[00:11:32] I don’t believe there is a specific rule for adjectives. The “general” rule for doubling a final consonant applies to a stressed syllable (including a monosyllable) written with a single vowel followed by a single consonant. This rule does not apply to C*, H, J, L**, Q, V, W, X, Y or Z***. [00:11:32] *Arguably, “c” “doubles” to “ck” even when unstressed (e.g., “trafficking”) [00:11:33] **In non-Webster English, L doubles even if the syllable is unstressed, although “parallel” is a notable exception (“paralleling” and “paralleled” are standard UK English spellings). [00:11:35] ***A single Z would be exotic at the end of a word. The plural of “fez” is “fezzes”, however. [00:11:36] [00:11:38] https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/Doubling-the-final-consonant-before-adding-ed-or-ing [00:40:12] I guess the way it works out is every comparable adjective ending in -id has stress on the prior syllable [00:41:55] comparable adjectives being a smaller class than verbs or nouns in English creates some de facto constraints [00:44:08] this is an interesting oddity however https://www.ft.com/content/44fe06dc-88a6-11e5-9f8c-a8d619fa707c [00:45:53] that page seems to be paywalled [00:46:55] https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/028e6734/file_55449.jpg [00:47:43] that's a case where I wouldn't consider the contents of the article to be that significant, that chicest is used at all makes it a real word [00:49:32] the i there is long though, since it's from french, and it's not pronounced like thickest (at least not in british english, I dunno what you americans do 😆) so it makes sense that it doesn't add c or k to me [00:51:55] yeah it does make sense it's just not common for loanwords which conserve the spelling like that to become comparables [00:51:56] but on pronunciation alone it is a natural fit alongside weakest, bleakest, sleekest etc [00:55:23] ahh, thanks (re @mahir256: ) [01:19:37] Worst? (re @vrandecic: Does "bad" have a short vowel? Because it's "baddest", right?) [01:26:48] that's the normal form, but "baddest" exists too and is spelt with a double consonant like that (not "badest", I mostly get german search results for that, from the verb baden, but apparently it's also an archaic past tense for "bid") (re @haaaah: Worst?) [01:34:37] "der badeste Bad in Baden-Baden"? (re @Nikki: that's the normal form, but "baddest" exists too and is spelt with a double consonant like that (not "badest", I mostly get germ...) [01:47:15] „du badest im Neckar, ich bade in der Nordsee. wir sind nicht das selbe“ [01:47:28] idk ^^ [01:54:15] …with the doubtful exception of Scottish “glid” (slippery) -> “glidder”, “gliddest” 🤷‍♂️ (re @bgo_eiu: I guess the way it works out is every comparable adjective ending in -id has stress on the prior syllable) [01:55:00] it probably depends on etymology, I bet it's something like latin doesn't get doubled, germanic does [01:56:11] Honestly, I wasn't trying to be funny or whatever, I must have had simply a brainfart (re @haaaah: Worst?) [01:59:55] I also remembered this old page about english spelling - https://zompist.com/spell.html - it's actually about pronunciation works, but it covers a lot of letter combinations and how they're pronounced, which might be helpful/relevant [02:00:11] > The gliddest of us moved off in a thanggle [02:00:12] the one usage example I could find [04:45:17] To be honest, we may postpone edits on English conjugations [04:45:34] It’s too irregular [07:04:46] Or the opposite. We manually add forms to the lexemes rather than trying to figure out functions that would save us from having to edit. (re @cvictorovich: To be honest, we may postpone edits on English conjugations) [07:05:27] This is what I’m currently working on (re @Jan_ainali: Or the opposite. We manually add forms to the lexemes rather than trying to figure out functions that would save us from having ...) [10:04:45] english wiktionary says "When the stress is on the final (or only) syllable of the adjective, and this syllable ends in a single consonant preceded by a single vowel, the final consonant is doubled when the suffix is added." - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-er#Usage_notes_2 [10:06:07] English has its irregularities, of course, but its regular inflections are almost entirely formulaic. So even if the regular form is rarely or never used, we always know exactly what it would be. Or, if a form were to be added manually, we could always (?) tell whether it is the regular inflection. [10:06:36] it seems for their modules they don't try to do that though, they just pass the right form as a parameter - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Module:en-headword#L-125 [10:17:46] It should say (as I should have said) “…when the primary stress is on the final (or only) syllable…”. Also, of course, not all consonants double. (re @Nikki: english wiktionary says "When the stress is on the final (or only) syllable of the adjective, and this syllable ends in a single...) [10:23:50] I'd say there are cases where we're not sure what the regular inflection of a word would be, because the original word is spelt and pronounced in a way that's unusual for english, like if we borrow a noun from french that ends in a silent s, it's not clear what the plural form should be in english, because adding -es would make it look like an extra syllable, adding just -s would [10:23:51] be weird, not adding anything (the s changes from silent to not silent) is not obviously plural, and adding -'s is non-standard [10:24:25] I think this is the easiest way around the question of whether the -er and/or -est forms are likely to be used at all. In general, we can convert -er to -est or -est to -er much more reliably than determining whether either is likely to be used in the first place. (re @Nikki: it seems for their modules they don't try to do that though, they just pass the right form as a parameter [10:24:26] - https://en.wiktionar...) [10:26:24] but in general, yeah, definitely. they wouldn't be regular forms if we couldn't generate them [10:30:33] (the underlying form would still be regular, we'd know what to say when speaking, the issue is only in the spelling) (re @Nikki: I'd say there are cases where we're not sure what the regular inflection of a word would be, because the original word is spelt ...) [10:39:27] True. We might use the word “sous” for a “sous-chef”; the plural would be “sous” (with the s pronounced) but the possessive would be “sous’s” (pronounced the same way). Similarly, “Grand Prix” has the plural “Grands Prix” with possessive forms “Grand Prix’s” and “Grands Prix’s”. (re @Nikki: I'd say there are cases where we're not sure what th [10:39:27] e regular inflection of a word would be, because the original word is spelt ...) [10:54:22] that's one possibility, but there are also plenty of people who use "grand prix's" or "grand prixes" or "grand prix" as the plural [11:04:29] Plenty of people make lots of mistakes… Who am I to judge? I haven’t seen those forms in a dictionary, however. (re @Nikki: that's one possibility, but there are also plenty of people who use "grand prix's" or "grand prixes" or "grand prix" as the plur...) [11:06:35] maybe there can be an "english plural (prescriptivist)" function for people who only accept words which are in a dictionary :P [11:12:29] (oed.com, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/grand-prix and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grand%20prix all include grand prix as a plural) [11:22:20] Thanks. Does that make the prescriptivist plural “grand(s) prix”? Interestingly (?), the Collins pronunciation omits the voiced sibilant, which is at odds with my experience and expectation. (re @Nikki: (oed.com, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/grand-prix and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grand%2...) [15:12:11] English orthography is completely a massive sloppy pile of shit! [15:13:13] Nikki You’ve seen this remark of mine in chat group of fr [15:13:34] French is really far better [15:17:34] Well English is basically like German and French jammed together and sprinkled with words from every other possible language. [15:18:33] But I learned that Danish orthography is an enormous pile of shit [15:18:52] Even worse than that of English [15:20:18] Deutsche is okay too [15:20:50] you have been taught well, young padawan (re @cvictorovich: But I learned that Danish orthography is an enormous pile of shit) [15:21:31] Der er et yndigt land… [15:22:03] I must say that this song is beautiful [15:42:58] French orthography is fine, it's the relationship between the letters and how they're pronounced that's dumb [15:47:28] The simple answer is no. Even the distinction between “long” and “short” is contentious. But, as I almost said earlier, all that matters for inflections is how the sound is represented in the spelling of the word that is to be inflected. How the uninflected and inflected forms might be pronounced is a whole other question. (re @vrandecic: Is there a way to find out whethe [15:47:29] r the vowel is short based on the writing of the word?) [20:12:42] We are on the main Wikimedia Foundation blog: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/12/05/introducing-wikifunctions-first-wikimedia-project-to-launch-in-a-decade-creates-new-forms-of-knowledge/ [20:12:51] Let's see what that does for visibility