Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Part of speech

Part of speech
Voting on: Editing WT:EL, a subsection of "The entry core".

Current text:


 * The part of speech or other descriptor

This is usually a level-3 header but may be a higher-level header when multiple etymologies or pronunciations are a factor. This header most often shows the part of speech, but is not restricted to “parts of speech” in the traditional sense. Many other descriptors are allowed, like “Proper noun”, “Idiom”, “Abbreviation”, “Symbol”, “Prefix”, “Prepositional phrase”, etc.


 * References

Proposed text:


 * Part of speech

Part of speech (POS) is a descriptor like “Noun” or “Adjective”; they are different types of terms, phrases, symbols, morphemes and other lexical units on Wiktionary. Each entry has one or more POS sections. In each, there is a headword line, followed by the definitions themselves.

Allowed POS headers:


 * Parts of speech: Adjective, Adverb, Ambiposition, Article, Circumposition, Classifier, Conjunction, Contraction, Counter, Determiner, Interjection, Noun, Numeral, Participle, Particle, Postposition, Preposition, Pronoun, Proper noun, Verb
 * Morphemes: Circumfix, Combining form, Infix, Interfix, Prefix, Root, Suffix
 * Symbols and characters: Diacritical mark, Letter, Ligature, Number, Punctuation mark, Syllable, Symbol
 * Phrases: Phrase, Proverb, Prepositional phrase
 * Han characters and language-specific varieties: Han character, Hanzi, Kanji, Hanja
 * Lojban-specific parts of speech: Brivla, Cmavo, Gismu, Lujvo, Rafsi
 * Romanization

Other headers can be proposed as new additions to the list. The use of nonstandard POS headers may cause an entry to be categorized in a cleanup category for further inspection.

Some POS headers are explicitly disallowed:


 * Abbreviation, Acronym, Initialism
 * “(POS) form”: Verb form, Noun form, etc.
 * “(POS) phrase”: Noun phrase, Verb phrase, etc. (with the exception of Prepositional phrase)
 * “(attribute) (POS)”: Transitive verb, Personal pronoun, etc. (with the exception of Proper noun)
 * “(POS) (number)”: Noun 1, Noun 2, etc.
 * Cardinal number, Ordinal number, Cardinal numeral, Ordinal numeral
 * Clitic, Gerund, Idiom


 * References

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote amended, with unanimous support:  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/December
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/December
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/Part of speech

