Template talk:pt-conj

Problem
This template is broken. It’s looping. —Stephen 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, fixed. --Daniel. 11:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure where I'm supposed to complain about this, but since this template seems to know about irregular verbs, I think the problem must be in it... The 2nd person plural of the imperative of "ver" is "vede", not "vei". (Or are they both correct?!)


 * You are right, it’s vede, not "vei". This template is too complex and Daniel. is the only one who knows how to work on it. —Stephen 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks for pointing this error. Stephen, if you see this edit, you might notice that changing conjugations does not involve much complexity. I've tried to place all complex functions in separate templates, such as pt-conj/doWork. --Daniel. 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some verbs are lacking a template of their own. For example, "requerer" is an irregular verb that does not follow the conjugation of "querer". Its first person singular form in the present indicative is "requeiro", not "requero" as shown in the dropbox. There might be other similar issues at other verb pages, although I understand the complexity of building a template covering all of our verb system, specially when it comes to irregular verbs. I'm just not sure how to fix it, not even if this is the best place to complain about this. Probably User:Daniel. can solve it.--Krystoffer (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Present participle
The verbal forms that are being identified as present participles should better go as gerunds. Although they could be called present participles, as some dated authors do, they are historically e functionally akin to the Spanish gerund. Moreover, there used to be a form called present participle in Portuguese. FlavianusEP (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

conditional
Why is conditional, a different mood, inside the indicative mood? Or is this a conception of Portuguese grammaticians? It seems very weird to me... --80.117.97.176 14:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

saber
I have noted errors in the conjugation of saber. The first person plural of the imperfect subjunctive should be soubéssemos instead of soubessémos, the second person should be soubésseis. The corresponding entries are also incorrect and should be moved accordingly. I am lost in the "pt-conj" template, so I will keep my fingers off. Hence, I am not sure whether there is a problem in the logic or whether only saber is concerned. Abraços! --Herr Klugbeisser (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed. – Jberkel (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Imperative
I'd like to propose a simplification of this template, based on the fact that three persons of the affirmative imperative and the whole of the negative imperative derive directly from the present subjunctive. The few exceptions occur only in the second persons ―singular and plural― of the affirmative imperative, so these are the only ones that need to be kept. The simplest way to implement this is by changing Module:pt-conj/table so that it uses the subjunctive variables instead: {{collapse|title=Code:| ! style="border: 1px solid #999999; background:#f4e4d0" colspan="7" | Imperative ! style="border: 1px solid #999999; background:#d4c4b0" | Affirmative ! style="border: 1px solid #999999; background:#d4c4b0" | Negative (não) }} I can implement the changes (which include cleaning up the redundant entries in the -ar/-er/-ir modules) if others agree. Capmo (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{impe.affr.sing.1}}}
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{impe.affr.sing.2}}}
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{subj.pres.sing.3}}}  <<<<<<<<
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{subj.pres.plur.1}}}  <<<<<<<<
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{impe.affr.plur.2}}}
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{subj.pres.plur.3}}}  <<<<<<<<
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{impe.negt.sing.1}}}
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{subj.pres.sing.2}}}  <<<<<<<<
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{subj.pres.sing.3}}}  <<<<<<<<
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{subj.pres.plur.1}}}  <<<<<<<<
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{subj.pres.plur.2}}}  <<<<<<<<
 * style="border: 1px solid #999999; vertical-align: top;" | {{{subj.pres.plur.3}}}  <<<<<<<<
 * }
 * Agreed but would make the change by keeping the variable names as they are, delete the redundant entries and assign the variables in code in the module (impe.affr.sing.3 = subj.pres.sing.3 etc.). This way the logic is moved out of the table template and can be reused in other contexts. – Jberkel (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's a more elegant way of implementing it. Will do as you suggest. Capmo (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree with adding first-person singular imperatives. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ungoliant, don't worry, this is not in question. They are currently in the table, but are never used. I suppose they were added just for the sake of uniformity, but they can be suppressed if desired. Capmo (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against the proposed change then. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The changes (as suggested by Jberkel) were applied to Module:pt-conj. I already removed the redundant entries of the imperative from verbs aguar and apropinquar (inside Module:pt-conj/data/-ar) and everything seems to be fine. Please inform me if you notice anything strange. I'll continue to clean up the inflection data tables in the following days. Capmo (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Boa! Cleaning up the tables is probably best done with a script, I still have some snippets to regenerate them, if you want I can take care of it. – Jberkel (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. I think defective/alt versions still need to be added in Module:pt-conj. Jberkel (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Indeed, I noticed that verbs in -iguar and folegar have alt versions, will add them. But I can't think of any verb with defective forms in the present subjunctive.
 * BTW, I couldn't figure out what you had in mind with this edit. You expanded in multiple lines entries that were compacted in a single line (I'm OK with that), but then you made just the opposite with -iguar. Also, in a couple of verbs you expanded just the plural but not the singular. Shouldn't we opt for one form or the other? (all compacted or all expanded) I also believe that -çar should stay where it was (in between -car and -dar). Ç is not considered a different letter in Portuguese, it's just c with a diacritic. Thanks again for your help. Capmo (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I used a lua script for formatting the tables, and it chose to format things differently this time, I'm not sure why. Feel free to move things around again. – Jberkel (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Differences in Brazilian and European Portuguese
Hi! I just noticed the template doesn't distinguish the European conjugations of verbs ended in -guar. In Brazilian Portuguese, the stress often goes into the antepenultimate syllable, but in European Portuguese it remains in the penultimate one, thus, the Brazilian variant receives an accent, but the European one does not. For example, for the singular 3rd of the present indicative: Since the infinitive is the same, can you edit the template to provide both conjugations? - Sarilho1 (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Aguar: água (BP), agua (EP);
 * Minguar: míngua (BP), mingua (EP);
 * Enxaguar: enxágua (BP), enxagua (EP).
 * In fact, the stress is always on the penultimate syllable :) The accented versions have a diphthong in the last syllable instead of a hiatus: água (AH-gwa) / agua (uh-GOO-uh). But this isn't uniform in Brazil, there are regions that pronounce it as in Portugal, so in my opinion we shouldn't refer to them as BP/EP variants. Maybe just cite them as exceptions found in parts of Brazil. Capmo (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

