Template talk:inflection of

lang=

Could please lang= parameter using {{t-sect}} be added to this template, so that links to the appropriate language sections could be generated? Thanks. --Ivan Štambuk 12:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 00:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Upper case

The first letter must be uppercase.--Jyril 18:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. This is a grammatical explanation of the word, not a definition, and it is an incomplete phrase, not a sentence. --EncycloPetey 21:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case there shouldn't be a dot. --Jyril 17:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that all basic English form of templates are shown as complete sentences. Why should we deviate from that? --Jyril 17:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should Latin do something just because English does? We could change all the English templates to match the other languages. --EncycloPetey 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to follow the English example in all entries. I think we should have a some sort of standard here: either capitalized first word + period or alternatively no capitalization, no period. But I agree an entry that is not a proper sentence is a bit odd if formatted as such. --Jyril 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have removed the period. --EncycloPetey 20:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If this isn't going to be capitalized and end in a period, then things like {{genitive of}} shouldn't either. Take a look at fir#Irish – it's terribly inconsistent, with some entries being capitalized and dotted and other entries being uncapitalized and undotted. Looks terrible. Angr 22:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a capital and a dot, or at least it should be provided for. See immolate and compare Italian and Latin: Italian uses {{form of}}; I think it looks better. But in any case, these should be synchronized with each other. H. (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-Latin scripts

Is there any reason not to add sc= and tr= parameters, to support non-Latin scipts? Can this be accomplished by transcluding {{term}}? Does this template have a maintainer, or shall I study up on editing complex templates? Thanks. —Michael Z. 02:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This template needs a number of adjustments. The most serious problem is that it does not accomodate the inclusion of wikilinks. The difficulty is that it needs to not only allow for wikilinks (for reasons of statistics), it really ought to be updated to allow alt=, like the {t} templates do. However, I don't know how to set the template to function for all of these issues. I was trying to get Conrad to update it, but he was busy when I spoke with him. In any case, the template does need a major overhaul, and will probably need a bot run afterwards to update all calls of the template once it is revised. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Something seems to be broken

Look at the entries in Category:Latin noun forms (abacorum)- the links aren't working properly. The template hasn't been changed since April, so I don't know what the problem is. Nadando 18:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not broken. This is an ongoing update to the way the template works. The old template did not allow for explicit wikilinks, so pages using the template weren't being counted in our site total. The template has been adjusted to work the same way that {{conjugation of}} works, with explicit links. The fix for any similar problems found is to change template calls of the form:

• {{inflection of|abacus#Latin|abacus|gen|p}}

into the form:

• {{inflection of|[[abacus#Latin|abacus]]||gen|p}}

Note the extra pipe after the added wikilinks. In addition, most of the old Latin noun form entries lack the {{la-noun-form}} inflection line template.

In short, there is a lot of Latin noun cleanup on the way. I have been works for months to clean up the old verb entries, and while I've come a long way (with much help), there is still a lot to be done there before I start similar cleanup on all the noun...beginning with problems in the declension table templates. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideally this would allow explicit links without breaking older uses... Couldn't the template use a test like that in {{wlink}}, to detect if the supplied parameter contains wikitext? -- Visviva 02:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; I see there is a markup check built in, it just doesn't work with the old syntax. -- Visviva 07:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I encounter numerous entries still using the older syntax. I suppose ideally someone should make a dump of them all and they should be fixed manually, or botted. --Ivan Štambuk 15:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  If there were a list of problem entries (by language), I think that would motivate people to do manual cleanup. I would certainly give priority to fixing any such Latin entries if there were a list (making them easy to track down). --EncycloPetey 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Template is fixed to handle the "old" syntax. I believe that all the entries that use a#(language)|a are Latin entries < Jan 08, when the lang= option was added. We can still make a list. Specifically:

{{inflection of|a|b|...|lang=la}}
{{inflection of|a||...|lang=la}}
{{inflection of|a#Latin|b|...}}
{{inflection of|[[a#Latin|b]]||...|lang=la}}

are handled correctly. But:

{{inflection of|[[a#Latin|b]]|b|...

will not work; if the first parameter is wikilinked, the 2nd must be blank. (This could also be checked for if it was a problem, but I don't think so?). Also:

