Martin123xyz

Your Macedonian entries

Thank you for taking the time to add all these. There's a few things that you probably want to fix though:

• The parameter for languages on context labels like "transitive" is lang, not language.
• When adding "impf" or "pf" to verbs, could you do it like this instead? {{head|mk|verb|g=impf}}

Could you fix any entries you already created or edited so far? It would be much appreciated. —CodeCat 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing these. I noticed a few more things:

• When you edit an existing entry, sometimes there are links to the same word in different languages right at the bottom of the page. Those should stay at the bottom, so if you add a new Macedonian entry, it should go above those, not below.
• We normally separate sections for each language by putting ---- on a line right between the two sections. (I'm not sure if I agree with doing this, myself, but it's the normal format and it has been this way for years, so we should probably do it)

I've made an edit here to demonstrate these changes. —CodeCat 20:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You can also add word stresses, like this: {{head|mk|verb|g=impf|head=разго́вара}}, like in this edit. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello to both of you and thank you for the advice. I am sorry for the mistakes I've been making - I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around the codes for making entries. I'll fix the remaining aspect codes soon (and the language parameters too). By the way, I found the undesirable method of marking the aspect (i.e. adding at the end, after {{head|mk|verb}}) in another page about a Serbian word and thought I'd copy it from there - I assumed that the already existing entries were all in accordance with the standards. As for the word stress, I hardly think that it is necessary to mark it on Macedonian words. Macedonian stress (unlike Bulgarian, for example) is fixed on the antipenultimate syllable so marking it would be redundant save in exceptions, which are generally only loanwords (and some other miscellaneous ones, like all adverbial participles). As I have only been entering regular words which conform to the stress pattern, I don't think I need to mark anything. --Martin123xyz

Thanks for the reply. Macedonian templates are not developed well, unlike most other Slavic languages. We have a productive translator but he hardly worked on entries - User:Bjankuloski06en. As for the stress, it's up to you but it's helpful for those who doesn't know and may make assumptions. Stress is one of the things that make Bulgarian and Macedonian different. I know it's predictable but sometimes I have doubts and I know you have liquid consonants stressed as well- р́ (ŕ)? @CodeCat could you add pf/impf categories to Macedonian verbs? BTW, please add Babel to your user page. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to mark stress. After all, we don't mark it for Latin or Polish either, both of which also have predictable stress. —CodeCat 10:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that the number of entries in Macedonian is exceptionally low. I have, however, resolved to help remedy the problem by entering as much as I am able to. In relation to the stress, I suppose that one may indeed make incorrect assumptions, but then again, one who is looking up Macedonian words in Wiktionary would likely have some previous knowledge of the language and would in all likelihood know about the stress rule. Even if s/he doesn't would learn soon enough. I think that actually marking the stress on all words may even be misleading - it may suggest that stress is unpredictable and marked for that reason only. As for the stressed liquid, it does indeed exist, but it is predictable as well. It is easy to deduce when "r" is syllabic based on the surrounding letters - if it followed by a consonant without being preceded by a vowel, it is always syllabic. In cases where it's syllabic under other circumstances, an apostrophe is written before it. Once one has deduced that "r" is syllabic relying on this, one can take it into consideration when counting to find the antipenultimate as though it were any other vowel, so I don't think it would interfere in any way with discovering the stress.

Having said that, I realize that these fact aren't actually obvious and that they do need to be learned at some point - it is simply that I believe that someone looking up Macedonian entries would in all likelihood already know them or learn it soon enough. I don't really think that people who explore foreign languages simply make assumptions about stress without verifying them elsewhere, anyway. Thus, I believe that adding the stress would be of minimal benefit and consequently it isn't something I'd focus on right now - I think it's much more important to add more entries with definitions. Likewise, I don't think that IPA charts for Macedonian are necessary because the orthography is fully predictable. It isn't fully phonemic, i.e. the script doesn't directly reflect the pronunciation on a one phoneme to one grapheme pairing system, but it is regular nonetheless. For example, whereas "в" is devoiced in the syllable coda and thus not pronounced [v] as one may expect, there is a rule about final devoicing that accounts for that. Anyway, once I'm relatively done with adding entries, I may revert to details such as pronunciation and the like. By the way, I have added Babel (provided I have properly understood what that is exactly - I just added my level of Macedonian and English). --Martin 123xyz

Questions

I have some questions and concerns about using Wiktionary - I am hoping someone can help me out.

First of all, I would like to be able to do batch uploads, such that I can upload multiple terms at once, thus creating multiple pages at once. I can't just begin creating one new entry and type in code for multiple entries there, because they will all go under the same title, in the same page. There is some instruction as to how to do this in one of the help pages, but I don't understand it. I copied that code and tried to use it but nothing came out of it.

Second of all, I would like to know how to send others messages and write on their talk pages. I opened up a user but I don't see any appropriate button.

Third of all, I am having problems with redirection. When I tried to enter the Macedonian term "чита", meaning "to read", I was redirected to the page "Чита", with a capital first letter, where there was some Russian entry. I edited the page to enter the Macedonian word, but it ended up with a capital letter, which is unacceptable. How am I to create a page for it this way? Usually, I type in the word in the search bar, it tells me it doesn't have a page, I click on the word where it's underlined in red, and I'm sent to a blank webpage I can write out. With "чита", it didn't work out.

Thank you in advance

I've made an entry for чита, pls check. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. However, how did you do it? I would need to know in case of similar problems in the future. --Martin123xyz

There are a few ways to find but I made sure people can see both and select, which word they want. I opened Чита, added {{also|чита}} at the top, saved, чита had a red link. Created чита with {{also|Чита}} at the top of the page.

I'm not sure about mass-creation. You probably need to familiarise yourself with the environment first and add more templates, fix existing ones. Are you planning to add conjugation/declension at all? See пие (pie) with a conjugation, пријател (prijatel) with a declension table. Here's a standard welcome with some useful links for you and ... welcome :)

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2014/May (May is the current month) is used for technical questions. Choose the right month, click on + (plus) to add a new topic. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome and the advice. I will post a question in those discussion forums in regard to mass batching. Thank you for the explanation about "чита" - I think I understand what do now. By the way, I do plan to add conjugation and declension tables, but afterwards. Like I said, I think the most important things about words are the meanings, so I'll first deal with that and then go back for grammatical intricacies. Anyway, Macedonian noun declension is rather regular in comparison to certain other languages, so it isn't as critical as it may be, for example, for Albanian entries. As for the verbal system, it is a bit more irregular, so conjugation tables would be useful there. By the way, I opened the links you sent me and the declension table for "пријател" looks fine but the conjugation table for "пие" is completely empty. In fact, there are some symbols where the conjugated forms are supposed to appear, but they're not there. The only things that are filled out properly are the names of the categories, e.g. the ones where the number and person are written. However, when I click the edit button to look at the code, the forms are actually entered there, so I don't know why they don't appear in the conjugation table as expected.Martin123xyz (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That means there's some fixing to do, check мора. Here are Macedonian templates: Category:Macedonian_inflection-table_templates. You can open each of them and check how they're used by using special pages, like Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:mk-decl-noun, for example. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The entry for "мора" is in exactly the same condition - the conjugation table is completely empty (save for the miscellaneous code symbols). I will look at the templates and see if I can put them to use. Would it be, however, all right for me to produce my own conjugation tables? I suppose I could type up a code for a table relying on the code for a table for another language that actually works, e.g. Serbian, and then fill it in with the appropriate terms (and make the necessary modifications in the meantime).

Of course, it's OK, if you don't break anything else. Modules are more efficient than templates but I'm not a great expert in either of them. You can check also Russian, Slovenian, Polish, etc. templates as well. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I wasn't intending to break anything, but I was worried about the consistency between the pages, particularly in light of what CodeCat was telling me yesterday. Also, if I were to create my own table and begin using it, I would like to erase the faulty ones that are filled with random symbols and substitute them with mine that works. Would that be a violation of the original creators' rights? I wouldn't be doing any harm, since I would be actually providing a functional table, but I am still hesitant.

No, it wouldn't. Templates change all the time and are replaced with modules. The original creator may not be happy and dispute your edits but it's not the case with the current state of Macedonian. "Breaking" may not be intentional and be caused by adding errors (in modules), adding to wrong categories, like adding to Serbo-Croatian verbs, instead of Macedonian. It's minor, you just need to check. You seem to pick up quickly, though. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian Conjugation Template

Hi, have you ever considered making a Macedonian conjugation template? We could go for {{mk-conjug}}; so first off, we need an expert. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to create a template, but I don't know how. Should I just paste the code in the box in your link? Then, how would I be able to link to that template when making entries? Also, how would I be able to enter what needs to be filled in for each specific table on each specific entry.

By the way, one conjugation table isn't enough - there are three different verb classes, for both perfective and imperfective verbs. At least six tables would be needed, I think. Furthermore, there are many irregular verbs - how would they fit into a template?Martin123xyz

The best way to solve this would be to create one template that only displays the table, but does not fill in the forms. I created this now: {{mk-conj-table}}. We can then create as many more templates as necessary, which would then simply "fill in" that table template. So there would be a "chain" of two templates, one calling the other. —CodeCat 15:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have seen the template you made and I think I know how to use it know. By looking at the codes for different templates, I understand how only the variable parts of the template need to be entered for each page, separated by the symbol "|" in a list. I've done this with "копа". Could you please take a look it and tell me if it's fine? I don't see what you mean by adding further templates. By the way, there were some problems with the template - it was missing the language code (so I added that) and the future in the past and future reported were incorrectly coded as though they were simply composed from the past and perfect forms respectively, whereas they actually use distinct forms for some verbs, e.g. "удри". I mended that too.Martin123xyz

Well, right now, you still have to fill in every single form on every page. But like you said, there are different verb classes which all inflect the same. So, it's possible to make a new template, which merely generates the forms that go into the other template. I can show you how that would be done, but I don't know much about Macedonian grammar. Could you give me an example of the inflection of a very common type of verb? I can then try to make a template specifically for verbs of that type. —CodeCat 16:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I know I have to fill in the data for every page - I was just waiting for approval to do so. As for the example of a common type of a verb, both "копа" and "плаќа" would do - they represent the class of imperfective verbs ending in "-а" and just about all such verbs seem to have identical conjugation. If we were to replace the "коп-" or "плаќ-" with any other stem, e.g. "скок-" or "умир-", we would get a correct conjugation paradigm. Does that help you in figuring out how to create the additional templates? Anyway, thank you for being so helpful. Martin123xyz

Ok, that would work, but before I start, could you also explain how perfective verbs ending in -a inflect? Is there a difference? —CodeCat 16:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. I have just created an example with "ископа", which is a perfective form оf "копа". You can view the table there and note the differences in the suffixes. The difference is basically that the present tense is absent, that the past tense has different suffixes in the second and third person singular forms, and that the future in the past uses endings different than the past ones for the same forms. Martin123xyz

I made a new template, {{mk-conj-а}}, and added it to копа. There is probably a lot that should be done to improve this template, like being able to support both imperfective and perfective verbs, and linking to each of the forms, but it shows the basic idea. —CodeCat 17:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I really like this final template. I just need to type in a single stem and the entire table is produced. Anyway, I don't think that this template needs to be fixed to accommodate perfective verbs as well. I'll just create new templates for all the different conjugation patterns and use them separately. I think I know how to. Martin123xyz

It's possible to create more templates, but you will need to create many templates that way even though the inflection of imperfective and perfective verbs is almost the same. So it's better to integrate them both into one template, with an extra parameter to specify whether the verb is imperfective or perfective: {{mk-conj-а|impf|коп}}, {{mk-conj-а|pf|ископ}}. This is also how the Russian verb templates work, so we know that it works well that way. It also makes it easier for people to work with multiple languages at a time if the templates work similar.