double obsolete forms
Is there any way to implement more than one obsolete form for a certain conjugation? Some verbs have more than one obsolete form (namely one European and one Brazilian, such as agúo and agüo) but there doesn't seem to be any way to convey that currently. Emyds (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You probably mean the pair (agúe > ague) and (ágüe > águe), because agüo was never written with an umlaut. I was having a look at the code: the _alt field accepts more than one form because it was defined as a table, but the _obsolete field was defined as a string, which limits it to only one form. We can convert it to table, but it would involve a lot of changes (all "_obsolete" entries inside Module:pt-conj/data/-ar/-er/-ir would have to be changed from  to  . Do you think it's worth the effort? Capmo (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did mean agúe/ágüe, slip of the finger I guess. Turning all the strings into tables could be a bit laborious but I suppose it's worth it just for the sake of completeness and not having the conjugation tables skew too European/Brazilian. Emyds (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to have the obsolete forms in the conjugation table? I feel that if we were to include all the obsolete forms we might end up clustering the table too much. For instance, and this is something I was thinking about asking for some time, would it make sense to include the obsolete forms of the third-person plural preterite indicative that were previously written in -ão, instead of -am (e.g.: edificarão, instead of edificaram, c.f. Os Lusíadas 1572.). - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from, but I feel the main reason to include obsolete forms isn't necessarily to include all former spellings, but rather include the pre-AO-1990 standard spellings, which are still commonly found and actively preferred by many people. Emyds (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Didn't know those forms were still common. In that case, isn't it better to change the description to superseded or dated? - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuspir - irregular verb
Greetings! The verb is irregular. The singular second-person and third-person, as well as the plural third-person, of the Present Indicative have an "o" instead of the "u", so "cospes", "cospe", and "cospem", respectively. Similarly for the singular second-person of the Affirmative Imperative, should be "cospe" rather than "cuspe". Confer, here, for instance. Purely in pronunciation, it's equivalent to the verb "tossir", but they are written differently. Can someone correct it? - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Other examples are (Source):  (Source),  (Source). Others are already correct in the template, like:, , , . Can't think of any other examples.  Sarilho1 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Another example: (Source). Possibly the regional  too. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this. I've added the pair acudir/sacudir, the others will be included on the following days. Several wrong entries will be left behind, such as sacudes. Do you know if there's a bot to make the cleanup? Capmo (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How many wrong entries are there left behind? just flag them on Requests_for_verification/Non-English. – Jberkel 08:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering that the changes in these verbs are so few (three in the Present Indicative and one in the Imperative Affirmative), instead of creating whole conjugation tables in Module:pt-conj/data/-ir, I thought of a simpler idea: let the regular -ir conjugation table be created for these verbs, and then change just those forms that are irregular. This can be done inside Module:pt-conj; an example is available at Module:pt-conj/sandbox and can be invoked from Template:pt-conj/sandbox. Here's an example for cuspir:


