Talk:Q503992
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — nominal (Q503992)
description: word class consisting of pronouns, nouns, adjectives and numerals
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “nominal” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
nominal⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
not a subclass of part of speech
[edit]nominal is an instance of part of speech (Q82042), not a subclass. I'm going to make this change. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why then it has subclasses/instances (noun, adjective...) which are parts of speech too? --Infovarius (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. Probably because there are lots of problems there. Some more investigation is probably warranted. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- So before, adjective was a subclass of nominal which was a subclass of part of speech, which is just wrong, as well as being an instance of part of speech, which is correct. Now at least adjective is in the right place. Similarly for (most of) the other parts of speech. Maybe nominal should not be a part of speech at all, but that's a question for a linguist not an ontologist. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, may be this is the argument. But don't you feel that nominal parts of speech (at least that's how they are called in my language) are in some subordinate relation (P31 or P279 I am not sure) to nominal? --Infovarius (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, they should be but my change was only about moving nominal to the correct place. If these other parts of speech were related to nominal before they still are; if they weren't they still are not. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, may be this is the argument. But don't you feel that nominal parts of speech (at least that's how they are called in my language) are in some subordinate relation (P31 or P279 I am not sure) to nominal? --Infovarius (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)