Wikidata:Property proposal/requires grammatical feature
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
requires grammatical feature
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes
Description | grammatical features required or generally used with lexeme or form of lexeme |
---|---|
Data type | Item |
Domain | lexemes |
Allowed values | grammatical features, such as mood |
Example 1 | bien que (L10102) -> subjunctive (Q473746) |
Example 2 | apud (L11769) -> accusative case (Q146078) |
Example 3 | ab (L13362) -> ablative case (Q156986) |
Planned use | add to fr lexemes |
See also | has grammatical mood (P3161), has grammatical case (P2989), .. |
Motivation
[edit]Note that these aren't grammatical features of the lexeme, but of those a lexeme is used with. (Add your motivation for this property here.)
--- Jura 11:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Comment I wonder if it could be property of the form rather than lexeme, in other words whether two different forms of the same lexeme could require two different grammatical features. KaMan (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- If so, the statement should be on the form, not the lexeme directly. Don't hesitate to add samples to the proposal.
--- Jura 11:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC) - @KaMan: added a sample for that. What do you think of the proposal?
--- Jura 08:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)- @Jura1: while I agree we need some way to describe syntax, I think your example is wrong. vowel (Q36244) is not grammatical feature. The thing you want to present with your new example I markup with vocalic form (Q55082724) and non-vocalic form (Q55082712), see z (L3401) for example. KaMan (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ok. I removed the sample. We might want to discuss it elsewhere. If you are ok with the proposal as such, I'd mark it as ready.
--- Jura 09:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)- @Jura1: I think we will need more to describe syntax in the future but it can be for starter Support KaMan (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Surely, much more. Thanks.
--- Jura 10:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Surely, much more. Thanks.
- @Jura1: I think we will need more to describe syntax in the future but it can be for starter Support KaMan (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ok. I removed the sample. We might want to discuss it elsewhere. If you are ok with the proposal as such, I'd mark it as ready.
- @Jura1: while I agree we need some way to describe syntax, I think your example is wrong. vowel (Q36244) is not grammatical feature. The thing you want to present with your new example I markup with vocalic form (Q55082724) and non-vocalic form (Q55082712), see z (L3401) for example. KaMan (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- If so, the statement should be on the form, not the lexeme directly. Don't hesitate to add samples to the proposal.