 * Of the verbs listed above by Sarilho, fugir is the only one that will need to keep a separate conjugation table, because it changes g into j in some of its forms. Do you guys agree with this solution? Capmo (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great solution to me, and certainly more elegant than what we have currently. One thing to note is that the verbs derived from these should also be included (the only ones of note coming to mind being rebulir and desentupir). Also, do you think this could be done to other semi-regular small irregularities in the -ir conjugation? and, for instance, are currently missing conjugation tables but follow the same pattern as . There are also the dormir and servir patterns, but it seems all the verbs these concern currently have proper tables so adding them to the code is probably not worth the trouble. Emyds (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was having a look at the agredir/denegrir/prevenir and dormir/servir patterns; their changes to Present Indicative are reflected in the whole of the Present Subjunctive and both Imperatives. Ideally, we should automatically derive these forms (Pres Subj and Impe) from Pres Indi and only include the occasional exceptions in the -ar/-er/-ir tables. I'm working on this at the moment. Capmo (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't oppose either. Any solution that fixes the problem is perfectly fine by me and if this means a simpler implementation, I see no reasons to oppose. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

estar
The "tu" form of estar is currently marked as "estareis", which is the same as for "vós". I believe the "tu" form should rather be "estarás" but I can't find where to change it. Malhonen (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch. For future reference of anyone reading, the data pages are Module:pt-conj/data/-ar, -er and -ir. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

rewriting this module
I am looking into rewriting this module along the lines of Module:es-verb. I currently count 12,203 lines of code in this module and its submodules, while Module:es-verb and Module:es-common together are about 3,000 lines and provide several features missing in this module. The idea would be that the module knows about isolated irregular verbs like fazer, ir, poder etc. (and their compounds) but alternations that are unpredictable and occur in many verbs, such as o-u (subo vs. sobe), e-i (sinto vs. sente), i-í (faiscar vs. faísca, enraizar vs. enraíza, mobiliar vs. mobília, tuitar vs. tuíta), u-ú (reusar vs. reúsa, saudar vs. saúda), i-ei (odiar vs. odeia) and short past participles are specified via indicators in the call to pt-conj, e.g. <í> to indicate an i-í alternation. Predictable alternations like g-j, ç-c, c-qu, g-gu, as well as any other predictable "irregularities" are handled automatically. I have a few questions:
 * 1) Is there an official source for Portuguese verb conjugations along the lines of the Real Academia Española (see e.g. )?
 * 2) Any specific requirements anyone is looking for? E.g. the Spanish verb module provides combinations of verb + clitic and verb + reflexive; see  for an example. The reflexive combinations might be useful in Portuguese but I'm not sure about the clitic combinations; on the one hand, we have weirdness like amar -> amá-lo and amam -> amam-no but on the other hand clitics are joined with a hyphen and as a result many of the complexities of accent placement that apply to Spanish don't apply here. Benwing2 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * To answer 1: no, there is no single body that coordinates between varieties of Portuguese anywhere near as comprehensively as ASALE (and there are not as many national academies that represent the varieties of Portuguese anywhere other than Brazil and Iberia), plus Portuguese is more varied than Spanish in terms of spelling. There has been some coordination on spelling reform, but adoption is uneven, as you may imagine. Distinctions between Brazilian and Peninsular/Global Portuguese are occasionally big enough to matter, as with Spanish. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see that Priberam, Infopédia and Collins all have verb conjugations in them, which is super helpful. I have some questions about verbs in -guar and -quar:
 * Currently, Module:pt-conj/data/-ar lists four possibilities for the 1/3sg present subjunctive e.g. of averiguar: averígue (1), averigue (1_alt), averígüe (1_obsolete) and averigúe (1_obsolete_alt). So: (1) Does the spelling averigue indicate a pronunciation with stress on the u? (If so, I would not have expected it, and we may need to update Module:pt-pronunc as I'm pretty sure it will auto-generate stress on the i.) (2) Priberam (also Collins, but not Infopédia ) gives averigúe as the only form (but does not put an accent in averiguo or averigua); presumably then this isn't actually obsolete? (3) Is there a Brazil-Portugal difference in this and similar verbs (other than the 1pl preterite)?
 * Module:pt-conj/data/-ar lists exactly the same four possibilities for the 1/3sg subjunctive of adequar: adeque (1), adéque (1_alt), adéqüe (1_obsolete), adeqúe (1_obsolete_alt). Are all these forms real? adeqúe in particular seems impossible; for a verb with stress on the u, it would surely be spelled adecue (or no?). If adeqúe is real, does adeque then indicate stress on the u as well?
 * Thanks again. Benwing2 (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, does every verb in -guar/-quar behave the same, or is this unpredictable and varying per verb? Benwing2 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Asking a Portuguese friend of mine. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, my Portuguese is okay, but not great. I can answer (some) fine-grained questions about Spanish, but only hi-level ones about Portuguese. :/ —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The forms averígue and adéque are registered in Brazilian Portuguese (averígüe and adéqüe are the forms superseded by AO1990) where the stress falls in the "í" and "é", respectively. In European Portuguese, the stress falls on the "u" instead, thus rendering the forms averigue and adeque after AO1990 (and averígúe and adeqúe before it). It's a difference between EP and BP that can also be found in verbs like aguar, desaguar, minguar (likely also in verb ending in -quar, but I can't think of any other than adequar). Note: stated above that some regions of Brazil pronounce with the EP stress. Module:pt-pronunc already gives good EP pronunciations provided we use the accents.
 * Here are some that might be useful: adequar (I) and averigúe, averificar, verificar - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope is around, he helped with the current version of the module (which was simply "ported" from the template-based solution). I'm not sure about forms like averígue – that's indicating a regular stress, and therefore not needed. Maybe older spelling conventions? My guess about adeqúe is that the ú is not indicating accent, but serves as substitute for the (also obsolete) trema. TBH, I'm not sure if it's worth listing all the obsolete spellings in the table, perhaps they should just be listed on the entry. – Jberkel 09:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The obsolete spellings correspond to the pre-A01990 spellings. I'm in favor of removing them from the table. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks like the forms labeled "obsolete" are more like superseded; if they are still in use to some extent (e.g. averigúe as suggested by the conjugation tables of Priberam and Collins) I am fine including them and it won't be difficult in the rewrite I'm planning. Otherwise we can leave them out. Benwing2 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The obsolete spellings correspond to the pre-A01990 spellings. I'm in favor of removing them from the table. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks like the forms labeled "obsolete" are more like superseded; if they are still in use to some extent (e.g. averigúe as suggested by the conjugation tables of Priberam and Collins) I am fine including them and it won't be difficult in the rewrite I'm planning. Otherwise we can leave them out. Benwing2 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

