Property talk:P5191

Documentation

• Start a query
• Current uses
• Statistics by class
• List of qualifiers
• Count

derived from lexeme
most direct lexeme(s) this one has developed from

Represents	etymon (Q992080)
Data type	Lexeme
Domain	lexeme (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Allowed values	older lexemes (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Example	no label (L701) → no label (L8160) no label (L8160) → no label (L8793)
Source	etymological dictionaries and research (note: this information should be moved to a property statement; use property source website for the property (P1896))
Robot and gadget jobs	etymology connections should not be circular
See also	based on (P144), combines lexemes (P5238), object form (P5548), mode of derivation (P5886), root (P5920)
Lists	Items with the most statements of this property Count of items by number of statements (chart) Items with the most statements Items with the fewest statements Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart) Items with the most sitelinks Items with the most sitelinks, but no link to one Wikipedia (sample: Welsh Wikipedia, cywiki) Items with the fewest sitelinks Most linked wikis Items with the most identifier properties Items with no other statements Most recently created items Items with novalue claims Items with unknown value claims Usage history (total) Usage history (main statement) Chart by item creation date Database reports/Constraint violations/P5191 Map Random list
Proposal discussion	Proposal discussion
Current uses	Total 32,895 Main statement 32,883 >99.9% of uses Qualifier 11 <0.1% of uses Reference 1 <0.1% of uses
Search for values

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

Allowed entity types are Wikibase lexeme (Q51885771): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5191#Entity types, hourly updated report

Citation needed: the property must have at least one reference (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5191#citation needed

Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as qualifier (Q54828449): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5191#Scope, SPARQL

How to use this property

@Denny, Tubezlob, YULdigitalpreservation, NMaia, Jsamwrites: @Barcelona, Lea Lacroix (WMDE), JakobVoss, ArthurPSmith:

First, I've add an other example Property:P5191#P5192. I hope it's ok (except the fact that it doesn't appears through the template {{Property documentation}} right now).

Then, can we try to crash-test a bit this property on different items to see how to use it exactly and to document it? I have already two strange cases:

• Lexeme:L263 derived from lexeme (P5191) Lexeme:L249 (question raised by Pigsonthewing), some qualifier could be useful here. Maybe something along determination method or standard (P459) = hypocorism (Q1130279) or diminutive (Q108709), but not sure for P459 maybe here a specific property is needed.
• Lexeme:L69 where not one form "chas"@br is suppletive and have a different origins, should we:
  • put the property at the forms level instead lexeme level (strange)
  • put some qualifiers (but which one(s), here I'm a bit lost)
  • something else (like: get ride of the problem and not putting "chas" as a form? but where to put it?)
  • (by the way, suppletion suppletion (Q324982) can be very common, the problem will arise again at one point or another)

Feel free to add some other cases.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: I personally feel that the property should also be allowed on forms for forms that have etymologies different to the lemma. Liamjamesperritt (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

why would that be the case? What lexeme are you referring to? – Shisma (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Citation needed constraint

Hi,

Is there any objection to add a reference constraint to this property?

⟨ P5191 ⟩ property constraint (P2302) ⟨ citation-needed constraint (Q54554025)    ⟩
constraint status (P2316) ⟨ suggestion constraint (Q62026391)    ⟩

I talked with @Lepticed7: and seen that this property has rarely references (less than 10 % of the time). Meanwhile, first etymology can be quite tricky and references is often needed anyway ; then, references are usually quite easy to find, there is a lot of documents, pulication and etymological dictionaries. Finally, the constraint only suggest to add reference.

Ping top user of this property: @Lexicolover, Fnielsen, KaMan, Simplificationalizer, Liamjamesperritt, Njardarlogar: @So9q, Daniel Mietchen, Rua, Lucas Werkmeister, Infovarius: what do you think?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to even more constrain this property? Many occurrences of this property uses Wiktionaries as reference, which they are not. Lepticed7 (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

No, currently citation-needed constraint (Q54554025) doesn’t support limiting the kinds of acceptable references. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Support --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Support--So9q (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not against the proposal. Without a doubt, there are cases that should always be referenced and those references shouldn't be that hard to find (eg. loanwords). I might see a bit of trouble with "in-language" derivations. I work with Czech language the most and Czech language relies heavily on derivation when creating new words. Let's take a simple example: holub. I can easily reference the etymology of the base word holub. I can easily reference that word "holubičí" is somehow related to (or derived from) "holub". But it is not that simple to reference that "the most direct lexeme(s) 'holubičí' has developed from" is "holubice". For that I must use some general affixation rules for Czech language and that is not easy to reference. So I would like to know how should I deal with those words. There are also cases I had to leave this property out when I had related words but it was unclear what is "the most direct" predecessor word. --Lexicolover (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lexicolover, VIGNERON: Is -ičí a suffix in Czech? If it’s the case, this is not derivation but composition and then you should use

⟨ P5238 ⟩  Wikidata property  ⟨ object or value ⟩

. If the relation which we are talking about here is the nearest etymon, then it should always have a reference. Lepticed7 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know Czech well enough but yes combines lexemes (P5238) is probably more adapted. A bit like Aberystwyth in English is derived from Aberystwyth in Welsh but Aberystwyth ins welseh is composed from aber and Ystwyth. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lepticed7, Lucas Werkmeister, So9q, Lexicolover: no major opposition, I've added the constraint. @Lepticed7: good point but it's not possible with a constraint, this is more something that should be done by a query. @Lexicolover: hmm, also a very good point ; this constraint is only a suggestion not mandatory. So you could always leave it without reference ;) Maybe you can also add some inference indication as a reference for this simple and obvious case, for instance inferred from (P3452) = root (Q111029) or something like that (somehting better, I'm just throwing a general idea, I'm not a specialist of the case you describe). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: There is an issue when the derivation is within the language. verbal noun (Q1350145) are common in Danish and the derivation is so obvious that I am not sure the one can find dictionaries or other sources that bother to note it, see, e.g., oversætter (L314245). — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fnielsen: is it really an issue? As I said you can either: not adding any references (that's perfectly fine with a suggestion constraint) or you can add a reference saying it's obvious (see example supra). No ? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would say it is a good idea for a reference to derivation across-language, although I have a hard time finding CC0-combatible etymological resources. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Allowed entity types constraint - expand to allow use on senses?

Example: raspberry tart (L614965) has two very different senses. One of those two senses is derived from fart (L614966) by means of rhyming slang (Q429083). It seems to me it would be more straightforward to say on the sense that it is derived from fart (L614966), rather than having to put the statement on the lexeme and qualify it with subject sense (P6072). Thoughts? Swpb (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

sounds like a case for semantic derivation of (P12410) – Shisma (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)