{{inflection of|a#Latin|b|...|lang=la}}

will not work (it will add the section twice). Robert Ullmann 08:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So there is no way for both lang= to work, and the first parameter be wikified (with or without the second parameter)? --Ivan Štambuk 08:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, lang= will work with everything except the "old" syntax (the last example), where it will generate b (look at the URL generated). The lang parameter should be used in all other cases. (I'll get AF to do that at some point soon.) Let me make the examples clearer above. Robert Ullmann 08:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get how lang= is supposed to be used with wikification. {{inflection of|[[a]]||gen|p|lang=la}} doesn't work for me (does not generate #Latin), and {{inflection of|[[a]]|b|gen|p|lang=la}} seems to generate some rubbish. If AF changes the "old" syntax still currently used by the bots to that which uses lang= and does not wikify directly, will that cause a significant decrease in page-count? --Ivan Štambuk 08:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you use wikilinking in the 1st parameter, you do have to do what you want (include section link); it can't insert it into the string. But it won't "break" either. Your second example is what it says won't work above. I think it is high time we fix the page count differently, but don't worry about that here. No, I won't have AF do anything to actually decrease page count. Robert Ullmann 09:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A problem with Etymology 1 and 2

Hi! If you check ossa#Latin you will be redirected to different forms of os#Latin. There you find that your ossa ("bones") have no relation with Etymology 1 (os = "mouth"). We have to fix this situation. Is there any way to make the template redirect you directly to Etymology 2? Thank you and sorry for my English. :) --Pequod76 06:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No, and there shouldn't be. The template links to the language section only, not to a particular etymology. We can't link to a particular etymology because the two do not have permanent identification tags. That is, there's nothing to keep a future editor from swapping around etymologies into different orders. This does happen for some major entries. So, linking to a particular etymology section is not feasible nor advisable. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

RFM discussion: October 2014–January 2015

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Merge Template:conjugation of into Template:inflection of

The only difference between these templates is the grammar abbreviation tags they support. Everything else is the same. But there is no conflict between the tags of one versus the other, so we could very easily merge them. Afterwards, Template:conjugation of would become a redirect, and we would encourage users to use only Template:inflection of (because its name is more universal if nothing else). —CodeCat 01:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems sensible. Support merging. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure why not. — Keφr 06:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've started renaming now. —CodeCat 17:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Support (as long as nothing gets broken, which of course, shouldn't happen). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Conjugation is the more prevalent term. Purplebackpack89 14:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not for nouns and adjectives, it isn't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Then use inflection for those and keep conjugation for verbs. Purplebackpack89 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Why? —CodeCat 16:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Everybody has been doing just fine with using {{inflection of}} for nouns, even though the "more prevalent term" for that is declension. Besides, you can still use {{conjugation of}}, since it will be a redirect and {{inflection of}} should be completely backwards-compatible with {{conjugation of}}. There are actually a number of languages where the tidy distinction between nouns and verbs gets blurred: participles are verb forms with many of the characteristics of nouns, and there are languages with affixes that add pronouns to verbs and verb-specific qualities to nouns. There have been several occasions where I wished I could use the abbreviations for both templates on the same form. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Participles can be nounal? Our entry at participle says they can, but I always thought of participles as either adjectival or adverbial. w:Participle seems to agree with me. English -ing form is called a participle and can act as a noun of course, but I consider that a coincidence. — Keφr 16:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Kephir, they can be nounal. It's adverbial I'd question. Purplebackpack89 17:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"He went down kicking and screaming." —CodeCat 17:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that's adjectival: it's describing him, not the manner in which he went down. It's like "He went shopping hungry". And participles can be turned into adjectives by adding -ly, just like adjectives (e.g. swimmingly). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I could argue that the adjective hungry is being used adverbially here: both these examples can be thought of as ellipsis of "while". Though it also reminds me of how good and well are sometimes used interchangeably, which I think cannot be explained away in such terms. — Keφr 18:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's elliptical for "He went shopping while he was hungry", i.e. a predicative adjective. It's not "He went shopping in a hungry manner". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Show me a nounal participle in any language. Like I wrote, I do not consider gerunds to be participles. — Keφr 18:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do. Also, consider the word "happening", which can be used a noun, adjective, or verb Purplebackpack89 18:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I happen not to value your opinions very highly. I was asking people with some backgrounds with linguistics (of which there are a few here) whether my intuition of what constitutes a participle agrees with professional use. — Keφr 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The only nominal uses of a participle I can think of are in languages like German where almost any adjective can be used substantively, e.g. Mitreisender (“fellow traveler”). And participles and gerunds are two entirely different thing, and it's just an accident of history that English present participles and gerunds happen to have the same form. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm surprised no one brought up past participles -- those are much more commonly used in English as nominals, such as the lost, the disappeared, the blessed, etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's just the nominal use of an adjective, it's the same as the green, the elderly etc. —CodeCat 18:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Merged some time ago. — Keφr 13:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Unclear usage