some more questions
I am trying to clean up words like governo where there's a noun with close mid vowel and a verb form with the same spelling but open mid vowel. Some questions: Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I know that most verbs in -ar have open mid vowels in all stressed present tense forms (1/2/3sg, 3pl, indic and subj). But there are apparently some exceptions? Maybe chegar, verbs in -ejar (e.g. desejar), verbs in -elhar (e.g. aconselhar), ....? Am I right here in these being exceptions and if so are the exceptions themselves consistent, or are only some verbs in -ejar/-elhar exceptional?
 * 2) Similarly, for verbs in -er, the 2sg/3sg/3pl indic are supposed to have open mid vowels while the 1sg indic and the 1sg/2sg/3sg/3pl subj are supposed to have close mid vowels. Are there exceptions to this too?
 * 3) What about verbs with a nasal consonant (m or n) after the mid vowel, e.g. tomar, ordenar, comer, ...? I have heard that in Portugal, -omer/-oner/-emer/-ener verbs like comer have open /ɔ/ in comes, come, while in Brazil, they have close /o/. Is this correct, and if so does it also apply to verbs like tomar and ordenar? If so, are there exceptions to this or is it consistent?
 * Benwing2 (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding 1., the exceptions due to -ejar and -elhar are consistent in EP because they mainly occur due to the fact that the e before j and lh is often pronounced âi (â in Lisbon). However, it is not uncommon to hear the verbal forms desejo pronounced as deséjo, aconselho as aconsélho, etc. I would say it's the same phenomenon as velho and Tejo being pronounced as vâ(i)lho and Tâ(i)jo instead of vélho and Téjo, so I think they can still be considered as verbal forms with open vowels with the â(i) pronunciation given as an alternative.
 * I can't think of any exceptions to 2.
 * As for 3., the vowels are indeed open in EP. The fact that they aren't in BP, I think it's mostly due to the fact that BP closes the vowels before nasal consonants, but it's better that a BP speaker confirms it. If so, like in 1., I think pronunciation could be initially assumed to be open and closed after in BP. - Sarilho1 (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Diaeresis
In verbs ending in uar, some of their forms are written with an diaeresis (ü). These forms have the notes 1Brazil and 3Superseded (see enxaguar and adequar), even though the use of diaresis is officialy abolished in this country since 2015.

I think we should change it and keep only note 3, since it's considered wrong in both Brazil and Portugal, but I would be glad if someone could elucidate why they have both 1 and 3. Trooper57 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Note 1. indicates that the Brazilian form is a proparoxytone (e.g.: enxágua) in opposition to European form which is a paroxytone (e.g.: enxagua; vide note 2.). Note 1. and 2. ought to remain since they indicate different current spellings. Note 3. indicates the superseded forms. I'm in favor of removing the superseded and obsolete spellings from the conjugation tables altogether, but there other users specifically added them before since they are still sometimes in use see the discussion above. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Extra paragraph in multiwords
Pretty much the title. Multiwords, such as dar à luz, add an extra space that should be removed. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Interjections
Can imperative-only verbs be added to this template? It would be interesting to some interjections that start with, like "ir para o inferno", that can be conjugated in number (vai para o inferno, vá para o inferno, vão para o inferno).

We need to rely on to put these on Wiktionary. Trooper57 (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)