Module talk:ru-adjective

tr_adj function

@Wiki, could you use the function "tr_adj", instead of "tr" in Module:ru-translit, please? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I still strongly disagree with doing so, but since it is our current practice and has not yet been voted out, I will do it. --WikiTiki89 17:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

When there are two short forms, which one should be listed first?

@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89 Some adjectives like жёлтый or белый have two possible stresses, e.g. in the short plural stem. Which one should be listed first, stem-stressed or ending-stressed? Generally in the manually-specified short forms, the stem-stressed comes first, but in Zaliznyak on p. 61 the ending-stressed comes first. Benwing2 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ending-stressed first but both forms are modern. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Benwing2 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, it should be the more common form in formal speech. However, that would be very difficult to determine for each case. --WikiTiki89 03:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The order suggested was for these two adjectives, where one is more common than the other.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Short forms of adjectives in -рукий, -ногий, -глазый, -губый, -ротый, -носый

(moved from Talk:долгорукий)

@KoreanQuoter, Benwing2 Hi. All these adjectives ending in -рукий, also -ногий, -глазый, -губый, -ротый, -носый have short forms. I missed that when adding definitions and checking entries. Is there a quick way to that, @Benwing2? If not, I'll do it some time later. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I'd have to write a bot script to do that. Probably easier to do by hand. I found the following words ending in these suffixes; this is from a run done on Jan 31, so any words added since then won't appear. Benwing2 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Page 2300 безногий: Processing
• Page 2328 безрукий: Processing
• Page 2731 близорукий: Processing
• Page 2993 босоногий: Processing
• Page 3198 брюхоногий: Processing
• Page 5803 головоногий: Processing
• Page 13541 многий: Processing
• Page 14938 немногий: Processing
• Page 16043 одноглазый: Processing
• Page 16055 одноногий: Processing

Thanks, немногий and многий should be excluded from the list. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Are these all type-a (stem stressed) short forms? Benwing2 (talk) 00:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your list is incomplete, though. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@KoreanQuoter, Benwing2 I have updated adjectives I could find, which should have short adjectives. I have removed from the list above some, which are not qualitative and don't use short forms. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is an updated list.

• Page 2309 безногий: Processing
• Page 2338 безрукий: Processing
• Page 2742 близорукий: Processing
• Page 2927 большерукий: Processing
• Page 3006 босоногий: Processing
• Page 3212 брюхоногий: Processing
• Page 3871 веслоногий: Processing
• Page 5883 головоногий: Processing
• Page 5890 голорукий: Processing
• Page 6557 двурукий: Processing
• Page 7050 длинноногий: Processing
• Page 7051 длиннорукий: Processing
• Page 7222 долгорукий: Processing
• Page 10908 козлоногий: Processing
• Page 11439 короткорукий: Processing
• Page 13745 многий: Processing
• Page 13763 многорукий: Processing
• Page 15175 немногий: Processing
• Page 16320 одноглазый: Processing
• Page 16334 одноногий: Processing

Ping: @Atitarev Benwing2 (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• • Finished checking the defined forms.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

how to determine whether an adjective has short forms

(moved from Talk:уставный) @Atitarev Can this have short forms? And can you give me any hints to look for short forms in Google Books? I tried looking but I get swamped by Bulgarian forms and typos. Benwing2 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Benwing2 It must be hard for you. :) I gave you examples because I had to use this method myself. I get swamped by Bulgarian sites as well if a form is rare, for less obvious cases. For лечебный I used лечебны, since Bulgarian doesn't have ы (also э but ё won't work). With суммарный was easier, because Bulgarians seldom double consonants. This adjective doesn't have short forms. You can also use advanced search by language, I think you can exclude common Bulgarian words - аз, ти, какво, include common Russian words with endings - -ать, -ый. Bulgarian verbs and adjectives never end like this.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Atitarev What about надлежащий as an adjective? Does it have short forms? Zaliznyak indicates it does, but normally present active participles don't. I can't use the "search for the plural trick" here because it ends in -и. Benwing2 (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No short forms. Not sure why Z says there are.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

more about determining whether an adj has short forms

(moved from Talk:дальневосточный) @Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha Are there short forms? I can't verify them but ruwikt specifically lists them. Benwing2 (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No short forms. The same will apply to all ethnicities, regions, directions (unless they have other qualitative senses). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Dated short genitive and dative in "mixed" declension

