Malldiskussion:li-verb

Jag undrar vad SV och VS står för. Jag undrar också vad som menas med "manande former". Hör jag "manande former" så tänker jag genast "imperativ". Vad är skillnaden? "85" 23 juli 2009 kl. 17.21 (CEST)

SV stands for subject - verb and VS for verb - subject. So, SV = I see while VS = see I. "manande former" is a problematic thing in most languages. I don't really know another name for it than the Limburgish name (of which "manande form" is a rough translation). It's translation is dare to ..., so weitem! = dare to know! --Ooswesthoesbes 23 juli 2009 kl. 17.25 (CEST)

Perhaps then "utmanande form" would be more descriptive? ("mana" = give an order or encourage [to me that sounds more like the normal imperative], "utmana" = challenge).

Secondly, I think it would be great if we could collaborate on some grammatical indexes such as Appendix:Grammatik/Utmanande form (or whichever name we choose) where we could explain for what that abbreviation stands (oh, and with links to there from the table). \Mike 23 juli 2009 kl. 17.49 (CEST)

If you think that would be a better name for it :) (I don't speak much Swedish, so I can't decide one for you)

I think like we also have one on the dutch wiki. If you search for uitdagende vorm on that page, you will be sent to an explanation what it is and how to construct it. --Ooswesthoesbes 23 juli 2009 kl. 17.55 (CEST)

Häftig böjning! Jag har bara en fråga: du gav tidigare exemplet weitem. I vilken person står detta? Antas det att verbet tar kanske tredje person singular eller andra person plural om det används så, utan subjekt? (Är detta något som ska nämnas i tabellen?)

I started writing Appendix:Grammatik/Utmanande form to help any reader who hasn't encountered this before - I hope I didn't confuse anything... \Mike 23 juli 2009 kl. 22.44 (CEST)

Ehm.. The oetdagingstied (as we call it in Limburg) could be used as a finit form and as an imperative. When it is used as a finit form it usually does take a person: ich klömmem neet hoeager means I don't dare to climb higher, where ich means I. But if it's used as an imperative, there usually is no subject: Zwömmem i g'r zieë! = Dare to swim in the see!. The example Weitem! was an imperative, which is in Limburgish the same as the first person.

I believe your appendix is correct :) --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 11.38 (CEST)

Perhaps we could then add the infinite form? If this is always the same as the första person singular SV utmanande, there is no need for additional parameters, as we'll just use the parameter {37} again for this. \Mike 24 juli 2009 kl. 13.50 (CEST)

Well, I usually copy the inflection from the Dutch wiktionary, where this form is include with the parameters. --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 14.48 (CEST)

Länkar

My first version of this template did not contain any automated links and there is a reason for that. In Limburgish many verbs often have two forms with one meaning. If you take a look to weite for example, you'll see that in the presens the he-form is dae wèt or dae wèd. With a standard link this results in a link wèt, wèd which isn't very practical. With weak verbs this normally is hardly a problem, but strong verbs often have two past tenses. For example kroeje has both krij and kreej as past.

I know a way to fix this problem, so I'll soon start with it. --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 12.21 (CEST)

Against what I expected, it seems to work. Can anyone please check whether this also works on his computer? --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 12.30 (CEST)

Yes, it seems to work. Though an alternative could be to use the formulation |[[wèt]], [[wèd]] directly as the value for that parameter - sligthly more to write, but the template {{länka}} already 'knows' when to add the [[]] and when not to. This gives the flexibility to add additional forms anywhere, should any verb need that. Of course, perhaps this particular inflection needs an extra form so often that it is well worth adding the second parameter.

I think for example about the subjunctive (I should change that name, btw; what in English is named "subjunctive" is in Swedish called "konjunktiv") where both weite and aeë use links of the form weite(r)/aeë(r). I think we should try to find a way to easily add two different links there, even if they are expressed as [[aeë]][[aeër|(r)]]. Do you think it would pay off to develop some algorithm to add these second forms automagically, or would it be easier to simply require the editor to add them both manually? \Mike 24 juli 2009 kl. 13.50 (CEST)

About länka: ow, then it's alright. I'll keep it in mind.

About subjunctive: I don't really understand it :( Do you mean that I should replace weite(r) with [[weite]][[weiter|(r)]]? --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 14.01 (CEST)

Yes thats what Mike means. Do you think that weite(r) ([[weite]][[weiter|(r)]] ) looks better than weite, weiter ([[weite]], [[weiter]])? You shouldn't just write weite(r). "85" 24 juli 2009 kl. 14.06 (CEST)

I think there is even a better way. As you can see the subjunctive is identical to the infinitive or the infinitive+r. I think it would be better to change the infinitive to [[{{{grundform}}}r|{{{grundform}}}(r)]] or something like that. --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 14.09 (CEST)

Are you sure about that there are no exceptions. If every verb doesn't follow this rule I would prefer 37=[[weite]][[weiter|(r)]]. "85" 24 juli 2009 kl. 14.15 (CEST)

I'm sure there are exceptions. Of course to be wouldn't be to be without exceptions, but all verbs ending on -e, except one, are fully regular in the subjunctive. The verbs on -n (staon, to stand, gaon, to go, slaon, to beat) all require a table which is twice as large. The only exception of the verbs on -e is höbbe (=to have), which also requires an own table. --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 14.19 (CEST)

Alright! :D Are there many verbs on -n? "85" 24 juli 2009 kl. 14.23 (CEST)

Compared to verbs on -e there are only a few verbs on -n. In total I think 10 to 20, but Limburgish often uses compounds like German. So: slaon (to beat), verslaon (to defeat), beslaon (to leave water drips on the glass), aanslaon (to hit a tone), bieslaon (to beat also -> hae sloog mich ouch bie = he also hit me) etc. --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 14.27 (CEST)

Should we use the same template for verbs on -n and the verb höbbe? "85" 24 juli 2009 kl. 14.44 (CEST)

The verbs on -n don't have the same inflection. For example: slaon doesn't have a past subjunctive, while gaon does have one. At the Dutch Wiktionary we just create seperate tables for each of these verbs. --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 14.48 (CEST)

Problem?

I see my template is difficult to handle :( Is there still a problem left? --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 15.10 (CEST)

What exactly is the need of those parameters? --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 15.16 (CEST)

There is no need to use them. I just think it will look pretty strange on Wiktionary:Stilguide/Grammatik/Limburgiska#Verb if we have the parameters 1-36, 38 and 42-68, but don't have the parameters 37, 39, 40 and 41. :P "85" 24 juli 2009 kl. 15.22 (CEST)

Okay, that's true, but what do you want to make it of now? --Ooswesthoesbes 24 juli 2009 kl. 15.24 (CEST)