Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests (requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted).
Out of scope: This page is not for words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. Disputes regarding whether an entry falls afoul of any of the subsections in our criteria for inclusion that demand a particular kind of attestation (such as figurative use requirements for certain place names and the WT:BRAND criteria) should also go to RFV. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.
Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as ]. The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor, including non-admins, may act on the discussion.
Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; see the vote.
Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD-deleted or RFD-kept, indicating what action was taken.
Striking out the discussion header.
(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)
Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
Term added by Mare-Silverus (talk • contribs), who either is, or is somehow related to, our long-term UK anon who adds lots of problematic Japanese terms.
Japanese具足 created. This is an old term cited first all the way back to 722, but despite its age and Chinese-derived reading, I can't find evidence of a borrowing from Middle Chinese. My resources for Chinese are limited, so I'd appreciate it if any more-Chinese-savvy editors could have a look at the etymology.
Re: Englishchain mail, @Lambiam, were you commenting on the use of alt spelling chainmail at the 鎖具足#Japanese entry? If instead you were suggesting non-SOP-ness on the basis of the English term mail not corresponding exactly to 具足(gusoku, “armor”), I would counter by suggesting that someone fluent in English would understand that mail in the context of the armaments of centuries past is broadly equivalent to armor on the one hand, and on the other, that someone fluent in Japanese and familiar with the same contexts would choose the term 鎖帷子(kusari katabira) instead, as indeed we see at the JA WP article ja:w:鎖帷子. In terms of raw Google hits (granted, only a very rough measure, but still), google:"鎖帷子" "は" (adding the "は" to filter for Japanese) gets us 4.8M hits, while google:"鎖具足" "は" gets only 4.3K. At best, this would be an uncommon synonym, but I argue that it's not an integral enough term to even warrant an entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Eiríkr— I was commenting on the senses listed for 鎖(kusari), which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”. In English, just “chain” does not have the sense of “chain mail”; for someone not familiar with the meaning (and possibly also not with medieval armour), trying to figure it out from the literal translation 鎖+具足 = “chain”+“armour” might not work too well. I do not know if 鎖 by itself can have the sense of “mail”, or that this requires the combination 鎖具足. If the former, that sense should be added. If the latter, I am not convinced we have an SOP here. --Lambiam01:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam, I'm curious about your reasoning. You state, "the senses listed for 鎖(kusari), which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”" -- no, they do not. For that matter, neither does Englishchain?
@Eiríkr— My reasoning is very simplistic. If I see that the meaning of compound noun X+Y, where X modifies Y, is rendered in English as A+B, then I expect that one of the meanings of X is A and one of the meanings of Y is B. So when there is a claim that this is a sum of parts (which I can see is the case for A+B), then I expect that an astute language learner can understand from the context which combination of meanings applies. Application of this simplistic formula in the hope of getting from 鎖+具足 to “chainmail”+“armour” requires 鎖 → “chainmail” and 具足 → “armour”. Chainmail armour, to me, is armour fashioned of chainmail. The notion of “mail” as a quasi-fabric used to fashion armour is absent from either of the components 鎖 and 具足, but paramount in their compound 鎖具足. So, apparently, 鎖具足 ≠ 鎖+具足. --Lambiam10:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Ah, I see now where we have our disjuncture. I perceive Englishmail in this context as synonymous with armor (technically, a hyponym). Thus, Englishchain mail = chain + mail = chain + armor, which I view as analogous to 鎖(kusari, “chain”) + 具足(gusoku, “armor”). The usage of Englishmail in armor contexts is very limited, with (I think) only three such collocations allowed: chain mail, plate mail, scale mail. The more common senses of Englishmail could also arguably make the armor-related collocations more distinct lexically: we're not talking about sending these things via post, for instance. The usage of Japanese具足(gusoku) is not limited in this way, and I think this makes the collocation of kusari ("chain") + gusoku ("armor") less of an integral lexical item, and more of an SOP.
