Module talk:yi-verb

Just a reminder
That I'll add a whole lot of prefixed and compound verbs as soon as there is support for them. :) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As above. I have a pile of prefixed verbs just waiting to be added as I go through adding everything else. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. But I've been kind of busy. I'm barely keeping up with what's going on around here. --WikiTiki89 18:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I hope that my pestering you hasn't been merely an annoyance. I'm trying to focus on Yiddish on Wiktionary to help in my quest toward fluency, hence my insistence. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * An additional problem to fix: I have hardcoded the correct 2nd person singular form at, but really the module should be fixed so that it generates the correct form. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted that edit before I saw this post. Anyway, are you sure that you are right about that? I had done not-so-thorough investigating before writing the module to confirm that the z is dropped in the spelling of the 2nd-person singular, but I may have been wrong. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure, at least for Standard Yiddish (and BGC confirms it as far more common for most writings in aggregate). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But is that the general case for all z-stem verbs, or only for muzn? I already went ahead and changed the module, but I still want to be sure that that was the right thing to do. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All z-stem verbs, yes. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll have a lot of time soon to add verbs, so I hope you'll have to chance to work on the module at some point. Just to collate a couple more requests so that they're all on this page:
 * Verbs with alternate participles
 * It should handle verbs with supporting ע like or  more intelligently
 * —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The first step would be to document the existing features better (take a look at my edits to and, I could make the module a little bit smarter in those cases, but it's pretty good as it is). Now the question I've been struggling with is how to link separable prefixes. There are two things I don't like about the way German does it. One thing is that they are really adverbs, not prefixes. Thus, I think ausgehen = aus + gehen makes more sense than ausgehen = aus- + gehen (this applies mostly to etymology sections). The other thing is that I don't think we need to link to or create form-of entries for things like gehe aus. We should either link these forms as "gehe aus", or as "gehe aus". What do you think. --WikiTiki89 23:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose you meant and, rather? I agree, the module does do a pretty good job: I just need better documentation.
 * As for the prefixes, they are indeed adverbs, but they are often written the same way as prepositions. The prepositions, however, are distinct (in the case of, at least some speakers use /uf/ for the adverb/prefix and /af/ for the preposition). I would rather keep the information on the adverb at to avoid confusing the two and have them link to each other prominently, but I'm open to other solutions.
 * I like the [[gehe]] [[aus]] solution best (and if I had my way, gehe aus would be deleted). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (Yes that's what I meant, copy/past error.) The adverb is not always prefixed (such as when it comes after the verb), therefore, still needs to contain the information for both the preposition and for the adverb. We maybe should still have an entry for  and just call it a "prefixed form of" and not link to it from etymologies. The thing is, I think of ausgehen as a compound of adverb + verb, just like Weißbier is a compound of adjective + noun. That doesn't make weiß- a prefix, so why should aus- be a prefix? --WikiTiki89 00:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that's a pretty good argument by my lights, and the only thing that keeps me hesitant is that Germanic lexicographical tradition seems to be against you — compare aus- and aus. Yiddish traditionally follows German in these regards, and I think that it is best for us to keep to the traditional presentation rather than make innovations that the German Wiktionarians and other lexicographers have not. Another concern is that marking them as prefixes allows for effective categorisation by prefix, which is a handy feature. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you suddenly turn British? Categorisation? Anyway, the categorization problem can be solved by the conjugation module itself. I can make it automatically categorize separable verbs like Category:Yiddish separable verbs with אויף. I don't think the traditional representation is really that traditional. --WikiTiki89 12:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've been spelling this way for years. It's my own personal set of orthographic norms, approximately the same as 19th-c. Canada. Anyway, that would be an even better solution to categorising, but perhaps can give their input on whether  is a real prefix or not? I'd just like a linguistically-informed native speaker of such a language to weigh in first. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's some disagreement over whether everything added to the front of various verbs is a prefix or whether some things are adverbs, but aus- is pretty well on the prefix side of things. The Duden and other dictionaries (e.g. DWDS) tend to consider (all?) common front-end-additions to be prefixes: see [//www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/herbei_ Duden: herbei-], [//www.dwds.de/?view=1&qu=herbei- DWDS: herbei-]; [//www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/zurueck_ Duden: zurück-], [//www.dwds.de/?view=1&qu=zur%C3%BCck- DWDS: zurück-]; [//www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/aus_ Duden: aus-], [//www.dwds.de/?qu=aus- DWDS: aus-]. Wiktionary deleted Talk:herbei-, and arguments were made (unsuccessfully) for deleting Talk:zurück-, but note that in the first discussion Liliana contrasts herbei- with "true prefixes, like ab-, an-, aus-". Aus- also applies to nouns like Ausland (nouns which aren't substantivizations of verbs), where it carries the same semantic values. - -sche (discuss) 17:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So what exactly distinguishes aus- from herbei-? Is it just the fact that verbs with aus- do not always have predictable meanings? What I would consider "true" prefixes would be be-, ge-, er-, etc. --WikiTiki89 18:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * One argument, made by Liliana on Talk:herbei-, is that "herbei" is always separable; you can say "herbei führen" even in the infinitive (sometimes with a different sense, but sometimes with the same sense; either way significantly less common but attested), whereas if you separate "aus-" or "auf-" in places where separable prefixes aren't separable, you get a different meaning or gibberish: "bitte auf hören!" doesn't make sense, and likewise with many "aus-" words.
 * Also, "aus-" must be a prefix on nouns — I can't think of any examples of adverb+noun compound words — and Occam's razor prefers the explanation "it attaches like a prefix to both nouns and verbs, and it is a prefix on both" to "it attaches like a prefix to both nouns and verbs, and it is a prefix on nouns, but on verbs it's not".
 * These points are separate. I can't think of any nouns that were formed by the addition of "herbei(-)" (although some substantivized verbs contain it), but even if there were one, one could argue that the separability of "herbei" from verbs even in the infinitive renders the Occam argument less applicable, since "herbei" doesn't (obligatorily) "attach[] like a prefix to both [certain] nouns and verbs" the way "aus-" does.
 * I'm not sure how much of this is applicable to Yiddish, though. Consider that our Dutch entries reportedly consider separable "prefixes" to be adverbs (I don't know if that's also how other Dutch dictionaries and grammars handle them or not). - -sche (discuss) 22:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yiddish does work the same way in all these respects, except the orthographic ones (which are a bit irregularly applied, but follow Standard High German in Standard Yiddish). I'm glad I asked your opinion. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , it's my latest plea. I'm working on full fluency in Yiddish, and I'd really like to add all those verbs (I've been waiting on a lot of other vocab just because it's a pain to add as a bunch from my wordlists and notes while leaving certain vocabulary items for later). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't let this hold you up. You can add words with a (and perhaps a comment about the conjugation if necessary). Then when this is done I will replace them all with the actual tables. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

