway, this change is somewhat regular. If the perfective verb ends in "и", then this vowel will change to "e" in the future in the past and future reported. Thus, we have "затворив" > "ќе затворев" and "сум затворил" > "ќе сум затворел" for the verb "затвори". However, "види" doesn't fit in with this (it is an exception). We have "видов" > "ќе видев" but "сум видел" to "ќе сум видел", both with "e". I hope that it is clearer to you now.
By the way, it is not just an "и" to "е" change that occurs. A similar mechanism can be observed with perfective verbs ending in "-е" whose first person singular aorist form doesn't end in "-ев" (these have to be learned individually, as far as I can see, just like "видi", which ends with the unexpected "-ов"). Let's take the ones with the suffix "-не". Let's take the verb "падне", the perfective form of "паѓа". Here, we have "паднав" > "ќе паднев" and "сум паднал" > "ќе сум паднел". The same goes for the verb "влезе". We have "влегов" > "ќе влезев" and "сум влегол" > "ќе сум влезел". Compare this with "умре". Here, we simply have "умрев" > "ќе умрев" and "сум умрел" > "ќе сум умрел", i.e. no change, because the basic forms already have "е" where it could otherwise be inserted.
Anyway, as I have learned Macedonian as a native language and not from a course, I don't really know how the verbal system functions or why - I only know what's correct and what's not. Based on that, I have deduced patterns, but there may be some things that I have neglected to notice. Thus, don't rely on my classifications too much. I will not give you incorrect forms, but I may fail to notice a regularity in something that appears irregular, for example (e.g. the "-ов" ending in the first person singular aorist).
As for the specific templates, you have now created, I don't really understand which are supposed to represent which verbs, so I will attempt to modify them to suit whatever they need to suit. Martin123xyz
I based the templates on what I found at w:Macedonian conjugation. So when the name has two letters in it, the first is the present stem vowel, the second is the aorist stem vowel. I did notice that some verbs have irregular aorist stems, with extra letters added or removed. I suppose those would need to be entered separately somehow. Right now I'm still trying to work out which parameters the templates should have and how they should work, and also how the table should be arranged. Maybe, for now, we could just avoid these verbs which don't fit the templates I created. That way we can work with the templates for a while and that would give us more time to figure out what needs changing.
One thing I wonder about is the different rows that are in the current table. Many of them can really be predicted from others. All you really need to know for sure is the present, imperfect, aorist, imperative and l-participle. The rest can be created from those using some simple rules that are apparently the same for each verb. When I worked on the templates for Slovene, I followed this approach, by showing only the basic formula to derive these forms. You can see an example at slikati. Slovene does not have imperfect or aorist forms, and what is the "perfect" in Macedonian is just "past" in Slovene, and Slovene uses the present for perfective verbs too (it has a meaning of "intending") but the idea is the same. I think this would help with the clarity, by showing only what is essential. What do you think of a layout like this? —CodeCat 19:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, how did you make the thing with the perfect vs. imperfect aspect work - i.e. how did you make it variable? I don't see the perfective suffixes in the table when I open mk-conj-a, but it works fine for "ископа". Martin123xyz
That's mostly in {{mk-conj-table}}. —CodeCat 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I've had a look at the page about Macedonian conjugation you linked and I think's it's misleading. The forms provided there, such as "стојав", "учив", "пив" and "трив" don't actually exist. They are merely aorist roots of other verbs, e.g. "постојав" (not in the sense of "exist" but in the sense of "stand for a while"), "изучив", "испив" and "истрив". They are not separate words. As for the conjugation tables you've created, they don't seem to be fully sufficient. I tried to use the "и" one, but it gives "-ил" forms for the imperfect verbs, which don't exist - they are always "-ел". Thus, "носи" can only ever be "носел" and "оди" can only ever be "одел". The verb "удри" has both "удрил" and "удрел" because it's perfective. To avoid further problems, how about I just explain the entire verbal system to you somewhere and tell you what each template needs to have? I'll create example conjugation tables with each verb type and link them to you for you to see them and then you can work from that. As for the irregular verbs you speak of, they are not that many.
