Wikidata:Property proposal/noun for other gender
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
noun of other gender
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes
Not done
| Description | noun for person or subject with different gender |
|---|---|
| Data type | Lexeme |
| Example 1 | duchesse (L11609) → duc |
| Example 2 | baigneuse (L10376) → baigneur |
| Example 3 | ours (L11591) → ourse |
Motivation
[edit]As forms and sense may be different. (Add your motivation for this property here.)
--- Jura 15:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- @VIGNERON: what do you think?
--- Jura 07:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)- Interesting, but I'm not sure what to think... Could you explain a bit more why you created duchesse (L11609) and baigneuse (L10376) and not just used forms? (I guess I understand the idea but please explain it in your own words) And the name is maybe not right noun of other gender assume it's only for noun and that there is only two gender which can be problematic. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- If the meaning of "duchesse" can be (1) a duke who is female, (2) the wife of a duke, and we add it as form to "duc", each sense would need to list the form(s) it applies to. I guess in theory, a "duc" could be the spouse of a "duchesse", but probably not. "ours" can be any specimen of the species or family, a male specimen, etc. The same isn't true for "ourse". It's limited to nouns as I don't think we should do the same for adjectives. I think the label should work for the use cases at hand. It can be expanded later if needed. Suggestions for better labels are always welcome.
--- Jura 08:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC) - @VIGNERON: shall we go ahead with this?
--- Jura 12:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)- @Jura1: that is what I was thinking, same for a lot of others noun (like maîtresse@fr can be the feminine form of maître@fr or a lover). But it can be way more complicated like "duke" can also be a female duke (most notably the Queen of England is Duke of Normandy, not Duchess of Normandy...). Still not sure about the name of this property name (maybe more something like "equivalent in an other gender") but that can be improved later. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @VIGNERON:. Ok. Do you support the proposal?
--- Jura 17:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)- @Jura1: I don't feel that I get enough of the big picture yet, I remain uncertain so neutral. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @VIGNERON:. Ok. Do you support the proposal?
- @Jura1: that is what I was thinking, same for a lot of others noun (like maîtresse@fr can be the feminine form of maître@fr or a lover). But it can be way more complicated like "duke" can also be a female duke (most notably the Queen of England is Duke of Normandy, not Duchess of Normandy...). Still not sure about the name of this property name (maybe more something like "equivalent in an other gender") but that can be improved later. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- If the meaning of "duchesse" can be (1) a duke who is female, (2) the wife of a duke, and we add it as form to "duc", each sense would need to list the form(s) it applies to. I guess in theory, a "duc" could be the spouse of a "duchesse", but probably not. "ours" can be any specimen of the species or family, a male specimen, etc. The same isn't true for "ourse". It's limited to nouns as I don't think we should do the same for adjectives. I think the label should work for the use cases at hand. It can be expanded later if needed. Suggestions for better labels are always welcome.
- Interesting, but I'm not sure what to think... Could you explain a bit more why you created duchesse (L11609) and baigneuse (L10376) and not just used forms? (I guess I understand the idea but please explain it in your own words) And the name is maybe not right noun of other gender assume it's only for noun and that there is only two gender which can be problematic. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Question is this for pairs like señor@es and señora@es? Or waiter@en and waitress@en? KaMan (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- It would work for the first one. I'm not sure about the second one.
--- Jura 12:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)- I think in most languages king/queen works, a queen is almost always two senses (but is it really two lexemes?): wife of king queen consort (Q719039) or female monarch queen regnant (Q19643). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @KaMan: do you consider supporting the proposal in its present form?
--- Jura 19:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)- @Jura1: I have positive feeling about this property but it worries me that for items we have already male form of label (P3321) and female form of label (P2521). I think there should be some plan of replacement otherwise it could be duplication of work. KaMan (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Eventually, in one way or the other, but I think it's too early. Many things in L-namespace still need work and such replacement might need LUA functions that don't exist even for items. As many labels should eventually also be in L-namespace, I don't think duplication can be avoided.
--- Jura 07:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Eventually, in one way or the other, but I think it's too early. Many things in L-namespace still need work and such replacement might need LUA functions that don't exist even for items. As many labels should eventually also be in L-namespace, I don't think duplication can be avoided.
- It would work for the first one. I'm not sure about the second one.
Not done No support.--Micru (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)