Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Thames河. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Thames河, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Thames河 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Thames河 you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Thames河 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Thames河, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
This construction (English proper noun + Chinese word for river) could be used with any river not originating from a Chinese speaking region in the world. For example, Thames河 (the River Thames), Avon河 (any Avon river), Amazon河 (the Amazon) and Rhine河 (the Rhine), all of which have or can have Chinese phonetic translations. They are 泰晤士(河), 艾文河, 亚马逊(河) and 莱因河 respectively. The mixed script version is almost exclusively used among bilingual speakers of English and Chinese, and will not be understood by any monolingual Chinese speaker. So I suggest to delete the mixed versions and only include the phonetic Chinese versions. Any input is appreciated. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
If it "will not be understood by any monolingual Chinese speaker", that speaker might want to look it up in a dictionary. Of course, the argument could be made that these are SOP and the speaker could just look up "Thames" and "河". I am at the moment very weakly inclined to keep these if they are attested. Note that both "Rhine河" and "Rhein河" get about 1500 hits on Google: I haven't decided if the fact that different languages' names for the rivers can be used makes the compounds seem more or less appropriate for inclusion. - -sche(discuss)01:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
These are definitely attestable (e.g. the first hit for Rhine河 on google is an article on blogspot.com about someone's travel experience in Koblenz). That's why I didn't include this topic in rfv. It's just a matter of should or should not. As I said, I am inclined towards deletion, but I am open to comments such as yours. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C01:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
After some thought, I am more strongly inclined to keep these, because different languages' names — and especially because other exonyms — are used in the compounds. The existence of forms like "Rhine河" (alongside "Rhein河") and "Danube河" (alongside "Donau河" and "Duna河") means that the compounds are not formed only by combining the river's non-Chinese endonym (in the absence of a Chinese endonym like 黄) with "河": instead, sometimes other exonyms are used. ("Rhine" is no better than "莱茵(河)"; both are exonyms.) This is bizarre, and we should explain it. We should tell in the etymology section what language the Latin-script part is, and if it is an exonym, we should link (eg to Rhine) so that users can learn (from the translations section of Rhine) what the river is actually called by the people near it; we should also have synonym sections for the Chinese exonyms. If the Chinese names are SOP, they can be unlinked or linked like this: ]]. - -sche(discuss)02:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Strong delete. We should have a clear language policy to avoid this bullsh.t. English or other language words can always be found in a Mandarin text, it doesn't make the foreign words Mandarin. This is a clearcut Chinglish!. --Anatoli02:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
@-sche. I already mentioned at Talk:Ampere定律 that foreign words are mentioned only once for clarity if at all, so that native Chinese speakers are not confused about the identity of a person, place name, etc. E.g. like in Chinese Wikipedia: 泰晤士河 (英语：River Thames). The Chinese transliteration of foreign names is complex, no doubt, and there is some level of incosistency and rare names may not have an established translation but writing names in Roman letters is not a feature of native speakers, they only write it when they don't know how to write it properly. If there is an established translation of a name, though, writing it in Roman letters should be avoided, otherwise every single English name will get a Chinese entry. --Anatoli03:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Strong delete. Standard Chinese is and has always been (for > 3000 years) written with Chinese characters. None of the orthography standards in PRC (中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法) and ROC (常用國字標準字體表, 次常用國字標準字體表, 罕用字體表) recognise the use of non-Chinese scripts. I don't understand why non-speakers often consider this worthy of inclusion (both here and at Talk:Ampere定律). English proper nouns get mixed into other languages all the time, the fact that Chinese, being the only major language written completely with a non-phonemic writing system, sometimes contains these words for clarity, does not at all make them Chinese. 60.240.101.24603:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
What you explain is a strong rationale for keeping. If they are used in Chinese, they should be kept. It's the same for words such as autoroute: can this word really be considered as an English word? Still, it has an Englsih section. Creating a section for a language does not mean that the word fully and naturally belongs to the language, only that it is used in the language. Lmaltier05:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