Anyway, as for the simpler outlay of the template you suggest, similar to the Slovene one, I'm fine with it. I also agree that many forms are predictable. If you like, you can change it (I myself don't really know how to). However, please make sure that all tables I have included so far change automatically (I suppose they should, if we change the template), to avoid wasting time seeking them out individually.
As for the perfective vs. imperfective system, I looked at the code and suppose that everything works based on those "if" statements that you've included. I don't really understand much of the code, but never mind. I hope it will work for all other templates too. Martin123xyz
Take a look at this: Martin123xyz
w:Macedonian conjugation mentions a distinction between imperfective and aorist l-participles. One is formed from the imperfective stem, and one from the aorist stem. So if the aorist is "носе" then the corresponding l-participle is "носел"? Is this maybe the distinction that you mentioned? —CodeCat 12:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
There are no distinct aorist and imperfective participles because, as we said earlier, one verb cannot be both perfective and imperfective (well some can, but in those cases, it's just that the two forms coincidentally overlap). It appears that some people classify the l-participles that occur with the future reported as imperfective participles.
Either way, there is no such thing as "носе". The verb "носи" is imperfective and thus has an imperfect, "носеше", rather than an aorist. If we incorporate "носи" as a root into a perfective verb, we don't get "-носе", but "-несе", due to an irregularity (e-grades vs. o-grades in PIE, I presume). Hence, we have "носи" (impf.) > "донесе", "однесе", "поднесе", "нанесе", "внесe", "изнесе", "пренесе", "занесе" (all pf.) These, in turn, also have irregular l-participles, namely "донел", "однел", "поднел", etc. Their l-participles in the future reported are "донесел", "однесел", "поднесел", etc. I don't understand what you're querying about? Did you look at the dropbox file? The distinctions are presented there in each table. Martin123xyz
I'm just afraid that if I code this into the templates, the assumptions I make about how it works and when the change applies will be wrong. I'd rather get it right the first time. From looking at your tables, I understand that it works like this:
  • Verbs of the а-type always have -ал in all the л-forms.
  • Imperfective verbs of the и- and е-types always have -ел in all the л-forms.
  • Perfective verbs of the и- and е-types always have -ел in the future reported. In the other л-forms, the aorist stem is used as the base. If the aorist is irregular in some way, the non-future л-participle will be irregular in the same way.
Is this how it works? —CodeCat 14:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You got everything right, except the last statement - it doesn't always apply. For example, "земе" has the irregular aorist "зедов" but a differently irregular non-future л-participle "зел". Also, bear in mind that many verbs have irregular non-future л-participles but regular aorist forms. The examples I gave above, i.e. "донесе", "однесе", etc. illustrate this principle. By the way, I don't suppose that you consider the "-о" aorist forms as irregular - I'd just say they are a separate class. Thus, I personally don't consider "донесов" to be irregular. The only irregularity is that the root's vowel is "e" whereas it's "о" in the imperfective form, i.e. "носи", but this doesn't have anything to do with any suffixes. Anyway, other examples of verbs with irregular non-future л-participles would be all the ones that contain the root "иде", such as "дојде", "појде", "зајде", "најде", "прејде", etc. Their non-future л-participles are "дошол", "пошол", "зашол", "нашол", etc. However, their future reported л-participles are the predictable "дојдел", "појдел", "зајдел", etc.
Keep me notified further as to how you are progressing (and when everything will be complete) with the code. Martin123xyz
I've implemented the above rules into the templates now. Hopefully it shows the correct л-participles. The templates don't currently support irregular aorist/participle forms, like some of those you mentioned. This will need to be done eventually, but it can wait for now.

