Wikidata:Property proposal/part of other combined lexeme

‎part of other combined lexeme

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

Not done

Description	qualifier on P5238 to indicate that a component appearing in a compound lexeme actually comes from the appearance of another compound lexeme
Data type	Lexeme
Domain	multi-part lexemes
Example 1	(wenn mit dem Taler geläutet wird, gehen alle Türen auf (L1090357) combines lexemes (P5238) gehen (L1026)) → aufgehen (L837740)
Example 2	(wenn mit dem Taler geläutet wird, gehen alle Türen auf (L1090357) combines lexemes (P5238) auf- (L613376)) → aufgehen (L837740)
Example 3	(মনে দাগ কাটা (L701833) combines lexemes (P5238) দাগ (L701715)) → দাগ কাটা (L1090354)
Example 4	(মনে দাগ কাটা (L701833) combines lexemes (P5238) কাটা (L310381)) → দাগ কাটা (L1090354)
Example 5	(ऐब करने को भी हुनर चाहिये/عیب کرنے کو بھی ہنر چاہئے (L639985) combines lexemes (P5238) ऐब/عَیب (L639971)) → ऐब करना/عیب کرنا (L1090349)
Example 6	(ऐब करने को भी हुनर चाहिये/عیب کرنے کو بھی ہنر چاہئے (L639985) combines lexemes (P5238) करना/کرنا (L579999)) → ऐब करना/عیب کرنا (L1090349)
Planned use	add to existing compound lexemes where other compounds are used

Motivation

This property can be used to specify that components of a compound lexeme A appear due to another compound lexeme B actually being used within A. It is particularly important whenever the components coming from B are disconnected, reordered (as in the first two examples), or inflected (as in the last two examples) within A. Mahir256 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment: The use case in the first two examples is clear, but I am having trouble seeing what advantages using a property like this for continguous compounds offers. If the reason is to avoid adding forms on the compound lexeme, it doesn't negate the reasons to add forms for any other reason than in combines statements. For example, in order to put statements for "subject form" on usage examples on a given compound, it makes sense to have that form present. Simple compounds are also likely to form parts of other compounds, and it seems like it would be more confusing to be expected to represent a nest of compounds on each derived lexeme. For example, if we have a compound consisting of an adjective and a three-member verb construction like مار لے جاوݨ, then any additional lexeme employing that compound would have links from جاوݨ to مار لیݨ, لے جاوݨ, and مار لے جاوݨ. It seems a lot simpler just to link to the single compound, unless querying statements on the constituent lexemes has problems I am not aware of. -عُثمان (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, I am inclined to Oppose this proposal in its current form, for the concerns above, and because it would place the lexeme containing the senses which contribute to the expression in the qualifiers instead of the main statement, which runs counter to the expectation of how the constituent senses will be indicated. I also don't believe it is desirable or possible to leave lexemes like the compound in the last one formless as the tendencies governing their use are not regular or predictable. With respect to examples like the first one, I think it would be preferable to just use multiple values for series ordinal as in ਹੈ ਨਹੀਂ ਗਾ/ہے نہیں گا (L700902) or M563x814S11550494x564S2a20a491x600S11530491x638S35500483x446S1ec10518x474S21600519x465S2ef00545x474S30122481x506S37806438x535S37a00437x535S37a00437x578S37a00437x623S1f510491x697S14c10487x739S37a00437x671S37a00437x719S37a00437x766S37a06439x812S37906486x812S2a530489x775 (L1082244). Possibly these could benefit from some way to make it clearer how exactly the constituent lexemes are being combined. -عُثمان (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 06:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]