When was this added? If there are words in which the genitive and dative have dated short equivalents, I think this should be specified explicitly (as in {{ru-decl-adj|ма́мин|mixed|or|short}} or {{ru-decl-adj|ма́мин|mixed/short}} or something like that, because there are words that this does not apply to. --WikiTiki89 15:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Benwing2 --WikiTiki89 15:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, KoreanQuoter This was added quite awhile ago, I think. I'm not sure exactly why any more but it may have been on Cinemantique's recommendation. Benwing2 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

rare short forms again

@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, Per utramque cavernam I'm still a bit conflicted about how to indicate short forms for nouns that have them, but rarely. For example, the meaning "ablative" of аблятивный/аблативный doesn't sound like the kind of qualitative adjective that naturally takes short forms, but if you look hard enough, you can find uses:

1. [1]: «Задача состоитъ въ томъ, чтобы опредѣлитъ, какія изъ многочисленныхъ функцій славянскаго родительнаго основаны на представленіи удаленія (der trennung), а какія на принадлежности, какія аблятивны, а какія генетивны»
2. [2]: Если большая часть вашего корабля аблативна, вы можете соединить гравитационную рогатку с уклоном рядом с планеткой, которую вы никогда не любили.
3. [3]: *в настоящий момент выпускается все большее количество пластин, которые не аблативны, т.е. не «пылят», что позволят увеличить срок эксплуатации лазерной головки в CTP. – Прим. ред. Лазерное гравирование. Создание изображения на формном материале с .... При лит-проявлении получаются очень резкие края растровых и штриховых элементов изображения. Коэффициент контрастности – не менее 10 – 16 единиц. В полиграфии используют при ...

My instinct is to go ahead and list the short forms in the declensional table, possibly with a footnote attached to them indicating that the forms are rare; otherwise we're in the business of deciding how legitimate a given usage of a short form, which is a slippery slope.

BTW I have a file containing a large set of quotes establishing the usage of short forms for adjectives where it's questionable (e.g. раковый, соборный, новорожденный, родительный); in other cases, I couldn't find any examples on the first 10 pages or so of Google Books searches for the short plural form (e.g. конвойный, двуствольный), and I indicate that as such. I'm planning soon on writing a script to insert these quotes into the Citations section of the adjectives. The file lists only the adjective, the quote and a link to the source page, and that's probably all that will get inserted into the Citations page, as it's too much work to try to figure out the proper bibliographic citation for each of the hundreds of examples.

Benwing2 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, Per utramque cavernam In case that ping failed ... I never know whether pings will go through when enter multi-paragraph text. Benwing2 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW my general strategy for looking for short forms of adjectives is to search in Google Books for the plural short form, as I imply above. This excludes Bulgarian forms that would otherwise often swamp the search results. Another possibility I've been trying recently is to try one of the other short forms and add a word like очень or был that doesn't exist in Bulgarian. Benwing2 (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Yes, please mark them as rare if you include them and your strategy is good. I got both pings. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

short-form-only adjectives

@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, Per utramque cavernam, Guldrelokk BTW, can anyone give me a fairly full list of adjectives that are short-form only? At least, ones that are found in this dictionary? Zaliznyak lists four (рад, люб, должен and слабенек), but there are certainly others; I know of at least горазд. Benwing2 (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