I had a look at w:Macedonian grammar, which says that there is a distinction between imperfect and aorist past-tenses. It says that while the aorist past is mostly used with perfective verbs, it is sometimes used with imperfective verbs as well. Should the template show separate rows for both? —CodeCat 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there would be that many templates - no more than six. Anyway, if you insist, I don't mind having one template with a dual function but I don't understand how that works (the "impf" and "pf" before the stem). If I figure it out, I'll implement it. As for the imperfect and aorist past tenses, I say there is no difference other than the fact that the imperfect is the past tense of imperfective verbs whereas the aorist is the past tense of perfective verbs. As each verb has a fixed verbal aspect, I don't see how a single verb could have both at the same time. Thus, I don't think the table needs any modification and I don't really understand what the authors of that Wikipedia page wanted to say by suggesting that the aorist may be used with imperfective verbs as well. Martin123xyz

I think what they mean is that in some rare cases, it would be ok to say "ти копа"? —CodeCat 17:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No - that is grammatically incorrect. Actually, it is correct in the sense of "he/she/it is digging for you", if we regard "ти" as an indirect object clitic for the second person singular, but that is not relevant here. Martin123xyz

I've split the rows anyway, mainly because even if the imperfective and aorist forms are both past, they do inflect quite differently so it may be more informative for users if they see that they are really distinct. They may get confused otherwise. They are also historically different, so it helps for people who are interested in that kind of thing.

I've also changed {{mk-conj-table}} and {{mk-conj-а}} so that they support both imperfective and perfective verbs. They also add links to the forms in the table now. Can you check копа and ископа to make sure everything is correct?

You said that for some verbs like удри the perfect is different when it's used in the reported future. Can you explain that?

Finally, the Wikipedia article says there are also participles. We should probably add those. —CodeCat 18:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that users should be able to see that the aorist and imperfect are distinct - I approve of the split, as long as we don't fill out both tenses for any given verb. As for "копа" and "ископа", they are fine. By the way, what do you mean by "add links"? The only thing that happens when I click the verb forms is that I get offered to create a new page for that term. Instead of this, is there any way to have these entries automatically created, so that, for example, when someone writes "копам", it automatically says that it's a form of "копа"? It seems to work this way for Spanish verbs, for example. See "quieren". Did someone actually write separate entries for all conjugated forms?

I agree on adding the participles - we'd need a gerund (копање), adverbial participle (копајќи) and a passive adjective participle (копан). The passive adjective participle usually works only for transitive verbs, though (there are also some rare intransitive verbs that use this for as a past active adjective participle; for example, whereas "копан" means "dug", i.e. that which has been dug, "спиен" means "having slept", i.e. he who has slept). There is also a present active adjective participle but it is limited in use and sounds unnatural with most verbs, so I don't think it's relevant (for "копа", it would be "копачки", meaning "digging", i.e. he who digs, but I can't imagine anyone actually using it - one would simply use a relative clause instead).

As for the question about "удри", I don't know how to create a new template to be able to create the conjugation for that entry. I therefore entered the conjugation using my own table (my original attempt at a conjugation table before I got your assistance) just so you can see the conjugation pattern. Note the discrepancy between "е" and "и" in both the future in the past and future reported. Could you now please make an appropriate template from the paradigm so that we can have a proper conjugation table for this verb and all future ones, or tell me how to make one? I don't see any "create template" buttons. Martin123xyz

Each of the verb forms is actually a separate entry that needs to be created. For Spanish, one of our users runs a bot script that automatically creates these. If we want entries to be created for Macedonian verbs, there would need to be a bot too, or you could create them all manually. A bot is much easier of course.

I created some more templates in Category:Macedonian verb inflection-table templates, which should hopefully be enough for most verbs. But I don't really understand the change in the vowel of the l-participle that you showed. Is there a reason why it changes? A way to predict when the change occurs? Is it always "е" and "и"? Or is it completely irregular and it just has to be remembered for each verb? —CodeCat 19:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional templates - I'll see how I can use them. Could you also please add the two participles and the gerund to the templates? As for the conjugation of "удри", the changes are the following: "удрив" > "ќе удрев" and "сум удрил" > "ќе сум удрел". I don't know why it changes - it's just that the future in the past and the future reported require a separate form, which is not distinct for many verbs (as you saw with "копа"). Anyway, this change is somewhat regular. If the perfective verb ends in "и", then this vowel will change to "e" in the future in the past and future reported. Thus, we have "затворив" > "ќе затворев" and "сум затворил" > "ќе сум затворел" for the verb "затвори". However, "види" doesn't fit in with this (it is an exception). We have "видов" > "ќе видев" but "сум видел" to "ќе сум видел", both with "e". I hope that it is clearer to you now.

By the way, it is not just an "и" to "е" change that occurs. A similar mechanism can be observed with perfective verbs ending in "-е" whose first person singular aorist form doesn't end in "-ев" (these have to be learned individually, as far as I can see, just like "видi", which ends with the unexpected "-ов"). Let's take the ones with the suffix "-не". Let's take the verb "падне", the perfective form of "паѓа". Here, we have "паднав" > "ќе паднев" and "сум паднал" > "ќе сум паднел". The same goes for the verb "влезе". We have "влегов" > "ќе влезев" and "сум влегол" > "ќе сум влезел". Compare this with "умре". Here, we simply have "умрев" > "ќе умрев" and "сум умрел" > "ќе сум умрел", i.e. no change, because the basic forms already have "е" where it could otherwise be inserted.

Anyway, as I have learned Macedonian as a native language and not from a course, I don't really know how the verbal system functions or why - I only know what's correct and what's not. Based on that, I have deduced patterns, but there may be some things that I have neglected to notice. Thus, don't rely on my classifications too much. I will not give you incorrect forms, but I may fail to notice a regularity in something that appears irregular, for example (e.g. the "-ов" ending in the first person singular aorist).

As for the specific templates, you have now created, I don't really understand which are supposed to represent which verbs, so I will attempt to modify them to suit whatever they need to suit. Martin123xyz

I based the templates on what I found at w:Macedonian conjugation. So when the name has two letters in it, the first is the present stem vowel, the second is the aorist stem vowel. I did notice that some verbs have irregular aorist stems, with extra letters added or removed. I suppose those would need to be entered separately somehow. Right now I'm still trying to work out which parameters the templates should have and how they should work, and also how the table should be arranged. Maybe, for now, we could just avoid these verbs which don't fit the templates I created. That way we can work with the templates for a while and that would give us more time to figure out what needs changing.

One thing I wonder about is the different rows that are in the current table. Many of them can really be predicted from others. All you really need to know for sure is the present, imperfect, aorist, imperative and l-participle. The rest can be created from those using some simple rules that are apparently the same for each verb. When I worked on the templates for Slovene, I followed this approach, by showing only the basic formula to derive these forms. You can see an example at slikati. Slovene does not have imperfect or aorist forms, and what is the "perfect" in Macedonian is just "past" in Slovene, and Slovene uses the present for perfective verbs too (it has a meaning of "intending") but the idea is the same. I think this would help with the clarity, by showing only what is essential. What do you think of a layout like this? —CodeCat 19:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, how did you make the thing with the perfect vs. imperfect aspect work - i.e. how did you make it variable? I don't see the perfective suffixes in the table when I open mk-conj-a, but it works fine for "ископа". Martin123xyz

That's mostly in {{mk-conj-table}}. —CodeCat 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look at the page about Macedonian conjugation you linked and I think's it's misleading. The forms provided there, such as "стојав", "учив", "пив" and "трив" don't actually exist. They are merely aorist roots of other verbs, e.g. "постојав" (not in the sense of "exist" but in the sense of "stand for a while"), "изучив", "испив" and "истрив". They are not separate words. As for the conjugation tables you've created, they don't seem to be fully sufficient. I tried to use the "и" one, but it gives "-ил" forms for the imperfect verbs, which don't exist - they are always "-ел". Thus, "носи" can only ever be "носел" and "оди" can only ever be "одел". The verb "удри" has both "удрил" and "удрел" because it's perfective. To avoid further problems, how about I just explain the entire verbal system to you somewhere and tell you what each template needs to have? I'll create example conjugation tables with each verb type and link them to you for you to see them and then you can work from that. As for the irregular verbs you speak of, they are not that many.

Anyway, as for the simpler outlay of the template you suggest, similar to the Slovene one, I'm fine with it. I also agree that many forms are predictable. If you like, you can change it (I myself don't really know how to). However, please make sure that all tables I have included so far change automatically (I suppose they should, if we change the template), to avoid wasting time seeking them out individually.

As for the perfective vs. imperfective system, I looked at the code and suppose that everything works based on those "if" statements that you've included. I don't really understand much of the code, but never mind. I hope it will work for all other templates too. Martin123xyz

Take a look at this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/s27la1fbywdqzvo/Macedonian%20Verbs.xls Martin123xyz

w:Macedonian conjugation mentions a distinction between imperfective and aorist l-participles. One is formed from the imperfective stem, and one from the aorist stem. So if the aorist is "носе" then the corresponding l-participle is "носел"? Is this maybe the distinction that you mentioned? —CodeCat 12:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There are no distinct aorist and imperfective participles because, as we said earlier, one verb cannot be both perfective and imperfective (well some can, but in those cases, it's just that the two forms coincidentally overlap). It appears that some people classify the l-participles that occur with the future reported as imperfective participles.

Either way, there is no such thing as "носе". The verb "носи" is imperfective and thus has an imperfect, "носеше", rather than an aorist. If we incorporate "носи" as a root into a perfective verb, we don't get "-носе", but "-несе", due to an irregularity (e-grades vs. o-grades in PIE, I presume). Hence, we have "носи" (impf.) > "донесе", "однесе", "поднесе", "нанесе", "внесe", "изнесе", "пренесе", "занесе" (all pf.) These, in turn, also have irregular l-participles, namely "донел", "однел", "поднел", etc. Their l-participles in the future reported are "донесел", "однесел", "поднесел", etc. I don't understand what you're querying about? Did you look at the dropbox file? The distinctions are presented there in each table. Martin123xyz

I'm just afraid that if I code this into the templates, the assumptions I make about how it works and when the change applies will be wrong. I'd rather get it right the first time. From looking at your tables, I understand that it works like this:

• Verbs of the а-type always have -ал in all the л-forms.
• Imperfective verbs of the и- and е-types always have -ел in all the л-forms.
• Perfective verbs of the и- and е-types always have -ел in the future reported. In the other л-forms, the aorist stem is used as the base. If the aorist is irregular in some way, the non-future л-participle will be irregular in the same way.

Is this how it works? —CodeCat 14:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You got everything right, except the last statement - it doesn't always apply. For example, "земе" has the irregular aorist "зедов" but a differently irregular non-future л-participle "зел". Also, bear in mind that many verbs have irregular non-future л-participles but regular aorist forms. The examples I gave above, i.e. "донесе", "однесе", etc. illustrate this principle. By the way, I don't suppose that you consider the "-о" aorist forms as irregular - I'd just say they are a separate class. Thus, I personally don't consider "донесов" to be irregular. The only irregularity is that the root's vowel is "e" whereas it's "о" in the imperfective form, i.e. "носи", but this doesn't have anything to do with any suffixes. Anyway, other examples of verbs with irregular non-future л-participles would be all the ones that contain the root "иде", such as "дојде", "појде", "зајде", "најде", "прејде", etc. Their non-future л-participles are "дошол", "пошол", "зашол", "нашол", etc. However, their future reported л-participles are the predictable "дојдел", "појдел", "зајдел", etc.

Keep me notified further as to how you are progressing (and when everything will be complete) with the code. Martin123xyz

I've implemented the above rules into the templates now. Hopefully it shows the correct л-participles. The templates don't currently support irregular aorist/participle forms, like some of those you mentioned. This will need to be done eventually, but it can wait for now.