What the anon user means is, in Chinese it's OK and common to write a Chinese word followed by the original or English spelling for clarity, e.g.: 泰晤士河(Tàiwùshì Hé) (Thames). It may difficult to tell, which river "Tàiwùshì Hé" actually is. Knowing the correct characters for a foreign name is a challenge for Chinese themselves and they do write it in English and other languages, if they don't know the hanzi, nothing more, nothing less. Can I ask not to make assumptions if you don't know how Mandarin works? Your parallels are not appropriate without some background knowledge. --Anatoli05:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't assume anything. I ask questions (uses or mentions?) and I say that, if it's used, it should be included. You explain that English words are often mentioned for clarification. Obviousy, this is not a reason for including them as a Chinese section. But what of the term under discussion? From what I understand from discussions, citations use the English term instead of the Chinese character(s), and they are not only mentions (but this is only my understanding from the discussion). Lmaltier17:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Strong delete. Though rarer, Japanese occasionally does the same thing, using foreign words in other writing systems after the Japanese kana or kanji rendering, purely for clarification. This does not turn such foreign words into Japanese just because they're being used in a Japanese context, any more than an English writer using Japanese or Chinese purely for clarification turn those words into English. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig16:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have no informed opinion because I know no Mandarin. However, I get the nomination. 河(hé) means river so this is SoP Thames + 河. But if you look up Thames there's no Mandarin entry. However there is an English entry, and we deleted the Portuguese entry for I love you as the usage in Portuguese only refers to the English phrase. Similarly, if I say "the French for White House is Maison Blanche" then the fact that Maison Blanche appears in an English sentence doesn't make it English. Hopefully this has provided some clarity, as I myself am not qualified to give an informed opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
In at least some of the citations available on Google Books, "Thames河" is used not in parentheses and not followed by "泰晤士河" (see Citations:Thames河 for one example). If these books were only mentioning the Latin script form, giving it to disambiguate or clarify the Chinese form, I would expect the Chinese form to be given, but in some instances, it isn't. The mixed-script term seems to be used in those instances. The idea that instances of mixed-script are clarificatory also doesn't completely explain why non-Chinese exonyms are sometimes used: on Google, I can find "Волга河" (Russian), "Volga河" (English) and "Wolga河" (German!). I understand the feeling that these mixed-script proper placename nouns are not Chinese, but at least a few of them seem to be used in Chinese. - -sche(discuss)21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
To get to what I'm discovering might be a more core argument: sure, these terms might be used in Chinese, but are they used as Chinese? To wit, do they have any intrinsically Chinese meaning, any meaning in Chinese that is different from how the terms are used in other languages, or are these terms being used purely as foreign (i.e. non-Chinese) words?
If the former, fine, let's list them as Chinese and lay out the specific Chinese meanings. If the latter, as with Москва#English above, I feel very strongly that these terms do not belong under Chinese (or in -sche's case, English) headings. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig22:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the usage of qualifier -河, 公园, etc. but the usage of English names in Chinese is a clearcut Chinglish. Even though Chinese in London may say Hyde公园 (pronouncing Hyde as in English) or even "Hyde Park", it's because they become anglicised. The proper way to say Hyde Park in Mandarin is 海德公园(Hǎidé gōngyuán). Are you going to create Hyde公园/Hyde Gōngyuán now? --Anatoli00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
They existis not enough. You are being disingenuous, and are successfully getting up a lot of people's noses, including my own if I'm honest. Contrafibularities and frasmotic also "exist", but they are not valid words. (deprecated template usage)Thames may exist in English and (deprecated template usage)河 may exist in Chinese, and "Thames河" may exist in Chinese texts, but that does not necessarily make the combined term valid as Chinese.
Strong delete. It is not a Chinese word; Chinese words are written in Chinese characters, with occasional Latin letters, but not whole words from other languages, that's just stupid. We don't include English words with random characters, so why does Chinese get subjected to this treatment? What's next? book书?
