Module talk:es-conj/data/combined

@Esszet The "not used" text is in {{es-conj-combined}}. DTLHS (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Esszet (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, wouldn't it be better to make it a submodule of Module:es-conj? Esszet (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it? I'm not sure what you mean. DTLHS (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's just a template. If you go here, it isn't there. Esszet (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind migrating it? I'm not good with creating tables in general, much less doing it in a module. Esszet (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved pages to Module:es-conj/templates/es-conj and Module:es-conj/templates/es-conj-combined. DTLHS (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. By the way, don't you think we should create a reflexive combined template for verbs like irse? Most of the forms in the table (venos, váyame, idle, etc.) are totally nonsensical. Esszet (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think those forms are nonsensical- search on Google books to find plenty of examples of use. What should the reflexive combined template look like? You can add both the "ref" and "combined" parameters now for example (but I don't know if this is correct):

DTLHS (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize that ir could take indirect objects by itself, but I'm talking about verbs that are strictly reflexive. It would just have three rows: infinitive, gerund, and imperative, and the imperative row would just have forms like vete, váyase, vámonos, etc. Esszet (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm, but aren't those forms already in the main table? Maybe you could write out all the forms you're thinking of. DTLHS (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are a lot of others that are completely nonsensical. With jactarse, for example, which doesn't have a non-reflexive equivalent, the only direct objects it can take are reflexive, and thus forms like jáctame, jactémoslo, jáctenos, etc. are completely nonsensical. The only imperative forms that would be in the table are the only ones that are possible: jáctate, jáctese, jactémonos, etc. Esszet (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you not understand what I'm saying? Esszet (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so- I don't understand why you want another table when all those forms are already in the main table. DTLHS (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Because for words like jactarse, most of the forms in the table are completely nonsensical. You can't say te jacto, lo jacto, le jacto, nos jacto, or anything like that. It's just me jacto. Thus the only combined forms possible with imperatives are jáctate, jáctese, jactémonos, etc. Esszet (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you not understand that? Esszet (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If I understand your concern correctly, this would be instead of the main table, not in addition to it. Esszet (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It would look like this:

    Selected combined forms of jactarse^{edit data}

		singular			plural
		1st person	2nd person	3rd person	1st person	2nd person	3rd person
Infinitives
	accusative	jactarme	jactarte	jactarse	jactarnos	jactaros	jactarse
gerunds
	accusative	jactándome	jactándote	jactándose	jactándonos	jactándoos	jactándose
with positive imperatives
	accusative	not used	jáctate	jáctese	jactémonos	jactaos	jáctense

Esszet (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Esszet irse, Module:es-conj/templates/es-conj-combined-refl DTLHS (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad we were finally able to work this out. One minor final thing: it's generating forms like jactos and lavos instead of jactaos and lavaos, respectively, and I can't quite figure out why. Esszet (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. DTLHS (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)