If you come across a verb, noun or adjective for which there is no usable template, you can put this instead of the inflection table:


Of course replace "Conjugation" with "Declension" and "verb" with "noun" or "adjective" as appropriate. This will add a small notice to the entry, and also add it to a category (see Category:Macedonian entries needing inflection). This is a reminder to yourself or to other editors that something still needs to be done there. That way, we don't have to modify the templates to support all the irregular verbs right away, we can just check the category to make sure we haven't forgotten any. —CodeCat 17:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You haven't implemented the rules fully correctly - I get adverbial participles and gerunds for perfective verbs, e.g. "ископање" and "ископајќи". Such forms are impossible. In the tables I sent you, you can see that the slots for adverbial participles and gerunds contain a dash for all perfective verb classes. Also, some imperfective verbs lack these two forms whereas they do actually have them, e.g "гризе". As for the active adjectival participles, i.e. the ones ending in "-н" or "-т", how will we prevent them from appearing with intransitive verbs that lack them? Also, don't you think we should indicate somehow that they have gender forms, since you've done that for the л-participles. Finally, why are there only 8 verb templates on the template page? For example, I don't see the "mk-conj-и-а", e.g. for "издржи". However, it works nonetheless when I enter it into a page, so it doesn't matter, really. Martin123xyz
The adjectival participle is a real adjective isn't it? So doesn't it also have definite forms and such? I don't think the л-participle has those, so we can fit them into the table. But for the adjectival participle it doesn't seem as easy if there are too many forms.
I'm not sure why you don't see "mk-conj-и-а", I see it right there...
I wasn't sure about the rules for when to add the adverbial participles and gerunds. I didn't notice that only imperfective verbs had them in the table you gave me. Seeing the forms is one thing, but figuring out that there is a rule behind it is another. So if I understand it:
  • All imperfective verbs have an adverbial participle and gerund. No perfective verbs have them.
  • The adjectival participle appears primarily on transitive verbs, regardless of whether they are imperfective or perfective.
If the second rule is correct, then the templates should probably have an extra parameter to control whether the verb has an adjectival participle or not. What should the default be? Should the default be to show it, or to not show it? I'm guessing that there are more transitive verbs than intransitive verbs, so making it show by default makes more sense? —CodeCat 12:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Never mind about the "mk-conj-и-а" template - I was looking for it in the wrong place. I see where you have it. However, I still don't see the athematic one. How does that one work? What do I type in for it? I also have another concern, about all verbs ending in two vowels in the lemma form. They need an intrusive "ј" in certain places, that doesn't appear automatically. When I tried to make the conjugation table for "блуе" using the "mk-conj-е-е", I got "блуам" where "блујам" should be, for example. To see where the intrusive "ј" appears, look at the conjugation of "испие" that I provided in the dropbox file - it appears in the same place for imperfective verbs too. Thus, "испиеја" corresponds to "блуеја", etc. Could you take care of this somehow?
As for the adjectival participle - yes, it is a simple adjective, with definite forms and all. I agree with the reasons why we shouldn't decline it within the table. By the way, you've understood the rules about the gerunds and adjectival participles correctly now. As for the adjectival participle, yes, it appears primarily on transitive verbs regardless of aspect and I think that the default should be for it to appear, as there are indeed more transitive verbs. If you develop some code that makes it disappear optionally, tell me how to use it so that I can remove it where it's not applicable.
Finally, in regard to the irregular verbs, such as "дојде", how will we enter them once we finally get around to that (I realize it's not necessary now)? Will we need new templates or what? How are they dealt with in other languages? Martin123xyz
Unfortunately, it's not possible for templates to look "inside" the words you give to them, and do something depending on, say, the last letter of a word. This is one of the drawbacks of using templates, and it's one of the big advantages of using Lua. In Lua, you could just make the code look at the last letter, and add an extra ј if it's a vowel. With templates you can't do that automatically, you either need to make another template just for such verbs, or add another parameter to an existing one, which is not as nice and simple but it works. I could convert the current templates to Lua, but that would take a bit of time, and I originally chose to make them without Lua because I thought it would make it easier for you to learn how they work.
I added the extra code for the adverbial participle, adjectival participle and gerund. They should hopefully display correctly now. There's no support for adjectival participles in in -т yet, though. Again that's because templates can't look at the last letter of a word and decide what to do. The adjectival participle is shown by default, but you can hide it using the parameter |novn=1. —CodeCat 13:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I got that wrong, the parameter is |noap=1. —CodeCat 14:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case, you could indeed modify the templates with Lua. That would be quite useful, for the adjectival participles too. As for the "noap=1", I think I understand how to use it. Thank you for that. Martin123xyz
I've just created a template for athematic verbs. It also works for imperfective verbs ending in two vowels, such as "блуе". However, on the template list, it appears under M rather than under E. Could you fix this? Could you also check if everything is all right with, since it was I who made it? I think it needs some sort of documentation and categorization too, whatever that may mean. Martin123xyz
See the changes I made: diff, diff. I also created the documentation page and put the category there instead: Template:mk-conj-е-∅/documentation. I'm just not sure about the character ∅ that you included in the name. It looks nice, but it's very hard for people to type. I think we should limit ourselves to common Latin and Cyrillic characters in the template names so that people can add them to entries more easily. Do you have any suggestion for a replacement? —CodeCat 14:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that - it's lovely. As for the character ∅, it is customary in denoting an absent phoneme or morpheme - I don't know what we could replace it with. Do you think it really matters that it's hard to type? People won't be typing the names of the templates - they'll simply look for entries and view the ready tables. I don't see how the symbol could affect them in any way. The only problem may be if they are trying to enter conjugations for verb entries that don't already have it, in which case they can just copy paste the entire code from the ready entries, which is what I do all the time as I add entries. However, if you insist on replacing ∅ with something else, maybe a 0 would do? Or a /? Martin123xyz
I think 0 would work best. / has a special meaning in template names (it indicates divisions between subtemplates), so we should avoid using it for anything else. —CodeCat 15:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian сув[edit]

I came across the Macedonian word сув via Proto-Slavic *suxъ. Could you fill it out? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I did. However, I don't have any adjective templates at my disposition at the moment, so I'll improve it at a future date. I'm currently busy with improving verbs (and entering nouns).
I understand. Apparently, {{mk-adj}} is a declension template instead of a headword template. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
P.S. it also redirects to {{mk-decl-adj}}. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to add Macedonian noun бол, from Proto-Slavic *boljь. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Headword-line templates for Macedonian[edit]

