Template talk:ang-conj-table

1-3rd plural (present and preterite) forms

The 1-3rd plural (present and preterite) forms should be added ang verb template. The code would look as follows?

Conjugation of ang-conj-table

present	singular	plural
1st person	{{{2}}}	{{{3}}}
2nd person	{{{4}}}	{{{5}}}
3rd person	{{{6}}}	{{{7}}}
subjunctive	{{{8}}}	{{{9}}}
preterite	singular	plural
1st person	{{{10}}}	{{{11}}}
2nd person	{{{12}}}	{{{13}}}
3rd person	{{{14}}}	{{{15}}}
subjunctive	{{{16}}}	{{{17}}}
imperative	singular	plural
	{{{18}}}	{{{19}}}
participle	present	past
	{{{20}}}	(ġe){{{21}}}

— This unsigned comment was added by Ganymede (talk • contribs).

Why? —Ruakh_TALK 11:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Simply because they are used and valid forms. The bigger question is why would they be left out? The 1-3rd person plural forms appear far more in extant texts then the 2nd plural (which is included in the current template). —Ganymede_TALK 10:08, 6 January 2011

Your phrase "the 2nd plural (which is included in the current template)" is not quite right: the current template includes the plural, and it happens to end up alongside the second-person singular, but it's not intended as a second-person plural, specifically.

You write as though there are separate plural forms for each person, but the creator of this template clearly didn't believe that to be the case, and [[w:Old English morphology]] doesn't support that position either. Do you have any evidence for it?

—Ruakh_TALK 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. This was partially a silly mistake on my part, one of my grammar books listed them separately and then I misread a "1-3rd person" as "1,3rd person." My real issue is a little nit-picky. I still find it a touch strange and/or misleading that the plural form of the verb appears in the 2nd person column. If only because I am confident in saying that the plural verb appears more commonly alongside and in reference to the 3rd person plural pronouns than any others. I'll have to do a bit more research to pull out some evidence of that though. As I said earlier, perhaps I'm being nit-picky, but I'm trying to think if there isn't an easier way to avoid the ambiguity in the template. —Ganymede_TALK 12:06, 6 January 2011

Well, it's not really in the second-person row . . . I mean, it is, physically, but only because that's the middle. This sort of thing is more clear when a single cell spans only two rows:

1	first	both
2	second

because then it doesn't end up aligning with either of them.

So, how can we make it more clear? Some ideas:

• If the table-cells themselves had borders or backgrounds, then it would be clear that the plural cells are three rows tall.
• We can simply output the plural forms three times. Unfortunately, this will obscure the fact that there's really just one plural form (as opposed to three plural forms that happen to be identical for a given verb).
• We can move the plural forms to the "first-person" row, and use double-quotes as a "ditto" symbol in the next two rows.
• We can restructure the table completely, maybe something like this:

  indicative	present	preterite
  1st-person singular	{{{2}}}	{{{8}}}
  2nd-person singular	{{{3}}}	{{{9}}}
  3rd-person singular	{{{4}}}	{{{10}}}
  plural	{{{5}}}	{{{11}}}
  subjunctive	present	preterite
  singular	{{{6}}}	{{{12}}}
  plural	{{{7}}}	{{{13}}}
  imperative
  singular	{{{14}}}
  plural	{{{15}}}
  participle	present	past
  	{{{16}}}	(ġe){{{17}}}

  I think that's my preference, actually. It makes more sense to me to break down first by mood, then by tense, and then by person and/or number.

What do you think?

