Wikidata:Property proposal/combines lexemes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
combines lexemes[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes
Withdrawn
| Description | lexeme combines these lexemes |
|---|---|
| Data type | Lexeme |
| Domain | lexemes, not compound lexemes |
| Example 1 | excessivement (L9266) → excessif (L9280), -ment (L10501) |
| Example 2 | more with -ment (L10501): https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Lexeme%3AL10501&namespace=146 |
| Example 3 | some with in- (L10465): https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Lexeme%3AL10465&namespace=146 |
| Planned use | replace combines lexemes (P5238) when used for suffixes or prefixes |
| See also | combines lexemes (P5238), derived from lexeme (P5191) |
Motivation[edit]
There was some discussion at Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical_data#Prefix/suffix suggesting that the use of existing properties isn't optimal. (Add your motivation for this property here.)
--- Jura 10:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Oppose I don't see need to multiply such similar proporties. combines lexemes (P5238) is enough. KaMan (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- If we do that, the terminology in many languages on P5238 should probably be changed. @Fnielsen:: what do you think?
--- Jura 10:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- If we do that, the terminology in many languages on P5238 should probably be changed. @Fnielsen:: what do you think?
Comment Why do you call -ment (L10501) a lexeme? Isn't it a morpheme? --Infovarius (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think there was some discussion if we should use "Lexeme" for entities in the L-namespace or "lexeme". What's your opinion?
--- Jura 17:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think there was some discussion if we should use "Lexeme" for entities in the L-namespace or "lexeme". What's your opinion?
- Oppose I see no difference between composition and combination. @Fnielsen: could you explain why combines lexemes (P5238) wouldn't work? True affixes are not stem but composition is not limited to stems. PS: we definitely need to stop creating properties for morphology and etymology without having a good big pictures on how we want morphology and etymology in Wikidata lexemes. My understand is that derived from lexeme (P5191) is more etymological and combines lexemes (P5238) and is more morphological but it's not clear and most users don't seems to do (or understand?) the distinction… Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment To sum this up, shall I withdraw this and revise the labels of P5238?
--- Jura 06:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Done
--- Jura 16:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