I updated the current templates in Category:Macedonian headword-line templates. They're still very basic, but they can be improved if needed. Could you use these from now on? —CodeCat 00:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All right, I will. I was planning on editing all of my verb entries to add the forms of the opposite aspect anyway, and these headword-line templates make it convenient to do so. However, could you explain how exactly I'm supposed to use them? I don't understand what to do with the list of parameters provided. I tried writing "pf=касне" for "каса", but nothing appeared on the screen when I submitted it. Martin123xyz
You can see here what I did. I could add parameters to the other templates as well, if there is a need. For example the comparative forms of adjectives, or maybe the plural forms of nouns. I'm not sure what would be the most appropriate for Macedonian. —CodeCat 12:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
All right, I understand how it works now. Thank you for the illustration. As for adjectives, comparative and superlative forms are fully predictable (one simply adds the prefixes "по-" and "нај-" respectively), so I don't know if these are necessary. As for nouns, we'd certainly need plural forms, as these are often irregular. However, wouldn't that fit better in an inflection table for nouns rather than merely the headword-line template? Martin123xyz
They're predictable, but they are still separate words, so there should probably be some kind of link so that users can get to them?
Concerning inflection tables, you are right. But for many languages, we include inflection tables for all the forms, but also include a few selected forms in the headword line. Often those are forms that help users figure out the declensional pattern more easily (the "principal parts"). For Slovene, for example, the genitive singular of nouns often tells you the general type of declension, and likewise for Latin nouns. For Latin verbs there are also four principal parts (see amō). So it comes down to whether we consider the plural form of nouns important enough to include it on the headword line too. —CodeCat 12:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
All right - I think that we we should have noun plurals in the header too, in that case. As for the adjectives, I think it would be fine if they were to remain only in the inflection tables. Martin123xyz
I've added a plural parameter to {{mk-noun}} now. It's the second unnamed parameter, after the gender. —CodeCat 15:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there anyway for that parameter to automatically fill itself according to some rules of thumb that pertain to the plural formation of nouns? Whereas there are many unpredictable plurals, there are also many that are regular. For masculine nouns, there is too much variability, but feminine nouns in "-a" almost always form the plural by replacing the final "а" with "и". Likewise, neuter nouns ending "-о" almost always form the plural by replacing the "o" with "a" and neuter nouns ending "-e" almost always form the plural by replacing the "e" with "-иња". If the parameter could fill itself based on this whereas I could overwrite it with something else should it be necessary, that would be lovely. Come to think of it, it would be also convenient if masculine nouns had some default plural - "-ови" would be most appropriate, as it is the most common suffix. Even though I would have to alter very many masculine nouns, more than half would already be done. What do you think about this? Martin123xyz
It's possible to do this (but again, looking at letters inside words requires Lua support), but it may not necessarily be a good idea. The problem is what if someone comes and wants to add this template to an entry but doesn't know the plural? If it's automatically generated, then it might not be correct. If there is no default, then it's more work, but less chance of mistakes. —CodeCat 15:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it may lead to mistakes, but this can be circumvented if instead of having the plural automatically generated, one could have the option to type in "std" for "standard" in a particular parameter. Whoever knows the plural (and sees that it's regular) would just type this in - then an appropriate plural would be generated depending on the specific noun (relying on Lua support). Whoever doesn't would leave the parameter blank and there would be no mistake. Martin123xyz
It is a bit like how the Dutch and Afrikaans templates work. For Dutch, there are two main plural endings, -en and -s. If you want the -en plural, you can type: {{nl-noun|m|-en}}. But you can also type in the full word. It just recognises the "-en" as special, and handles it differently than normal. Something like that might work for Macedonian too? —CodeCat 16:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you mean. Are suggesting creating a parameter where you can simply write the suffix such that it will be automatically added to the stem? If so, I suppose it would work in some cases, but many (masculine) nouns undergo elision or palatalization in the formation of the plural - here, merely adding suffixes would obviously be undesirable. Martin123xyz
A template is free to interpret the text you give as its parameters in any way it likes. So it's possible that {{mk-noun|m|-и}} means "add и", while {{mk-noun|m|-ови}} means "add ови". And there could be some other special value like {{mk-noun|m|-'и}} which means "add и and palatalise". Something along those lines? —CodeCat 21:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. However, would the program know how to palatalize based on the "-'и" function? Could you program it to turn a final "к" into a "ц", a final "г" into a "з", and the like? Also, how would you program it to trigger elision of the final syllable's vowel? Or would that be resolved by filling in the entire word, as in the case of the Dutch entries?
With Lua that could be done, yes. As long as there are fixed rules then it could do it automatically. But it would mean it would apply it to all nouns ending in those consonants, unless there is a rule that says when not to apply it. It's all about rules. :)
Can you give an example of elision of the final vowel? —CodeCat 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
If it's all about rules, that's very convenient. Anyway, the rule is that if a masculine noun ending in "к", "г" or "х" is pluralized with "и", palatalization will yield "ц", "з", and "с". As for elision, examples would be "орел" > "орли", "агол" > "агли", "метар" > "метри", etc. It happens with "е" much more than anything else (when it comes to nouns - in the case of adjectives, the elision of "о" is also quite common).
Ah, like that. I don't think the template would be able to handle such cases automatically, not even with Lua. Because there are probably nouns where this doesn't happen even though they look like it could, correct? The template has no way of knowing when to remove the vowel and when not, it's unpredictable. So in those cases you'd just have to specify the whole word, there's not much that can be done about that.
The palatalisation of masculine nouns is predictable so that can be made automatic. But the template would need to be converted to Lua first. So for now, it's best to just specify the whole plural always. —CodeCat 21:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
All right, but when are the templates going to be converted to Lua? For verbs, it seems that we need Lua only for the adjectival participles (the one's with "-т"). I intend to merely continue entering nouns, adjectives and adverbs, with only their meanings included, and then go back to verbs to add conjugations and corresponding aspect pairs. By the time I'm done with that, would it be possible to have Lua templates?

Links in templates[edit]

I noticed this edit you made. Generally speaking, you don't need to include the [[ ]] inside the template parameter, when the template already links to the term normally. So you can just leave them out for this particular parameter (impf= and pf=), which I've done in the edit following yours. Also, when providing things like synonyms, derived terms, see also and such, could you link to the terms using {{l|mk|put the word here}}? The {{l}} template automatically formats the word for Macedonian and includes a transliteration as well, so it's much preferred over the plain links with just [[ ]]. —CodeCat 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All right, I will stop including double square brackets. I wasn't aware that the links would still work. I will also start using {{l|mk|WORD}} - I wasn't aware that this existed. Martin123xyz

Pluralia Tantum and Singularia Tantum[edit]

I am confused as to what I should write for Macedonian nouns that are singularia or pluralia tantum. Where and how do I mark this? I also have a specific question about the word "луѓе". It means "people", but doesn't have a singular form (it uses the words like "човек", "личност" or "лице" as singular forms, but these are evidently distinct words). Meanwhile, Macedonian nouns don't distinguish gender in their plural forms, so "луѓе" turns out to be a genderless noun, in fact. How do I mark this and where? Then again, in BCS, the cognate word "ljudi" is masculine, which is easily deducible, given the fact that BCS has a well-developed gender system in the plural. Based on this, should I treat "луѓе" as masculine? To complicate matters further, "луѓе" actually takes singular neuter suffixes for definiteness, e.g. "луѓето", "луѓево", etc. Martin123xyz

