| Template talk:ru-conj-table Apr 10th 2013, 02:23 | | | | Line 34: | Line 34: | | | ::::I'd like "participles" to go to the very bottom, after the "past tense", otherwise the order of rows is good. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 02:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | | ::::I'd like "participles" to go to the very bottom, after the "past tense", otherwise the order of rows is good. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 02:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | | | ::::: I put participles at the top because they are "non-finite" forms, just like the infinitive. It made more sense to me to group them together. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 02:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | | ::::: I put participles at the top because they are "non-finite" forms, just like the infinitive. It made more sense to me to group them together. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 02:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | | | + | | | | + | ::::::I see. Passive participles will be blank for intransitive verbs and present participles are always absent for perfective verbs, though. There are also certain rare verbs for which forming some participles is awkward. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 02:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | | | | | | | | == #if and params? == | | == #if and params? == |
Latest revision as of 02:23, 10 April 2013 [edit] imperfective and perfective together Thanks again, CodeCat!, I've made some additions as per the discussion. I just added blocks with comments. - Label "present tense" if impf, "future tense" if pf. I renamed the parameters, e.g. pres_fut_1sg is both present and future, depends on whether it's impf or pf.
- Future tense block should appear only if impf
- 3 rows: present participle active, present participle passive, present adverbial participle only appear if impf
Please let me know if it makes sense. Can you make the changes, please? Where would you put the impf/pf parameter? In what form? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC) - I am not sure if adding the personal pronouns makes the table any clearer. If anything, it diverts the attention of the user away from the words that really matter. Furthermore, the future tense doesn't have the auxiliary verb in perfective verbs, does it? And also, does it make sense at all to list the present participle under the future tense? —CodeCat 23:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Can we please leave the personal pronouns? "я" is clearer to many users than "1st person singular". It's also used in the Russian wiki.
- The future tense for perfective verbs is the same as present form for imperfective. So the label for perfective should be future tense and present tense for imperfective. I renamed the params to "pres_fut_1sg", etc. to show it can be either.
- The future tense block (three rows) with auxiliary verbs (бу́ду, бу́дешь ) should only be shown for impf and skipped for pf.
- I've just added a header for imperative and past participles. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've changed the layout a bit so that it matches the Slovene templates more. I think it looks better this way. I'm not sure how to make the past tense forms fit in neatly though. The Slovene templates just leave out the gender and assume that this is known, but Slovene also uses the copula as part of the past tense while Russian has no copula anymore. The Slovene template also just says "future is formed using future forms of biti with l-participle" and doesn't give tables for all the forms. Also, the table doesn't currently show this, but I assume that the past plural forms apply not just to oni, but also to my and vy? —CodeCat 01:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and another thing. The "present" of the perfective verbs has future meaning, but what if I formed another "future" from such a verb in the same way that imperfective verbs do, using the future forms of "be"? Would that make any sense at all? —CodeCat 01:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Added the missing мы and вы. (Hmm, I missed that in other templates as well, will have to fix, since it may take some time for new templates to replace the old).
- If it's not too hard, I'd like to display future with auxiliary verbs only for impf. - e.g. я буду делать.
- Perfective future forms can't be formed by adding auxiliary verbs, - e.g. я буду сделать is incorrect, the correct future form for perfective: "я сделаю". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I wanted to ask because in Slovene, even perfective verbs have separate present and future forms. I am considering making a third column of forms for the imperfective future, which would be displayed between the present and imperative. Since there are only two imperative forms, it might be a bit wasteful to have a whole column just for them so they could be moved back down (in Slovene it's not so much a waste because there is also a 1st person imperative). That way we can prevent the table from becoming too wide. It wouldn't work that well to put the past forms beside the present/future, because of the gender forms which need different rows and columns. The Slovene template also shows forms for the pluperfect (the past of the past, basically), and the present and past conditional. Do those also exist in Russian and if so, how are they formed? —CodeCat 01:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure about a whole column for the future forms, since it's only for imperfective and the label "present tense" should change to "future tense" if it's perfective. Perhaps the current layout is best (if it can be changed conditionally)
- No, pluperfect doesn't exist. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, my idea was to have two columns for imperfective verbs, present and future. For perfective verbs, either we would leave one column empty, or just merge the two columns into one for just the future. I prefer the first approach a little more, because it makes it immediately clear to anyone who sees the table that the verb has no present tense. Of course, someone who understands Russian perfective verbs will also know this, but it would be a lot more obvious this way. I will change the table to show what I mean. —CodeCat 01:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Re: imperative. Moving to separate rows is OK with me or leaving where it is. I'll leave it up to you. Imperative for the 1st person singular (unlike sometimes in Polish, Ukrainian) always coincides with "pres_fut_1pl" ((мы) идём - let's go) but normally this form not added to conjugation tables. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'd like "participles" to go to the very bottom, after the "past tense", otherwise the order of rows is good. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I put participles at the top because they are "non-finite" forms, just like the infinitive. It made more sense to me to group them together. —CodeCat 02:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I see. Passive participles will be blank for intransitive verbs and present participles are always absent for perfective verbs, though. There are also certain rare verbs for which forming some participles is awkward. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] #if and params? I'd like to add some simple logic. For example we have parameters impf and pf. I want to display: - if {{ru-conj-table|impf|... imperfective aspect
- if {{ru-conj-table|pf|...perfective aspect
--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC) - Yes, that will eventually be necessary, but I would prefer to get the structure of the table working first, before we start adding logic like that. —CodeCat 01:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 |  |
