Talk:объимать

(Notifying Atitarev, Cinemantique, KoreanQuoter, Useigor, Wanjuscha, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Per utramque cavernam, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak): Forms like объемлю (obʺjemlju) with empty infinitive come from обнима́ть (obnimátʹ), which has an alternative conjugation listed of type 6a with |infinitive=-. In this case I'm not sure what infinitive should appear; maybe it should avoid creating these forms at all? Benwing2 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Of course we want there to be non-lemma entries with a link and not at all empty entries. One way would be to combine the forms and show them in one table manually (I don’t know how flexible {{ru-conj}} is in this matter, or for suppletive forms in general), another one to refer the reader to объима́ть (obʺimátʹ).

This says nothing about the glosses and usage notes: I wrote that объима́ть (obʺimátʹ) is chiefly archaic because the -объемл- forms are used while the infinitive and other forms are not.
The story about a “defective conjugation” at обнима́ть (obnimátʹ) is of course wrong. I don’t think this is what “defective conjugation” means. This is a verb fully conjugated just with alternative shapes which belong either to its paradigm or with diachronical considerations to a completely different paradigm as on объима́ть (obʺimátʹ). “Defective” is when you as a user lack forms, not when a table separated in imagination is incomplete. But you as a user have even synchronically a form for every paradigmatic position there is in Russian. Fay Freak (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fay Freak The easiest thing to do is to make a special irregular verb class for обнимать. Are there other verbs conjugated this way? It's also possible to specify all the forms manually, which is a lot of work. Finally I may be able to modify Module:ru-verb to support adding an additional partial paradigm; currently you can specify two paradigms for a verb but only two full ones. Benwing2 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: A similar verb I can think of is прие́млю (prijémlju). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: *объима́ть is an impossible spelling. The citation is pre-1917, when there was no rigid and universally accepted set of orthographic rules. This infinitive is spelled обыма́ть, codified as obsolete in modern dictionaries. I think both infinitives (обымать, marked obsolete and обнимать) should have the personal forms of the объемлю-series represented.

Compare also the Russian entry: ru:обымать. Guldrelokk (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I agree with User:Guldrelokk. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)