Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Perfective and imperfectie forms/reply (12)

But diminutives nouns are nouns, aren't they. They should be fetchable through a category that lists all nouns. Similar justification can be applied to the existence of alternative forms by perfectiveness - not to keep lesser entries co-existing with the base lemmas.

Yes it's a straw man. But so is your selective justification to delete these specific categories, while simultaneously an elaborate scheme of equally named categories persists with little or no use, unchallenged.

It's impossible to know which form is base and which derived. Distribution of attestation really proves nothing, and is merely an arbitrary indicator that can be utilized for practical purposes of deciding which form to lemmatize on. Perfectivization/imperfectivization are productive in both directions. In all Slavic languages there are several ways to do both. And they slightly change meanings as well, it's not merely a matter of completed vs. uncompleted action. And you can chain the process as well. SC alternative forms by perfectiveness are however only used for perfectivized/imperfectivized forms obtained by ablaut or infixes, and not by prefixes, because prefixation more obviously and more often introduces semantic changes than the former. The latter are normal derived terms with perfectiveness contrast to the baseword. I know it's a common practice to list them as perfective/imperfective counterparts in the headword line for some languages on Wiktionary, that practice is a simplification of how things are. It's the prefix that motivates and controls the meaning of derivation. The scope of the alternative forms category by perfectiveness is limited and well-defined, based on the nature of distribution of attested forms of pairs (or sometimes triplets) of perfective/imperfective verbal bases that are being inspected. Your suggested category name would indicate a subordinate nature of one specific form which is an unrecoverable relationship.