[12:02:39] Z19395 🤔 I wonder how we distinguish between cases where there is no such (standard) form and when the form is absent from Wikidata by omission. [18:31:31] When Wikifunctions fetches a lexeme, using Z6825 (https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z6825), there are no forms intentionally omitted. Z6825 (https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z6825) is written to include all nested forms inside its result and Z19395 (https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z19395), when called from the UI, will get that result as its input [18:31:31] argument. I ju [18:31:32] st checked on Wikidata, and indeed L6080 (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Lexeme:L6080) only shows one form, and that formally has a single grammatical feature, Q3482678. (re @Al: Z19395 🤔 I wonder how we distinguish between cases where there is no such (standard) form and when the form is absent from Wikid...) [18:32:41] Having said that, it's true that Z6825 (https://www.wikifunctions.org/view/en/Z6825) does _not_ currently return nested senses, and does not return all nested statements. We are working on this currently. Also, we are preparing a wiki page that explains what's been done and what's yet to be done, as well as giving a general overview of support for Wikidata content. [18:32:42] This page s [18:32:42] hould be online in the next couple of days, and we will announce it here. Apologies that we didn't make this page available previously! [18:50:34] Indeed! Thank you for your reply… It is (arguably) quite correct that there is no comparative form on Wikidata, because there is no such (standard) form. The question is, how do we know that this is a deliberate omission on Wikidata, rather than incomplete data, so that we can reliably infer that a periphrastic form (“more expensive”) would be appropriate? (re @David: [18:50:34] When [18:50:35] Wikifunctions fetches a lexeme, using Z6825, there are no forms intentionally omitted. Z6825 is written to include all ne...) [18:55:36] Oh, I see... Thanks for clarifying! Good question. [19:07:38] if it really is necessary to note this, then this could be done by adding P31 Q58691134 to the adjective, as is done on L5846, L53887, and L656970 (re @Al: Indeed! Thank you for your reply… It is (arguably) quite correct that there is no comparative form on Wikidata, because there is...) [19:14:07] L656970 is interesting because the same adjective in Arabic means "stranger", "neglected", or "strange" but not "poor". [19:14:35] This shift in meaning should absolutely be studied by linguists. [19:28:05] Interesting thought, thanks! English adjectives are generally indeclinable in that sense. Inflection for comparative and superlative is a separate feature (or features). And, this being English, we shouldn’t necessarily prefer the inflected form just because it happens to exist… 🤷‍♂️ (re @mahir256: if it really is necessary to note this, then this could be done by ad [19:28:05] [19:28:06] ding P31 Q58691134 to the adjective, as is done on L5846, L...)