Category talk:Irregular inflections

Wrong place
Category:Grammar is most certainly not the right place for this. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Irregular inflections
And its subcategories (the first three). These seem to refer to parts of speech in particular languages, hence should be by language. So Irregular plurals by language. Thoughts? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It should also be moved out of the topical category tree (i. e. Category:Grammar). It's not a topic. -- Prince Kassad 12:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved this thread out of the archive of unresolved discussions that went stale in 2010 in the hope that we can finally resolve it. - -sche (discuss) 06:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At the very least, we should move it out of the topical tree.
 * I added to Category:Irregular nouns by language, it already had support for it.
 * Category:Irregular numerals by language doesn't seem worthwhile, it only has one subcategory (Old Armenian) and I don't think it's really useful to categorise numerals in that way because they are a semi-closed class. What does "irregular" mean in that context?
 * I've cleaned out Category:Suppletion, moving its entries and categories to Category:Suppletive nouns by language etc. Why would we even need so many different ways to categorise suppletion?
 * 23:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will revert your deletion. I don’t understand why you have deleted them. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained your reasons either, so it's better not to start an edit war and explain it first. 14:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with there being a top level category for suppletion into which Category:Suppletive nouns by language, etc, sort (whether it's called Category:Suppletion or Category:Suppletion by language), but I agree that the entries should be sorted first by POS (as CodeCat has done). - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be ok with a main category for all suppletive terms, calling it Category:Suppletive terms by language or something similar. Then again, can a single term be suppletive? Suppletion is always a property of a whole inflectional paradigm, so should we understand "term" to mean that whole inflection? I suppose it's the same as "Irregular terms", which we also don't have btw. Also, what do we consider suppletion? Synchronic or diachronic? Synchronically, work and wrought are suppletive (they were in the categories before I removed them) but not diachronically because they derive from the same PIE root, just with different ablaut and sound changes. I think suppletion only really makes sense in terms of ancient roots, but are there languages where words are not derived from basic roots? 22:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)