Lest I remind you all that the person who created this entry has had hundreds of other crap entries deleted, both speedily and through RfD and RfV, has evaded a dozen blocks over the past year and trolled discussions in almost every discussion page, so the fact that you didn't just trust the Mandarin editors who have contributed years to this project to deal with this in the first place is pretty mind-boggling. ---> Tooironic23:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm getting quite frustrated too with the attitudes, Carl. abc123's crazy ideas seem to have gained supporters. (If we allow creating such stupidity, I'll move to other interesting projects) I have suggested to create a policy disallowing proper names in Mandarin if they are not in Chinese characters, regardless whether they are citable. This is the only way we can keep Mandarin entries free of stupidity. I missed how we allowed Alzheimer病 entry to stay as well. This should not be here!
Do you think you deserve an apology, moron, after what you've done? My Mandarin? Not all words have an equivalent, as simple as that, so Chinese people will just say them in English, it doesn't justify making wrong entries. In my Mandarin Gunnersbury park is 君納士貝莉公園／君纳士贝莉公园/君纳士贝莉公园(Jūnnàshìbèilì gōngyuán) or 根拿斯貝利公園／根拿斯贝利公园/根拿斯贝利公园(Gēnnásībèilì gōngyuán). --Anatoli00:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Good work! That's the idea, foreign names are transliterated into Chinese chracaters and sometimes the result is funny or offensive, that's why care should be taken so that the meaning of characters is good and there is a standard set of characters that are used only in foreign names. Transliteration or sometimes translation into Chinese is a better skill to master and takes effort. The dictionary of foreign proper names in Chinese (世界人名翻译大辞典) just keeps growing. --Anatoli01:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
世界人名翻译大辞典 gives "冈纳斯伯里"/"岡納斯伯里" (Gāngnàsībólĭ). So go away, you obviously have some agenda related to Pinyinisation and dream of a world in Pinyin. There's no possibility that Chinese will even remotely consider digraphia in the future, and even if there is that's something for native-language planners to decide, not you. 60.240.101.24602:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, I 'm not departing from the topic. The topic is - (an English proper name) + 河, 公园, 市, 岛, whatever, should not be allowed as Mandarin. --Anatoli03:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Transcription into Chinese characters: "In People's Republic of China, the official guide for the transcription of people's names is the Names of the world's peoples: a comprehensive dictionary of names in Roman-Chinese (世界人名翻译大辞典), compiled by the Proper Names and Translation Service of the Xinhua News Agency." Media in PRC must adhere to the transcriptions given in those dictionaries. This is enough to show 冈纳斯伯里公园 is standard. 60.240.101.24603:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
The two official dictionaries on proper nouns (人名, 地名) combined has more than 800,000 entries. You expect all of them to be attestable in Google Books? 60.240.101.24603:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but there is the distinction of standard orthography and non-standard writing in most languages, which is a fact that Wiktionary must recognise. Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion is clearly heavily English-orientated, it doesn't give enough attention to the orthography rules set out by language regulators of other languages. The outcome would be completely different if the regulators were absent or non-functional. Without Qin Shi Huang abolishing and "non-standardify"ing numerous "variant" characters, the Chinese writing system would probably be a mess now. Without character simplification in PRC in the 1950s, people in PRC would probably still be using the traditional characters and it'll be a much simpler picture for Wiktionary. Especially, without the promotion of Pinyin by PRC government, you'll have no Pinyin to work with! Is that what you really want? 60.240.101.24604:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
The simplification also brought the standardisation, abolishing many variant chracters and setting the rules on how to write foreign names. Foreign names have been written in many variants, no doubt, both before and after standardisation but invariably in Chinese chracters only. We may go wrong in choosing the right characters for rare names or names, for which the transliteration have not been established but like in any language, we may include those alternative spellings if they common, however, Chinese writes foreign names in the native script, not in Roman letters, which is the whole point of this discussion, not which spelling is right for "Gunnersbury Park" or any other proper name, not widely known in China.
