Template talk:he-verb

Nice!

Thanks, Opiaterein; this is really nice!

I have a few thoughts:

• I think maybe we shouldn't have so many different abbreviations for the different constructions; it might be nice for calls to the template to be more consistent, both for human readers' benefit and for any external tools using our data. I think just pa/nif/pi/pu/hif/huf/hit should be good (those being transliterations of what the Even-Shoshan Dictionary uses: the first two letters, plus intermediate vowel if necessary).
• Many verbs are traditionally spelled one way with niqqud and another way without niqqud; for example, triliteral pi`el verbs lose their yuds/vavs in niqqud-ated spelling, hence (deprecated template usage) לימד \ לִמֵּד (liméd). I'm wondering if we should support a dwv= (defective-with-vowels) parameter; if it's provided, we'd display {{Hebr|{{PAGENAME}} \ {{{dwv}}}}}. For verbs that are spelled the same way in either case, we'd just use wv=, producing {{Hebr|{{{wv}}}}}.
• Many dictionaries also display the first-person singular future tense (particularly useful for pa`al verbs, which can be either 'ef`ol or 'ef`al). Should we include that on the inflection line?

Thanks again, and I welcome your thoughts.

—Ruakh_TALK 15:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I see someone has implemented the dwv suggestion, and I've documented it above. I've now added a sort parameter, and have documented it above, but have not yet used it in any entries, toallow for tweaking before implementation. Ideally, all verb lemma entries should include full conjugation tables, which will, of course, include the ef'ol/ef'al information; I don't think that it's necessary to include it on the inflection line also.​—msh210℠ 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Category for improperly sorted verbs

I tried making a Category for verbs that use the default sorting so that I could go through the list and fix the ones that are improperly sorted (there are under 400 of them so it would be doable). Ruakh did not like this category and removed it, suggesting that he has a better idea. I realize that the easiest ways to tell which verbs have improper default sorting is that either (a) it is a non-pa'al verb, or (b) it is a pa'al verb whose length is not three letters. I am not sure whether it is worth making this category very complicated. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, did you intend this just as a one-time cleanup task? Sorry, I assumed you wanted this as a standing cleanup category. If it's just a temporary thing, then feel free to restore it, grab the list, and revert. —Ruakh_TALK 18:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but now that I think about it, we should a standing cleanup category if there is a good way to make one. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For a standing cleanup category, my thoughts are:

• I think hif'il, huf'al, hitpa'el, and hitpu'al always require a sort-key. (Of course, they arguably don't really need a cleanup category — if you were happy skimming through all the pa'al verbs in your temporary category, then you should be even happier skimming through just the hei section of the binyan-specific categories.)
• I can think of only one nif'al verb that wouldn't require a sort-key (namely נִגַּשׁ (nigásh) — which TBH maybe shouldn't use {{he-verb}} anyway), so I think we could just as well decide that nif'al always requires an explicit sort-key even in that one case (and any others like it). (Of course, as with hif'il et al., you can just skim through the nun section of the nif'al category.)
• Pi'el and pu'al are the trickiest, because they frequently require a sort-key, and frequently don't, and also because the ones that are missing a sort-key don't clump in any convenient way in any category. I see two approaches we could take:
  • If dwv= is specified, then a sort-key is required. (The problem, of course, is that this will miss cases where dwv= isn't specified.)
  • If the second letter of the page-name is yud for a pi'el verb, or vav for a pu'al verb, then a sort key is required. (This will have some false-positives, but I think that's probably O.K.; a few extra explicit sort-keys won't hurt anyone. It will also have some false-negatives, e.g. the excessively-spelled פלירטט (flirtét), but, well, there's a limit to what we can do.)
• I think pa'al almost never requires a sort-key, unless we want to sort e.g. záz under zayin-vav-zayin. (If we do want that, then we can just check for length: if the pagename is less than three letters, a sort-key is required.)

—Ruakh_TALK 18:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I did the hif'il and nif'al verbs. There are only two that I could not definitively figure out: הֵבִיךְ (heivíkh) seems to be בוך but I could not find any proof, and I cannot find if הוֹזִיל (hozíl) is יזל, וזל, הזל, or something else.

Also, how do you check the length of a template argument? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: checking the length of a template argument: {{str ≥ len}}. —Ruakh_TALK 17:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

hitpu'al

Is binyan hitpu'al actually a thing? I had not heard of it before now and I am almost a native speaker. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 20:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It describes the relatively new coinages התפוטר / הִתְפֻּטַּר and התנודב / הִתְנֻדַּב. I don't know how official these words are, but they are attestable. --WikiTiki89 21:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, whaddayaknow. Did some looking-up, and it does indeed not have many hits on Google, but Google Books showed me this book from 1993 which briefly discusses it. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 21:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You can find a good amount of hits for "התפוטר" in Google News. --WikiTiki89 21:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for responding to such an old topic, but I thought I’d add that the Academy of the Hebrew Language does have an entry for these two words: מתפוטר and מתנודב. However, while the entries themselves show example conjugations in "hitpu'al" forms, when you click into view all the conjugations it links to the hitpa'el forms, and the binyan is still shown as hitpa'el on the entries’ metadata—I suppose they haven’t got around to constructing these yet, or else they just consider them so niche that they will never bother.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Alternative Spellings

Hi,

I really think we need a way to specify alternative spellings in entries that use this template, for example שִׁלֵּחַ (shiléakh), with alternative spelling שִׁלַּח (shilákh). Currently, the only way to show these would be to list the alternative as a separate verb and then write "alternative form of…" in the definition. We have a special parameter for pausal forms, so IMO alternative forms should also be supported.

Note that this is also a problem in the {{he-verb form}}/{{he-verb form of}} entries for the conjugated parts of such verbs, such as with יְשַׁלֵּחַ (y'shaléakh)/יְשַׁלַּח (y'shalákh). On those particular entries it is not quite as much of a problem to list the different spellings under different {{he-verb form}} templates, because they are already "forms of" anyway, but it still isn't ideal.

Thoughts?

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)