Template talk:indtr

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: There's an unhandled case: ditransitive verbs that take two prepositional objects. Two examples: French faire part à quelqu'un de quelque chose, "to inform someone of something"; savoir gré à quelqu'un de quelque chose, "to be grateful/indebted to someone for something". --Barytonesis (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis I’ll work on it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 10:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: thanks. Btw, have you considered implementing some categorisation, as {{lb}} does? Last thing: it seems a bit messy to me to use {{lb}} for direct transitive and intransitive verbs, but this one for indirect transitives. Have you considered expanding the scope of this template and moving all the transitivity labels from {{lb}} to it? Sorry, too many questions but I'm interested. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis, it’s done: diff. Let me know if you come across any bug or if you can think of a less clunky notation.

Do you mean categorising labels like archaic and geography? It already does that (use . before the label). Or do you mean creating categories like French indirect transitive verbs with de? It can be done. I was planning on doing that for Portuguese once there were a few hundred entries using it.

I think that the ideal solution would be moving this sort of information (transitivity/verb parameters, sematic categories of objects, etc., and also other POS, like nouns that always take an article) to usage notes in the same sub-definition position as usage examples. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: yes, grammatical categories, like "French indirect transitive verbs with de". To be honest, I don't think topical categories should be allowed to work with this template, we already have {{lb}} for that.

And yes, that sounds like a good idea! As I've said elsewhere, I don't like the way we're currently mixing grammatical, topical, contextual and register labels in the same place, with the same template (i.e. {{lb}}), but doing this is unsightly, so it has to be moved somewhere else. Why not the usage notes indeed? --Barytonesis (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Adjectives

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: Hello. It's just crossed my mind that it could be useful to have a similar template for valent adjectives: dependent on, prone to, different from/to. --Per utramque cavernam 16:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That’s right. Again, the ultimate solution would be creating a usex-level template to show how the term is used with other words.

Note that some of these adjectives have entries of their own (prone to). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Script handling

I have just found out that this template exists, and also that it cannot be used in Arabic entries as it does not give the correct link or formatting as {{l}} etc. do, hence {{indtr|ar|بِ}} in تَتَرَّسَ (tatarrasa) links to بِ (bi) (a page with diacritic in the page name which must not exist), and the passed adpositions do not look good as for the glyphs, as well as the HTML of course does not mark the adpositions with language codes. This template would seem to me like a smart way to combine {{lb|transitive}} and {{+preo}}. Also should there be a {{tindtr}} variant as sometimes for multiple meanings one would put all into {{tlb}}? Fay Freak (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)