Wikidata:Property proposal/form pattern of lexeme
(Redirected from Wikidata:Property proposal/forms)
form pattern of lexeme[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes
Not done
| Description | pattern of the lexeme's forms, such as declension or other inflection |
|---|---|
| Represents | inflection (Q207857) declension (Q188078) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | lexemes, except verbs using conjugation properties |
| Example 1 | rosa (L19615) → first declension noun in -ā (Q3921592) |
| Example 2 | dies (L19616) → fifth declension noun (Q3927887) |
| Example 3 | amicus (L19617) → third declension noun gen pl in –um (Q3953983) |
| Planned use | add to some lexemes |
| See also | has grammatical case (P2989) |
Motivation[edit]
Can be used together with the properties with have for languages, such as has grammatical case (P2989), to complete or to analyze completeness of forms. As patterns for verbs are different, we already have a series of separate properties for these. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 07:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Tobias1984, T.seppelt, Infovarius, Pamputt, Luvzippy, J budissin:: as users of P2989. --- Jura 07:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Comment I would prefer dedicated properties to inflections. We already have property conjugation class (P5186) for one type of inflection so this property should be IMO named "declension", "declension class", "declension pattern" or something like this. KaMan (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think we could have other subproperties than P5186. --- Jura 08:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment What about cases like the Sámi (Q56463), where there is no distinction between declension and conjugation as far as classes go? Both nouns and verbs have the same inflectional classes. Rua (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- If it's called "inflectional classes", you don't want to use them as values for conjugation class properties. I precised that in the proposal. --- Jura 04:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Why have one property for conjugation and another property for everything else? Conjugation is just inflection for verbs. Really, "conjugational class" should be renamed to "inflectional class" so that it can be used for all types of inflection. Rua (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Values for the samples above, conjugation classes, properties for conjugation and relevant forms of the same language are very different. What would be the benefit of amalgamating them? --- Jura 18:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have the opposite question. Why split them, when they are both just inflection, and differ only in which part of speech they apply to? Rua (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Did you read the first part of my answer? Wikidata properties of this type are about items we use as values in statements. Values can be cross-checked with constraints. --- Jura 18:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Values for the samples above, conjugation classes, properties for conjugation and relevant forms of the same language are very different. What would be the benefit of amalgamating them? --- Jura 18:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Why have one property for conjugation and another property for everything else? Conjugation is just inflection for verbs. Really, "conjugational class" should be renamed to "inflectional class" so that it can be used for all types of inflection. Rua (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- If it's called "inflectional classes", you don't want to use them as values for conjugation class properties. I precised that in the proposal. --- Jura 04:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I've now submitted Wikidata:Property proposal/inflection class as a possible alternative or more specific use case. Rua (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Looks good. I think it could work as a subproperty of this. --- Jura 19:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done Not enough support.--Micru (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)