If you come across a verb, noun or adjective for which there is no usable template, you can put this instead of the inflection table:

====Conjugation====
{{rfinfl|mk|verb}}

Of course replace "Conjugation" with "Declension" and "verb" with "noun" or "adjective" as appropriate. This will add a small notice to the entry, and also add it to a category (see Category:Macedonian entries needing inflection). This is a reminder to yourself or to other editors that something still needs to be done there. That way, we don't have to modify the templates to support all the irregular verbs right away, we can just check the category to make sure we haven't forgotten any. —CodeCat 17:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You haven't implemented the rules fully correctly - I get adverbial participles and gerunds for perfective verbs, e.g. "ископање" and "ископајќи". Such forms are impossible. In the tables I sent you, you can see that the slots for adverbial participles and gerunds contain a dash for all perfective verb classes. Also, some imperfective verbs lack these two forms whereas they do actually have them, e.g "гризе". As for the active adjectival participles, i.e. the ones ending in "-н" or "-т", how will we prevent them from appearing with intransitive verbs that lack them? Also, don't you think we should indicate somehow that they have gender forms, since you've done that for the л-participles. Finally, why are there only 8 verb templates on the template page? For example, I don't see the "mk-conj-и-а", e.g. for "издржи". However, it works nonetheless when I enter it into a page, so it doesn't matter, really. Martin123xyz

The adjectival participle is a real adjective isn't it? So doesn't it also have definite forms and such? I don't think the л-participle has those, so we can fit them into the table. But for the adjectival participle it doesn't seem as easy if there are too many forms.

I'm not sure why you don't see "mk-conj-и-а", I see it right there...

I wasn't sure about the rules for when to add the adverbial participles and gerunds. I didn't notice that only imperfective verbs had them in the table you gave me. Seeing the forms is one thing, but figuring out that there is a rule behind it is another. So if I understand it:

• All imperfective verbs have an adverbial participle and gerund. No perfective verbs have them.
• The adjectival participle appears primarily on transitive verbs, regardless of whether they are imperfective or perfective.

If the second rule is correct, then the templates should probably have an extra parameter to control whether the verb has an adjectival participle or not. What should the default be? Should the default be to show it, or to not show it? I'm guessing that there are more transitive verbs than intransitive verbs, so making it show by default makes more sense? —CodeCat 12:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind about the "mk-conj-и-а" template - I was looking for it in the wrong place. I see where you have it. However, I still don't see the athematic one. How does that one work? What do I type in for it? I also have another concern, about all verbs ending in two vowels in the lemma form. They need an intrusive "ј" in certain places, that doesn't appear automatically. When I tried to make the conjugation table for "блуе" using the "mk-conj-е-е", I got "блуам" where "блујам" should be, for example. To see where the intrusive "ј" appears, look at the conjugation of "испие" that I provided in the dropbox file - it appears in the same place for imperfective verbs too. Thus, "испиеја" corresponds to "блуеја", etc. Could you take care of this somehow?

As for the adjectival participle - yes, it is a simple adjective, with definite forms and all. I agree with the reasons why we shouldn't decline it within the table. By the way, you've understood the rules about the gerunds and adjectival participles correctly now. As for the adjectival participle, yes, it appears primarily on transitive verbs regardless of aspect and I think that the default should be for it to appear, as there are indeed more transitive verbs. If you develop some code that makes it disappear optionally, tell me how to use it so that I can remove it where it's not applicable.

Finally, in regard to the irregular verbs, such as "дојде", how will we enter them once we finally get around to that (I realize it's not necessary now)? Will we need new templates or what? How are they dealt with in other languages? Martin123xyz

Unfortunately, it's not possible for templates to look "inside" the words you give to them, and do something depending on, say, the last letter of a word. This is one of the drawbacks of using templates, and it's one of the big advantages of using Lua. In Lua, you could just make the code look at the last letter, and add an extra ј if it's a vowel. With templates you can't do that automatically, you either need to make another template just for such verbs, or add another parameter to an existing one, which is not as nice and simple but it works. I could convert the current templates to Lua, but that would take a bit of time, and I originally chose to make them without Lua because I thought it would make it easier for you to learn how they work.

I added the extra code for the adverbial participle, adjectival participle and gerund. They should hopefully display correctly now. There's no support for adjectival participles in in -т yet, though. Again that's because templates can't look at the last letter of a word and decide what to do. The adjectival participle is shown by default, but you can hide it using the parameter |novn=1. —CodeCat 13:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I got that wrong, the parameter is |noap=1. —CodeCat 14:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, you could indeed modify the templates with Lua. That would be quite useful, for the adjectival participles too. As for the "noap=1", I think I understand how to use it. Thank you for that. Martin123xyz

I've just created a template for athematic verbs. It also works for imperfective verbs ending in two vowels, such as "блуе". However, on the template list, it appears under M rather than under E. Could you fix this? Could you also check if everything is all right with, since it was I who made it? I think it needs some sort of documentation and categorization too, whatever that may mean. Martin123xyz

See the changes I made: diff, diff. I also created the documentation page and put the category there instead: Template:mk-conj-е-∅/documentation. I'm just not sure about the character ∅ that you included in the name. It looks nice, but it's very hard for people to type. I think we should limit ourselves to common Latin and Cyrillic characters in the template names so that people can add them to entries more easily. Do you have any suggestion for a replacement? —CodeCat 14:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that - it's lovely. As for the character ∅, it is customary in denoting an absent phoneme or morpheme - I don't know what we could replace it with. Do you think it really matters that it's hard to type? People won't be typing the names of the templates - they'll simply look for entries and view the ready tables. I don't see how the symbol could affect them in any way. The only problem may be if they are trying to enter conjugations for verb entries that don't already have it, in which case they can just copy paste the entire code from the ready entries, which is what I do all the time as I add entries. However, if you insist on replacing ∅ with something else, maybe a 0 would do? Or a /? Martin123xyz

I think 0 would work best. / has a special meaning in template names (it indicates divisions between subtemplates), so we should avoid using it for anything else. —CodeCat 15:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian сув

I came across the Macedonian word сув via Proto-Slavic *suxъ. Could you fill it out? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I did. However, I don't have any adjective templates at my disposition at the moment, so I'll improve it at a future date. I'm currently busy with improving verbs (and entering nouns).

I understand. Apparently, {{mk-adj}} is a declension template instead of a headword template. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. it also redirects to {{mk-decl-adj}}. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add Macedonian noun бол, from Proto-Slavic *boljь. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Headword-line templates for Macedonian

I updated the current templates in Category:Macedonian headword-line templates. They're still very basic, but they can be improved if needed. Could you use these from now on? —CodeCat 00:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All right, I will. I was planning on editing all of my verb entries to add the forms of the opposite aspect anyway, and these headword-line templates make it convenient to do so. However, could you explain how exactly I'm supposed to use them? I don't understand what to do with the list of parameters provided. I tried writing "pf=касне" for "каса", but nothing appeared on the screen when I submitted it. Martin123xyz

You can see here what I did. I could add parameters to the other templates as well, if there is a need. For example the comparative forms of adjectives, or maybe the plural forms of nouns. I'm not sure what would be the most appropriate for Macedonian. —CodeCat 12:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All right, I understand how it works now. Thank you for the illustration. As for adjectives, comparative and superlative forms are fully predictable (one simply adds the prefixes "по-" and "нај-" respectively), so I don't know if these are necessary. As for nouns, we'd certainly need plural forms, as these are often irregular. However, wouldn't that fit better in an inflection table for nouns rather than merely the headword-line template? Martin123xyz

They're predictable, but they are still separate words, so there should probably be some kind of link so that users can get to them?

Concerning inflection tables, you are right. But for many languages, we include inflection tables for all the forms, but also include a few selected forms in the headword line. Often those are forms that help users figure out the declensional pattern more easily (the "principal parts"). For Slovene, for example, the genitive singular of nouns often tells you the general type of declension, and likewise for Latin nouns. For Latin verbs there are also four principal parts (see amō). So it comes down to whether we consider the plural form of nouns important enough to include it on the headword line too. —CodeCat 12:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All right - I think that we we should have noun plurals in the header too, in that case. As for the adjectives, I think it would be fine if they were to remain only in the inflection tables. Martin123xyz

I've added a plural parameter to {{mk-noun}} now. It's the second unnamed parameter, after the gender. —CodeCat 15:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway for that parameter to automatically fill itself according to some rules of thumb that pertain to the plural formation of nouns? Whereas there are many unpredictable plurals, there are also many that are regular. For masculine nouns, there is too much variability, but feminine nouns in "-a" almost always form the plural by replacing the final "а" with "и". Likewise, neuter nouns ending "-о" almost always form the plural by replacing the "o" with "a" and neuter nouns ending "-e" almost always form the plural by replacing the "e" with "-иња". If the parameter could fill itself based on this whereas I could overwrite it with something else should it be necessary, that would be lovely. Come to think of it, it would be also convenient if masculine nouns had some default plural - "-ови" would be most appropriate, as it is the most common suffix. Even though I would have to alter very many masculine nouns, more than half would already be done. What do you think about this? Martin123xyz

It's possible to do this (but again, looking at letters inside words requires Lua support), but it may not necessarily be a good idea. The problem is what if someone comes and wants to add this template to an entry but doesn't know the plural? If it's automatically generated, then it might not be correct. If there is no default, then it's more work, but less chance of mistakes. —CodeCat 15:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it may lead to mistakes, but this can be circumvented if instead of having the plural automatically generated, one could have the option to type in "std" for "standard" in a particular parameter. Whoever knows the plural (and sees that it's regular) would just type this in - then an appropriate plural would be generated depending on the specific noun (relying on Lua support). Whoever doesn't would leave the parameter blank and there would be no mistake. Martin123xyz

It is a bit like how the Dutch and Afrikaans templates work. For Dutch, there are two main plural endings, -en and -s. If you want the -en plural, you can type: {{nl-noun|m|-en}}. But you can also type in the full word. It just recognises the "-en" as special, and handles it differently than normal. Something like that might work for Macedonian too? —CodeCat 16:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean. Are suggesting creating a parameter where you can simply write the suffix such that it will be automatically added to the stem? If so, I suppose it would work in some cases, but many (masculine) nouns undergo elision or palatalization in the formation of the plural - here, merely adding suffixes would obviously be undesirable. Martin123xyz

A template is free to interpret the text you give as its parameters in any way it likes. So it's possible that {{mk-noun|m|-и}} means "add и", while {{mk-noun|m|-ови}} means "add ови". And there could be some other special value like {{mk-noun|m|-'и}} which means "add и and palatalise". Something along those lines? —CodeCat 21:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. However, would the program know how to palatalize based on the "-'и" function? Could you program it to turn a final "к" into a "ц", a final "г" into a "з", and the like? Also, how would you program it to trigger elision of the final syllable's vowel? Or would that be resolved by filling in the entire word, as in the case of the Dutch entries?

With Lua that could be done, yes. As long as there are fixed rules then it could do it automatically. But it would mean it would apply it to all nouns ending in those consonants, unless there is a rule that says when not to apply it. It's all about rules. :)

Can you give an example of elision of the final vowel? —CodeCat 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's all about rules, that's very convenient. Anyway, the rule is that if a masculine noun ending in "к", "г" or "х" is pluralized with "и", palatalization will yield "ц", "з", and "с". As for elision, examples would be "орел" > "орли", "агол" > "агли", "метар" > "метри", etc. It happens with "е" much more than anything else (when it comes to nouns - in the case of adjectives, the elision of "о" is also quite common).

Ah, like that. I don't think the template would be able to handle such cases automatically, not even with Lua. Because there are probably nouns where this doesn't happen even though they look like it could, correct? The template has no way of knowing when to remove the vowel and when not, it's unpredictable. So in those cases you'd just have to specify the whole word, there's not much that can be done about that.

The palatalisation of masculine nouns is predictable so that can be made automatic. But the template would need to be converted to Lua first. So for now, it's best to just specify the whole plural always. —CodeCat 21:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All right, but when are the templates going to be converted to Lua? For verbs, it seems that we need Lua only for the adjectival participles (the one's with "-т"). I intend to merely continue entering nouns, adjectives and adverbs, with only their meanings included, and then go back to verbs to add conjugations and corresponding aspect pairs. By the time I'm done with that, would it be possible to have Lua templates?