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support moving "Ligature" from disallowed to allowed per I.S.M.E.T.A.. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  -- profesjonalizm • reply 01:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you support "moving 'Ligature' from disallowed to allowed per" Daniel Carrero and me? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, you have my support, this looks good. profesjonalizm • reply 10:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Vote amended. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)   -Xbony2 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you support "moving 'Ligature' from disallowed to allowed per" Daniel Carrero and me? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ; seems like an appropriate move to me. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just profesjonalizm left now… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  — I don't think that Clitic and Ligature should be disallowed; moreover, Verbnoun should be an explicitly permitted part of speech. Be that as it may, the proposed text is considerably better than what we have at the moment. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Post edited (“Weak” stricken). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: æ and œ are arbitrarily using "Letter" and "Symbol" POS headers in different languages. Maybe using the "Ligature" as the POS header for all of them could be an improvement, I'm not really sure. Either way, I don't think we use it now so it would be a separate proposal/vote.--Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are Clitic and Ligature "explicitly disallowed"? Unless a policy somewhere explicitly disallows them, this vote would have that effect (which would, therefore, make it something up for discussion in this vote). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but are "Ligature" and "Clitic" used anywhere as POS headers? се uses "Pronoun" for clitics in some languages, other entries do the same. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Something that simply isn't used is at most " im plicitly disallowed". How many of those headers that you've listed as "explicitly disallowed" really are disallowed explicitly? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At Beer parlour/2015/December I asked people to review this vote, but looking back I admit that I could have said "see if you agree with all the disallowed headers", I just said "see if I forgot any POS header", which is kind of the other side of the coin.
 * Related discussion: Beer parlour/2010/May. To answer my last question, I've found out that the 16 members of Category:Translingual ligatures use the "Ligature" header, also there's Category:Hindi ligatures with 1 member: ज्ञ.
 * It's probably true that some of those headers weren't expliclty disallowed before this vote. Either way, I'm all for having an explicit list of allowed and disallowed POS headers. Documenting our unspoken rules is kind of the whole purpose behind my current EL votes. If I've made any obvious mistake in the list, there's always the "Support but Oppose this part" option. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, does any entry use "Verbnoun"? Category:Verbnouns by language is currently empty. Note that the proposed text says "Other headers can be proposed as new additions to the list." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the link to that discussion. I don't know if you read it, but, by my interpretation, it demonstrates consensus in favour of using Ligature as an L3 header. There are over five hundred Unicode codepoints whose names include the word LIGATURE; apart from these forty-nine characters: Ĳ ĳ Œ œ Ҥ ҥ Ҵ ҵ Ӕ ӕ և װ ױ ײ ؖ| ؖ ۖ| ۖ ۗ| ۗ ꟹ ﬀ ﬁ ﬂ ﬃ ﬄ ﬅ ﬆ ﬓ ﬔ ﬕ ﬖ ﬗ ײַ ﭏ ︠ ︡ ︧ ︨ ﻵ ﻶ ﻷ ﻸ ﻹ ﻺ ﻻ ﻼ 𑅶 🙰 🙱 🙲 🙳, there are also 467 Arabic ligatures between ﯪ|U+FBEA ARABIC LIGATURE YEH WITH HAMZA ABOVE WITH ALEF ISOLATED FORM and ﷽|U+FDFD ARABIC LIGATURE BISMILLAH AR-RAHMAN AR-RAHEEM. If we are to take Unicode nomenclature as our guide, there appears to be considerable call for the use of Ligature as an L3 header. Re the Verbnoun L3 header, it isn't used much (or, perhaps, at all) yet, AFAIK; however, it's needed for Welsh (see ), and will see more use once entries for Welsh's conjugated forms are created. Re "having an explicit list of allowed and disallowed POS headers", yes, I totally agree with that aim, and your current drive to "[d]ocument…our unspoken rules" is a noble one; I just have a few niggles with the details. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying it's a noble drive. I edited my vote to support allowing Ligature. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't think I care enough about Clitic and, as you said concerning Verbnoun, other headers can be proposed as new additions to the list. So, if Ligature be allowed, this proposal has my full support. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * comment Verbal noun is used widely in Georgian and Arabic.--Dixtosa (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this in reference to Verbnoun? If so, can you show me similar use for Welsh, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  The vote removes "or other descriptor" from "The part of speech or other descriptor". Our L3 headings are not restricted to parts of speech; e.g. "Symbol" is not a part of speech, nor is "Phrase" or "Suffix". There may be other issues not so obvious; the vote replaces something very generic with a detailed laundry list that maybe easily contain issues. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  Are we sure that this list of PoSes is exhaustive for all languages? Shouldn't we have some procedure for adding PoSes for languages whose grammatical traditional use other PoSes? DCDuring TALK  18:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from the Lojban-specific POSes already in the proposed list, are you thinking of some other language? I perused Entry layout/POS headers and User:AutoFormat/Headers before creating this vote, with the intent of creating an exhaustive, updated POS list (both pages are very outdated), but I admit I may have missed some POS header. If that's the case, as the proposed text says, "Other headers can be proposed as new additions to the list." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that there may some languages that have grammars that would be better presented using names other than the ones we claim constitute an exhaustive list, either because they have distinct grammatical traditions or because some terms, probably function words, are distinct, important, and form a class. I don't think we should be so arrogant as to claim that we have an exhaustive list of word classes satisfactory for all languages, including those for which we have no entries yet. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence "Other headers can be proposed as new additions to the list." serves well as a disclaimer that the list may be expanded. But I wouldn't mind clarifying further, exactly how comprehensive the allowed/disallowed list is. Maybe the disclaimer could go on like this: "These are our currently allowed POS headers. This is not an exhaustive list, and may change based on the needs of languages currently on Wiktionary or that may added in the future." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Decision

 * 5-1-1 (83.3-16.7): Passed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Edited WT:EL accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)