наслышан, намерен, великоват, маловат + page 442.--Cinemantique (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cinemantique Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cinemantique: It seems long forms великова́тый (velikovátyj), малова́тый (malovátyj) are also used and are attestable. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, Per utramque cavernam, Guldrelokk BTW, I added support to {{ru-decl-adj}} to display short-form-only adjectives. To do this, use |nofull=1 and list the declension of the adjective as if it's full form. Hence e.g. for люб: {{ru-decl-adj|любо́й|c|nofull=1}}. Benwing2 (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Thanks for implementing. I don't think I can add anything at this stage. Guldrelokk and Cinemantique have answered your questions here and at Talk:должен. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

accelerators

(Notifying Atitarev, Cinemantique, Useigor, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak, Tetromino, Chignon): I added entry-creation accelerators to adjective tables. Be warned that the auto-generated pronunciation is wrong for entries with translit. Benwing2 (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

(Notifying Atitarev, Cinemantique, Useigor, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak, Tetromino, Chignon): Noun table accelerators are also fixed. Benwing2 (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Surnames

@Benwing2, is it possible to add support for non-adjectival, maculine-noun-form surnames? Such surnames are declined as an ordinary masculine noun in the masculine singular; not declined in the feminine singular; and are variably declined in the plural (the formal style is to decline "foreign-sounding" masculine-noun-form surnames only when applied to groups of men or in certain set expressions, see Rozental for details).

Currently, such declensions are formatted via ru-noun-table as if they were masculine nouns (e.g. see Блок), with usage notes for the feminine, which is not ideal, especially since such usage notes are in all cases I have seen incomplete (no mention of variable plural declension).

Also, we'd want to properly format feminine nominative and genitive forms in the head. Tetromino (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tetromino, Benwing2: @Tetromino, do you means surnames like Блок (Blok)? Do you still think it needs improvement?

I was going to request adjectival surnames like Хмельни́цкий (Xmelʹníckij) to have no "inanimate" form and noticed this old request. Not sure if it's possible with the current setup. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Benwing2: Yes, Блок (Blok) needs improvement. The table is incomplete and the footnote is misleading. What we really need is the following:

	masculine	feminine	plural
nominative	Блок (Blok)	Блок (Blok)	Блок (Blok) // Бло́ки (Blóki)*
genitive	Бло́ка (Blóka)	Блок (Blok)	Блок (Blok) // Бло́ков (Blókov)*
dative	Бло́ку (Blóku)	Блок (Blok)	Блок (Blok) // Бло́кам (Blókam)*
accusative	Бло́ка (Blóka)	Блок (Blok)	Блок (Blok) // Бло́ков (Blókov)*
instrumental	Бло́ком (Blókom)	Блок (Blok)	Блок (Blok) // Бло́ками (Blókami)*
prepositional	Бло́ке (Blóke)	Блок (Blok)	Блок (Blok) // Бло́ках (Blókax)*

^* declinable when applied to conjunctions of male names or familial terms (e.g. Ива́н и Бори́с (Iván i Borís), оте́ц и сын (otéc i syn)) or to the expressions муж и жена́ (muž i žená), брат и сестра́ (brat i sestrá). Usually indeclinable in the plural otherwise, e.g. бра́тья Блок (brátʹja Blok). Tetromino (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that for masculine-noun-form surnames which coincide with Russian words (e.g. plants, animals), the surname is often indeclinable in colloquial style even when referring to one man. In other words:

	masculine	feminine	plural
nominative	Гусь (Gusʹ)	Гусь (Gusʹ)	Гусь (Gusʹ) // Гу́си (Gúsi)**
genitive	Гу́ся (Gúsja) // Гусь (Gusʹ)*	Гусь (Gusʹ)	Гусь (Gusʹ) // Гусе́й (Guséj)**
dative	Гу́сю (Gúsju) // Гусь (Gusʹ)*	Гусь (Gusʹ)	Гусь (Gusʹ) // Гуся́м (Gusjám)**
accusative	Гу́ся (Gúsja) // Гусь (Gusʹ)*	Гусь (Gusʹ)	Гусь (Gusʹ) // Гусе́й (Guséj)**
instrumental	Гу́сем (Gúsem) // Гусь (Gusʹ)*	Гусь (Gusʹ)	Гусь (Gusʹ) // Гуся́ми (Gusjámi)**
prepositional	Гу́се (Gúse) // Гусь (Gusʹ)*	Гусь (Gusʹ)	Гусь (Gusʹ) // Гуся́х (Gusjáx)**