Links in templates

I noticed this edit you made. Generally speaking, you don't need to include the [[ ]] inside the template parameter, when the template already links to the term normally. So you can just leave them out for this particular parameter (impf= and pf=), which I've done in the edit following yours. Also, when providing things like synonyms, derived terms, see also and such, could you link to the terms using {{l|mk|put the word here}}? The {{l}} template automatically formats the word for Macedonian and includes a transliteration as well, so it's much preferred over the plain links with just [[ ]]. —CodeCat 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All right, I will stop including double square brackets. I wasn't aware that the links would still work. I will also start using {{l|mk|WORD}} - I wasn't aware that this existed. Martin123xyz

Pluralia Tantum and Singularia Tantum

I am confused as to what I should write for Macedonian nouns that are singularia or pluralia tantum. Where and how do I mark this? I also have a specific question about the word "луѓе". It means "people", but doesn't have a singular form (it uses the words like "човек", "личност" or "лице" as singular forms, but these are evidently distinct words). Meanwhile, Macedonian nouns don't distinguish gender in their plural forms, so "луѓе" turns out to be a genderless noun, in fact. How do I mark this and where? Then again, in BCS, the cognate word "ljudi" is masculine, which is easily deducible, given the fact that BCS has a well-developed gender system in the plural. Based on this, should I treat "луѓе" as masculine? To complicate matters further, "луѓе" actually takes singular neuter suffixes for definiteness, e.g. "луѓето", "луѓево", etc. Martin123xyz

If a noun has no plural, use {{mk-noun|m|-}}. A common convention in Wiktionary templates is to use "-" when you want to disable something.

If the noun is always plural, you specify a plural gender, like {{mk-noun|m-p}}. But if there is no gender distinction in the plural, I can change it so that you use just {{mk-noun|p}} instead.

For луѓе (luǵe), is it not just the (irregular) plural form of човек (čovek)? —CodeCat 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. However, only writing "p" where there is no gender distinction in the plural doesn't seem to work. It produces a question mark. Could you look at "луѓе" and fix this? Anyway, "луѓе" is indeed the irregular plural of "човек", but only in meaning. Etymologically, they are two distinct words. Thus, "луѓе" isn't necessarily masculine just because "човек" is a masculine singular noun. That was my dilemma.Martin123xyz

I didn't add that in yet. Right now, the template accepts m, f, n, m-p, f-p and n-p as valid genders. Should I change it to m, f, n, p? —CodeCat 21:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I think that m-p, f-p, and n-p should stay too. Is there no way to keep all three of them plus a general p?

Ok, I've done that. But if the plural doesn't distinguish genders, what is the use of m-p, f-p and n-p? —CodeCat 12:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The use is to be able to denote what gender the singular of that plural noun would be, since not all plural entries would be pluralia tantum. For example, "скали" is most often used in the plural to mean "stairs", but a feminine singular noun "скала" also exists, meaning a single stair, among other things. Martin123xyz

On Wiktionary we distinguish between "lemmas" and "forms". The lemma is the form of a word that contains the main entry and the definitions, while forms only contain a small definition that contains a link to the lemma. Templates like {{mk-noun}} would only be used on lemmas, not on forms. So if скали is the plural of скала, then it would link to it and it wouldn't use {{mk-noun}} itself. —CodeCat 14:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, could you fix "скали" so that I can see how that is supposed to work, i.e. what code needs to be written? I thought that "скали" deserved its own entry because it's meaning is somewhat more than just the plural of "скала". Anyway, I suppose that we can still reflect this through the definitions, even if we don't give it the status of a lemma, so it would be distinct from all other form entries that a bot may generate, right? Martin123xyz

I've changed both скали and скала. —CodeCat 15:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian бол

Since I thought that no response was ever bothered to me made, I thought about creating the Macedonian entry бол (bol) myself. All you may now do is add the gender and corrections, then it's done. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't create "бол" because I am not familiar with the word. I don't know what gender it's supposed to be either. When some other Macedonian speaker who is aware of it comes by it, s/he can modify it accordingly. I myself am only familiar with "болка".

So how about сова (sova) (owl)? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that word in Macedonian either. I have known it all my life as a Serbian word. In Macedonian, I know about уткa (utka), ут (ut), and був (buv). Martin123xyz (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Words Appearing in Red

Every time I enter a compound term, if some if its components are not recorded as separate entries already, they appear in red. However, some of them don't even exist as separate words and thus, there is nothing to create, as in the case of some reflexive verbs that don't have a normal form (such as "се кае"). How I can make Wiktionary consider compound terms as single units rather than sequencse of separate terms, so as to avoid this problem? I face the same issue when I enter a compound term where some of the words are declined - then again, I suppose this will be fixed once a suitable bot has been procured to automatically generate new entries for all inflected forms of all the lemmas.

The headword that is displayed in the entry normally defaults to the name of the current page, and it is automatically split into separate words when possible. If this is not desirable, then you can change it using the head= parameter, like this: {{mk-verb|head=се кае|impf}}, which gives:

се кае • (se kae) third-singular present, impf

You can also specify which words should be linked to and which shouldn't, by putting [[ ]] around the appropriate words: {{mk-verb|head=[[се]] кае|impf}}, giving:

се кае • (se kae) third-singular present, impf

For nouns that contain adjectives in them, it could also be useful to specify which word the link should go to, if the adjective is in a feminine or neuter form. For example: {{mk-noun|head=[[електронски|електронска]] [[пошта]]|f}}, which gives:

електронска пошта • (elektronska pošta) f

(Notice that if you click on the link, it goes to електронски.) It's up to you to decide what works best. —CodeCat 12:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations - that's brilliant. I'll start employing it.

Reflexive Verbs

When I add intransitive or transitive Macedonian verbs as entries, they are automatically incorporated into an entire list of intransitive or transitive verbs which I can later view. However, this doesn't happen with reflexive verbs - no such list is created. Why is this so? Could someone mend it? Martin123xyz (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Verb Templates for Irregular Verbs

I have thought of a way to accommodate irregular verbs into templates - by entering two (or even more, if needed) stems in the parameter on the entry page. Given the fact that Macedonian irregular verbs tend to be irregular only in that their basic stem changes in some tenses, allowing different stems to fill out different parts of the template would resolve the problem. For example, whereas for "копа" I only write { { mk-conj-а|impf|коп } } and have "коп-" fill out everything, if I could write { { mk-conj-a|pf|дојд|дош } } for "дојде" and then have "дојд-" fill in certain parts of the template while "дош-" fills in the remaining, I could obtain the correct conjugation table. However, I don't how to specify in the code template which spaces need to be filled out by which parameter's contents. I think that the { { {2|- } } needs to be altered somehow (split into two distinct things), but I don't know how to achieve this. Could someone show me? Martin123xyz (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is more or less what I had in mind as well. For which forms would the second stem be used? —CodeCat 15:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Only the non-future л-forms should have the second stem, i.e. "дош-" in the case of "дојде"

What about the aorist? I thought that could be irregular too? —CodeCat 16:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is very rare. The only examples I can think of where it happens "земе", which is quite a singular case, and "сум", which is a completely irregular verb, as in so many languages. Thus, for "земе", we would need three different stems - a regular one, an aorist one, and a non-future л-participle one. For "сум" we would need plenty of different ones. I will upload the conjugation of that verb for you to see how it works and what can be done about.

Anyway, besides this, there is another complexity - the depalatalization. It happens with verbs of the "-е-о" and "-е-а" types. Thus, we need a depalatilized stem and a regular palatalized stem. In the case of "повлече", we need "повлек-" and "повлеч-". You can review the respective distributions of these forms in the Dropbox file from earlier. А somewhat different distribution applies to the "-е-a" type verbs (due to the presence of more back-vowel suffixes which trigger this depalatalization). Here is a file with both "расплаче" (an "-e-a" type verb with depalatilzation) and "сум". I have also included "земе": https://www.dropbox.com/s/hagjs643pht2pzd/Additional%20Macedonian%20Verbs.xls Martin123xyz (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly Unnecessary Entries

Almost adjectives that end in the suffix "-ен" seem to have a noun form with "-ост". Should I keep entering such nouns or wait until a suitable bot is procured to create them all automatically? I am not sure if this would be adequate, though, as the bot wouldn't really be able to add definitions. For example, if I need "послушност" (obedience) from "послушен" (obedient), how would the bot know that "obedience" is the appropriate translation? I don't suppose it would know how to derive it from "obedient". Then there are also the cases where these derived nouns with "-ост" have a somewhat less predictable meaning. For example, "должен" means "obligated" or "indebted", but "должност" means "duty". Obligation is better translated as "обврска". What's more, there are cases where derived nouns with "-ост" wouldn't be valid or at least not be very preferable. For example, from "тажен" (sad), one wouldn't derive "тажност". One would go with "тага" to mean "sadness". Likewise, one would much rather go with "празнина" (emptiness) rather than "празност" from "празен" (empty). How do you suggest this matter be approached? Martin123xyz (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"code"

Why do you put <code> </code> in templates, like on одолева? That's not right and it just breaks things... —CodeCat 22:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Because I wasn't fully aware that it's not right and because everything the template appeared fine even with the code inside it. I have removed it now (on another page). --Martin123xyz

Macedonian: biaspectual verbs

Can the template(s) be fixed to accommodate biaspectual verbs (двовидски глаголи)? The verb јаде, for example, can be biaspectual (cf. aorist јадов; aorist participle јал). There are also some borrowed verbs (unprefixed) ending in -ира that are biaspectual. --106.69.89.206 07:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• They presumably can, but I don't know how - I am very poorly acquainted with the Wiki mark-up language (and any other computer languages, for that matter). Anyway, I agree that biaspectual verbs need to be taken into account, such as the ones in "-ира", but I don't know about "јаде". I myself am not familiar with the form "јадов" and have always considered "јал" to be a dialectal variation of "јадел", imperfective either way. I only know of "изеде" as the standard perfect equivalent of "јаде", along with the more specific forms such as "дојаде", "најаде", "прејаде" etc. Martin123xyz (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The documentation of {{mk-verb}} describes how to do it. As for inflection tables, it's probably clearer to just show two tables, as usage is presumably either imperfective or perfective but never both. I could imagine that they even have different inflections (maybe different l-participles) depending on which aspect is used. —CodeCat 08:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I found how to do it. As for the conjugation tables, I agree that they should be separate. It's not that a biaspectual verb's imperfective conjugation would contradict its perfective conjugation or vice versa - they would be complementary - but I think it would be misleading to present a single conjugation table with all forms. Anyway, how should I mark the first table as opposed to the second? Should I write Inflection 1 (imperfective) and Inflection 2 (perfective) as headings? Is there some standard? Martin123xyz (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I could try to make it so the header automatically shows this. —CodeCat 10:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
        • All right, thank you. Tell me if you succeed. Martin123xyz (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

сѐ

Why should this be deleted? —CodeCat 16:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Because I made a new page for it, with a different "è" symbol. It's all here: сè (sè). The other "è" symbol that they had was somehow automatically converted to a regular "e" when I tried to create the page сè уште (sè ušte), so I tried using this other one, and it worked. Then, I needed to change сè (sè) as well. Martin123xyz (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You should really use the original title. We shouldn't be mixing Cyrillic and Latin letters in names. The conversion happens because there is some special code that strips certain diacritics from words before linking to them. This is done so that we can add accent marks for languages where they are not normally written, like Russian. The same has been set up for Macedonian too, but I don't know if this is correct. Currently it's set up to convert "Ѐ", "ѐ", "Ѝ", "ѝ" to "Е", "е", "И", "и", and to remove all combining grave and acute accents. Should this be changed? —CodeCat 17:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There shouldn't be a code stripping diacritics, because "се" and "сè" are two different words (the whole purpose of the grave accent is to distinguish them) and when they appear in compound phrases, just like when they are alone, they cannot be used interchangeably. If I am creating "сè уште", I don't want "се уште" - there's no such thing. It's just a common misspelling of "сè уште", which is why I have an entry for "се уште" at all. Should I recreate all the entries with "è" now by using the Cyrillic version and mark all the ones with the Latin "è" for deletion? --Martin123xyz

You can just move the pages, there's no need to delete and recreate them. I'll also remove stripping of the grave accent. But what about the acute accent, is that used at all? —CodeCat 17:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right, there is "Move" button. As for the acute accent, it's used to mark stress, but only when someone specifically wishes to show the stress of a word - it's not actually part of the orthography (the case is the same for Russian). Thus, I don't think it matters if the acute accents are stripped. Martin123xyz (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is exactly why we have accent stripping, so it seems sensible to keep it for the acute accent. —CodeCat 17:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Remove it for the grave accent only. Martin123xyz (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, done. I've also added transliteration for the grave accented letters. —CodeCat 17:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

твој

I had just changed this to "determiner". A determiner is similar to an adjective, but it has different meaning and usage. Instead of describing some kind of property of a word, it specifies the word in some way, helping to indicate which thing(s) is meant. Examples of determiners in English are all, which, this, any, your etc. Articles are generally also considered to be determiners. —CodeCat 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Half of the possessives were already entered some time ago as determiners, but I now changed them into adjectives (and added the missing ones). I thought that they should be labelled as adjectives because in school, when were studying Macedonian grammar, the possessive pronouns were specifically explained to us as adjectives. I didn't know that this was unfavourable here on Wiktionary. I'll change all the other ones to determiners too, if you wish.