צ-stem verbs
Just like z-stem verbs, I suppose these really should be adding -st instead of -t for the 2nd pers singular. For example, with, BGC reveals that as being vastly more common, in both older and more recent writings, including YIVO material. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --WikiTiki89 14:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Pluperfect of zeyn-verbs

 * the pluperfect of zeyn-verbs like is being generated as "ikh bin gehat gegangen". Shouldn't it be "ikh bin geven gegangen"? —Mahāgaja · talk 15:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's zayn, not zeyn. But yes, it should be changed to match the standard language, although the form as shown is also found in speech. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the most common form is indeed "bin geven gegangen", but there are other dialectal forms as "bin gehat gegangen" and even rarely "hob gehat gegangen", and some others. I'm pretty sure the standard accepts both "bin gehat" and "bin geven" but not "hot gehat". --Shad Veyosiv (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So can one of you edit the module to generate "bin geven gegangen" instead of or in addition to "bin gehat gegangen"? —Mahāgaja · talk 05:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know my way around this module. Maybe wants to take this on, or maybe we can find someone else to handle it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This module is not too large; I can fix it, I just need to know how (a) geven is written in Yiddish, (b) what we want to do: should it display both bin gehat and bin geven for zayn-verbs, or only bin geven? Benwing2 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's written <געווען>. I wouldn't bother giving any other options. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be done. Benwing2 (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Manual transliteration
It's pretty ridiculous that the manual transliteration shiker has to be added for every single form at אָנשיכּורן. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)