Open main menu

Property talk:P5186


conjugation class
conjugation class this lexeme belongs to. On items for languages, use "has conjugation class" (P5206)
Representsconjugation class (Q53996674)
Data typeItem
According to this template: lexeme (including Japanese verbs)
According to statements in the property:
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed values instance of (P31) Japanese conjugation class (Q53607681) etc. (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Example (note: this information should be moved to a property statement; use property Wikidata property example (P1855), Wikidata property example for properties (P2271), Wikidata property example for lexemes (P5192), Wikidata property example for forms (P5193) or Wikidata property example for senses (P5977))
See alsoword stem (P5187), has conjugation class (P5206), auxiliary verb (P5401), valency (P5526), passive voice (P5560), inflection class (P5911)
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses822
Search for values
  Value type “conjugation class (Q53996674): This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value conjugation class (Q53996674) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5186#Value type Q53996674, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
  Type “verb (Q24905): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “verb (Q24905)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5186#type Q24905, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
  Allowed entity types are lexeme (Q51885771): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5186#allowed entity types, hourly updated report, SPARQL (new)
  Property “language of work or name (P407)” declared by target items of “conjugation class (P5186): If [item A] has this property with value [item B], [item B] is required to have property “language of work or name (P407)”. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5186#Target required claim P407, SPARQL, SPARQL (by value), SPARQL (new)
  Item “word stem (P5187): Items with this property should also have “word stem (P5187)”. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5186#Item P5187, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
  Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5186#scope, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
  Lexical category: verb (Q24905): this property should only be applied to lexemes with these lexical categories
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5186#lexical category, SPARQL (new)

Property for languageEdit

Should the language constraint use language of work or name (P407) as it now does? A verb is not a work. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I thought that the outcome of the deletion of the property "language" was that we should use that. But maybe I missed a part of the reasoning. What alternative do you suggest?
    --- Jura 11:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at the lexicographical data discussion pageEdit

I started a relevant discussion about properties for inflections classes over at Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data/Archive/2018/06#Indicating inflection classes. --Njardarlogar (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Subclass or instance of?Edit

I gave Germanic strong verb (Q4129241) "instance of conjugation class", but I was getting errors on pages because of constraints. Then I noticed that this page defines the constraint using "subclass of" rather than "instance of". Is there a particular reason why it's done? I think the difference between "instance of" and "subclass of" may not be clear to me. To me, it seems intuitive to say that Germanic strong verbs are a particular instance/case of a conjugation class... —Rua (mew) 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • @Rua: A verb class is different from a conjugation class. You should say “conjugation of Germanic strong verb is a subclass of conjugation class”. --Okkn (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • They seem the same thing to me. Wikidata still confuses me sometimes. Can you explain how they are different, perhaps with an example? —Rua (mew) 18:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Conjugation is a feature of verb. Feature of X is not X. X having the feature is not a feature. --Okkn (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
        • But in practice they are used interchangeably. "x is a class 1 strong verb" means the same as "x follows the class 1 strong verb conjugation". Do there really need to be separate items for "Germanic strong verb" and "Germanic strong verb conjugation"? —Rua (mew) 19:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
          • Ontologically, they should be distinguished. In reality, you changed the word from "is" to "follows". They are different. --Okkn (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • By the way, I noticed that, as you say, the relation of the value type constraint should be instance of rather than subclass of. --Okkn (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Wait, so I did get that part right? But I still should make an item for the conjugation of strong verbs, separate from the item for the verbs themselves? —Rua (mew) 19:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Absolutely. Only items like conjugation of Group I French verbs (Q2993354) can be the value of P5180. --Okkn (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
        • But, it is correct to say that an individual verb lexeme is "instance of Germanic strong verb (Q4129241)", right? So verbs can be defined by a conjugational class, or by being an instance of some type of verb. What is the advantage of one approach versus the other? —Rua (mew) 20:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, they can be defined in one of two ways. But instance of (P31) is a generic property and the value of it is not always information about conjugation. It is difficult to get the specific feature from P31 values. --Okkn (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
            • Ah, ok. Thank you, I think I understand a bit better now! —Rua (mew) 20:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"language of work or name" property requirementEdit

What exactly am I supposed to fill in for this? The conjugation classes I've defined apply across whole language families, so defining each language is kind of pointless. —Rua (mew) 22:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Each conjugation class may be able to have mulitiple "language of work or name" values if they can be applied to more than one language. --Okkn (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that, but it does not seem practical to add every single Germanic language to the property. Could I add a language family, instead? —Rua (mew) 10:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"word stem" propertyEdit

The requirement for the "word stem" as a property may not make complete sense. For some languages, the lemma itself is the word stem, and providing it twice seems pointless, so it shouldn't really be a requirement. I also think that if it's provided, it would make more sense to provide it as a qualifier to the "conjugation class" property, so that it's clear that this particular word stem belongs to a particular conjugation class. It is quite possible that a single lexeme with a single lemma form has two different inflectional patterns, and each of these has a different stem. wikt:ráhpis gives an example for a Northern Sami adjective, but it can surely occur with verbs in some language as well. —Rua (mew) 22:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Those who don't know the language cannot understand that lemma itself is the word stem, if it doesn't provide "word stem" property.
I wonder most of the words of most languages have only one word stem. I think it would be better to add "conjugation class" as a qualifier to "word stem" statements, in addition to regular "conjugation class" statements, only when the lexeme has multiple word stems. --Okkn (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
A good point about not knowing the language.
I'm not sure about adding a conjugation class to a word stem rather than the other way around. In my mental picture, a conjugation class is "applied" to a lexeme and it receives various other things as "input", including a word stem. I may be thinking too much in terms of the inflection templates on Wiktionary, where the template selects the class and then you give it parameters as input. However, certain inputs only make sense in the context of certain conjugation classes, in the same way that not every conjugation template has the same parameters. Some conjugation classes may have multiple stems, others just one. Some may require additional qualifiers to specify particular aspects of the conjugation, while for other classes this is not applicable. This would be rather hard to model if the word stem is the primary property. I'll see if I can find some concrete examples. —Rua (mew) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Return to "P5186" page.