What about words like "some", "every", "this kind", "few", etc. Are they also supposed to be determiners? Those were also taught to me as adjectives. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are determiners too. According to w:Determiner, they were (and still are) often grouped with adjectives, so what you were taught is not wrong. "Determiner" is just more specific. In English, most determiners can't be used with an article (although some can), and I assume something similar applies to Macedonian. You probably can't say "the your car" with the definite form in Macedonian (something like твоја(та) колата (tvoja(ta) kolata)?) —CodeCat 18:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

All right, I'll change them back soon. More specific is certainly more desirable. As for the articles, they are indeed used with the possessive - look at the examples I have provided for the entries. Thus, "твојата кола" is indeed correct, and means "your car". If you simply say "твоја кола", that means "one of your cars" or "a car of yours". Anyway, one can put articles on other determiners, e.g. "таков" (such, that kind) > "таквиот" (*the such). However, there are some determiners that prohibit the use of an article (e.g. "which", "every") Martin123xyz (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, if you use an adjective (of any kind) with a noun, then the definite article appears on the adjective rather than on the noun? So a form like колата would always stand alone? —CodeCat 18:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it appears on the adjective/determiner. I cannot think of any case where "колата" would be preceded by a modifier of some kind. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This is quite different from how it's used in the Scandinavian languages. In Swedish, for example, you say: bil (“car”), bilen (“the car”), stor bil (“big car”), den stora bilen (“the big car”). So the article remains on the noun, but the adjective has a separate definite form. —CodeCat 18:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

It’s not a good idea to speedily delete entries without discussion unless they are your own mistakes or obvious vandalism. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

All right, I will put all future entries I delete up for discussion in advance if they don't fall into the aforementioned categories. Martin123xyz (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, Macedonian was the language with the greatest increase in number of gloss definitions since the previous database dump, so good job! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad - I've been working rather intensively on adding entries throughout the past month. I really think that Wiktionary is a useful learning tool, with the vast variety of information it can provide about words and phrases (etymology, pronunciation, morphological classification, grammatical forms, manner of usage, related terms, etc.) and I want to make it as useful as possible in this respect for Macedonian as well. It would be a pity if I didn't, since so much of the work is so straightforward and since I have sufficient knowledge of the language. Naturally, I've had great help, primarily from CodeCat, for which I'm very thankful. I hope things will run as smoothly in the upcoming weeks (or maybe months) as well. Martin123xyz (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't speak the language, but it's not clear why you nominated сѐ‎ for speedy deletion (remember, that means there isn't even any debate, and it's an obvious mistaken entry), when it looked quite long and complex. Please re-nominate with a reason, if necessary. Equinox ◑ 22:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a reason which you can read higher up my discussion page. It turned out that it wasn't valid, though. Anyway, it was indeed long and complex and there was nothing wrong with that part - I was only having trouble with the title. I didn't actually wish to delete anything fully but to move the content of that page to a new one with a title that didn't present the same problem. Either way, now the problem has been resolved because CodeCat has altered the code that automatically strips grave accents. I will soon move all pages related to "сѐ‎" to their appropriate Cyrillic titles (I am currently mending some determiners I've mislabelled as adjectives). Martin123xyz (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Some tips on nominating things for deletion: if it's something that anyone would look at and say "of course, that definitely needs to be deleted", or would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt since you just created it yourself, use {{d}}. If it's something where they would say that if they knew a little bit of information, use {{d}}, but add an explanation to your template as a parameter such as {{d|this has both Cyrillic and non-Cyrillic characters}}. Otherwise, use {{rfd}} and post an explanation. You should never nominate other people's content for deletion without some kind of explanation somewhere, unless it's so absolutely obvious that the average admin would have deleted it anyway as soon as they were aware of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Biaspectual verbs

Anatoli asked about Russian biaspectual verbs and created a category for them. I thought this was a good idea so I created one for Macedonian too. But I noticed that in the entries, you added two separate conjugation sections. When words have more than one conjugation, the normal practice is to have just one section, but with two tables. I fixed the first few entries in Category:Macedonian biaspectual verbs, could you fix the rest? —CodeCat 13:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I will, presently. Martin123xyz (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's done. Martin123xyz (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you still contributing to "Macedonian Category"

Zdravo,

I am wondering if you are still contributing to "Macedonian Category" of words as I would like to know if you need any help or if you could give me any tips.

Thanks

Davski (talk)

Horizontal lines

---- is only used between languages, so if there's only one language on a page, it's not needed at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I know, but it's easier for me to just paste it everywhere automatically rather than type it individually each time it's needed, or alternatively erase it each time it's not needed. Am I violating some rule, such that I should stop immediately, or can I continue working as I have been so far, although it's not ideal? In any case, I personally don't find redundant horizontal lines particularly harmful in any way - after all, they're barely visible on the page; moreover, if someone wants to add an entry in another language to one of my pages which only contains a Macedonian entry, a horizontal line will already be there, saving the user in question some effort. Martin123xyz (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Need more names of cities in Macedonian

Greetings. This is a friendly reminder to improve the Macedonian entries. I think Wiktionary needs more proper nouns denoting cities. See Category:mk:Cities. Thank you very much. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll add some cities tonight and then I'm taking a break from Wiktionary since I'm starting my second term at university. When I revisit it in a few months/years, I'll add more cities as well as many other kinds of words - I've been adding whatever comes to mind so far, and clearly, there's much more to add. Martin123xyz (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

се разочара

Firstly, thank you so much for working on Macedonian! It's really great to see one person doing so much to expand the coverage of an underappreciated language. Anyway, I came here to mention that for other languages with reflexive verbs on Wiktionary (like Czech, French, German, etc), we have a standard of not creating a separate page, but instead adding a reflexive sense to, say, разочара. I think it would be advisable to follow that same standard for Macedonian. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I see, but if that's the standard, how come Wiktionary has separate entries for all Russian reflexive verbs? In Russian, the reflexive marker is written as a suffix, whereas in Macedonian it's written as a separate word, but that's just an arbitrary orthographic convention (well, more or less) - is that the criterion that Wiktionary relies on? Also, if I start including information about reflexive verbs in the entries for their non-reflexive counterparts, is someone going to fix all the entries I've made so far? I think that continuing with the method I've already adopted would be more desirable than producing inconsistencies. In any case, I've been including reflexive verbs as separate entities because in school we're taught that they're lemmas in their own right. This is obvious in cases where are a reflexive verb doesn't have a non-reflexive counterpart, or has a non-reflexive counterpart with a completely different meaning (cf. се дере (se dere) and дере (dere)). Martin123xyz (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

се разочара

You added a label "reflexive" here but it's redundant because the entire entry is for a reflexive verb. The verb can only be used reflexively, there's no need for the label. The label would be used when a non-reflexive verb has some senses that are reflexive. —CodeCat 16:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat, the groupthink is getting to us... :) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The function of that label was to send all of my reflexive verbs into a list of reflexive verbs - if I recall well, I made it work like that. Now, that list is essentially gone - only a handful of verbs have remained in it, which had been sent to it via a category label (which is invisible unless one is editing the page). I don't really understand what's happened. Anyway, feel free to remove all of the reflexive labels if you wish, although I disagree with Wiktionary's standard system, which obscures the difference between reflexive and non-reflexive verbs. Martin123xyz (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, some of the reflexive verbs that I've entered as separate entries appear to link to the list of Macedonian reflexive verbs, but they're not in the list when I actually open it. Furthermore, the table of recent additions on the list's page contains reflexive verbs that I've added recently which are likewise absent from the list. Martin123xyz (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Martin123xyz: it's probably because Module:labels/data doesn't provide an automated categorisation of reflexive verbs. This edit would have worked, but it was reverted (maybe rightly so, I don't know; this issue probably needs further discussion). --Barytonesis (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Macedonian

Hi. I see you're a prominent editor to our Macedonian lexicon. Thank you for your contributions here, and I'm glad to see an active native speaker. I recently started learning Macedonian, and haven't really studied Slavic/Balkan languages in-depth before, so feel free to take watch to my edits and help me out. I am also editing at the Macedonian Wiktionary, which, no offense, is sort of a swamp right now seeing how there are almost no active editors there. I added a lot of English and Danish entries there. Happy editing! PseudoSkull (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

ефтин

Hello, Martin. This entry you created has been nominated for speedy deletion by another editor of Macedonian with no accompanying explanation. Is it perhaps a misspelling of евтин?__Gamren (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a misspelling of евтин; I believed that both forms are standard, especially ефтин, being more faithful to its Greek etymon, and consistent with the Serbo-Croatian jeftin, but apparently not. In any case, ефтин should definitely not be deleted, since this is not a prescriptive dictionary, but one recording usage, and ефтин is an extremely common form. All that is needed is the label "common misspelling" - feel free to add it. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This has now been done by the nominator.__Gamren (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added the inflection back, since misspelled adjectives are as declinable as their correctly spelled counterparts, and so that people looking up the inflected forms can actually get results. Martin123xyz (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Здраво!

Welcome back! I hope you'll stay with us for a while. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Macedonian words with apostrophe

Hello. When you're creating terms beginning with an apostrophe (’рбетен (’rbeten)), you have to use the |head= parameter like this, otherwise the template parses it and outputs a red link to the inexistent **рбетен. (The same probably applies to words containing an apostrophe, but I don't have any example) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello; thank you for reminding me of this. I have now applied it to ’рмба (’rmba) and ’рти (’rti).Martin123xyz (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

bot

hi you can use bot to creat faster articles

Hello. What kind of bot are you suggesting that I use and how could I use it? Martin123xyz (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

what your References to adding word to wiktionary

My native competence in the language complemented with information from this dictionary: http://www.makedonski.info/ Martin123xyz (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

you can make bot to adding articles automaticly see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Bots you can ask to wiktionary admins to creat your bot

Hi Martin. I don't think a bot would be especially helpful in your case; you seem to be doing quite well adding entries in your current manner. I don't know why this user is spamming people with recommendations to use bots. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I also think that automatically importing entries from the dictionary I provided a link to would be disagreeable, since the English translations included there are not fully reliable and are sometimes completely absent. Besides, that dictionary follows a different organisational scheme and I'm not sure whether a bot could process it to match the one I've been using so far. Finally, it doesn't seem to show inflectional paradigms, which are not fully predictable in Macedonian. I would however like to use a bot to generate entries for the different word-forms of the lemmas I've covered, e.g. for the plurals or the articulated forms. I see many such entries for Italian and Spanish, for example. Martin123xyz (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely a good application of a bot. Unfortunately, we don't have that many people running inflection bots who might want to take on a new language, but it will have to be done eventually. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Diminutives

Could someone help out with the diminutive parameter? When I include {{diminutive of| in the definition, it automatically adds the entry to the list of Macedonian diminutive nouns, which is not correct in the case of diminutive verbs, adjectives, adverbs and numerals, cf. the entry I've just made for двечки. Can separate diminutive parameters be created for other words classes, or alternatively, can the diminutive parameter access the head parameter to see what word class the entry has been identified as in order to send it to the correct diminutive list? Martin123xyz (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at бе́ленький (bélenʹkij, “diminutive of белый (adjective)”), it uses {{diminutive of|бе́лый||white|lang=ru|pos=adjectives}}. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; I actually discovered that I need to use the "pos" parameter after posting here. However, the links to the lists of Macedonian diminutive verbs and adjectives to which my entries are being sent remain red. Martin123xyz (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this module is responsible for maintaining diminutive categories is here: Module:category_tree/poscatboiler/data/lemmas try defining diminutive numerals there first, then create categories, modelled on Category:Macedonian diminutive adjectives, which is already created for you. You can also ask for help at WT:GP, rather than talking to yourself. :) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

фала богу

Здраво. Could you tell me why the Macedonian phrase фала богу (fala bogu) uses an inflected form of бог (bog), which is not in the declension table? Is it an archaic dative case? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what it is. It also occurs as "фала му на бога", with the dative regularly replaced by the preposition "на", but still with an archaic accusative/genitive, cf. "човек" > "човека"; these two nouns are the only ones to retain this form, as far as I know.Martin123xyz (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Templates

Здраво! Видов дека си креирал некои од темплејтите. И јас успеав да создадам еден за именки од среден род. Тоа што забележав е дека кај темплејтите за глаголите ги нема ИМА-конструкциите (Има-perfect; Имаше-pluperfect; Имал-perfect). Дали би можел да ги додадеш и нив? Или можеби познаваш некој кој би ни помогнал околу тоа? Јас пробав да преработам темплејт за глаголите, но не успевам да се снајдам. Поздрав! --Горец (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Горец: Hi. You can try asking User:Benwing2 who has a lot of experience with grammatical modules and templates, especially for Slavic languages. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Горец, Atitarev Hi. I might be able to help. I have worked on Bulgarian noun/verb/adjective modules, and from what I gather, Macedonian is extremely similar, but in some ways simpler because it doesn't have lexical stress. I don't speak Macedonian but Google Translate suggests you want forms added using the verb имам as an auxiliary, which seems to work like English have + participle. Benwing2 (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2, Горец: Yes, he is asking about enhancing verb templates with има (ima) (in Macedonian, verb lemma is the 3rd person sg. present, unlike Bulgarian, which is the 1st person).

