Wikidata:Property proposal/verbal ability


Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

   Done: transitivity (P9295) (Talk and documentation)


Hello, The lexemes should no longer accept this information in P31 in all cases, because the information relates to the meaning (senses) given most of the time. Eihel (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pamputt, VIGNERON, Lyokoï, Nikki, Lepticed7, Baidax: —Eihel (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Last proposition: @Deepsaged, ChristianKl, Fnielsen, ArthurPSmith: —Eihel (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


  •   Support Pamputt (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support for now.   Comment datatype sense seems wrong, no? (at least, it doesn't match the example where the datatype is item) And we need to clearify the level(s) where to use this property (sense and/or lexeme ?) It's good now. PS: see also Wikidata:Property proposal/transitivity. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Wait Why is this property called "verbal ability"? Do linguist textbook use this term? suggests that between transitive verbs there are monotransitive, ditransitive and tritransitive verbs. Intuitively, I would want those categories instead of "transitive verb" being a valid value. ChristianKl❫ 12:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    I added missing values (those accepted by the majority of linguists). For tritransitive, and monotransitive for that matter (fr and en), these grammatical abilities are not accepted by the majority of linguists. More simply, I note what is used in the different Wix. The title changed: transitivity. Best regards. —Eihel (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Eihel, VIGNERON, ChristianKl, ArthurPSmith:   Done transitivity (P9295) Pamputt (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)