If a noun has no plural, use {{mk-noun|m|-}}. A common convention in Wiktionary templates is to use "-" when you want to disable something.
If the noun is always plural, you specify a plural gender, like {{mk-noun|m-p}}. But if there is no gender distinction in the plural, I can change it so that you use just {{mk-noun|p}} instead.
For луѓе (luǵe), is it not just the (irregular) plural form of човек (čovek)? —CodeCat 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanations. However, only writing "p" where there is no gender distinction in the plural doesn't seem to work. It produces a question mark. Could you look at "луѓе" and fix this? Anyway, "луѓе" is indeed the irregular plural of "човек", but only in meaning. Etymologically, they are two distinct words. Thus, "луѓе" isn't necessarily masculine just because "човек" is a masculine singular noun. That was my dilemma.Martin123xyz
I didn't add that in yet. Right now, the template accepts m, f, n, m-p, f-p and n-p as valid genders. Should I change it to m, f, n, p? —CodeCat 21:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I think that m-p, f-p, and n-p should stay too. Is there no way to keep all three of them plus a general p?
Ok, I've done that. But if the plural doesn't distinguish genders, what is the use of m-p, f-p and n-p? —CodeCat 12:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The use is to be able to denote what gender the singular of that plural noun would be, since not all plural entries would be pluralia tantum. For example, "скали" is most often used in the plural to mean "stairs", but a feminine singular noun "скала" also exists, meaning a single stair, among other things. Martin123xyz
On Wiktionary we distinguish between "lemmas" and "forms". The lemma is the form of a word that contains the main entry and the definitions, while forms only contain a small definition that contains a link to the lemma. Templates like {{mk-noun}} would only be used on lemmas, not on forms. So if скали is the plural of скала, then it would link to it and it wouldn't use {{mk-noun}} itself. —CodeCat 14:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case, could you fix "скали" so that I can see how that is supposed to work, i.e. what code needs to be written? I thought that "скали" deserved its own entry because it's meaning is somewhat more than just the plural of "скала". Anyway, I suppose that we can still reflect this through the definitions, even if we don't give it the status of a lemma, so it would be distinct from all other form entries that a bot may generate, right? Martin123xyz
I've changed both скали and скала. —CodeCat 15:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian бол[edit]

Since I thought that no response was ever bothered to me made, I thought about creating the Macedonian entry бол (bol) myself. All you may now do is add the gender and corrections, then it's done. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't create "бол" because I am not familiar with the word. I don't know what gender it's supposed to be either. When some other Macedonian speaker who is aware of it comes by it, s/he can modify it accordingly. I myself am only familiar with "болка".
So how about сова (sova) (owl)? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not familiar with that word in Macedonian either. I have known it all my life as a Serbian word. In Macedonian, I know about уткa (utka), ут (ut), and був (buv). Martin123xyz (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Words Appearing in Red[edit]

Every time I enter a compound term, if some if its components are not recorded as separate entries already, they appear in red. However, some of them don't even exist as separate words and thus, there is nothing to create, as in the case of some reflexive verbs that don't have a normal form (such as "се кае"). How I can make Wiktionary consider compound terms as single units rather than sequencse of separate terms, so as to avoid this problem? I face the same issue when I enter a compound term where some of the words are declined - then again, I suppose this will be fixed once a suitable bot has been procured to automatically generate new entries for all inflected forms of all the lemmas.

The headword that is displayed in the entry normally defaults to the name of the current page, and it is automatically split into separate words when possible. If this is not desirable, then you can change it using the head= parameter, like this: {{mk-verb|head=се кае|impf}}, which gives:
се кае (se kaeimpf
You can also specify which words should be linked to and which shouldn't, by putting [[ ]] around the appropriate words: {{mk-verb|head=[[се]] кае|impf}}, giving:
се кае (se kaeimpf
For nouns that contain adjectives in them, it could also be useful to specify which word the link should go to, if the adjective is in a feminine or neuter form. For example: {{mk-noun|head=[[електронски|електронска]] [[пошта]]|f}}, which gives:
електронска пошта (elektronska poštaf
(Notice that if you click on the link, it goes to електронски.) It's up to you to decide what works best. —CodeCat 12:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanations - that's brilliant. I'll start employing it.