I'd also like to draw your attention back to the fact that Englishchain mail is not glossed as Japanese鎖具足(kusari gusoku) in any reference I've encountered -- the term 鎖帷子(kusari katabira) is used instead. In fact, there is no page at ja:w:鎖具足 (Kusari gusoku), and the article at ja:w:鎖帷子 (Kusari katabira) contains zero instances of the term 具足(gusoku). In addition, the JA WP article links through to the EN WP article at w:Chain_mail and vice versa. See also bilingual entries for "chain mail" at Eijiro and Weblio, glossing this in Japanese as 鎖帷子(kusari katabira). See also the lack of any entries for 鎖具足(kusari gusoku) at Eijiro, Weblio, and monolingual dictionary and encyclopedia aggregator Kotobank. For that matter, Weblio's page amusingly suggests that kusari gusoku might equate instead to "chain furniture". :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
How chain mail is glossed in Japanese texts is (IMO) not relevant to the present issue. (This might have some limited relevance if the issue is whether the term can be verified.) I am not a native English speaker; I have always understood mail to refer primarily to the material, like one can say that early armour was “made from mail ”. Note that, whereas armour has a countable sense, chain mail is uncountable. A medieval knight may have been “wearing an armour”, but not *“a chain mail”. In French, the term maille from which the English term is derived, is just a single link; you can combine a lot to make a cotte de mailles. Two centuries ago the term chain armour would have been readily understood,, but today this is less obviously so. On Wikipedia, the article Kusari (Japanese mail armour) states: “Kusari gusoku (chain armour)(鎖具足) is the Japanese term for mail armour. Kusari is a type of armour used by the samurai class and their retainers in feudal Japan. When the word kusari is used in conjunction with an armoured item it usually means that the kusari makes up the majority of the armour defence.” This is supported by a citation to a book entitled A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor: In All Countries and in All Times that mentions kusari gama, kusari gote, kusari kabuto, kusari katabira, kusari-kiahan, kusari sode, kusari tachi, kusari toji, kusari wakabiki, kusari-zukin. It seems reasonable (to me) to include a definition of the kind “(of armour)chain mail”. --Lambiam21:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam: The English Wikipedia's articles related to Japan are, far too often, a cesspit of pop-culture misunderstandings and imaginings about Japan. I generally avoid wading in on Wikipedia, as I simply don't have the time to simultaneously manage the morons while also assiduously citing every minor detail.
That particular article is one such example: the very first sentence in that article is plainly, patently wrong. What's more, the referenced work never uses the combined term kusari gusoku. Monolingual sources never mention armor or arms in definitions of the term 鎖(kusari, “chain”), and given my own subjective understanding of the term and its uses, I'm not sure it makes sense to add any such sense to our entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
But what about the terms kusari gama, ..., kusari-zukin listed in the cited glossary. Are these not romanizations of attestable Japanese terms of art, such as 鎖帷子? --Lambiam21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Sure. Here's a brief breakdown to provide a bit more detail and context.
鎖帷子(kusari katabira) is literally 鎖(kusari, “chain”) + 帷子(katabira, “single-layer kimono”, literally “kata "single, one part of a pair", in reference to the usual double layering of a kimono + hira "flat thing" = "layer"”). Strictly speaking, 鎖帷子(kusari katabira) refers to a single layer of chain mail used as a shirt-like or robe-like garment covering the upper body. This is arguably the single most common application of the material called chain mail in English, which I suspect is why bilingual sources tend to relate these two terms. The material itself, as a sheet of linked metal loops, is often referred to using the English-derived term チェーンメール(chēn mēru). Some dictionary entries will clarify that the item of armor is kusari katabira, and the material is chēn mēru, as indeed we see in the two sense lines at the Eijiro entry for "chain mail".
鎖鎌(kusari-gama) is literally 鎖(kusari, “chain”) + 鎌(kama, “sickle, scythe”). This is a weapon consisting of a short-bladed sickle with a long chain extending from the base of the handle. See the image at ja:w:鎖鎌, and more content in English at w:Kusarigama.
鎖頭巾(kusari zukin) is literally 鎖(kusari, “chain”) + 頭巾(zukin, “hood”, literally “head + cloth”). See also the images at google:"鎖頭巾". Lemmings-wise, monolingual JA sources do not treat this as a single term.
Kusari Kiahan: not a Japanese term, presumably a mistake for kusari kyahan → 鎖脚絆(kusari kyahan, literally “chain + leggings, gaiters”), referring to something like chain-mail greaves, only presumably also covering the back of the lower leg, not just the shin.
