Template talk:et-verb

Can we get usage instructions for this? &mdash; Jeraphine Gryphon 02:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Object case
Would anyone have any objections to an object case parameter. This is a hot topic for me in Livonian and I often turn to Estonian for pointers. In Latvian for example accusative (~ Finnic partitive) is used almost universally for an object without spacial/directional relationships. Finnic languages tend to be much more creative with their choice of the object case which would probably be of interest to anyone learning the languages. For example otsima apparently usually takes partitive (as I would expect):


 * Kas sa otsid eilset päeva? (part.) – Are you looking for the day passed (yesterday)? (an idiom apparently)
 * Otsi teda nagu nõela heina sees! (part.) – Look/search for him like a needle in a haystack!

But then:
 * Viimist Liivimaa liivlast otsimas (elat.) – Looking for the last Vidzeme Livonian

Perhaps it's poetic, archaic but still could be indicated. (Commonly using genitive objects (since lv doesn't have elative) is one of the "signature" characteristics of western Latvian dialects this would lead me to think that elative objects could be very common in liv and perhaps also et.)

Not sure what the source of these could be (except native speakers knowledge), ÕS 2013 gives only partitive examples for otsima, e.g., Otsib kääre, korterit, riidu. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably, different cases are used with different meanings. So I think this should be indicated in the definition line with a context label, not in the headword line. 20:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (made a minor edit and didn't even see the reply with this awful font!) OK, in your opinion what would be the semantic difference between the first 2 (bulleted) sentences and the 3rd one? All three seem to me a plain object without spacial/directional relationship. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, I don't really speak any Estonian. 20:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, hehhe... What I can lean on are lv calques (and there are quite many). The "last Livonian" example with elative instantly reminds me of, say, western lv es redzēj mamms (~ es redzēju mammas) vs. standard es redzēju mammu. Both are identical in what they convey except one is dialectal and the other is standard. (The Russian (somewhat semantic) gender distinction (ja videl mamu:acc vs. ja videl otca:gen) ( or rather syncretism of masc. acc. and gen. in Russian, not sure ) is not at play here either, as both masc. and fem. would be either/or.) If Estonian has this variation on a literary language level it would be very valuable to indicate this.


 * Of course in light of the long term lack of Estonian editors this would be the least of our concerns. But would you want to add, say, oc= and oc2= as optional parameters, or I could do it as well. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But what about the point I raised? Different senses of the same verb might use objects in different cases. Look at Finnish for example. Just using simple "oc=" parameters would not be enough for that, you really need sense-level labels. Estonian and Livonian most likely have similar cases.  22:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, labels are a good idea. For the second one it could be mandatory with a warning message "provide context for when this object case is used" or similar. Unlike puhua I think these two are "relationally" identical but I suspect that one is poetic, archaic. Were I to add the param to the entry I'd simply put "rare" simply on the basis of ÕS not listing an example with elat. obj. and that could be the fallback for any non-native speaker who is not certain of when exactly the alternative is used (when relationally they seem identical.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you're actually asking for. Could you create a subpage of your user page, which shows how you envision the entry should look? 23:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Simply specify them in italics (Latvian prepositions at least do that.)

The first one – oc= could be mandatory, positional. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But what is wrong with:


 * 1)  (sense 1)
 * 2)  (sense 2)


 * ? 23:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The senses are the same! I explained you twice already above. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, then just:


 * 1)  (sense 1)


 * ? 23:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Technically you could do that, but I think it's a "temporary patch" solution (technically you can stick just about anything in context, gender? declension? Stick it in cx!) Object case is an important, intrinsic characteristic of the verb and "making do" with is exactly that "making do." Also, I want categories for the rarer cases, e.g., "Estonian verbs with variable object case" or similar. Maybe I'll bring this up in BP for some third party opinions. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)