Template talk:he-adj

=Discussion=

fwv
Thanks for adding documentation.

Can anyone please add an explanation for all the parameters, for example fwv? I guess that it's supposed to be the vocalized form, but i'd like to be sure. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dunno if this has been personally resolved with you yet, but for future stumblers-upon of this: Template:he-adj/doc should hopefully be of use. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 19:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we eliminate the default plurals?
Can we eliminate the default plurals? —Ruakh TALK 18:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I always like to have reasoning along with initial suggestions, but you do have the superior knowledge of L'hébreu... But still out of curiosity, are plural forms really that volatile that even a total NewB would get them wrong? — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 19:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not so volatile, no, but the template has no way of telling whether the m.sing.indef. forms end in kaf, mem, nun, pei, or tsadik, and of de-sofit-ing the letter if so. For example, the template would generate *חםים rather than חמים. It also has no way of telling whether this might be a rare ancient adjective not all of whose forms are attested (and of which we perhaps can't even be sure that "adjective" is the right POS, but we have to choose one). And adjectives whose m.sing.indef. forms end in yud are often written with only one yud in the m.pl.indef., though that ties into a broader issue that we've never addressed, which is the relative inconsistency of mainstream Hebrew spelling. (The use of two yuds is considered more correct.) —Ruakh TALK 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also consider e.g. or . &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The template has no way of knowing anything, which is why some knowledge on the part of the editor is of such importance... (I'm sorta generalizing outside the scope of this template now, but I hope it still applies.) Maybe in inflection/head templates we should have a basic rule that there should be absolutely no defaulting. I don't know of any other way to 100% protect against simple lack of knowledge on he editor's part... Except to use ... — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 22:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: absolutely no defaulting in headword templates: I'd support such a rule. If there is a form that is so regularly predictable that a mindless template can handle it with low risk of error, then why are we wasting head-space on it? —Ruakh TALK 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * After further thought — it occurs to me that the template's bad guesses could be greatly reduced if it only guesses the plural forms in cases where the feminine singular is the masculine singular plus a tav or a hei. This would fix cases ending in sofiot (since although all that's happening is the addition of a tav or a hei, the template won't realize that), and cases ending in em kria hei (since the feminine is spelled the same as the masculine). It wouldn't fix cases of rare incompletely-attested maybe-adjectives; and it would continue to guess "נטרליים" rather than "נטרלים"; but I'm pretty O.K. with that. I'm also O.K. with never guessing at all, as I originally suggested. —Ruakh TALK 14:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very okay with never guessing. This is not like en-noun, where some huge percentage of nouns get the same plural and most regular editors can correct wrong ones or at least question them: Hebrew has few editors able to correct errors, and many adjectives that don't fit the mold. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So, after all that, can we, erm, go ahead and eliminate the default plurals? Or do we want to do it the way Ruakh proposes: eliminate defaults plurals unless f is m+ a tav or he? We should do one or the other, for sure, IMO. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅: No more defaults. I tested, but if you see any problems please revert and/or fix and/or let me know. By the way, at the same time, I factored out some of the minor display logic to . produces ; if any of its parameters are missing, then it includes only the parentheses and/or commas that make sense. (Previously that was simple, because f= and mp= and fp= were all either displayed together or undisplayed together, but when they're all specifiable independently, it's a bit more complex.)  itself is still responsible for populating (or not populating), all of the parameters, for calling, and so on. —Ruakh TALK 19:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

lang="he"
Anyone object to my adding lang="he" in the calls to ?

Anything else I should do at the same time?

—Ruakh TALK</i > 15:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) Not I; please. (2) The pausal forms. (Copy paste from another template. I probably still remember what I was doing on the others templates, so if you prefer then I can do it; otherwise, by all means go right ahead, of course.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. I also improved support for the case that the unvocalized feminine and masculine singulars are identical (per your comments in the previous discussion, modeled after the similar support for pausals in ); and, I created a page [[Template:he-adj/helper/unit-tests]] with "unit-tests" for, since that template is actually a bit complicated now. I haven't created [[Template:he-adj/unit-tests]], but may yet. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Nice work on, too, by the way. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

mp2, mp2wv, mp2dwv=
A significant proportion of adjectives have m.s. forms in and seeming free variation between m.pl. forms in and ones in just ; so I'm thinking we should add new parameters mp2=, mp2wv=, and mp2dwv=, so that both forms can be presented together, separated by "or". Does that sound good? Should I do similarly for any other forms? —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 16:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, yes, it sounds good, and yes, you should do it for any other forms you deem appropriate. (But, no, I can't think of any need for the others.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 16:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)