I thought I should have said after posting that you will need a good grammar reference or in its absence or incompleteness, good cases with the full paradigm. Perhaps, if our Macedonian friends could have a look at the Bulgarian verb conjugation templates/modules/categories, they could tell us what can borrowed from them. Also calling @Dimithrandir. --04:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by Atitarev (talk • contribs).

@Atitarev, Benwing2 Thank you for your replies! Yes, you understood well what I meant. I asked someone to add at least one example of the abovementioned verb tenses under Compound tenses, like in this template: Template:mk-conj-а. It could be something like this:

• Има-perfect --- има -ано --- present tense of има (inflecting for person) and the neuter sg. verbal adjective
• Имаше-pluperfect --- имаше -ано --- imperfect of има (inflecting for person) and the neuter sg. verbal adjective
• Имал-perfect --- имал -ано --- present tense of сум (inflecting for person, and dropped in 3P sg. and 3P pl.), the verbal л-form of има and the neuter sg. verbal adjective

You can read more about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_conjugation#Има-series --Горец (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I just edited the main template Template:mk-conj-table adding the Има-perfect, Имаше-pluperfect, and Имал-perfect. I guess it needs some formatting to make it look better. I tested it and it seems to work fine for а-group and е-group verbs, but it doesn't show correctly the и-group verbs (for example, it says одино instead одено for the verb оди). It would be nice if someone can fix that. --Горец (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that the templates have now been corrected, such that the proper adjectival participles appear in the compound tenses constructed with the auxiliary има. Not only is "одено" displayed correctly instead of "*одино", the template also handles participles with -т successfully. However, in the section of the conjugation table containing non-finite forms, the isolated adjectival participle is no longer masculine, but rather neuter. I am doubtful of this change, since the adjectival participle has the syntactic distribution of any other adjective and can thus appear in an agreeing position before nouns. Given that the masculine singular is the lemma for adjectives, and that the adjectival participle is not invariable, I think it would be better to restore the masculine singular. It should also be noted that in Russian conjugation tables, for example, it is the masculine singular which is displayed. For "чита́ть", one finds "чи́танный", not "чи́танное". In the compound tenses, however, the neuter forms should obviously be kept.Martin123xyz (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Martin123xyz Thanks for the reply! I fixed that (одино -> одено) and I explained it in Template_talk:mk-conj-table. I just corrected the adjectival participle right now, it is masculine now. I just don't know if it's better to use the terms "verbal adjective m.sg." and "verbal adverb", or "adjectival partc." and "adverbial partc."!? Also, please check the 7 compound има-tenses added by me. Maybe they should be sorted in another way or something. The problem I noticed is when the template is used on reflexive verbs like in се вози, the "се" is not automatically added in има-tenses. I guess the code {{#if:{{{ref|}}}|се|}}{{#if:{{{ref2|}}}|си|}} should be applied somewhere to fix that, but I don't know where. Please feel free to change or revert back anything you think I did wrong. I'm still learning. --Gorec (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the adjectival participle back to masculine. Regarding the terminology, I strongly prefer "adjectival participle" and "adverbial participle", as these hybrid categories, halfway between verbs and modifiers, are customarily referred to as "participles" in the literature (including linguistic works on Slavic languages; see for example Sussex & Cubberley, The Slavic Languages), whereas "verbal adjective" and "verbal adverb", calques of the Macedonian designations, would needlessly depart from this convention and possibly cause confusion with deverbal adjectives like "читок". Different languages use different terms to describe their own grammar, but they do not have to be retained in English. You can also notice that the Russian and Polish conjugation templates use the term "participle" too. For similar reasons, I prefer "л-participle" or even "l-participle" as in the book I cited, and have substituted this term for "л-form" in your description of the new tenses. On the other hand, "verbal adjective" and "verbal adverb" are parallel to "verbal noun". There are thus arguments in favor of both sets of terms. In any case, I would like to point out that it would be wrong to call the Macedonian adjectival participle/verbal adjective a passive participle, as is often done in the case of other Slavic languages, because in Macedonian, it has innovated an active meaning too, e.g. "јаден сум" means "I have eaten", not "I have been eaten".

I have checked the new tenses and made a small change to the order, placing the има perfect beneath the normal perfect. Another option would be to group all the има tenses at the end, but there is no objective reason to prefer one order to the order. I have also shortened the descriptions and improved their consistency. After all, conjugation tables should have a relatively ergonomic design, and if anyone wants to know more about Macedonian conjugation, they can read explanations on Wikipedia. Finally, I have fixed the problem with reflexive verbs, although my solution was hardly practical (I created a new category called "refl" in each individual conjugation template, setting it to be displayed as "се" or "си" when the ref or ref2 parameters are activated, and then indicated where refl should be printed in the general conjugation template; surely there would have been a more efficient way to go about it). Martin123xyz (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Martin123xyz Great job! 👍 I checked different reflexive verbs and they are shown correctly. The conjugation tables look complete now. Thanks! --Gorec (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Глаголи

Здраво @Martin123xyz! Забележав проблем со глаголските придавки на некои од глаголите, па така место со -т се генерирани со -н. Пример, кај кивне и лавне се генерирани како кивнано и лавнано, место кивнато и лавнато. Кај некои од глаголите нема воопшто генерирано глаголска придавка, иако заради има-перфектот, глаголска придавка може да се образува од сите глаголи, без оглед дали се свршени или несвршени. Исто така, се прашував како да се прават парови свршени/несвршени форми кај глаголи како: кива, кивне, кивнува, закива; или лае, лавне, лавнува, залае, полае итн. Поздрав. --Gorec (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Здраво @Горец. Ти благодарам што ми ги посочи грешките во конјугацијата на глаголите кивне (kivne) и лавне (lavne) - сега се поправени.

За да се генерираат глаголски придавки со -н, не се одредува никаков параметар, односно формите се генерираат автоматски; за да се генерираат глаголски придавки со -т, се користи параметарот tap=1 (види на пример кај падне (padne)); а за да не се генерира глаголска придавка, се користи параметарот noap=1. Имајќи го ова предвид, ги разликуваме следниве три случаја:

1. Глаголот има глаголска придавка што може да се користи како придавка, на пример "убие > убиен > убиен човек" (наспроти "тагува > *тагуван > *тагуван човек", што би било граматички погрешно) - формата се генерира автоматски и во полето за глаголска придавка, и во полињата за сложени глаголски времиња образувани со помошниот глагол „има“; по потреба се користи параметарот tap=1, на пример кај избања (izbanja)

2. Глаголот формира глаголска придавка со -н што не може да се користи како вистинска придавка, на пример "тагува > *тагуван > *тагуван човек", туку само за сложените времиња со „има“ - се пишува noap=1 за да не се генерира ништо во полето за глаголска придавка (коешто е означено со машки род еднина и ги сместува само формите со придавска функција, коишто се менуваат по род и број и се членуваат); сепак се генерираат точно сложените глаголски времиња со „има“, бидејќи параметарот noap=1 не им влијае

3. Глаголот формира глаголска придавка со -т што не може да се користи како вистинска придавка, на пример "кивне > *кивнат > *кивнат човек", туку само за сложените времиња со „има“ - се ставаат параметрите noap=1 и tap=1 истовремено, за првиот да го спречи генерирањето на форма во полето за глаголска придавка, а вториот да го овозможи точното генерирање на сложените глаголски времиња со „има“.

Оваа класификација е заснована врз суштинската разлика помеѓу глаголската придавка со придавска функција, којашто е лексички ограничена, и глаголската придавка како дел од сложените глаголски времиња со „има“, којашто се образува за сите глаголи, како што посочуваш. Кога би ги третирале двете функции на глаголската придавка како една категорија во табелите и би генерирале глаголски придавки во горното поле за сите глаголи, би морале да пишуваме објаснувања на посебните страниците генерирани за истите за да објасниме дали имаат или немаат придавска функција. Со оглед на тоа што сѐ уште немаме бот што генерира страници за нелемски форми, ако сега генерираме глаголски придавки за сите глаголи, сѐ додека го чекаме ботот, читателите ќе имаат погрешен впечаток дека глаголските придавки од типот „тагувано“ се еквивалентни со оние од типот „убиен“.

Можеби моменталното решение не е идеално, и со оглед на тоа што не знам како функционираат ботовите, не знам дали може да се испрограмира бот што ќе ги третира глаголските придавки од горното поле различно од оние во сложените времиња со „има“. Меѓутоа, исто така мислам дека не треба да имаме две посебни полиња за двете функции на глаголската придавка, на пример „глаголска придавка“ и „пасивен партицип“ (за времињата со „има“), затоа што традиционалната граматика, колку што знам, не користи два различни поима (традиционалната граматика кај сите јазици занемарува и замачкува суштински разлики кои се истакнуваат само во лингвистичките истражувања, а истовремено постулира фиктивни разлики, така што ситуацијата со македонските глаголски придавки воопшто не е необична), и не би сакал да воведуваме своја терминологија на Wiktionary.

Она што е тука најспорно е кои глаголски придавки имаат а кои немаат придавска функција. Јасно е само дека ако глаголот е преоден, ќе има глаголска придавка со придавска функција. Ти тврдиш дека сите глаголи образуваат глаголски придавки за времињата со „има“ без оглед дали се свршени или несвршени, но битниот критериум е всушност преодноста. Значи, спорни се непреодните глаголи, кај коишто глаголската придавка понекогаш постои како активен минат партицип наместо пасивен, на пример „паднат“ со значење „којшто паднал“, наспроти „убиен“ со значење „којшто бил убиен“ (не „којшто убил“), но не и „*тагуван“ со значење „*којшто тагувал“.

Овој аспект на граматиката не е добро стандардизиран и различни луѓе би имале различни интуиции. За некого, можеби „кивнат човек“ е точно со значење „човек врз којшто некој кивнал“, но мене не ми е природно. Јас одредувам според сопствените интуиции и според тоа кои глаголски форми сум ги сретнал во придавска функција а кои не. За суптилни идиолектски разлики, може да пишуваме коментари во Usage Notes или да дебатираме на страницата Discussion на засегнатиот збор.

