Talk:sahib *imək

This is an interesting and innovative way of approaching this sort of predicates. I am fundamentally positive about this approach. But, we should consider that involving *imäk for this sort of predicates could be less desirable for the purposes of lexicography. I suggest that instead of positing a separate lemma with the defective *imäk, we create a new header, ===Predicative=== under the noun, like I did with gäräk and lazim, and put the content of this sort there. It would look something like this:

Etymology
Ultimately from.

Noun
sahib


 * 1) owner, possessor

Predicative

 * 1) to own, possess, have

Conjugation
I would be really interested in hearing opinions on this. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is easier to read, yes. But I don't remember having ever written that olmaq was defective. That is not what suppletive means. I've changed the definition of "suppletive". —Sahib1609 (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * gərək, lazım, and quite a few others work exactly the same way. Shall we create lazım *imək, gərək  *imək etc. too? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If we present them as predicatives it might not be necessary unless as redirects —Sahib1609 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * so you agree to move sahib imək and malik imək to sahib and malik too? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, OK —Sahib1609 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Qəşşşəng. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)