Kusari Sode鎖袖(kusari sode, literally “chain + sleeve”). Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.
Kusari Toji: I'm really not sure what this is supposed to refer to. The toji element is presumably 綴じ(toji, “binding, fastening”)? If so, this doesn't seem to be any specific item of armor.
Kusari Wakibiki: 鎖脇引き(kusari wakibiki, literally “chain + armpit-pulling”), from the way the material is pulled or drawn across the gap between the other parts of the armor: a piece of gousset. Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.
I note a few other items listed in that index view, things like Krug, Kurdaitcha, and Kurtani, that cannot be Japanese terms. Given the instance of Kusari Kiahan, I am left uncertain if these are misspellings, or simply non-Japanese terms.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The book is supposed to be a glossary for all countries, so it should not be a surprise to find Romanizations of Japanese terms in an alphabetical list in the company of non-Japanese terms.
Case in point. Imagine someone with a beginner’s level of Japanese who comes across the term 「鎖頭巾」 in a context where the meaning is not at all clear (such as an ad offering an antique 鎖頭巾 for sale). Since she cannot find the term in Wiktionary, she assumes it is a sum of parts, and looks up its components: 鎖 = “chain”; 頭巾 = “wimple, hood, gorget”. In her understanding of the term “chain”, it is a linear sequence of links. Neither ”chain wimple” nor “chain hood” make any sense to her, but after looking up the unfamiliar term “gorget” and seeing the image, she guesses that “chain gorget” could be a gorget worn on a chain, just like a “chain watch” is a watch on a chain. Is there a plausible way she could have discovered that in this combination 「鎖」implied an item made from mail? --Lambiam22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
... Where do you get the wimple or gorget senses for 頭巾(zukin)? Those aren't in our entries. I can kinda see where wimple might come from, as the core meaning of the JA term is literally "head + cloth", and that's at least the right ballpark. But gorget is just wrong as a translation for 頭巾. The expected Japanese term is 喉当て(nodo-ate, literally “throat + putting, applying, placing-against”).
If you got kusari zukin and its mistranslation of "gorget" from the linked glossary by George Cameron Stone, I'm mystified -- I can't find any instances of zukin at all in that book, kusari or otherwise.
For the expected senses of 鎖(kusari, “chain”) + 頭巾(zukin, “hood, head covering”), I wouldn't expect as much potential for confusion as you suggest. For example, google:"chain hood" comes right up with pictures of the expected hood made of chain. Similarly, google:"chain shirt" and google:"chain gloves" come right up with relevant armor-related images, and even the more unusual google:"chain sleeves" and google:"chain leggings" find armor-related hits within the first page. :)
Some collocation-specific senses must be understood from context, even though the collocations themselves might not be lexical. Consider whitecrane. This could be a large white bird that inhabits wetlands, or it might be a white piece of construction equipment used to lift things. The term crane here is polysemic, but that doesn't necessitate that collocations using different senses of crane are necessarily lexical items unto themselves. So it is with 鎖(kusari) -- though arguably even to a lesser extent than crane, since the armor and non-armor senses for 鎖(kusari) are still about "loops of metal chained together". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
If chain hood can legitimately mean “hood fashioned of mail” (as an instance of, more generally, chain NP meaning “NP fashioned of mail”, then a sense is missing at English chain. --Lambiam09:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Chinese. I believe this is best analyzed as -人], and 人 "someone" can be replaced freely with "I", "you", etc. The usage examples should be moved to 死. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: if we do keep this, I think it should be merge with the Gan sense under pronunciation 2. While it's analyzable as above, it seems to be fossilized as a kind of intensifier (at least in certain varieties). It's in some dictionaries, such as 南昌方言詞典 and 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典. I'm leaning on the keep side, but I'm not sure. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }06:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, after some thought, the two meanings seem to be different depending on the verb/adjective. 南昌方言詞典 defines it as "用在動詞或形容詞後,表示令人非常(高興、生氣、難受等)" and lists 熱~, 笑~, 氣~, 煩~, 急~ and 冷~ as examples. To me, these belong to the definition that is being rfd-ed. @Mar vin kaiser who added the Gan sense recently. 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典 defines it as "置於動詞之後,用來表示「非常……」、「很……」的意思" and lists 驚死人 and 貴死人 as examples. 驚死人 could be interpreted as the rfd-ed definition, but 貴死人 is harder to interpret as such. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }06:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed for 苦無術. google books:"苦無術" "は" finds precious few hits, and most appear to be in Chinese-language texts at that. Delete.