Reflexive Verbs[edit]

When I add intransitive or transitive Macedonian verbs as entries, they are automatically incorporated into an entire list of intransitive or transitive verbs which I can later view. However, this doesn't happen with reflexive verbs - no such list is created. Why is this so? Could someone mend it? Martin123xyz (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Verb Templates for Irregular Verbs[edit]

I have thought of a way to accommodate irregular verbs into templates - by entering two (or even more, if needed) stems in the parameter on the entry page. Given the fact that Macedonian irregular verbs tend to be irregular only in that their basic stem changes in some tenses, allowing different stems to fill out different parts of the template would resolve the problem. For example, whereas for "копа" I only write { { mk-conj-а|impf|коп } } and have "коп-" fill out everything, if I could write { { mk-conj-a|pf|дојд|дош } } for "дојде" and then have "дојд-" fill in certain parts of the template while "дош-" fills in the remaining, I could obtain the correct conjugation table. However, I don't how to specify in the code template which spaces need to be filled out by which parameter's contents. I think that the { { {2|- } } needs to be altered somehow (split into two distinct things), but I don't know how to achieve this. Could someone show me? Martin123xyz (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is more or less what I had in mind as well. For which forms would the second stem be used? —CodeCat 15:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Only the non-future л-forms should have the second stem, i.e. "дош-" in the case of "дојде"
What about the aorist? I thought that could be irregular too? —CodeCat 16:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
That is very rare. The only examples I can think of where it happens "земе", which is quite a singular case, and "сум", which is a completely irregular verb, as in so many languages. Thus, for "земе", we would need three different stems - a regular one, an aorist one, and a non-future л-participle one. For "сум" we would need plenty of different ones. I will upload the conjugation of that verb for you to see how it works and what can be done about.
Anyway, besides this, there is another complexity - the depalatalization. It happens with verbs of the "-е-о" and "-е-а" types. Thus, we need a depalatilized stem and a regular palatalized stem. In the case of "повлече", we need "повлек-" and "повлеч-". You can review the respective distributions of these forms in the Dropbox file from earlier. А somewhat different distribution applies to the "-е-a" type verbs (due to the presence of more back-vowel suffixes which trigger this depalatalization). Here is a file with both "расплаче" (an "-e-a" type verb with depalatilzation) and "сум". I have also included "земе": Martin123xyz (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly Unnecessary Entries[edit]

Almost adjectives that end in the suffix "-ен" seem to have a noun form with "-ост". Should I keep entering such nouns or wait until a suitable bot is procured to create them all automatically? I am not sure if this would be adequate, though, as the bot wouldn't really be able to add definitions. For example, if I need "послушност" (obedience) from "послушен" (obedient), how would the bot know that "obedience" is the appropriate translation? I don't suppose it would know how to derive it from "obedient". Then there are also the cases where these derived nouns with "-ост" have a somewhat less predictable meaning. For example, "должен" means "obligated" or "indebted", but "должност" means "duty". Obligation is better translated as "обврска". What's more, there are cases where derived nouns with "-ост" wouldn't be valid or at least not be very preferable. For example, from "тажен" (sad), one wouldn't derive "тажност". One would go with "тага" to mean "sadness". Likewise, one would much rather go with "празнина" (emptiness) rather than "празност" from "празен" (empty). How do you suggest this matter be approached? Martin123xyz (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Why do you put <code> </code> in templates, like on одолева? That's not right and it just breaks things... —CodeCat 22:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Because I wasn't fully aware that it's not right and because everything the template appeared fine even with the code inside it. I have removed it now (on another page). --Martin123xyz

Macedonian: biaspectual verbs[edit]

Can the template(s) be fixed to accommodate biaspectual verbs (двовидски глаголи)? The verb јаде, for example, can be biaspectual (cf. aorist јадов; aorist participle јал). There are also some borrowed verbs (unprefixed) ending in -ира that are biaspectual. -- 07:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • They presumably can, but I don't know how - I am very poorly acquainted with the Wiki mark-up language (and any other computer languages, for that matter). Anyway, I agree that biaspectual verbs need to be taken into account, such as the ones in "-ира", but I don't know about "јаде". I myself am not familiar with the form "јадов" and have always considered "јал" to be a dialectal variation of "јадел", imperfective either way. I only know of "изеде" as the standard perfect equivalent of "јаде", along with the more specific forms such as "дојаде", "најаде", "прејаде" etc. Martin123xyz (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The documentation of {{mk-verb}} describes how to do it. As for inflection tables, it's probably clearer to just show two tables, as usage is presumably either imperfective or perfective but never both. I could imagine that they even have different inflections (maybe different l-participles) depending on which aspect is used. —CodeCat 08:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I found how to do it. As for the conjugation tables, I agree that they should be separate. It's not that a biaspectual verb's imperfective conjugation would contradict its perfective conjugation or vice versa - they would be complementary - but I think it would be misleading to present a single conjugation table with all forms. Anyway, how should I mark the first table as opposed to the second? Should I write Inflection 1 (imperfective) and Inflection 2 (perfective) as headings? Is there some standard? Martin123xyz (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I could try to make it so the header automatically shows this. —CodeCat 10:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
          • All right, thank you. Tell me if you succeed. Martin123xyz (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Why should this be deleted? —CodeCat 16:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Because I made a new page for it, with a different "è" symbol. It's all here: сè (). The other "è" symbol that they had was somehow automatically converted to a regular "e" when I tried to create the page сè уште (sè ušte), so I tried using this other one, and it worked. Then, I needed to change сè () as well. Martin123xyz (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You should really use the original title. We shouldn't be mixing Cyrillic and Latin letters in names. The conversion happens because there is some special code that strips certain diacritics from words before linking to them. This is done so that we can add accent marks for languages where they are not normally written, like Russian. The same has been set up for Macedonian too, but I don't know if this is correct. Currently it's set up to convert "Ѐ", "ѐ", "Ѝ", "ѝ" to "Е", "е", "И", "и", and to remove all combining grave and acute accents. Should this be changed? —CodeCat 17:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. There shouldn't be a code stripping diacritics, because "се" and "сè" are two different words (the whole purpose of the grave accent is to distinguish them) and when they appear in compound phrases, just like when they are alone, they cannot be used interchangeably. If I am creating "сè уште", I don't want "се уште" - there's no such thing. It's just a common misspelling of "сè уште", which is why I have an entry for "се уште" at all. Should I recreate all the entries with "è" now by using the Cyrillic version and mark all the ones with the Latin "è" for deletion? --Martin123xyz
You can just move the pages, there's no need to delete and recreate them. I'll also remove stripping of the grave accent. But what about the acute accent, is that used at all? —CodeCat 17:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, right, there is "Move" button. As for the acute accent, it's used to mark stress, but only when someone specifically wishes to show the stress of a word - it's not actually part of the orthography (the case is the same for Russian). Thus, I don't think it matters if the acute accents are stripped. Martin123xyz (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is exactly why we have accent stripping, so it seems sensible to keep it for the acute accent. —CodeCat 17:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Remove it for the grave accent only. Martin123xyz (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, done. I've also added transliteration for the grave accented letters. —CodeCat 17:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


