Wikidata:Property proposal/attested as

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

attested as[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

   Done: attested as (P7855) (Talk and documentation)
Descriptionhow the word is attested in a text, if different for the current way to write it. Should be used with attested in (P5323)
Data typeString
Example 1persuade (L11073) → "perswade", attested in (P5323) The Merry Wives of Windsor (Q844836)
Example 2begi (L49195) → "begui" ...
Example 3hacer (L39182) → "fazer" ...
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)


Many texts are from pre-standarization sources, and have lexemes that are not well written, but they are not from an ancient language itself. They are only written variants of the same words that are no longer in use. As we upload more and more lexemes and try to make links with Wikisource, this will happen even more. We should have attested as, attested in and first attestment properties as a triad. Theklan (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


Symbol support vote.svg Support -Theklan (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How would one represent that a ‘word’ (lexeme?) was attested in a certain sense?―BlaueBlüte (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@BlaueBlüte: I assume the statement would be on the sense, rather than on the main lexeme? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Theklan: Do you agree that the domain for this property should be Sense, or “Sense or Lexeme”, rather than Lexeme? If so, can you update the proposal?―BlaueBlüte (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@BlaueBlüte: Yes, it may be Sense or Lexeme. -Theklan (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but… I think the datatype should be another lexeme. --Tinker Bell 20:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Tinker Bell: why? Perhaps it should be added as another form of the given lexeme; the meaning expected here wouldn't make sense at all though if it was a completely different lexeme?? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Tinker Bell: I could see the datatype being a Form (of the same Lexeme); and if the Form in question is not in current use, it would somehow be marked as obsolete. That way one could also make statements about the attested form.―BlaueBlüte (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How about a more general model designed after the example of

usage example (P5831) with qualifiers
demonstrates form (P5830) and
demonstrates sense (P6072),

and in which more general model the main property, say “attestation” or “quotation”, would indeed be of datatype (monolinugal) string and capture the attestation context, with the rest (which (potentially obsolete) Form, which Sense, reference, date) being handled by qualifiers (maybe even co-opting demonstrates form (P5830) and demonstrates sense (P6072), perhaps upon expanding their scope and adjusting their labels)? This would neatly take care of “attested as, attested in and first attestment properties as a triad” [as per Theklan] even though a query might be necessary to get the first attestation. Furthermore, using qualifiers, it would be much more expandable, for example to model ‘how obscure’ or ‘how idiomatic’ or ‘how representative’ an attestation is.―BlaueBlüte (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@BlaueBlüte, ArthurPSmith: I think we could do L11073 <pre-standarized/archaic form> L<perswade> / attested in (P5323) The Merry Wives of Windsor (Q844836), although we should make a difference between this property and derived from (P5191). The domain can be the whole Lexeme, or a particular sense. --Tinker Bell 22:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Tinker Bell: So all archaic forms should be their own lexemes? Then, when using <pre-standarized/archaic form> on a lexeme, how exactly would (or should) that be different from derived from (P5191)? And when using <pre-standarized/archaic form> on a sense, how would that be different from a translation to an earlier development stage of the (otherwise same) language?
As for the use of the qualifier attested in (P5323) you’re proposing as part of <pre-standarized/archaic form> statements: that doesn’t strike me as semantically appropriate. For the object of the qualifier (e.g., The Merry Wives of Windsor (Q844836)) cannot attest the meaning of the statement, namely that the object of the statement is a ‘translation’ or ‘pre-standardized/archaic form’ of a modern lexeme/sense, because the modern lexeme/sense had not yet evolved at the time of the ‘attestation’.―BlaueBlüte (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@BlaueBlüte: an archaic form isn't necessarily an etymon: persuade (L11073) derives from Latin persuadeo. From persuadeo derived persuade (L11073) and perswade, but the first one was standarized. So, both lexemes are related. Another example could be the Spanish word for king: rei and rey, being used today the last form. I think, in this case, attested in (P5323) shouldn't be used as a qualifier, but in the archaic Lexeme. --Tinker Bell 01:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this would be very good, at least for English, whose spelling was somehow even worse back a few hundred years! DemonDays64 | Talk to me 01:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this would also be very good for minorized languages which have been mostly orals and the spelling had been normalized very late --Aitalvivem (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Theklan, BlaueBlüte, Nomen ad hoc, ArthurPSmith, Aitalvivem: @DemonDays64: please make good use of it. --- Jura 11:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)