Open jmccrae opened 4 years ago
We should keep the same original strategy used in PWN. We can confirm with Fellbaum but valence is related to sense so yes.
I created a list of the verbs with both transitive and intransitive frames here:
https://github.com/globalwordnet/english-wordnet/blob/issue-510-working/vti-verbs.csv
The main work of this issue will be firstly, two create both a v.t. and v.i. definition for each of these verbs. Secondly, we will introduce a new troponym, that reflects the transitivity of the verb
I am moving this out of the current release. In part because this would be a lot of work to introduce over a thousand new verb senses. More importantly, I am not sure that we should be making this distinction, especially in the case where the intransitive verb is just an existential quantification over the object, e.g., 'X kills' means '∃ Y . X kills Y'.
However, it seems that at the moment, there is some inconsistency in the current implementation and we should monitor this as we make other changes to the verb hierarchy to ensure a consistent solution.
Should we distinguish all transitive and intransitive senses of verbs?
There are currently 1,466 verb senses with both a transitive and intransitive frame and probably many more that. Should we make an effort to split these senses into two senses?