Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Macedonian Passive Participles/reply (12)

Why do you think we should omit it? Because it's already in the "има-конструкција"? I thought we should omit it only for those verbs that use it only in the "има-конструкција", such as "блеска" or "боледува". For the others, I think its fine if it stays, in its masculine lemma form (e.g. for "копа"). We won't need the neuter provided there, because the masculine, feminine, neuter and plural alike would be valid, whereas we won't need the neuter for those verbs which only use the participle in the "има-конструкција" because its already provided (as neuter) in the "има-конструкција" row anyway.

As for the final row, we can call it "present perfect 2" (and "pluperfect 2" if we add that), or we can literally translate "има-конструкција" as "има-construction". That shouldn't be confusing to those who don't speak Macedonian because they will see that the "има" part refers to the auxiliary verb that the construction employs, as provided in the table.