Module talk:sw-derivations

@JohnC5: I was inspired by Wyang's work on MOD:ms-derivations; I'm not sure whether copying the code is at all a good idea, but the general concept that works so well for Malay is also very applicable to Bantu languages. I have discussed all the forms in a writeup at Appendix:Swahili verbal derivation. Basically, I was hoping for a template that could be supplied with something like {{sw-der|pass|stat|statg=be fubarical|caus=fubariza}} and output the following, to be placed in a ===Derived terms=== section:

• Verbal derivations:
  • -fubarwa (passive)
  • -fubariza (causative)
  • -fubarika (“be fubarical”) (stative)

I'm not sure whether it's worth covering nominal derivations or if I'd be better off listing those manually, and the formatting of my example is probably not ideal, but the idea of labelling derivations and being able to gloss them or specify them if irregular is the main deal. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

More food for design thought: somebody has already tried to solve this problem for Swahili (though they didn't use it much); you can see the fruit of their labour at -soma. It's certainly more attractive than my style above, but I think it looks out of place, especially when there are also nominal derivations in the section. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd go with the plain list format. It's what people expect to see. —CodeCat 16:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Please find the sample code with which you may fiddle around at Template:sw-derivations/sandbox. I've implemented all the verbal derivations with hopefully very few errors. In cases were there was too much uncertainty, I just omitted the irregular rules. Do you want me to do something about the nominal formations? —JohnC5 06:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5: I don't see any problems, but if anything comes up during rollout, I'll let you know. As for nominal formations, I'm starting to think that it would be neater to handle those too, just so they can come under a separate "Nominal derivations" bullet point, but without description — just nom, nom2, and so on with gloss parameters. Does that sound like a good idea? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: What should the names of these nominal and verbal templates be? Would you also like a class parameter so so you can indicate the noun class or would gender be better or do you need this at all? —JohnC5 15:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Oh, I was thinking that the nominal derivations could be handled by the same template by adding parameters, but would just be listed alphabetically without explanation. (If you meant "templates" in a non-MediaWiki sense, then I don't understand.) I don't think there's much point to showing noun class, it's usually pretty obvious. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Ok, I can whip something up for you. —JohnC5 16:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Done. —JohnC5 16:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Thank you! Everything looks excellent and the Python jokes are appreciated as well! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

More stuff

@JohnC5: When I added it to -funga, I realised that verbal derivations that don't form a part of the systematic stuff, like idioms like -funga safari, still ought to go in the template. Do you think a good solution would be just to have some unlabelled verbal parameters, similar to the nominal ones? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I could do that. Would you want the params to be |vrb=, |vrb-g=, etc.? I'm not in the mood to do this at the moment. —JohnC5 22:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5 Sounds good. And there's no rush! Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I did the thing. Sorry for the delay. —JohnC5 19:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Please, no need to apologise when you're being so kind as to do me a favour! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well the change took me all of 15 minutes. So my not doing it was just sheer laziness. —JohnC5 03:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)