Wiktionary talk:Semantic relations

Layout
This is a very interesting addition. Why was WS:ELE changed to reference it? There does not seem to be consensus that anyone will use the extra breakdowns even if they are correct. On the other hand, synonyms and antonyms are touted in the very first sentence of Main Page.

While the academic value of this page is not questioned, the value of trying to force additional headings onto the community accepted layout format is. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * These new headings are not expected to be widely use. They are more here for completeness and for people that wish to be more specific. Since there are AFAIK no consenus on how to be more specific I saw no real harm in adding the page as well as the link to WS:ELE.


 * The reasons that I didn't discussed it first are:
 * I don't see this as really controverial. People that disagee with details are welcome to make changes as well as discussing it after the fact.
 * It is one thing to go against consenus, it is quite another to decide on your own to fill in the holes. Wiki* projects are primarily about doing and only secondarily about discussing.


 * That said I'm very happy that I finally got some reaction. Good or bad. --Patrik Stridvall 09:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WordNet citation
A reference should be added to the WordNet project (see Princeton_wordnet), from which this list of semantic relations was presumably derived. --Tomasohara 18:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Level of "Semantic relations" header
Examples contain level 3 and level 4 headers: ===Synonyms=== ====Synonyms====

But, in really, level is 4 or 5 are used. Level 5 is used in case of several etymologies (see e.g. Synonyms in lead).

So, examples should be corrected. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky 08:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed this too. Since all entries have at least "Language" (level 2 heading) and "Part of speech" (level 3 heading) hierachy; this leaves a minimum level 4 for adding the "Synonyms" and similar headings. I've fixed inconsistencies in the examples. &mdash; Nvtj (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Holonym/Hypernym
These (and their associated entries) need to be cleaned up and expanded to explain how they're supposed to be different from one another. As it stands, the only difference seems to be that the word hypernym exists and holonym doesn't, outside us and a cite-needed Wikipedia stub. Even granting holonym's existence arguendo, it doesn't seem like a very useful distinction to bother with some entries having sections for superordinate-category/object-without-discrete-parts versus superordinate-category/object-with-discrete-parts. It's useful to note, e.g., that Tartary was a larger space inclusive of Manchuria but seems needless to call it a "holonym" when the OED's definition for "hypernym" (and ours) works just fine. The territory which constitutes Manchuria also constituted territory within Tartary. — LlywelynII  12:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)