Property talk:P6191
Documentation
to denote of the way a sense of a word is used, e.g., slang, vulgarism, babytalk, colloquialism, etc.
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6191#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6191#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6191#Value type Q286576, Q3329375, Q2313235, Q182545, Q1047050, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6191#Scope, SPARQL
Replacement property:
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6191#none of, SPARQL
|
Extend domain to forms edit
I think we should extend the suggested use of this property to forms. At least in Danish (Q9035) there are some forms that have a certain P6191-ness. This is the case with a few modal verb (Q560570) which has a colloquial language (Q901711) form: ha, ka, ska, ku. have (L3828), skulle (L6387), kunne (L11269). — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree :)--So9q (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Same goes for czech, so I support this. --Adrijaned (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Extend domain to qualifiers on usage examples edit
In the lexeme telegram channel we talked about starting to add this property to usage examples so that we can collect 4 types of examples per form: formal written, formal speech, informal written, informal speech. The two last ones would have to be from personal letters and recordings of people speaking IRL. WDYT about extending the domain to enable this?--So9q (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- (I was in the channel discussing this.) I think this would be helpful. I also looked a little at what values the property uses today and I think many of them could also fit when used as qualifiers to usage examples like suggested. Ainali (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- First edit with this qualifier used. Anyone else who has an opinion on the matter?--So9q (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Sure. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support (as in the channel). Ainali (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. I went ahead and implemented it.--So9q (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Referencerestriction edit
Can someone add a reference restriction?--So9q (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Useful for old-fashioned language? edit
I used this property with old-fashioned (Q110161910). I wanted to imply that this language use is obsolete or that it would sound old fashioned. Do you have a better idea how to express this?– Shisma (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)