Што се однесува до наведувањето свршени и несвршени парници на глаголите, и ова е комплексна и спорна тема во лингвистиката и постои обемна литература на темата, претежно во врска со руските видски парови, но принципот важи за сите словенски јазици. За вовед во проблематиката, погледај го следниов труд:

Polish Verbs

Во суштина, лингвистите не се согласуваат според кои критериуми се утврдува вистински пар. Јасно е дека имаме пар кај „успокои“ и „успокојува“, каде што нема други можни изведенки, но кај глаголите како тие што ги посочуваш ти, ситуацијата е покомплексна. Целта на проект како Wiktionary не е да решава напредни теоретски дилеми – за тоа корисниците можат само да навлезат во стручната литература – така што може да се задоволиме со полабав систем за наведување видски парници. Во постојните статии, принципите се следниве:

1. За несвршени глаголи, се наведуваат свршените глаголи изведени од нив (на пример „тепа“ – „истепа“ и свршените глаголи од коишто самите се изведени (на пример „умира“ – „умре“)

2. За свршени глаголи, се наведуваат несвршените глаголи изведени од нив (на пример „успокои“ – „успокојува“) и несвршените глаголи од коишто самите се изведени (на пример „ископа“ – „копа“); ако има парници од двата типа, се наведуваат заедно, како што си направил кај „лавне“

3. Кај несвршените глаголи не се наведуваат други несвршени глаголи (освен под Related Words, See Also и слично; значи, кај „лае“ не стои „лавнува“ во head-template покрај „лавне“) и истото важи и за свршените глаголи

4. Ако има повеќе несвршени или свршени парници, се бележат со параметрите |pf=X|pf2=Y|pf3=Z| односно |impf=X|impf2=Y|impf3=Z| (види кај тепа (tepa)); редоследот се одредува за да соодветствува на дефинициите, на пример pf2 да биде свршената форма за втората дефиниција; ако формите важат за сите дефиниции, може да се подредат почнувајќи од најчестата или најосновната, или пак по азбучен ред; се одлучува за секој случај посебно

5. Се избегнуваат парниците со поспецифично значење, односно оние кај коишто има и семантичка разлика освен видската. Затоа кај „тепа“ се наведува „истепа“, но не и изведенката „претепа“, којашто има интензивно значење. Во случајот на „кива“, нема да се наведе „закива“ затоа што е поретка форма и има инхоативно значење; наместо тоа ќе се наведе „кивне“ како поосновна форма, којашто по интуиција ја перцепираме како поблиска до вистински видски парник. Секако, ќе се наведе и „закива“ посебно во делот на изведени форми, независно од head-template, кога ќе се создаваат листи на изведени форми какви што има за подобро документираните јазици на Wiktionary.

6. Ако глаголот нема основен парник, може да се прифати парник со поспецифично значење, на пример „заквичи“ за „квичи“, и покрај инхоативноста.

Тука има многу слобода во одредувањето што е основен видски парник и колку дополнително значење има извесен потенцијален парник. Најважно е да не се ставаат маргинални парници наместо основните и да не се пренатрупува head-template со маргинални парници. Во секој случај, на крај треба сите поврзани глаголи да бидат наведени некаде на страницата, било во делот за етимологија, било во листата на изведенки, така што критериумите за вклучување на видски парници во head-template можат да бидат поконзервативни.

Се надевам дека овие упатства ќе ти помогнат во уредувањето на речникот. Секако, Wiktionary е слободен проект и можеш да предлагаш свои идеи за македонските статии, врз коишто немам никаков официјален авторитет; едноставно сум имал прилика да соработувам со поискусни корисници и администратори кога македонските статии беа во зародиш и да донесам одлуки коишто потоа се утврдиле преку сите илјадници статии што сум ги создал, без тоа да значи дека се најсоодветните можни решенија.

Поздрав Martin123xyz (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Martin123xyz, ти благодарам за исцрпниот одговор и за појаснувањата! Согласен сум со напишаното, го ценам твоето мислење, имајќи го предвид твојот долгогодишен труд и искуство на wiktionary. Немам многу уредувано/создавано статии за глаголи и не знаев за параметарот "tap=1". Поправив некои од статиите со глаголи, за кои што се сетив, кои завршуваат на -не, додавајќи им tap=1.

Околу создавањето бот за генерирање нелемски форми, мислам дека понапредните корисници и админите од македонската википедија би можеле да помогнат?! Веројатно @Bjankuloski06 знае дали некој од македонската википедија би можел да создаде и управува бот на wiktionary!?

Поздрав, --Gorec (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Браво! За рекордно време го дигна бројот на над 27.000. 👍 Поздрав. --Gorec (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Горец Фала. Моментално пробувам да го доближам бројот на статии со фонетска транскрипција до 20.000. Martin123xyz (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Дали некаде може да се види на кои статии им недостасува фонетска транскрипција? Инаку, бројачот понекогаш лагира и дава стара статистика. Некогаш се средува ако се направи edit/publish на празно, без да се прават измени, но најчесто резултатот е локален. --Gorec (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Горец Не може да се види освен ако некој не ставил {{rfp}} на статијата, како кај Бахреин (Bahrein). Прашав во Grease Pit во јули [1], но не добив одговор. Затоа си ги отворам една по една сите статии од "Contributions" и им ставам транскрипција ако немаат. Стигнат сум до декември 2015. Martin123xyz (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

👍 --Gorec (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Глаголот прортува би требало да е означен како misspelling на про’ртува. --Gorec (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Можеш ли да видиш кој template треба да се употреби за conjugation на глаголот кладе? Од тие што ги пробав ниеден не ми ги даваше точните форми (кладам, кладат; клај, клајте; кладов, кладоа; клал; (ќе) кладев, (ќе) кладеа; (ќе) кладел; кладен) --Gorec (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Горец Ја додадов конјугацијата; template-от е {{mk-conj-3-е-о}}, исто како за даде, и користи два параметра. Поздрав Martin123xyz (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Фала! --Gorec (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Некој создал статија дува ветер, но конјугацијата е грешна. Имаш ли идеја како да се среди, имајќи ја предвид и специфичноста на глаголот?--Gorec (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

За глаголските синтагми што содржат неглаголски елементи како именки и прилози, вообичаено не се става конјугација, туку само се упатува читателот до главниот глагол, како што е направено на повеќето статии што сум ги создавал јас. И кај другите јазици не се користат табели во вакви случаи; види принимать за чистую монету (prinimatʹ za čistuju monetu) и alig vár, со упатување, и garder ses distances и tomar en cuenta, без упатување, евентуално со делумна конјугација во headword line. Има и спротивни случаи како das Eis brechen, но лично сметам дека нема потреба од табели за изрази: во дува ветер, глаголот дува се менува исто како и кога се користи самостојно, во контексти од типот „ми дува од прозорот“, а ветер е едноставно неменлив подмет. Ако сметаме дека ова не е доволно очигледно, може да се образложат Usage notes. Доколку сепак би ставале табела, би требало во {{mk-conj-а-impersonal}} да се додаде параметер во којшто би стоел подметат (веројатно може да се ископира кодот за параметарот што става повратни заменки и едноставно да се прекрсти од „ref“ во „subj“), за на статијата да може да се напише {{mk-conj-а-impersonal|дув|ветер}} и да се генерираат точните форми. За заповедниот начин „дувај, ветре“ ќе треба уште еден параметар за вокативот од ветер. Со оглед на тоа што вокативот веќе ќе го има на статијата за ветер, конјугацијата за дува ветер во суштина би ја комбинирала конјугацијата на дува со деклинацијата на ветер. Martin123xyz (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Фонетска транскрипција

Кај нестандардниот изговор на падобран претпоставувам си мислел да ставиш падо'бран!? --Gorec (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Горец Да, сега го поправив. Фала што ми ја посочи грешката. Ако наидеш и на други статии каде што стандардниот и нестандардниот изговор останале исти, слободно менувај и сам. Инаку дискутираме како да се подобри алгоритмот за фонетска транскрипција на Module_talk:mk-pronunciation; можеби би сакал нешто да придонесеш. Martin123xyz (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Ќе ја разгледам дискусијата. Во случај да ти притребаат некаде, ако ги немаш, еве ги на едно место акцентираните кирилски букви: А́ а́ Е́ е́ И́ и́ О́ о́ У́ у́ Л́ л́ Р́ р́ --Gorec (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Пробав различни начини, но никако не можам да ја средам фонетската транскрипција на брцкајќи, за да се прикаже „брц-кајќи“. Исто и на брчкајќи, буцкајќи. --Gorec (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: Средив, со користење на # --Gorec (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Горец Тоа е единственото решение што ни стои на располагање, и многу пати го имам користено и јас. Проблемот потекнува од правило во модулот за фонетска транскрипција коешто во случај на низа од слеана согласка (ц, ѕ, ч или ш) и каква било друга согласка, секогаш го става знакот за акцент пред слеаната согласка, така што дури и да напишеме „ц/к“ во template-от, правилото ќе се примени и на оваа репрезентација и акцентот ќе се помести на лево. Правилото е неопходно затоа што во негово отсуство, акцентот се јавува помеѓу составните елементи на слеаните согласки, под лигатурата, што е секогаш грешно. Изгледа дека правилото за спојување на симболи со лигатури не е добро подредено во однос на правилото за одредување на акцентираниот слог и на слоговните граници, но сега за сега не сум открил како да се препише модулот. Нема ваков проглем со другите согласки затоа што сите соодветсвуваат на еден симбол во МФА. Имај наум дека во случаи како отпочнување, мора да се стави # и по првиот и по вториот слог, затоа што ако се стави само меѓу „ч“ и „н“, „отпоч-“ ќе се третира како самостојна низа од два слога и ќе добие свој акцент.

Доколку во иднина некој го отстрани правилото што автоматски ги претставува едносложните зборови како неакцентирани, ќе се расипе транскрипцијата на сите зборови што моментално се транскрибирани со помош на #. Тоа е една од причините зошто побарав веќе да не се менува модулот, иако се дискутираше ново правило кое ќе се повикува на листа на клитики кои се секогаш неакцентирани и во сите други случаи ќе генерира акцент, дури и зборот да е едносложен. Со такво правило, не би требало рачно да додаваме акцент во бара преку леб погача, и би било доста корисно, но ако се воведува, ќе мора да се смисли и алтернативно решение за # и да се побара целосна листа на зборови транскрибирани со # за да се изменат сите, рачно или со бот. Martin123xyz (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

македонољубец

Можеш ли да најдеш добри дефиниции за македонозналец и македонољубец? Поздрав. --Gorec (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Немам речник во којшто можам да најдам дефиниции на англиски, но можам да предложам "expert/specialist in Macedonia and its culture and history" и "Macedonophile, Macedonian patriot, lover of Macedonia and its culture and history" за потребите на Wiktionary. Martin123xyz (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Фала за одговорот! Може ли да го прегледаш преводот на јатрвин? --Gorec (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Горец Ја променив дефиницијата: ако јатрва е „сопруга на еден брат во меѓусебниот однос со сопруга на другиот брат“, според дигиталниот речник и други извори, тогаш е co-sister-in-law а не co-mother-in-law (тоа би бил односот помеѓу свекрвата и тештата). Martin123xyz (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Headword-line templates in nonstandard forms!

Hi, lots of your entries are showing up in Wiktionary:missing headword-line templates. Are you omitting the headword-line templates because these are nonstandard forms? — Eru·tuon 20:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Yes I am, because otherwise, the non-standard forms are added to the list of lemmas and I thought that all non-standard forms belong to the lemma of the standard equivalent. Should the non-standard forms be added to the lemma list? — This unsigned comment was added by Martin123xyz (talk • contribs) at 06:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC).

English at least seems to put nonstandard forms in the lemma category. See this search that shows several English nonstandard-form lemmas. The search for nonstandard-form non-lemmas seems to show non-standard inflected forms (or pages with both a nonstandard lemma and a standard inflected form). I think it's clearer if the non-lemma forms category is only used for inflected forms (or mutated, etc.) and not nonstandard lemmas as well. — Eru·tuon 07:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I see that Russian чё (čo) is also a lemma. However, Macedonian misspellings have their own header and are assigned to non-lemma forms, e.g. ефтин (eftin). Isn't it a bit inconsistent to treat misspellings as non-lemmas even though they also have their own inflected forms? The difference between misspellings and non-standard forms is also blurry: some incorrect spellings are the result of a faulty pronunciation which can in turn be regarded as dialectal, non-standard feature. How can all of this be handled with optimal consistency? Martin123xyz (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, ефтин (eftin) is a lemma. However, a search for incategory:"Macedonian misspellings" incategory:"Macedonian non-lemma forms" insource:"misspelling" does show quite a few other misspellings that have {{head|mk|misspelling}} and are therefore categorized as non-lemma forms (and even have inflection tables where applicable). This is inconsistent with the nonstandard forms, but I still dislike the idea of putting nonstandard forms in the noun forms, adjective forms, verb forms categories because it leads to ambiguity. I'm not sure what the solution is.