I had just changed this to "determiner". A determiner is similar to an adjective, but it has different meaning and usage. Instead of describing some kind of property of a word, it specifies the word in some way, helping to indicate which thing(s) is meant. Examples of determiners in English are all, which, this, any, your etc. Articles are generally also considered to be determiners. —CodeCat 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Half of the possessives were already entered some time ago as determiners, but I now changed them into adjectives (and added the missing ones). I thought that they should be labelled as adjectives because in school, when were studying Macedonian grammar, the possessive pronouns were specifically explained to us as adjectives. I didn't know that this was unfavourable here on Wiktionary. I'll change all the other ones to determiners too, if you wish.
What about words like "some", "every", "this kind", "few", etc. Are they also supposed to be determiners? Those were also taught to me as adjectives. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, those are determiners too. According to w:Determiner, they were (and still are) often grouped with adjectives, so what you were taught is not wrong. "Determiner" is just more specific. In English, most determiners can't be used with an article (although some can), and I assume something similar applies to Macedonian. You probably can't say "the your car" with the definite form in Macedonian (something like твоја(та) колата (tvoja(ta) kolata)?) —CodeCat 18:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
All right, I'll change them back soon. More specific is certainly more desirable. As for the articles, they are indeed used with the possessive - look at the examples I have provided for the entries. Thus, "твојата кола" is indeed correct, and means "your car". If you simply say "твоја кола", that means "one of your cars" or "a car of yours". Anyway, one can put articles on other determiners, e.g. "таков" (such, that kind) > "таквиот" (*the such). However, there are some determiners that prohibit the use of an article (e.g. "which", "every") Martin123xyz (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, if you use an adjective (of any kind) with a noun, then the definite article appears on the adjective rather than on the noun? So a form like колата would always stand alone? —CodeCat 18:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it appears on the adjective/determiner. I cannot think of any case where "колата" would be preceded by a modifier of some kind. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
This is quite different from how it's used in the Scandinavian languages. In Swedish, for example, you say: bil (car), bilen (the car), stor bil (big car), den stora bilen (the big car). So the article remains on the noun, but the adjective has a separate definite form. —CodeCat 18:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletions[edit]

It’s not a good idea to speedily delete entries without discussion unless they are your own mistakes or obvious vandalism. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

All right, I will put all future entries I delete up for discussion in advance if they don't fall into the aforementioned categories. Martin123xyz (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, Macedonian was the language with the greatest increase in number of gloss definitions since the previous database dump, so good job! — Ungoliant (falai) 19:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad - I've been working rather intensively on adding entries throughout the past month. I really think that Wiktionary is a useful learning tool, with the vast variety of information it can provide about words and phrases (etymology, pronunciation, morphological classification, grammatical forms, manner of usage, related terms, etc.) and I want to make it as useful as possible in this respect for Macedonian as well. It would be a pity if I didn't, since so much of the work is so straightforward and since I have sufficient knowledge of the language. Naturally, I've had great help, primarily from CodeCat, for which I'm very thankful. I hope things will run as smoothly in the upcoming weeks (or maybe months) as well. Martin123xyz (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't speak the language, but it's not clear why you nominated сѐ‎ for speedy deletion (remember, that means there isn't even any debate, and it's an obvious mistaken entry), when it looked quite long and complex. Please re-nominate with a reason, if necessary. Equinox 22:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I had a reason which you can read higher up my discussion page. It turned out that it wasn't valid, though. Anyway, it was indeed long and complex and there was nothing wrong with that part - I was only having trouble with the title. I didn't actually wish to delete anything fully but to move the content of that page to a new one with a title that didn't present the same problem. Either way, now the problem has been resolved because CodeCat has altered the code that automatically strips grave accents. I will soon move all pages related to "сѐ‎" to their appropriate Cyrillic titles (I am currently mending some determiners I've mislabelled as adjectives). Martin123xyz (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Some tips on nominating things for deletion: if it's something that anyone would look at and say "of course, that definitely needs to be deleted", or would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt since you just created it yourself, use {{d}}. If it's something where they would say that if they knew a little bit of information, use {{d}}, but add an explanation to your template as a parameter such as {{d|this has both Cyrillic and non-Cyrillic characters}}. Otherwise, use {{rfd}} and post an explanation. You should never nominate other people's content for deletion without some kind of explanation somewhere, unless it's so absolutely obvious that the average admin would have deleted it anyway as soon as they were aware of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Biaspectual verbs[edit]

