Appendix talk:Arabic patterns/فَالَ

Transfix
How is it not a transfix? If so, the definition needs to be updated, because it calls it a pattern, and transfix is a synonym for pattern. — Eru·tuon 19:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong that it's not a transfix, but I think we should use the word "pattern" to refer to these. "Transfix" to me sounds like it's a combination of prefixes, suffixes, and infixes that make up a single morpheme, but tell me what combination of prefixes, suffixes, and infixes will give you kāna from k-w-n? --WikiTiki89 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That definition sounds like a circumfix (prefix + suffix) combined with an infix. Again, I would not define transfix that way. It is supposedly just a synonym of pattern. Or so said. — Eru·tuon 20:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Either way, I think pattern is a better word for it, and that's what we should use. I still have seen no evidence that any scholarly literature dealing with Semitic languages actually uses this term. They all use the terms root and pattern. --WikiTiki89 20:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then by all means add pattern to Module:headword/data and Module:category tree/poscatboiler/data/lemmas, though I'm sure there will be disagreement from CodeCat... — Eru·tuon 20:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, it's not a verb, any more than -ize is a verb; it's a verb-forming pattern or verb-forming transfix. — Eru·tuon 20:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I only listed it as a verb, because I check the other pattern entries we have and they also listed them by part of speech. I would have been happy to leave them uncategorized, but the template doesn't allow it. I'm not sure that we absolutely need to integrate "pattern" into the allowable POS categories, because it's not really a POS. --WikiTiki89 20:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving them entirely uncategorized would be absurd. How would one navigate through them or maintain them? And since roots are included in both modules, patterns should be too. The two are inextricably linked. — Eru·tuon 20:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well we can still categorize them as patterns, without calling it a POS category. But maybe you're right. --WikiTiki89 20:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think, should we make "patterns" a POS category? --WikiTiki89 20:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If they're going to be put in Appendix pages, I don't think they should be treated as entries at all. I think they should be placed in mainspace though. "Patterns" is ok, but can we add some kind of qualifying word maybe? It's a rather vague word otherwise. —CodeCat 21:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? You can tell what it's for by the description on the category page (and also by the contents). Just like it's pretty clear that Category:English lemmas is not a category for mathematical theorems. --WikiTiki89 21:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)