^* colloquial

^** in formal usage, declinable when applied to conjunctions of male names or familial terms (e.g. Ива́н и Бори́с (Iván i Borís), оте́ц и сын (otéc i syn)) or to the expressions муж и жена́ (muž i žená), брат и сестра́ (brat i sestrá). Usually indeclinable in the plural otherwise, e.g. бра́тья Гусь (brátʹja Gusʹ). Tetromino (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Hi, please reply with your opinion, if you can. I personally don't know if we need to include indeclinable parts, a comment will do. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Tetromino It is a bit tricky to support tables of this form with the current code. Unfortunately, the existing Russian adjective code (along with the noun and verb code) is old and needs to be rewritten along the lines of the Ukrainian and Belarusian modules. For those languages, supporting tables like this would be much easier and maybe even already possible. IMO it's probably not necessary in any case to include all the indeclinable forms in the table. Probably sufficient just to add a Usage Note indicating that the terms are indeclinable under certain circumstances, defining the circumstances. Maybe we can include a footnote in the table itself stating that the starred forms are indeclinable under certain circumstances. This is already possible using e.g. {{ru-decl-adj|...|gen_p_tail=**|notes=** <appropriate description>}} but currently you have to add the ** to each case form individually. However it would be easy to add arguments like |pltail= to add the symbol to all plural forms (this is already supported for nouns). Benwing2 (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Disable inanimate part on surname

Moved from Talk:Боровой

@Benwing2. Hi. Moving the request here:

@Benwing2: Hi. Is there a way to set the animacy? Also, e.g. Кропивни́цкий (Kropivníckij) in sg accusative is "Кропивни́цкий" as a place name but "Кропивни́цкого" as a male person. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Pls respond if this can be done or if there is already a way to disable incorrect accusative inanimate forms for surnames. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev I could have sworn I implemented this before, but apparently not; I must have been thinking of Ukrainian or Belarusian. Anyway, I implemented surname=1, which you should use for surnames in place of noneuter=1. I will do a bot run to convert existing surnames. As for Кропивни́цкий (Kropivníckij), you should separate it into two POS entries, one for the place name and one for the surname. Benwing2 (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Excellent, thank you! Кропивни́цкий (Kropivníckij) is already split and I have applied |surname= on the surname and it worked as desired.

If you do a bot run, I won't bother doing it manually, thanks again! Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Hi. I can see a new category gets generated, probably unexpected: Category:Russian proper surnames. Please see Гудко́в (Gudkóv).

Not sure about Category:Russian possessive surnames either. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev Formerly these generated categories Category:Russian proper-name adjectives and Category:Russian possessive adjectives. I changed things to generate the corresponding categories with 'surnames' in place of 'adjectives', but Category:Russian proper-name surnames didn't look right so I changed it to Category:Russian proper surnames. Not sure this is right either but the intention is that since surnames in -ин and -ов have their own declension type, there should be a category for this. Maybe Category:Russian possessive surnames is sufficient, since they are the surname equivalent of possessive adjectives in -ин/-ов? What do you think? Benwing2 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Yes, thanks, Category:Russian possessive surnames maybe sufficient (for now?). Note that these endings (-ин/-ын-ов/-ев/ёв) add to Category:Russian short possessive adjectives. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I removed Category:Russian proper surnames and created Category:Russian possessive surnames. Benwing2 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

господень

@Benwing2 Hi. Are you able to add a handling for this type of declension, please? It is reducible. Type 2*а. You can use the ru:господень. It's not a productive declension, though, I think. Should I provide manual forms instead? Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)