A fundamental problem is that we can't use category intersection to find out if the word is standard or nonstandard for a given part of speech. For instance, suppose we want to find a list of nonstandard nouns, and therefore look at the list of pages that are in the "nouns" and "nonstandard forms" categories (search query: incategory:"Macedonian nonstandard forms" incategory:"Macedonian nouns"). That list may have false positives, because some of the pages could have an entry for a standard noun and a nonstandard adjective (or some other part of speech). This is a limitation of the category system and the only way to solve it is with external tools that read entry pages and determine that a given page has an entry for a noun that has the nonstandard forms template in it (or some other template that adds the nonstandard forms category). So the category system can't fully solve the problem of nonstandard forms having both lemmas and non-lemmas: that is unless we create "nonstandard nouns", "nonstandard noun forms", etc. categories, which could be done but requires multiplication of categories. And the external tool, if anyone ever creates it (I've thought of doing something similar), be able to look at the definition lines to determine which entries are for nonstandard nouns and nonstandard noun forms if you add the lemma headword-line templates to nonstandard forms just as you would do to standard forms. Unfortunately misspellings have their own part of speech so the external tool might have a harder time there.

Perhaps "nonstandard form" could be added as a non-lemma category, but that may require a vote since it would affect other languages besides Macedonian. (For instance, if editors of another language prefer having nonstandard forms in lemma categories, but a less-informed editor writes {{head|lang|nonstandard form}}, putting it in a non-lemma category, that would be a new error that they would have to watch out for and correct.) There may have been discussions about this that I've missed. If you put in the lemma headword-line templates now, it would be easy to convert the headword line later if a solution is found. [Edit: It may make it harder to fix later if you put in a non-lemma part of speech where the form is really a nonstandard lemma. In that case, we may have to determine it's a lemma by following links to the page that the definition links to — if that page has only one entry for that part of speech and not an entry for a lemma of that part of speech and an entry for a non-lemma of that part of speech. It may no longer be a simple bot task.] — Eru·tuon 20:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Erutuon. Sorry for the bad example; ефтин (eftin) is indeed a lemma because I haven't used the misspelling header template there. I'll add the lemma header templates to the few entries for non-standard lemmas I've created so far, but how do we subject the issue to a vote and get the community to decide? Here it seems that it has already been decided to treat English misspellings differently from English non-standard forms. Martin123xyz (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

On the subject of bots, can someone program a bot to generate non-lemma pages for Macedonian? No Macedonian contributor has the necessary skills. Martin123xyz (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Деминутиви и хипокористици

Се прашував како да се означат зборовите кои имаат хипокористичен карактер, како на пример мајче, мајчица, мајчичка итн.!? На руските статии гледам кај едни е употребено {{endearing diminutive of|, кај други {{endearing form of|, кај трети само {{diminutive of|. --Gorec (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

За македонските статии до сега се користело само {{diminutive of|mk|. Сметам дека нема потреба од {{endearing diminutive of| и други варијанти: нема систематски правила за тоа кои деминутиви имаат нагалено значење, кои се однесуваат на мали димензии, а кои се иронични и навредливи: кај повеќето зборови паралелно постојат сите семантички нијанси и се активираат според контекстот. Сметам дека таа полисемија е основна карактеристика на деминутивот којшто сочинува една засебна категорија во македонската граматика. Што се однесува до повеќестепените деминутиви, на статиите се изведуваат едни од други; на пример, „цевченце“ на својата статија се означува како деминутив од „цевче“, а „цевче“ како деминутив од „цевка“. Инаку, теоретски би можело да се користи {{diminutive of|mk| за деминутиви што означуваат мали димензии а {{endearing form of| за деминутиви со нагалено значење. Ако мислиш дека има веродостојни критериуми за таква разлика, можеш да почнеш да користиш {{endearing form of| и да ги преправаш статиите од тука. Меѓутоа, кај деминутивните глаголи и придавки мислам дека навистина нема потреба од ништо освен {{diminutive of|mk|. За мислења од повеќе корисници и споредби меѓу повеќе јазици, може да иницираш дискусија во Beer Parlour. Martin123xyz (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Фала за одговорот и за појаснувањето! И честито 28.000! 👍 --Gorec (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Etymology

По пример на руските статии, добри ли се етимолошките објаснувања на душојадец и душогубник? --Gorec (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Горец Колку што можам да видам, добри се - искористен е соодветниот урнек (template) и зборовите се автоматски ставени во точните категории, и за зборови со афикси и за сложенки. За ваквите зборови со провидна морфолошка структура е прилично едноставно пишувањето етимологии. Во секој случај, до сега не сум се нафатил да додавам етимолошки објаснувања и не ги владеам сите конвенции. Можеш повеќе да прочиташ тука. Ако сакаш да додаваш ти, вклучително за зборови со помалку очигледна етимологија, можам да ти ја предложам следнава литература:

* Petar Skok - Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika

* Български етимологичен речник

* Slovenski etimološki slovar

* Hrvatski jezični portal

* Rick Derksen - Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon

* Этимологический словарь русского языка

Со оглед на тоа што не постои официјален македонски етимолошки речник, треба да се споредуваат етимолошките објаснувања на еквивалентните зборови во останатите словенски јазици и од тоа да се заклучи потеклото на македонскиот збор во прашање. Мислам дека има доволно материјал за ова да биде изводливо, а особено е корисен бугарскиот етимолошки речник, што не вклучува само стандардни бугарски зборови, туку и дијалектни. Наскоро ќе има фонетска транскрипција за скоро сите македонски леми, па мислам дека е време да се прејде и на етимологија.

Martin123xyz (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Фала за предложената литература и линковите! Забележав дека кај фонетската транскрипција на хиперврска слоготворното "р" не е правилно прикажано. --Gorec (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Фала што ми го посочи; сега е поправено. Martin123xyz (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Кај зборови како течнокристален, како е подобро да се напише: {{affix|mk|течен|-о-|кристал|-ен}}, {{affix|mk|течен|-о-|кристален}} или {{compound|mk|...|...}}?! Првиот начин автоматски го додава зборот во сите категории. --Gorec (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Горец Или првата или втората опција (има и скратена верзија со af наместо affix; види ја статијата за огнетушитель), во зависност од тоа дали сметаме дека течен и кристален се спојуваат откако веќе се оформени самите, со наставката -ен, или сметаме дека одеднаш се спојуваат сите корења и наставки. Прашањето е теоретско и нема јасни емпириски докази, но поинтуитивно е да го изведуваме зборот течнокристален од кристален а не директно од кристал. Во тој случај, течнокристален не е "suffixed with -ен" (не постои *течнокристал), како што би стоело во категориите, туку содржи во себе таков збор. Меѓутоа разликата не е многу важна за Wiktionary и можеби е подобро да се стави {{affix|mk|течен|-о-|кристал|-ен}} за да се опфатат што е можно повеќе морфеми, за корисниците полесно да наоѓаат морфолошки поврзани зборови. Мислам дека кај руските етимологии почесто се практикувало ова решение, иако е помалку прецизно од лингвистички аспект. Како и да е, третата опција не е соодветна затоа што не ги зема предвид ни интерфиксот ни наставката; {{compound|mk|...|...}} треба да се користи за случаи како бизнис-заедница каде што нема никакви дополнителни морфеми туку два збора се директно споени. Поздрав. Martin123xyz (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:infl of without a lemma

The whole purpose of the template is to say that the term is an inflected form of a lemma, specifically the lemma provided in the second parameter. That's why you have a module error instead of a definition at размазен. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thank you for this extremely enlightening explanation; I obviously had no idea how to use Template:infl of and what it's point was even though I manually created 4000+ pages for Macedonian adjectival participles without module errors, and it is naturally altogether unimaginable that in one of those 4000+ entries, I accidentally forgot to fill the lemma parameter because of a momentary lapse. Martin123xyz (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

question

hi I have a question do you have a plan to creat Macedonian forms Amirh123 (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If you mean to ask whether I plan to create pages for Macedonian non-lemma forms such as the conjugated forms of verbs, no I do not, because I lack the knowledge to program a bot, no other users seem to be interested in programming a bot for Macedonian, and it would be far too painstaking to create all the pages manually. I only created pages for verbal nouns and participles manually because they are at the boundary of lemmas and non-lemma forms and they have their own non-lemma forms, which users could not search for previously; for example, before the creation of работење, searching for работењето would not turn up any hits. On another note, please use proper punctuation and spelling when posting on Wiktionary - this is not a Facebook chat and a higher level of propriety and formality is expected. Martin123xyz (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi, to delete entries created in error, including typos, please use {{d}} rather than {{rfd}}. If you add an RFD tag to a page whose deletion should be voted on, please create the discussion at WT:RFDN. In either case, don't blank the page. For typos, please link to the correct page. Ultimateria (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for these instructions and I am sorry not to have complied with them earlier. Martin123xyz (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Macedonian headword lines

Happy New Year! There are a lot of Macedonian nouns that use {{head|mk|verb form|g=n}} for their headword line. Are they really verb forms, or is that just an error? If it's an error, I can clean it up if you let me know what the correct entry should be. JeffDoozan (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are verbal nouns, which are hybrid categories. I consider them to be verb forms rather than separate nouns lemmas for the following reasons:

- they are formed from all imperfective verbs (regularly)

- they are not formed from any perfective verbs (the fact that they are determined by aspect rather than by meaning strongly suggests that they are inflectional rather than derivational categories; other abstract nouns are formed from both imperfective and perfective verbs)

- they can take a direct object not preceded by a preposition, in constructions such as "reading books" (rather than "the reading of books")

- they indicate processes and states, in keeping with the imperfective aspect of the underlying imperfectivity of the verbs from which they are derived, but not acts or results, like other abstract deverbal nouns

However, they exhibit their own nominal inflection, in that they take definite articles and have plurals just like any other noun. Consequently, I felt that the best way to represent them is with a Noun header and a "verb form" headword line - in other words, they are nouns that are part of the verbal inflection. As with any hybrid category (showing both nominal and verbal properties in this instance), the exact status of Macedonian verbal nouns is debatable. You can suggest alternative representations if you have a better idea. You should note that the morphological equivalents from other Slavic languages cannot be assumed to be grammatically identical. Thus, Polish dojenie does not necessarily have the same status as Macedonian доење even though etymologically, they are perfect cognates. Martin123xyz (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent explanation. I asked because it seems to be the only language in the list that intentionally uses one POS for the section name and another for the headword line. I'll add an exception permitting Macedonian Nouns to use "verb form" headlines so when I generate the next list it may be more useful for someone looking to cleanup mismatches in Macedonian entries. JeffDoozan (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to add the exception. Admittedly, it was a bit daring on my part to decide to use one POS for the section name and another for the headword line; I just felt that this was the most appropriate compromise. If other contributors object to this innovative convention, I am open to a discussion aimed at identifying a better solution. Martin123xyz (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

changes to Template:desc

Hi. Just FYI, {{desc}} has changed a bit; please use |t= in place of |4= (the gloss/definition), and |alt= in place of |3= (the display/alternative form). This is because the template will soon support multiple terms. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Inflected forms of verbs

Здраво @Martin123xyz, се надевам дека си добар. Започнав со додавање accel кодови за автоматизирано генерирање статии за глаголските форми. Создадов и модул кој сѐ уште го развивам со правила и исклучоци. Бидејќи сите template-и за глаголи ги создаде ти, а и најголемиот дел од статиите за глаголи се создадени од тебе, би сакал да се вклучиш во процесот за што попрецизно и подетално да ги формулираме и дефинициите и правилата. Поздрав. Gorec (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)