Template talk:sa-verb

Root
This should go in the etymology, as with Arabic, Hebrew, PIE etc. —CodeCat 20:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this would be better. Would you make a template for this? — JohnC5 20:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * People don't seem to like boxes showing the root, but I can't really think of a better way to make it look. Do you have any ideas? —CodeCat 20:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I do like boxes. Regardless, it is crucial for Sanskrit verbs that we list the root to link Sanskrit verbal forms together. If I were less lazy, I would make amodule to create conjugation tables and a list table for the root. — JohnC5 22:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll make a box then. Hebrew and Arabic still use them anyway. PIE just got the flak because it's more visible. —CodeCat 22:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — JohnC5 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Class
The class shouldn't be linked, that's why I reverted you. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 17:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh, makes sense. Carry on! — JohnC5 17:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Improvements needed: Root, Class, Type and Form should be different
, Thanks for your edit by automatically adding categories based on type of verb like, causative, passive, etc. But,, , can either of you modify the template based on below requirements: Effectively, the template of Sanskrit verbs template needs 4 parameters: Next, the template should be such that it automatically adds categories based on the latter 3 parameters. For example,
 * 1st — root
 * 2nd — class (1 to 10)
 * 3rd — type (A or P or U)
 * 4th — form (present, imperfect, causative, optative, etc.)
 * Sanskrit verbs with "n" class
 * Sanskrit verbs with "x" root type
 * Sanskrit "causative" verbs (this we already have). JainismWikipedian (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the template. Now it's working properly. However, a few tweaks are needed which I was unable to do: I have also added documentation of the page. JainismWikipedian (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC) JainismWikipedian (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Linking the class 1, 2, 3, etc to appropriate page.
 * Linking the type A, P, U to परस्मैपद, आत्मनेपद, उभयपद pages respectively.
 * I had also inserted an automatic category of "Sanskrit verbs of root x", which would have been awesome. But, I'm unable to add it due to maybe restriction of category as per Module:headword/templates. If anyone can fix this, it will be great. We can then have automatic categories of all the Sanskrit verbs formed by each root. Each root gives hundreds of verb forms. Such non-lemma forms would then be categorized automatically as per roots. Someone please do the needful.
 * Great job adding the template parameters! I've been meaning to add them myself. As for verb forms, this template is only for the 3rd person singular verbs, since those are considered the lemma form. So each root will only have a few dozen verbs at most using this template. I still agree that root categories would be useful. I'll add the code for them once I have more time next week if that's okay with you. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 20:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by the form parameter. Are the present and imperfect to be recorded under different lemmas?  Are the present and imperative?  What about the passive?  There is a non-generative conjugation table template set up for present active, middle and passive in one table, which surprised me, because I had thought of the morphological passive as being an independent derivative of the root. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to proceed. So we know for sure that each root can be conjugated in the three voices. Now I know per the Ashthadhyayi there are four systems for verb formations from roots: present, causative, desiderative, and intensive. With each of these there are whole sets of moods and tenses that can be applied (notably each has its own passive forms). There's a very incomplete example of this system at . I'm not sure what we should be calling a lemma--every one of the forms in the table can be further conjugated for person and number, so are each of them a lemma? That leads to potentially hundreds of verbs per root. Maybe have some ideas? —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 20:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The most important split is where the meanings change in a manner that one would not expect a Sanskrit grammar to explain. I would, at the very least, make separate lemmas of the desiderative and intensive forms.  I am inclined to make separate lemmas of the causative, as I have done with Pali . --RichardW57 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With two exceptions, the passive is only a separate form for the 'special' tenses - present, imperfect, imperative and optative (also the Vedic subjunctive?). For the other tenses, the middle is used for its meaning.  I am intending to make it a separate lemma for Pali, but I haven't encountered it yet!  It won't fit neatly in the tables for the whole Pali primary verb.  In Pali, it is apparently sometimes conjugated in the middle as well as the active. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether the Sanskrit perfect and the aorist should be split off, I don't know. Ancient Greek has several verbs which have two perfects with different meanings.  Does Sanskrit get complicated like that?  Ideally, the passive aorist (which is 3s only) should be kept with the active and middle aorists. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've split the Pali participles off as separate lemmas, references from the conjugation section. This is primarily because the past (passive) participle can accumulate meanings that do not belong to the finite verb. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also confused by the verb 'type', which I would call 'voice'. For example, what should we do for ?  Wiktionary currently labels it as 'P', but is a verb commonly used to exemplify the semantic difference between 'active' and 'middle'. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * / is active or "parasmaipada". / is the middle voice. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So there are no morphological complications here. So what should be entered for the type of the verb lemma ? --RichardW57 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)