User talk:Mike/sv-noun


 * Are these alternative spellings common enough to warrant places on the main inflection line or should they simply be mentioned under a Grammar header?
 * 1Also with -or plural.

(endings in def. pl.) -n + -ar, -er, -or, -r -> -na -en + -ar, -er, -or -> -na -en + -0 -> -na or -en -t + -n -> -a -t + -on -> -en -et + -er -> -na -et + -0 -> -en

Test uses of the template: (down to one word needing to be given one parameter more than I had hoped to require) Please, if I've forgotten some set of words inflecting in a manner unrecognized by the present template, help me identify them! Or if I have overlooked some error amongst those I already added.

ToDo:

 * If  is left out, should one assume:
 * that the word does not form compounds, or
 * that the user forgot/didn't know, or
 * that the compound is formed without any special forms? (May be unwise, as very many words which are already compounds take a "-s-")
 * Change the parameter  into several parts (,  ,...) which the user doesn't have to link, but which the template anchors correctly/automatically.
 * Documentation!
 * Check such that it never hurts to give a stem extra! (the extra forms now given to "nyckel" or "himmel" (se below) may very well be guilty of misbehaviour in this respect).
 * Non'standard' forms (e.g. "centra" or "centrer" versus "centrum" as indef. plural of "centrum"). Do they:
 * necessitate multiple, sequential uses of the template?
 * require overriding, named parameters to add secondary option?
 * look better with a completely new - for-use-at-irregular-nouns-only - template which allows specification of each form separately?
 * And finally, Documentation!! (It's not exactly trivial to use, as it is...)

First shot on doc's
There are words for which this template is easy to use, and there are other words...
 * First declination (plural -or): ;;definite -n: e.g. lampa:

The template takes up to five parameters, though some pain has been taken to make sure the fifth parameter should be required extremely rarely, and that two other parameters (number 1 and 3) should be able to be skipped in the majority of cases.

The principle is that the the first two parameters taken together should form the definite singular, while param's 3 and 4 taken together should form the indefinite plural, but that if 1 or 3 is dropped, the headword is silently assumed.

But then, there are the details, mainly accessed through particular, very careful, choices of the parameters 2 and 4....


 * Indefinite singular.
 * Pagename


 * Definite singular
 * +, where the stem is {1}, if exists, or else {PAGENAME}. The ending is determined (mainly) by {2} (there are a few exceptions/special cases, see table.)


 * Indefinite plural
 * +, where the stem is looked for first in {3}, then in {1}, last in {PAGENAME}. The ending is given by {4}.


 * definite plural
 * +, where the stem is looked for first in {5} (this should be *extremely* rarely needed), then in {3}, then in {1} and last in {PAGENAME}. (Again, there are exceptions based on which endings are used!!) The ending is determined by {2} and {4} together, in an algorithm which can be seen in the source code. It *should* always be possible to get this correct, by the right choices of stems and endings...

Here, (1) stands for the value of the first parameter (if not given, the pagename), and (3) the value of the third parameter (if not given, parameter 1, or if necessary, the pagename)


 * 0 Should never occur.
 * 1 Warning: This combination of parameters 2 and 4 *will* make the template behave differently depending on whether parameter 3 is empty or not! (This is to allow for the nouns which in lemma form ends in -el, which usually admits def. sing. as -eln, -elen, or colloquially, -len. The present use is chosen because only those words which plural finishes in -lar (and hence require a given parameter 3) should be affected by this. (Though I cannot at the moment find any word which wouldn't need said third parameter... well, maybe I find something)
 * 2 An automatic warning about the -en alternative being less commonly used, could be useful.
 * 3 Ok, why did I add this? It looks broken: no definite plural...
 * 4 Warning: Parameter 1 *must* be empty.
 * 5 No ending.
 * 6 Uncountable.
 * 7 I have suggestions for examples, but I'm uncertain of whether they really are uncountable....
 * 8 Two options which turns out to be equivalent. See also 9.
 * 9 One could think that användare would fit here, but that would cause problems with the definite plural... :(
 * 10 The code I use here is not exactly the code used in the article; as noted in note 1, the presence of parameter 3 affects the display, and this instance is an example on how that happens. In an actual article, the parameter 3 should not be used, and hence it wouldn't display what here appears as "(3)en".
 * 11 Two acceptable alternatives; is it possible to merge them through some clever code?

And in general, there are cases where one should be able to supply one or several alternative forms...

The table also lacks the "substantified" version of certain adjectives - they have a common ending -e or -a in all forms except the nominative indefinite singular.

Examples
(please imagine the headword instead of "Mike/sv-noun"...)


 * tumme


 * bro


 * fjäder


 * dator


 * bräda


 * penna


 * vara


 * kvinna


 * sko


 * mjölke


 * bil


 * lie


 * bild


 * and


 * ros


 * öl


 * användare


 * man


 * mjölk


 * nyckel


 * himmel


 * filosofi


 * beundran


 * önskan


 * gående


 * äpple


 * öga


 * syre


 * vin


 * batteri


 * akvarium


 * hus


 * fönster


 * centrum


 * rum


 * vatten


 * trä


 * bi


 * croupier


 * superlångsammansättning