Template talk:id-conj-base

@DanishtD, Xbypass I think we need this template to be more flexible with the glosses for the rows. At the moment, the "-kan"-row is glossed as "Benefactive". However, "-kan" is never benefactive for intransitive verbs, but always causative (mengalihkan) or applicative (mengkhawatirkan), and often it has applicative function with transitive verbs (mendengarkan). I think the default glosses can remain as they are, but there should be a way to override them with optional parameters (so that e.g. the "-alihkan" row can be glossed as "Causative"). –Austronesier (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Okay, but I will rename the benefactive as "Causative II / Applicative" instead of bare "causative", with old forms named "Causative" will renamed to "Causative I". I would instead adding note on the old benefactive since the choice on causative or applicative is sometimes unpredictable. DanishtD (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@DanishtD: I have another idea, but that might be maybe harder to implement (I'm a technical dummy): what about using numbered parameters (0 correspoding to the root, 1 to -i, 2 to -kan, 3 to per-, 4 to per- -i, 5 to per- -kan). The value of the parameter will be displayed as gloss, all rows with non-null parameters could then be automatically generated, and null parameters will yield suppressed lines. Consequently, only attested forms will be displayed (thus removing the issue with spurious forms), each with the correct meaning. –Austronesier (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Well, the previous manual entry is working for me, but I think there is need for clarification in technical term usage as there is "conflicting names for Indonesian affixes". --Xbypass (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@DanishtD, Austronesier: Well, the recent change made me more confused than before, so I will wait for a while. --Xbypass (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@DanishtD: As you said before that Indonesian has "conflicting names for Indonesian affixes", would you mind to attach the reference for the technical term used in the template for matching with Indonesian (2017) Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia [Standard Grammar of Indonesian Language]? --Xbypass (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I also support to use as much as possible the terminology from Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia, and translate them into English ("active', 'passive', 'causative', 'benefactive', 'involuntary', 'locative', 'instrumental'). There is no literal 'applicative', but this term fits best "Objek perbuatan yang digambarkan oleh verba menjadi sasaran" in §4.2.2.5.1. –Austronesier (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I think we shall check the term first before the decision is taken. Although I prefer the Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia term, but we need to compare it with proper English terms (ie. not direct translation).--Xbypass (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier, Xbypass: But, wait. Austronesier requested me for automatic suppression of unfilled rows (but I use same parameter numbers), but this template displays differently in preview and actual result (the preview suppressed them properly but the actual result does not). DanishtD (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Take your time. Basically, these are all 'nice-to-have'-features. In the end, the purpose of a template is to make life easier for the editor, but not at the expense that it makes life harder for the programmer :) –Austronesier (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@DanishtD, Austronesier: I think the automatic suppression of unfilled rows in the current situation is good enough. The main problem is about the term used in the template, which needs more research before. --Xbypass (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@DanishtD, Austronesier: OK, I think I had reviewed some Indonesian grammar books. There are some guide that we can infer from those materials.

1. Indonesian has two voices, active voice and passive voice. The passive voice can be divided into 4 group, neutral passive, adversative passive, imperative passive and optative/jussive passive. Active voice can be divided into active transitive (meng-) and active intransitive (ber-). This division shall be heading of the coloumn.
2. Indonesian has several cases, ie. nominative, accusative, locative, causative, instrumental, and benefactive.

There is no need to make causative 1/2 split. It is confusing.--Xbypass (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Xbypass: However, I originally used intransitive and transitive as defectivity classes (that is, Indonesian has many defective verbs), with intransitive as fully-conjugated class of verbs and transitive as the defective class, as {{id-conj/basic}} (via my automatic template {{id-conj}}) does in baca:

Conjugation of baca (meng-, transitive)
Root	baca
	Active	Involuntary	Passive	Basic / Imperative	Jussive
Active	membaca	terbaca	dibaca	baca	bacalah
Locative	–	–	–	–	–
Causative / Applicative1	membacakan	terbacakan	dibacakan	bacakan	bacakanlah
	Causative
Active	–	–	–	–	–
Locative	–	–	–	–	–
Causative / Applicative1	memperbacakan	terperbacakan	diperbacakan	perbacakan	perbacakanlah
1The -kan row is either causative or applicative, with transitive roots it mostly has applicative meaning. Notes: Some of these forms do normally not exist or are rarely used in standard Indonesian. Some forms may also change meaning.

{{id-conj|meng|b|aca|tr=yes}}

But, since I have found results of the form membacai in Google, it is probably that I want to abandon my defectivity distinction of intransitive/transitive, and left the defective verbs with manual template (there are many defective verbs but I do not have a set of new classes for defectivity). DanishtD (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec) @DanishtD, Xbypass: This looks neat and concise. Probably we don't actually have to explicitly use "nominative", "accusative", because these are the default functions of the subject in active and passive voice, respectively. I agree that there is no need for a causative 1/2 split. We should be more flexible anyway, because there is no ono-to-one relation between derivational affix and function. -kan can be causative, instrumental, and benefactive, and causative can be expressed with -kan (standard), per- (mempererat), per- -i (memperbaiki) and per-kan (memperdayakan, usually for ber-verbs).

What label can we use for the transitivizing function of -kan that is not causative/instrumental/benefactive, like in mengkhawatirkan or menanyakan? The Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia doesn't use a label for it. I used 'applicative' in the OP, but actually this is not good because the term 'applicative' already includes instrumental and benefactive. There are ambiguous words like menakutkan ('to frighten'; 'to be afraid of') where -kan has this function, but also can have causative function. (Budi menghamilkan Ani, lalu Ani menghamilkan anak Budi. Or: "Aku mengesalkan peristiwa itu." - "Mengapa?" - "Karena peristiwa itu sangat mengesalkan.") –Austronesier (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: The problem with current template is we have active-active verb which it does not make any sense, however active nominative verb does. Although Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia doesn't use a label, Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia describe the usage and meaning of affix clearly, so it is possible for other expert to declare it in common grammar terms such as in Indonesian Reference Grammar. I agree that the table should be more flexible, however possible manual entry is flexible enough for me. The word mengkhawatirkan and menakutkan is causative because the literal meanings are "make(s) someone worry" and "make(s) someone/something afraid" respectively.

Conjugation

	Active	Passive
		Neutral	Adversative	Imperative	Optative/Jussive
Nominative	membaca	dibaca	terbaca	baca	bacalah
Accusative	membacai
Locative
Causative
Instrumental
Benefactive	membacakan

I think the table such as this can be clear than the previous one.--Xbypass (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)