indeclinable adjectives should still show adjective tables

[monzug]

I come across an adjective of 9th declension accordingly to Whitaker: nequior so I do not have any inflection tables icon. same for nēquissimus. related to #28 @balmas, is there anything that can be done here?

[balmas]

well, the 9th declension isn't really valid is it? We do map 5th-8th conjugations to the irregular conjugation. But that applies to verbs not adjectives. What should this be?

[monzug]

irregular or defective comparison for sure. Unfortunately I do not have other examples. will try all the adjectives in the defective chapters to see if there is any other with 9th declension

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 10:50 AM Bridget Almas notifications@github.com wrote:

well, the 9th declension isn't really valid is it? We do map 5th-8th conjugations to the irregular conjugation. But that applies to verbs not adjectives. What should this be?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/alpheios-project/alpheios-core/issues/513#issuecomment-671992967, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJ32UOKDTPA4FSNYHWA3EYTSAFLCBANCNFSM4P3BBGQA .

[monzug]

Whitaker added the 9th declension for all the adjective that are indeclinable. see note 122.b from Allen and Greenough's grammar: A few adjectives are indeclinable.

damnās frūgī (Dative of Service, see § 382.1, Note 2) nēquam (originally an adverb) necesse tot, quot, aliquot, totidem (pronominal forms)

Potis is often used as an indeclinable adjective, but sometimes has pote in the neuter.

I would drop the 9th declension then.

[balmas]

so, should it be NO declension? or one of the existing ones 1st 2nd 3rd ? With no declension we may not get the table.

[monzug]

argh. should not have the declension

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:20 AM Bridget Almas notifications@github.com wrote:

so, should it be NO declension? or one of the existing ones 1st 2nd 3rd ? With no declension we may not get the table.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/alpheios-project/alpheios-core/issues/513#issuecomment-672900712, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJ32UOJJ2YP2CN6I35X7UDLSAKQLJANCNFSM4P3BBGQA .

[balmas]

I think this one might have to wait for the ability to override morphology. Because not only does Whitaker report it as 9th declension, it also does not report it as superlative. I don't think for #521 we want to remove the check on declension for the adjectives as a whole, only the comparatives and superlatives, right? So just removing the 9th declension isn't going to help us here.

I think supporting the adjective tables for indeclinable adjectives is probably out of scope of what I can do for the incremental release, so I'm going to leave this one for future consideration.

[monzug]

nequissimus does say super in the short definition only. you are right that Whitaker does not add any super to it!