Thread:User talk:Rua/Template:+obj falling short?

An exciting template. It has been a pleasure to see your |your edit just because I have therewith obtained the knowledge of its existence. But I am afraid it cannot be used consistently. On one hand because I do not know what arguments it takes (and also not yet what Template:+posto and Template:+preo do), on the other hand because the Template:lb allows to express a more loose collection, e.g. if the object is optional. And yes, that is the case with the word. How to express it if an object takes a specific case but is not required? I think it is confusing to read “(transitive, intransitive) to serve [+dative]”. Then there is a problem if a verb can take either an object by declining it directly or by a preposition. For me the entry looks good, but of course one would like to categorize better various preposition usages. It looks to me somehow like no way is right currently right for specifying verb. Obviously, because English does have little of it and the next popular languages likewise. Maybe some new template that is specifical for rection is necessary, so one can fill in the governed cases and adpositions together with a qualifier about their obligatorinesses, for also transitivity is a spectrum and with one word there cannot be depicted the fact if two of two possible objects are required or only a specific one of two objects or none and how much expected each object is, and of course recursively for languages that allow even more objects resp. for alternative usages. A Kantian question: Was darf ich hoffen?

Another question: How can I search well the namespaces for the usage of a specific template? It could show me things when documentation lacks. Palaestrator verborum (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)