Wikidata:Property proposal/Used with verb

Used with verb

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

   Not done

Description	word used with this adjective; probably translated as "to be" into English.
Data type	Lexeme
Domain	allowed on senses of lexemes; not just adjectives, to allow stuff like "hambre" having "tener" on it
Allowed values	senses of lexemes
Example 1	bueno (L230409) S1 → ser (L5140)
Example 2	bonito (L232551) S1 → estar (L5141)
Example 3	MISSING
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974) (limited number of languages have a distinction like this)

Motivation

For machine translation, there needs to be a way to check which word to use with an adjective, stored on each sense. In English, there's not a problem; there's just one word for "to be"—"I am sad" (currently), "I am a Wikipedian", and "I am hungry" all use the same word. However, this is different in other languages, e.g. Spanish. The three examples are translated as "yo estoy triste,", "yo soy Wikipedista", and "yo tengo hambre". This would allow there to be a distinction for this with adjectives. P.S. I probably messed up some values of the template; feel free to correct them.DemonDays64 | Talk to me 02:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Discussion

•  Support However the label needs to be something more standardized - what would you call this relationship in Spanish? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: hmm...so "to be" is called a wikipedia:Copula. However, that is only used referring ser and estar, not the other ones used with adjectives. Maybe this needs some re-phrasing. Maybe "used with verb" would be better? DemonDays64 | Talk to me 15:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "linking verb"? But from the page en:Copula (linguistics) it seems many languages don't use a verb for this at all, but some other mechanism. So "copula" probably wouldn't work if you want to restrict it to verbs; is there a more general way to model this here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The way this property is phrased looks like it's very English centric and not focused on general categories that linguists use. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: yeah the name doesn’t translate well. Maybe "used with verb" would be better, to be clearer outside of English, in languages without a general word for "to be"? DemonDays64 | Talk to me 15:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The field of linguistics has spent a lot of effort into researching how to classify language. Before adding a property like this we should look at how linguistics model the problem domain. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 07:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• @DemonDays64, ChristianKl:  Not done Closing as stale. Please consider the above comments in any new proposal. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)