Appendix talk:French verbs

Split?

The heading levels are getting too low (some are level 5). Should we split into -er, -ir and -re pages? Or cull? This, that and the other 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the structural changes are troublesome for many reasons. Yes the table is shows the whole, but it takes a LOT of places pointlessly, includes links that are often redundant or inappropriate and distracting, and it fails to demonstrate the actual patterns in the conjugation (not to mention that showing compounds is always unnecessary on this page, and half the time showing the full conjugation when only a few forms are necessary is a waste of time and page space). Additionally, conjugation templates cannot follow each others (weird, b/c that works just fine over at wp:) and adds notes appropriate for the dict. entries, but at best confusing and completely redundant here. Circeus 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I added the navframe conjugation templates is (1) they were clearer than the plain-text conjugation lists you had before, and (2) they are collapsible to save space. They need to be fixed, though, to (1) hide the "intro text" on this page (obviously it is not needed here), and (2) to fix the problem you mention above about two navframes next to each other. My other goal was to make the text less technical and more complete. But go ahead, fix away. I'm busy again, so won't be able to do too much here. Thanks, This, that and the other 10:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the navframes are troublesome in including a prominent "see also this very page" IN EVERY HEADER. I'm reverting and then seeing if the text can be improved. Circeus 15:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That text is in {{fr-conj-table}}, and can easily be fixed to not self-link: just change

<span style="font-size:90%;">(see also [[Appendix:French verbs]])</span>

to

{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Appendix:French verbs||<span style="font-size:90%;">(see also [[Appendix:French verbs]])</span>}}

. But I think that functionality should actually be moved to {{fr-conj}}, since it's text content, not table markup.
—Ruakh_TALK 17:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The extra whitespace is also due to {{fr-conj-table}}. We need to replace its

<div class="NavFrame" style="clear:both;margin-top:1em">

with

<div class="NavFrame">

. —Ruakh_TALK 17:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a very good reason I put it in the higher-order template: the more irregular verbs will likely end up having the table used directly instead of bothering to create a template (deprecated template usage) asseoir is a case in hand. Also, that is NOT the only issue, and ultimately, I'm still very much of the opinion that in most cases posting the full conjugation is at best unnecessary, at worst completely distracting and overwhelming. Besides, editing templates to remove notes only for this page is just begging for problems down the road. Circeus 17:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it; why does (deprecated template usage) asseoir use {{fr-conj-table}} instead of {{fr-conj}}? Doesn't the latter support everything the former does, but with human-readable parameter names? (Actually, more generally, I don't see the benefit of having both templates.) But yeah, I agree with you that this appendix probably doesn't need fifty gazillion full conjugation tables. :-P   —Ruakh_TALK 19:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Because 1) there is arguably no need for a template used on two pages and 2) I needed to fit three distinct conjugation, and this was solved by putting the traditional ones together, which cannot be done in {{fr-conj}} (try it and you'll understand immediately) Circeus 23:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

'Fraid I don't understand. Sorry. Can you explain? This, that and the other 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, on a more basic level, because for some unfathomable reason the template grabs its verb from the page name instead of internally, all these tables are nonsensically labeled as "conjugation of Appendix:French verb", which is outright embarrassing. Circeus 19:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, easily fixed — and should be fixed, even if we don't use those templates here. There are plenty of situations where our page-names don't perfectly match our headwords. —Ruakh_TALK 19:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought I fixed the conjugation templates to use {{{inf}}} instead of {{PAGENAME}}. This, that and the other 05:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed for overall classification.

Currently the appendix takes a rather authoritative tone about which verbs are "first conjugation", which are "second conjugation", and which are "third conjugation", but not all authorities use the exact same classification. Therefore, I think we need to:

• note that authorities differ; and
• indicate which authority we're following.

(For example, the Bescherelle, at least in the edition I own, treats all (deprecated template usage) -er verbs, except for (deprecated template usage) aller, as being of the first conjugation; (deprecated template usage) (r)enverr- is enough to give (deprecated template usage) (r)envoyer its own table, but not enough to relegate it to the third conjugation.)

—Ruakh_TALK 23:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the Irregular Verbs appendix, I'm following the slightly iconoclastic Grevisse there in putting (deprecated template usage) envoyer as a third-group verb. I agree that most other (deprecated template usage) grand public (how would you translate that?) sources (i.e. both my dictionaries, Mari-Éva de Villers' Multidictionnaire, the edition of the Bescherelle owned by my landlords...) put envoyer and renvoyer as a first group verb. As far as I know, this is the only difference between the page and traditional pedagogical classification.

However, I do believe a non-native pedagogical view needs to be taken here, and of all these sources, Grevisse (actually, it's been written by his son-in-law Goose for the last two editions) is the only one, hence the choice. Circeus 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another difference between this classification and my copy of Bescherelle is that the latter treats it (deprecated template usage) maudire as a second-group verb, but with an irregular infinitive and past participle, whereas the former says "it is considered a third-group verb". Is that also from Grevisse? —Ruakh_TALK 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC) fixed 11:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC), somehow failed to mention the verb I was talking about

Which verb are we talking about now? haïr? bénir? maudire? Whatever it is, you only use "it" to designate it, and I doubt it's envoyer... (I've seen maudire treated both ways, actually, and haïr is only ever discusse as a second-group) Circeus 06:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's better to follow the usual classification. According to what I've learned at school:

• -er verbs: 1st conjugation (but aller is a logical exception, as its conjugation has nothing to do with the 1st conjugation). envoyer and its derived verbs belong to this group, despite their irregular forms for future and conditional).
• -ir (and ïr) verbs with an -isse subjunctive: 2d conjugation (the easiest one)
• other -ir verbes, -oir verbs and -re verbs: 3rd conjugation (very artifical group, and should not be called a conjugation...). maudire belongs to this group, despite the fact that its conjugation is almost identical to the 2nd conjugation.

Special cases such as fiche or béton (laisse béton...) are not considered in this classification. I think that notes should be added where useful to explain the different options taken by grammarians. Lmaltier 07:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I persist in disagreeing over the placement of envoyer, though I've already put myself with the mainstream over haïr which Grevisse & Goosse put down as an irregular verb (in this case the choice is arguably more acceptable given the tendency to analogically rebuild the offending forms of the present and imperative). For the rest, I entirely agree with you: any other irregulars, such as laisser's future in lair-, are strongly archaïc, dialectal, or not quite appropriate (ficher's "irregular" past participle is better analysed as a minced oat for foutu IMHO). Circeus 14:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Error about second person conjugation

This article states that all second person singular conjugations end with -s. This is true for all regular verbs, but some irregular verbs end in -x. See Tu Peux or Tu Veux.

That's right. Thank you for the correction. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Misleading appendix name.

This appendix is named "French verbs", but all it discusses is the classification of French verbs by conjugation, and the formation of the various verb-forms for each conjugation-type. I think it should be moved to Appendix:French verb conjugation, and we can create an Appendix:French verbs that's about French verbs more generally. —Ruakh_TALK 14:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Should the verb 'ascendre' be conjugated with être?

At least, the french wiktionary suggests it being so.

https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Annexe:Conjugaison_en_fran%C3%A7ais/ascendre

129.215.91.226 14:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The verb feels archaic to me. TLFi marks it as "dated, unused" and its only compound use exemple has "avoir". The "movement verbs use être", like many such rules, may not be as old as we like to think,a nd be significantly less applicable to a verb that fell out of common use (if it ever was) well over a hundred years ago. Circeus (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)