One of my Chinese teachers has written a book about Australia. It obviously has many place and person's names. They are all written in Chinese characters, the original name given once in brackets to avoid any confusion, eg. Victoria (state) - 维多利亚州 (Wéiduōlìyǎ zhōu) or 维州 (Wéi-zhōu, abbrev.) (Victoria). Further Victoria would not be repeated. You'll find citations of Victoria州. Should we then go and claim that Victoria州 is a Chinese translation of Victoria? --Anatoli05:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
So what? Words used by native speakers which don't conform to orthography standards are deemed non-standard all the time. English users quite often write supercede for supersede, accessable for accessible; The Standard Comprehensive Korean Dictionary (표준국어대사전) lists thousands of words as "‘...’의 잘못" ("misspelt form of '...'"); In German words like Eßstäbchen effectively become non-standard after the Rechtschreibreform in 1996; Same for French, and standardisation of loanwords in Japanese (外来語の表記) and Korean (외래어 표기법). What are you trying to prove here? That there is variation means the name in original script should be imported unchanged? 60.240.101.24603:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I'm persuaded by our Sinophone editors that these mixed-script placenames should not be allowed. (I think that leaves Lmaltier(?) and one of the two IPs as the only editors arguing "keep".) Eirikr in particular found a way of phrasing the distinction I was looking for: a sentence like "He could walk alone on the streets of Москва because of curfews dude." is clearly using "Москва" in English, but it is not using "Москва" as English. A sentence like "首先看到的是Thames河的出海口", without parentheses or 泰晤士河, is using "Thames" to the same extent, but not using it as Chinese. I strongly agree with Anatoli's suggestion in the BP and here that we decide and formalise this with a vote, though. - -sche(discuss)06:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
People are not excluded from holding an opinion just because a troll does. If I had blocking powers, I would block and revert abc123 on sight. We may not be able to stop every IP he edits from, but we can certainly stop him from walking around as a registered user engaging in discussions, and we can make his changes moot.--Prosfilaes08:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Keep in RFD; move to RFV if desired.Abstain.Weak keep if. the term is attestable in Chinese durably archived sources. The term may be marked as non-standard if fit. What I see in the pro-deletion arguments above is what looks to me like some sort of non-Angloamerican lexicographical prescriptivism, which basically says that whatever is non-standard should be deleted, no matter whether it meets CFI and is attestable. See also Wiktionary:CFI#Attestation_vs._the_slippery_slope, and Wiktionary's having "pr0n" in particular. The condition of attestability is key; I acknowledge the following: google books:"Thames河" gives only 7 hits; google:"Thames河" has only 4,650 hits (most of which do not count toward attestation); Citations:Thames河 presently hosts only one citation. An alternative to keeping is pronounce this an uncommon misspelling, while we keep only common misspellings. --Dan Polansky 10:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Later: But these are not really misspellings either: "Thames" is not written as an accidental error but rather with full intention. In any case, even if this is attestable, it is very rare. I switch to "abstain from the subject" right now. --Dan Polansky 10:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Even later: actually, if the term is not attestable, it will fail RFV. I am not going to support a deletion in RFD that does not refer to CFI. --Dan Polansky09:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
There is no only one standard for Chinese language. Chinese is not only for Mainland China, but for Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore and overseas. Such as President Bush is written as 布什, 布殊 and Bush as well. 2.25.212.412:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Again, you're being disingenuous (or possibly just very dense). We already have a record of the word (deprecated template usage)Thames in this instance. This word is decidedly not Chinese. And, tellingly, you have not even attempted to fully address the arguments that (deprecated template usage)Thames is simply an English word used in a Chinese context. Your best try is simply to insist that "Thames河" is somehow an integral whole, but insistence alone without a solid argument backing it up is wholly inadequate, and does nothing to invalidate the point that "Thames河" is a sum-of-parts phrase consisting of (deprecated template usage)Thames and (deprecated template usage)河.
As Stephen notes in the Москва entry below, such use "is called w:code-switching. Just because a foreign word is inserted unchanged into an English text" (or, in this case, a Chinese text) "doesn’t make it suddenly English" (or Chinese).
Please, read the w:code-switching article and familiarize yourself with this phenomenon. My wife and I are both native English speakers who have lived in Japan, and we sometimes use Japanese terms in otherwise completely English sentences. This does not make those Japanese terms English -- this is code-switching. Likewise, Chinese speakers (and writers) who use the term (deprecated template usage)Thames in otherwise completely Chinese sentences are doing the same thing -- code-switching: using an English term, as an English term, but in a Chinese context.
