Template talk:hi-conj-auto

Discussion
Here's an attempt at the updated table, all the forms are auto-generated by MOD:hi-conj. There are still some things I need to fix: imperative form variants, multiple spellings for some forms (गई/गयी), the progressive form needs to be duplicated, होना doesn't have all its forms, the alternative conjunctive (करके) is missing. Let me know if you catch any other issues, I have a feeling it has bugs for the vowel-stem-ending verbs. It's a good start I think however. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 19:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Great! Already looks great. You're doing great work. Yes, I noticed that vowel ending stems do not add the -y-. That shouldn't be much of a problem fixing that, I hope. However, I noticed some other thing I'd like to mention, and also like to recommend some changes. I am just mentioning these so that you can refer to them later.


 * Some conjugations add the optional -y- but some don't in the table, for example, in the perfective aspect conjugations for करना, for the singular persons किया (kiya) is used but instead किए (kie) is used for the plural ones. But, किया can also be written in both ways किआ and किया. I recommend using all the forms where the य is not omitted because I think everyone (native) understands both forms and if you do not omit it, first, the look and conjugations will be more consistent and second, it will probably save you from hard-coding coding exceptions in you code that generates this table. Also, I think it will save the learners from putting it extra but the unnecessary effort of this -y- omission, for the initial part of their learning.


 * The plural 3rd person imperatives are missing. Only the imperatives for आप is shown. However, I would suggest making another row below the Imperative row and naming it Jussive. I am attaching my google sheet again where I edited my table to include Jussive mood. It will look better if two entries do not appear in the same cell. If you remember that in the old table the आप imperatives had two forms, one made from the subjunctive and one was the imperative form. The imperatives constructed from the subjunctive mood is called the jussive mood. So, I think it deserves its own row in the table.




 * In the transliteration of Devanagari into Latin, nasal vowels are not showing up. For example, आईं is written as «āīn» and not «āī̃» or «āīm̥».


 * In the undeclined form, you can also add «karke» besides «karkar» like it was before.


 * And, finally «karte-karte» is written as just «karte» in the progressive undeclined form. It should be corrected. —Itsmeyash31 (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Another thing which I'd like to point out is that the non-aspectual present subjunctive and the future subjunctive for होना have different forms, but for all other verbs they are the same. In the table above, होना only shows the future subjunctive forms. Itsmeyash31 (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)