Template talk:sv-conj-wk

Questions

 * Present passive ending for läsa is läses (not läss!), for blöta is blöts,blötes (both valid), for stänga is stängs,stänges (both valid).
 * Passive imperative -- can that ever occur?
 * Should we try to squeeze in the subjunctive form somewhere? Maybe it's always the same as active past tense (-ade) for weak verbs? --LA2 16:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Already fixed the first two, was just doing some testing before I added those 'features'. As for the subjunctive, I'm not sure how often it is really used. Since you're a native speaker I think you can judge that better than I. —CodeCat 16:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Leave the subjunctives out here. They might be needed in sv-conj-st, though. Now, this looks like a good template. But I think we should await comments from some more experienced users before we deploy it widely. --LA2 16:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are there plans for how to deal with verbs with particles, such as räkna ut? \Mike 20:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that really necessary? They inflect the same as the base verb, so you could just refer to that. —CodeCat 20:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was mostly concerned with the past participles (e.g. växa upp -> uppväxt), but I realize that if that's the only extra information needed, maybe this template is not the right place for that. \Mike 16:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * and friends contain support for separable particles much like the ones you described. They use an sep= parameter to specify the separable part. Maybe that would be useful for Swedish too. —CodeCat 19:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As for passive imperative, I have pretty much always been convinced that it's possible, though very rare. On the other hand it's hard to find conclusive evidence, though I would believe that would be an example of a passive imperative in use. \Mike 06:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Present participle
Shouldn't the present participle form alternative ending -s be added? It was present in the older templates as far as I can see. Diupwijk (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they should have that form too, yes. \Mike (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)