Engirst, collocation does not necessarily mean that the whole is an integral term. By your logic, I could just as well argue that "(deprecated template usage)the sky" is an integral term deserving of its own entry. Please read up on linguistic concepts before trying to make pronouncements about such things. Your ignorance is severely impeding your ability to communicate effectively. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Proper nouns of the format + are exactly that -- a name, plus a geographical feature. They are not "whole words", but rather combinations of words. Some multi-word phrases are indeed included here in Wiktionary, but that is usually when the phrase has some specific idiomatic meaning, or when an editor has made a subjective decision to include the term and other editors have not objected. (deprecated template usage)Thames河 faces a lot of objection here. I agree with those objections. Your arguments to include (deprecated template usage)Thames河 have so far not made a lot of sense, and are not very compelling. I say that as a matter of fact, not insult. If you wish to change our minds about (deprecated template usage)Thames河, please think of some other angle, some other points to make, to try to convince us. Repeating the same points that we have already refuted is not going to work. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig23:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
For Thames河, it seems you are right, as we can get the meaning from Thames + 河. But, How about Sugar Mountain? Could we really get the right meaning from "suger + mountain". And how about Mexico City, is it sum-of-parts?
We are discussing about sum-of-parts but the topic is about to ban mixed scripts, maybe we are apart from this topic. Engirst00:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. The Great Salt Lake isn't Lake Great Salt and Lake Ontario is not the Ontario Lake; Pikes Peak is not Mount Pikes, and Mount Everest is not Everest Peak. I'm not sure if I think Wiktionary is the right place for all these geographical names, but I don't see this one as fundamentally different.--Prosfilaes08:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Moreover, there are cases where there is only one major geographic feature with a particular given name, such as the Thames or Everest -- adding the "river" or "mount" portions is optional, and used more as disambiguation. Disambig is a similar theme for Washington vs. Washington, DC / Washington State, or New York vs. New York City / New York State -- the shorter forms are used as often as not, indicating that the "DC" or "state" or "city" portions are used more for disambiguation. Meanwhile, where disambiguation is not an issue, I've also heard folks in the Niagara Falls area or in the Great Falls area just say "I'm going to the falls" with no mention of "Niagara" or "Great"; or just using the proper name portion for Mount Mitchell ("we spent two nights camping up on Mitchell") or the Susquehanna River ("boating on the Susquehanna").
I will certainly grant that certain places are described using specific collocative phrases when using the full address, as it were -- as Prosfilaes notes, saying "Everest Peak" or "Mountain of Pike" could confuse the listener. That said, I still think these can be described as SOP phrases. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
The searches are unconvincing to me. google:"Hyde+and+Greenwich+Parks" finds 44 hits on the whole of the world wibe web--that does not seem like the standard usage. google:"Lake+of+Ontario" (31,100 web hits) finds such hits as "Mississagua Lake is a lake of Ontario", while it also finds hits you were looking for. google:"Great+Lake+of+Salt" finds mere 2,680 hits on the world wide web. To me, your searches do more disservices than service to your claims. What you demonstrate is that there is a small minority of uses (on the whole web, which is not considered durably archived as a whole) that deviate from the overwhelming common practice as regards these names. --Dan Polansky07:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
As for code-switching, when bilingual speakers mix the languages, that's one thing. But when a word from language a starts being used in otherwise grammatical language b sentences, that's how languages gain vocabulary. "I want sushi, and can we turn off the bukkake on the TV while I'm eating?" is not an example of code-switching.--Prosfilaes08:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I wonder how long are you going to waste people's time here. Are you just waiting for people to get sick of you and give up? We have already explained to you but you keep trolling your point of view.
It's probably best to enforce the language policy banning English proper nouns (with any suffix like 河, 公园, 州, 市, 山, etc.) to be under Mandarin heading. Otherwise, we will get rubbish like Paris市, New York州, etc. --Anatoli23:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Delete per Anatoli (though this vote is pointless, considering that persistent POV pushing (trolling?) will usually come out on top in the long run). No need to comment on this one, IPs. -- Gauss16:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nomination: no one will look this up. Or, at the very least, no one will need to, as it's SOP: someone who comes across it will be able to easily split it up into its component parts and look them up.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
