Wikidata:Property proposal/has thematic relation
has thematic relation edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes
| Description | role played by an argument of a verb or verb phrase with respect to a particular sense |
|---|---|
| Represents | thematic relation (Q613930) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | sense |
| Example 1 | |
| Example 2 |
|
| Example 3 |
|
| Example 4 | (regne (L184727)-S1 should not have any values for this property) |
| Planned use | add to senses on verbs and verb phrases |
| See also | valency (P5526), syntactic dependency head position (P9764), syntactic dependency head relationship (P9763) |
Motivation edit
This property will be used to better specify the arguments of a verb or verb phrase, providing a proxy for indicating transitivity and valency. The specific grammatical inflections/adjustments needed for placement of an argument might be indicated with requires grammatical feature (P5713) qualifiers. The grammatical relationship (subject, direct/indirect object, object of preposition) that the argument plays might be indicated with object has role (P3831) qualifiers. Other specifications, including those of optionality, might be indicated with nature of statement (P5102) qualifiers, among possibly others. Mahir256 (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Support I am unsure about the name, and about the details, but I think having a property that allows, on the sense of a verb, to connect to the different grammatical roles that this verb needs, would be extremely useful in understanding the sense. I am almost sure that we will eventually need some bespoke UI to capture the values for these statements, but I don't think we need to block on that before we can start playing around with this and see how far it takes us. Particularly with the requires grammatical feature (P5713) qualifier, I think this could be very interesting. --Denny (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment Is there some way you are proposing to distinguish for example the three proposed values for give (L3230)-S1? series ordinal (P1545) perhaps? Or is the idea just to document that the verb has those three possible concepts attached to it in a given construction? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: series ordinal (P1545) could be added on senses where the order in which arguments typically appear may differ from some norm, but since in most cases the qualifiers specifying appropriate inflections and syntactic relations will be enough for renderers to arrange them in the right fashion (SOV/SVO/VSO/etc.), I am not keen to more avidly encourage it. I've added potential qualifiers to the examples above and changed the second example to also use P1545. Mahir256 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Mahir256: Thanks, that clarifies it. Support by the way. Though I wasn't insisting on series ordinal (P1545), and I would have thought them to be in the opposite order in the second example from what you have so maybe I'm still missing something? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: Ah yes, that's one of those situations where I thought the primary use of 'gefallen' flouted the typical SVO word order found in simple German sentences (and could thus warrant being qualified to make the order clear). Although a search for "mir gefällt" on dewikisource returns some results with sentences starting with those words, I've fixed the example above. Mahir256 (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think series ordinal (P1545) makes sense for German, because the word order is not a property of individual verbs. Somewhat simplified: The base order of a clause is (IIRC) reflexive, nominative pronoun, accusative pronoun, dative pronoun, nominative noun, dative noun, accusative noun, infinite verb, finite verb. In questions, the finite verb moves to the first position. In independent clauses, the verb moves to the second position and one of the other parts moves to the first position, defaulting to the nominative noun/pronoun. Moving any other part instead changes the emphasis. - Nikki (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Noted: removing P1545 qualifiers from that example then. Mahir256 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think series ordinal (P1545) makes sense for German, because the word order is not a property of individual verbs. Somewhat simplified: The base order of a clause is (IIRC) reflexive, nominative pronoun, accusative pronoun, dative pronoun, nominative noun, dative noun, accusative noun, infinite verb, finite verb. In questions, the finite verb moves to the first position. In independent clauses, the verb moves to the second position and one of the other parts moves to the first position, defaulting to the nominative noun/pronoun. Moving any other part instead changes the emphasis. - Nikki (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: Ah yes, that's one of those situations where I thought the primary use of 'gefallen' flouted the typical SVO word order found in simple German sentences (and could thus warrant being qualified to make the order clear). Although a search for "mir gefällt" on dewikisource returns some results with sentences starting with those words, I've fixed the example above. Mahir256 (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Mahir256: Thanks, that clarifies it.
- @ArthurPSmith: series ordinal (P1545) could be added on senses where the order in which arguments typically appear may differ from some norm, but since in most cases the qualifiers specifying appropriate inflections and syntactic relations will be enough for renderers to arrange them in the right fashion (SOV/SVO/VSO/etc.), I am not keen to more avidly encourage it. I've added potential qualifiers to the examples above and changed the second example to also use P1545. Mahir256 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for putting so much effort into the examples to make it easier to understand. :)--So9q (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Done @Mahir256, Denny, ArthurPSmith, Nikki, So9q: created as has thematic relation (P9971). Enjoy! --99of9 (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. I added the first set of examples to the item, but I'll leave you all to sort out the constraint violations! --99of9 (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)