—Ruakh_TALK 18:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That table looks very similar to {{nl-conj-wk}}. I say go for it! —CodeCat 20:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it does!  Done, thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a question if I may--for the plural forms, will we need to enter them separately as individual arguments when using the template? That might feel like overmuch work, and drudgy. If you've already addressed this above and I missed it, please point it out and forgive me. I'm always multitasking :) Leasnam 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, still just one parameter for the plurals. And in fact, they're still displayed only once, but even if we displayed them multiple times, we could just use the same parameter each time. (The reason that Ganymede (talk • contribs)'s original proposal did otherwise is that he thought there were actually separate plural forms, which of course would then require separate parameters.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks really great and far more useful than the previous format. Thanks for being so prompt and responsive. —Ganymede_TALK 12:06, 6 January 2011

Splitting in two

I think it would be best to split the template in two, if that hasn't already been done. One template provides only the table and the other template(s) provide the appropriate forms. A lot of languages have switched to that kind of system already and it works really well. I think it would work nicely for OE too, with 3 templates: weak, strong and irregular. —CodeCat 20:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no real need to split the template, per se: this template is already more or less identical to that approach's template-that-provides-only-the-table. If you want to create additional templates that take fewer arguments and really construct the various forms, they can use this one as their back-end, if you see what I mean. —Ruakh_TALK 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've created {{ang-conj-strong-I}}, based on [[scinan]] (where one could use {{ang-conj-strong-I|sc|n|sc|n}}, or just {{ang-conj-strong-I|sc|n}}). The only awkwardness IMHO is {{ang-conj}}'s prefixing of (ġe) to the past participle, which means that we can only link to the unprefixed form. But I just put it up for demonstration: it's up to Old English editors whether they actually use it. —Ruakh_TALK 21:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I would just create one template for all strong verbs. Having one for each class is a bit overboard I think. And as for adding ge-, I would just put that into the calling template. —CodeCat 21:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Or calling entry: there won't always be a calling template, I don't think, since there will always be words with peculiarities that a general template can't handle. (Consider ċēosan, for example, with its alternation between <s> and <r>.) Anyway, I think it's best to leave it for now. If and when individual entries almost all use intermediate templates, it will be easier to change that in just a few places without breaking existing pages. Alternatively, we can use {{isValidPageName}} on that parameter, and add (ġe) if and only if the parameter is the bare past participle. —Ruakh_TALK 22:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How does it work for prefixed verbs in Old English? In Dutch, verbs beginning with an unstressed prefix like ge-, be- or ver- do not get an additional ge- in the past participle. Is this true of Old English verbs too? —CodeCat 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. From the fact that it was hardcoded parenthetically into this template, even though the past participle is passed in as a manual parameter, I assumed that ġe- is always optional — that is, that (e.g.) scinen and ġescinen are both possible forms of the past participle. If you don't think that's the case, then we should ask Widsith (talk • contribs) before messing with it . . . —Ruakh_TALK 22:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about verbs that already have prefixes. Like beginnan. Would the past participle 'gebegunnen' be allowed? It's not in Dutch, the past participle there is begonnen even though ge- isn't even optional in that language. —CodeCat 22:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're talking about, but I simply don't know. As I said, I was assuming that both forms were possible for all verbs. —Ruakh_TALK 22:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, re: "one template for all strong verbs": The problem is that the different classes seem to differ in certain endings, as well, and not just in their ablaut series. Actually, there seems to be variation even within some classes: in the first-person singular present indicative, for flēogan we give flēogo, but for ċēosan we give ċēose. Without input from someone who actually knows Old English, we probably shouldn't mess with this too much. —Ruakh_TALK 22:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How does it work for prefixed verbs in Old English? In Dutch, verbs beginning with an unstressed prefix like ge-, be- or ver- do not get an additional ge- in the past participle. Is this true of Old English verbs too? —CodeCat 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC) -- This is true for the Old English ppt as well. Prefix ge- was appended only if the verb did not already contain an unstressed prefix, such as be-, for-, te-. The way it is now, without a forced (ge-) is perfect, as it allows the editor to add an optional ge- when it allows. And yes, even when it allows, it was sometimes used, sometimes not. Leasnam 08:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Old English Gerund

Can we have the gerund form of verbs added to the template? It is formed using tō followed by the verbal noun in the dative--e.g. bēoden "to offer" > tō bēodenne "offering/to offer"; sēon "to see" > tō sēonne; etc. I think this would be an added benefit and of interest to users, as it is the origin of our modern infinitive using "to". Leasnam 08:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)