Wikidata:Property proposal/feminine form

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

feminine form of lexeme[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

   Under discussion
Descriptionlexeme that is the feminine form of the subject lexeme
Representsfeminine (Q1775415)
Data typeLexeme
Example 1king (L9670)queen (L1380)
Example 2acteur (L13374)actrice (L12849)
Example 3padre (L221496)madre (L47362)
Example 4lion (L17815)lioness (L43104)
Planned useto be used where it doesn't make sense to add the feminine form as a Form to the subject Lexeme, but instead is considered to be a separate Lexeme
See alsofemale form of label (P2521), male form of label (P3321)


Currently there is no single way to do this. Theklan (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the general idea makes sense, but it shouldn't be limited to feminine / masculine form (many languages have more than these two genders, and some don't have both of these but have others). A more generic property "gendered version" or whatnot might make sense :) (the word "form" might not be ideal because we already use it for forms of a lexeme).--Reosarevok (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Theklan: This relationship can already be represented in the Item space by using female form of label (P2521) and male form of label (P3321), and at the Sense level by using antonym (P5974) qualified with criterion used (P1013) = gender binary (Q5530970). It could be a good to have similar properties for the Lexeme level. Perhaps they should be called "female form of lexeme" and "male form of lexeme" to better mirror the existing Item-typed properties, and to specify that it is at the Lexeme level rather than the Form level (as the current proposed name is a bit ambiguous in that regard). Also, it would be good to include a few more use cases other than just the "king & queen" example. Liamjamesperritt (talk)

Maybe the solution is to have a general gender representation property, so we can have more than two options. Also I don't consider that actor and actress are antonyms. -Theklan (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Theklan, Reosarevok, Fnielsen, ArthurPSmith: With permission from Theklan, I updated the proposal to make it a little clearer. Liamjamesperritt (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The symmetric proposal is here: Wikidata:Property proposal/masculine formFinn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This property should be used on sense level not lexeme. Dichotomy might not apply to all senses of a given lexeme. --Lexicolover (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The proposed name for the property is not correct. King/queen are not forms of the lexeme, these are two separate lexemes describing close concepts which differ by gender of the subject. Thus something like "male/female describing term for this sense" should be better. --Lexicolover (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is it possible to generalize this concept to cover cases like sheep/ram/lamb etc.? --Lexicolover (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)