Anatoli asked about Russian biaspectual verbs and created a category for them. I thought this was a good idea so I created one for Macedonian too. But I noticed that in the entries, you added two separate conjugation sections. When words have more than one conjugation, the normal practice is to have just one section, but with two tables. I fixed the first few entries in Category:Macedonian biaspectual verbs, could you fix the rest? —CodeCat 13:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I will, presently. Martin123xyz (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It's done. Martin123xyz (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you still contributing to "Macedonian Category"[edit]


I am wondering if you are still contributing to "Macedonian Category" of words as I would like to know if you need any help or if you could give me any tips.


Davski (talk)

Horizontal lines[edit]

---- is only used between languages, so if there's only one language on a page, it's not needed at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I know, but it's easier for me to just paste it everywhere automatically rather than type it individually each time it's needed, or alternatively erase it each time it's not needed. Am I violating some rule, such that I should stop immediately, or can I continue working as I have been so far, although it's not ideal? In any case, I personally don't find redundant horizontal lines particularly harmful in any way - after all, they're barely visible on the page; moreover, if someone wants to add an entry in another language to one of my pages which only contains a Macedonian entry, a horizontal line will already be there, saving the user in question some effort. Martin123xyz (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Need more names of cities in Macedonian[edit]

Greetings. This is a friendly reminder to improve the Macedonian entries. I think Wiktionary needs more proper nouns denoting cities. See Category:mk:Cities. Thank you very much. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll add some cities tonight and then I'm taking a break from Wiktionary since I'm starting my second term at university. When I revisit it in a few months/years, I'll add more cities as well as many other kinds of words - I've been adding whatever comes to mind so far, and clearly, there's much more to add. Martin123xyz (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

се разочара[edit]

Firstly, thank you so much for working on Macedonian! It's really great to see one person doing so much to expand the coverage of an underappreciated language. Anyway, I came here to mention that for other languages with reflexive verbs on Wiktionary (like Czech, French, German, etc), we have a standard of not creating a separate page, but instead adding a reflexive sense to, say, разочара. I think it would be advisable to follow that same standard for Macedonian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I see, but if that's the standard, how come Wiktionary has separate entries for all Russian reflexive verbs? In Russian, the reflexive marker is written as a suffix, whereas in Macedonian it's written as a separate word, but that's just an arbitrary orthographic convention (well, more or less) - is that the criterion that Wiktionary relies on? Also, if I start including information about reflexive verbs in the entries for their non-reflexive counterparts, is someone going to fix all the entries I've made so far? I think that continuing with the method I've already adopted would be more desirable than producing inconsistencies. In any case, I've been including reflexive verbs as separate entities because in school we're taught that they're lemmas in their own right. This is obvious in cases where are a reflexive verb doesn't have a non-reflexive counterpart, or has a non-reflexive counterpart with a completely different meaning (cf. се дере (se dere) and дере (dere)). Martin123xyz (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

се разочара[edit]

You added a label "reflexive" here but it's redundant because the entire entry is for a reflexive verb. The verb can only be used reflexively, there's no need for the label. The label would be used when a non-reflexive verb has some senses that are reflexive. —CodeCat 16:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat, the groupthink is getting to us... :) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The function of that label was to send all of my reflexive verbs into a list of reflexive verbs - if I recall well, I made it work like that. Now, that list is essentially gone - only a handful of verbs have remained in it, which had been sent to it via a category label (which is invisible unless one is editing the page). I don't really understand what's happened. Anyway, feel free to remove all of the reflexive labels if you wish, although I disagree with Wiktionary's standard system, which obscures the difference between reflexive and non-reflexive verbs. Martin123xyz (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Oddly enough, some of the reflexive verbs that I've entered as separate entries appear to link to the list of Macedonian reflexive verbs, but they're not in the list when I actually open it. Furthermore, the table of recent additions on the list's page contains reflexive verbs that I've added recently which are likewise absent from the list. Martin123xyz (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi. I see you're a prominent editor to our Macedonian lexicon. Thank you for your contributions here, and I'm glad to see an active native speaker. I recently started learning Macedonian, and haven't really studied Slavic/Balkan languages in-depth before, so feel free to take watch to my edits and help me out. I am also editing at the Macedonian Wiktionary, which, no offense, is sort of a swamp right now seeing how there are almost no active editors there. I added a lot of English and Danish entries there. Happy editing! PseudoSkull (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]


Hello, Martin. This entry you created has been nominated for speedy deletion by another editor of Macedonian with no accompanying explanation. Is it perhaps a misspelling of евтин?__Gamren (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a misspelling of евтин; I believed that both forms are standard, especially ефтин, being more faithful to its Greek etymon, and consistent with the Serbo-Croatian jeftin, but apparently not. In any case, ефтин should definitely not be deleted, since this is not a prescriptive dictionary, but one recording usage, and ефтин is an extremely common form. All that is needed is the label "common misspelling" - feel free to add it. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This has now been done by the nominator.__Gamren (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I've added the inflection back, since misspelled adjectives are as declinable as their correctly spelled counterparts, and so that people looking up the inflected forms can actually get results. Martin123xyz (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
    • ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.