Module talk:cs-noun

Dual nouns
Hi @Benwing2. Thanks for the great work!

I noticed this comment:

"10. Support paired body parts, e.g. ruka, noha, oko, ucho, koleno, rameno. [WON'T DO; JUST SEPARATE THE MEANINGS AND GIVE THEM DIFFERENT DECLENSIONS]"

I think it's beneficial to include duals, separate from plurals. It's a remainder of the grammar of the old Slavic languages where duality was important. Eventually, we might have the same for Old Church Slavonic where dual/plural are different, so the logic and tables can be reused (also for some South Slavic languages and Slovak).

I don't actually like splitting into two tables as they do with Slovak. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I have actually been splitting into two tables; you can see examples at ručka, ouško, nožička. This is consistent with how we handle animate vs. inanimate and other such cases. My logic is that it isn't really a dual vs. plural inflection any more but simply a case of different meanings; e.g. the plural nohama is used for any number of human legs while nohami is used for any number of table legs, etc. My original plan when I thought of combining the tables was to have a column labeled "body part" and another labeled "figurative" and eschew entirely the words "dual" and "plural", which only make sense etymologically; but I think having two separate tables makes it easier to split out and explain the distinct meanings (e.g. mechanical hands and hydraulic arms use the "body part" forms while the hands of a clock use the "figurative" forms; as a non-native speaker this isn't at all obvious to me, so detailed explanations are in order). In general I only think we should combine tables in cases of inflectional differences rather than meaning differences (cf. the 'clitic' vs. 'stressed' columns in já, on etc.). Also in terms of reuse, Slovak and OCS will require significantly different coding so I don't think this makes much difference. User:Solvyn User:Hergilei User:Vininn126 what do you think? Benwing2 (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see what you mean. In my opinion, "ručka" is split by senses (fine) but "oko" has a three-way plurality, like in Arabic, etc.
 * If it's too much work or difficult technically, it's fine but before deciding, please check Arabic and Old Church Slavonic, etc. tables are good on handling this. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See ucho for comparison. If it's by sense, I see no problem. The way it's handled on ucho seems fine. Vininn126 (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Vininn126. The Polish is split by senses but the Czech  has three columns for sg., dual and pl. I also find it fine to keep this format (three columns). It's not by senses, like in Polish, they (sg., dual and pl. forms) all belong to the same table. I believe the Slovak  two-table solution laid out horizontally was done in such a way, since they couldn't find another way. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think it's better to split by senses and I think that's what User:Vininn126 is saying as well. You say but  (see  for a site selling such tables). So there's clearly no actual dual-vs-plural distinction here. You say it's ok to split ručka by senses but then why not ruka? The only case where I think it probably does make sense to have three columns is sto, where stě is in fact the dual (used in dvě stě). Benwing2 (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2: Here’s the major difference with “ručka”: in nominative “ucha” means only “two ears” (dual), “uši” means more than two (plural). Same with “oko”, etc. They don’t differ by sense but by plurality. It’s like saying that with Arabic, and  differ by senses. Duals and plurals are shown in the same declension table where they belong. I won’t insist on anything. Let me know if  I miss or misunderstand something. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies if e.g. “ucha” is never used when talking about human ears (more than two human ears). It would then be different from OCS. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. I completely agree, if ucha and uši were used the way you mention above, it would be correct to put them together in one table. However, I don't think that's the case. You can easily find examples of čtyři uši = "four (human/animal) ears" e.g. the anime show čtyři uši na mezi = "four [rabbit] ears in between", and contrariwise you can find lots of examples of dvě ucha = "two handles" e.g. this ad: Here is meanwhile an example of čtyři ucha = "four handles"  and similarly there are tons of examples for dvě uši = "two (human/animal) ears" e.g. this book by Milan Kundera:  (lit. "two ears, two weddings"). Benwing2 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying and the examples. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ucha might also be for objects, etc. Vininn126 (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Declension for úterý
Just to keep track of requests. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

manual decls
I have deleted cs-decl-noun. If you need to specify a declension completely manually, you can use the  code along with overrides. You can see an example of this at. However, you should avoid doing this if at all possible; pretty much every declension type is now supported and you can always use one of the existing declension types along with overrides as necessary to handle any irregularities. Benwing2 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

A few interesting cases
@Benwing2: Thanks for addressing pings! I've got some questions regarding the declensions, posting them here, so that they are in one place.

Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * : Thanks for the edit. This word is a bit strange. Not sure, if it's common but the term is a neuter but is declined and categorised as a masculine inanimate noun.
 * 1)  vs : The former doesn't have and doesn't require a declension table, since it's indeclinable but the latter falls into "Czech indeclinable neuter nouns", even if the adjectival part is declined. Is the input on the latter correct and should it be categorised differently?
 * 2)  and : Double "rr" is replaced with "ř" in both entries in the dative and locative (Canbeře, Sieře Leone). Does it make it a pattern? I used a manual override.
 * : Thanks for the module and entry edits. No questions here, just adding so that we know that -wa feminine nouns are declined as -va or similar. "w" is pronounced as "v", so it behaves like "v" here.
 * Hmm. For #1 you should be able to use 'n.declgender:m.foreign' and it should work. For #2, let me think about it; normally, adjective-noun combinations are categorized by their noun but you're right that it doesn't quite make sense here. For #3, I've fixed it. Benwing2 (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2: Thanks. 'n.declgender:m.foreign' didn't work on #1. Thanks for #3, applied on as well. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * is added to "interesting cases". I used "m.sg.-*" to override the default "reducibility", like "Biškku" instead of the correct "Biškeku".
 * Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's correct; nouns in -ek have default reducibility. There are many proper nouns in -ek that are reducible e.g. Jakoubek diminutive of Jakub so probably this is the right thing to do. Possibly the module can check for things like -kek, which seems it shouldn't reduce. Benwing2 (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2: Thanks. Please check another one: both declinable and indeclinable: . Should the indeclinable forms stay out of the table? Based on that (no Czech entry yet) will work as well. Three possible ways to decline Rio de Janeiro in Czech. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's possible to have an indeclinable noun in the table using  but I've usually used that only either for nouns such as peso that are partly indeclinable (the plural can be either declinable like a regular noun in -o, or indeclinable 'pesos'), or nouns like desatero that are optionally indeclinable. Based on the latter, it might make sense to put the indeclinable forms into the Oslo table. Benwing2 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2: Hi. Could you please add support for, like (pattern 1)? Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2: Sorry, you may have missed. No rush, though. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Feminine nouns ending in -ová
Hi, thanks a lot for developing this module!

I was trying to add the feminine noun šéfová, but when using the standard template f I get Lua error in Module:cs-noun at line 2570: Unrecognized ending for lemma: 'šéfová'. It would be nice to support this. (I hope I am using this correctly and am not confusing something.) MrBeef12 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)