This template is for all kind of terms, but the documentation is not clear enough. What about predicative nouns in Turkish? If this template is good also for these terms, how are there supposed to be used? There is a "indc" tag for the indicative form. What about the predicative form, like elbiseler, which is both the plural of elbise and the predicative simple present form.--Sae1962 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dialects, varieties, etc.

This template needs |from= parameters so that dialects, language varieties, etc. can be specified, using the labels at Module:labels/data/regional. For instance, the inflected form γίνεσθαι (gínesthai) needs to be tagged as Koine Greek, and γίγνεσθαι (gígnesthai) as Attic Greek (and whatever else). (And saith probably needs to be tagged as Early Modern English, though there currently isn't a label for that...) — Eru·tuon 08:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

What does from= mean/do? —CodeCat 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat – Hmm, I thought it added one of the regional or dialect labels from the aforementioned module, but now I don't see any "from" listed in Module:form of/templates. It seems only to be listed in Module:form of. So maybe it's not actually implemented in any of the form-of templates. (I tried using the parameter in {{form of}} and it didn't work.) Huh. — Eru·tuon 19:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add a label, would you not just use {{label}}? —CodeCat 19:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: I suppose that works; however, it will add a bunch of inflected forms to the categories like Category:Koine Greek... — Eru·tuon 19:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

{{label}} has a nocat=1 parameter, which would prevent that. —CodeCat 19:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I would rather have there be some category, preferably something like Category:Koine Greek inflected forms, but there are no such categories or any way to handle them at the moment. — Eru·tuon 21:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

2nd declension masculine vocative singular

Hi, the vocative singular part of the template for masculine nouns and adjectives should only have one e at the end instead of two, i.e. Iule instead of Iulee. I first found this on floreus. Can somebody fix this? Icebob99 (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry-- the problem I found was word-specific. Disregard this. Icebob99 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add some tags for Uyghur language

Hi, Now I'm working on Uyghur nouns. I found this template is very useful. But the Uyghur noun needs some other tags. There are some information for it: Appendix:Uyghur nouns . Could you add these tags please. Thanks --Oyunqi (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Oyunqi: The data is at Module:form of/data; make sure to update Template:inflection_of#Grammar_tags afterwards. :) —suzukaze (t・c) 19:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you --Oyunqi (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Part of speech?

@Benwing2 why is there a need to indicate part of speech? It's already shown in the header above the entry. —Rua (mew) 11:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Categories

@Benwing2 The template {{inflection of}} never added categories and this was by design. Now it is adding an erroneous category to absorpt. Please restore the original non-categorising behaviour of the template. —Rua (mew) 13:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Use "inflection of" vs "xx-verb form of"

Cheers! I've recently started to edit Wiktionary and I came across two main Templates to handle inflections of verbs, this one and the xx-verb form of, where xx is the code for the language in question, for example Template:pt-verb form of. I've being using this Template, but I'm now wondering what one would be better and I've hard an hard time finding an explanation for the ambiguity. Could someone point me out why do the two exist and which case should one be used instead of the other? - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sarilho1: You're probably fine with either one. Perhaps @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV can explain why we have both. Ultimateria (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

{{inflection of}} should only be used for languages that do not have their own inflection template, or for forms that are not properly handled by the language-specific template. I recommend {{pt-verb-form-of}} for Portuguese verb forms, especially if you’re adding them manually, but {{pt-verb form of}} also works fine. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ultimateria:, @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV:, thank you both, that was quite helpful! - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Tag suggestion

Is there a reason behind there not being a nominal tag linking to the glossary, the same way we have a adjectival or adverbial one? Thanks! Johano★ 21:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding two new entries

Hi - could you please add sigf for sigmatic future and siga for sigmatic aorist? These are archaic senses that I've added to the la-verb template. Many thanks! Theknightwho (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to add to this: they'd apply to forms on the verbs in Category:Latin verbs with sigmatic forms. Theknightwho (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)