User talk:Benwing2/test-uk-conj-table

@Atitarev Please take a look. If this looks good, I'll push it live. Note that I increased the width from 49.2em to 60em; let me know if you like the old width better. Benwing2 (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev Also, these new tables should have accelerators, although it only works in mainspace pages. Benwing2 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Thanks, that looks good! Will it also work for perfective reflexive verbs? (I guess it should, no alt future required) Is there a place for past_pasv_part_impers param, as in роби́ти (robýty), it has "ро́блено" but it's not displayed anywhere?

Let's keep pres_adv_part and past_adv_part for now. They are harder to find and all dictionaries avoid them for some reason. It will be possible to remove them later or label that there is a trend not use them. роби́ти (robýty) has all these included.

Could you please add an optional alternative labelled infinitive next to the main form, just for display, no need to use in forms? E.g. роби́ть (robýtʹ) is an alternative infinitive of роби́ти (robýty).

There are many alt forms (initial у/в alterations) like уме́рти (umérty)/вме́рти (vmérty) (in this case, the conjugation partially coincides). Even a template needs to be used like {{uk-у-в|уме́рти|вме́рти}}. Not asking for any changes yet, just FYI. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I filled in some sample perfective tables to show what happens with perfective verbs and with the past_pasv_part_impers param. (написа́ти is real, the other one I made up.) You can fill in a second infinitive into infinitive= and it will work, including generating future forms for that infinitive. If that's not what you want, let me know. Do you want the alternative infinitive auto-generated from the regular infinitive in -ти? (i.e. does it apply to all infinitives in -ти and -тися/-тись?) Where should it go in the table? Benwing2 (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev BTW I can implement the same у/в and і/й alternation code that's currently in {{uk-conj-manual}}; I'd like to get rid of the old Module:uk-verb and put my module in its place. Benwing2 (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I have just tried adding alt infinitive. Some changes are needed, please.

Alt future forms are only formed from -ти base, not -ть base, so бу́ду диви́тися, диви́тимусь; бу́ду диви́ться are correct and диви́тьмусь is wrong.

The alt infinitive can be used for forming compound future tense so бу́ду диви́тися = бу́ду диви́ться.

I think -ть can only be formed for verbs where a vowel precedes -ти, so нести́, пекти́ don't have alts. іти́ (itý, “to go”) only has an alt form йти (jty) (similar to initial у/в alterations but with і/й). No template for that variation but it's probably needed.

OK to add compound future forms for the main and the alt form, both бу́ду диви́тися and бу́ду диви́ться. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: For the у/в alterations, if you wish to do, you can experiment with умира́ти (umyráty)/вмира́ти (vmyráty) (у/в), their shorter counterparts умира́ть/вмира́ть and perfectives уме́рти (umérty)/вме́рти (vmérty). Please note there is an overlap in conjugations in уме́рти/вме́рти only (because of the initial consonant cluster) but not in умира́ти/вмира́ти. уме́рти/вме́рти don't have -ть alternatives. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2 I have just added a reflexive perfective подиви́тися (podyvýtysja), so that we have a case. (I can't confirm the usage past active participle "подивившийся" in Ukrainian.) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev I implemented alt infinitive support including auto-generation of alt infinitives. The rule I use is that only infinitives in vowel + unstressed -ти (+ reflexive equivalents) are eligible for an alt infinitive in -ть. I also implemented у/в alternations in the periphrastic future. Benwing2 (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev Also, I adopted the convention from {{uk-conj-manual}} that imperatives should use |impr_2sg=, |impr_1pl= and |impr_2pl=, instead of |impr_sg=, |impr_pl_1sg= and |impr_pl_2sg=. The older names are still accepted but the new ones should be used instead. Benwing2 (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: The results are great, thank you very much! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Yes, please deploy into production, if it's OK. Will that be possible with verbs still using old templates? (I'd like to know if there any terms without inflections tables, which need them) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)