Less certain for 手裏剣術. I note the existence of entries at Kotobank, though notably those are only encyclopedia entries. No dictionary to hand includes this as a term. I'm also uncertain how much to view 術(jutsu) as a standalone noun, or as a suffixing element. If the latter, presumably this suffix would form a new word, as opposed to two discrete nouns that happen to be next to each other.
And since Korean has no definite article, it may just as well mean “a malign virus”, which these viruses certainly are in the medical sense of “harmful, potentially lethal”. --Lambiam21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
If the gloss is correct, though, 악성비루스 refers not to the virus SARS-CoV-2 but to the disease COVID-19, which would technically make it not SOP anymore. —Mahāgaja · talk05:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: There's no actual evidence that the gloss is correct. The creator is not a native speaker, and the actual NK statement in late July (quoted here) that presumably prompted this creation was about "a defector to South Korea suspected to have been infected by the 'malign virus'" ("악성 비루스에 감염된 것으로 의심되는 월남도주자"). The word used here, 감염 (gamyeom), is usually for viruses and not diseases.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Mahagaja. If the provided definition is correct, it is obviously not a SOP. This seems more like a verification issue to me. Fytcha (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Delete. It is a SOP. KCNA (in June 18, 2015 ) was also called "MERS", "SARS" and "Ebola virus" as "악성비루스" in 2015. And Choson Sinbo (in October 19, 2017) and Rodong Sinmun (in December 26. 2018) were also called "스툭스네트" (stuxnet) as "악성비루스" during 2017–18. Dubukimchi (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
If I'm understanding correctly, it's just a descriptor for Covid (most recently), and not a name for it. In that case it would be SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
WT:BRAND states: "A brand name for a product or service should be included if it has entered the lexicon." So the question is, can it be verified that 「ポケットモンスター」 has entered the Japanese lexicon. (For English Pokémon it appears that is has.) Should verification that there are uses attesting that a term has entered the lexicon not be handled at RfV? --Lambiam00:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
WT:RFV states that the RFV pages are for "disputing the existence of terms or senses", and to test whether something meets the attestation criterion at the WT:ATTEST header of WT:CFI. So I tend to heap everything that's not disputing the existence of a word into RFD. I can see how the wording of WT:BRAND can make it seem like a "verification" matter and thus be put under RFV, it's honestly open to interpretation and I don't have very strong feelings on the matter. The closure, though, was not in error: people had not been responding for two years (which seemed a bit ridiculous) and I could've just closed it as unresolved (as nobody seemed to care enough to solve it), which would've circumvented this whole discussion. If someone wants to solve the issue of this word meeting WT:BRAND (be it here or at RFD), go ahead, as long as it actually gets taken care of and doesn't sit unanswered for another 2 years. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think in general, English abbreviations (or other in the Latin script) are often/generally used in all languages, including languages, which don't use the Latin alphabet. If there is no change in the sense and is not a local invention, we don't need to include them as words in those languages. The pronunciation (if someone seems a value in just providing the pronunciation, such "shī-ai-ē") can be derived from individual letter pronunciations - CIA. I suggest CFI (or language-specific CFI) to include this. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)00:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
幽霊四 (talk • contribs) must be confused -- this RFD is for the Japanese term CIA#Japanese, so anything about the German language, or about the terms USA or NASA in any language, are wholly irrelevant here.
@Eirikr: I'm not confused -- there was a comment above (quote) "all languages" and I gave examples regarding it. The German examples show that (quote) "English abbreviations .. are often used in .. languages .. If there is no change in the sense .., we don't need to include them .. pronunciation .." lacks a consideration of number, gender, inflection. Gender isn't a matter regarding English/Japanese, but other things can be. And even if it's pretty much similar in this case (English not having genders and treating CIA as a thing, CIA being singular - Japanese not having genders, CIA being singular or unmarked): If there's German CIAf because it is different from the English, why exclude CIA(CIA) if it exists? Having English CIA, French CIAf, German CIAf etc., but not having Japanese CIA(CIA) (no gender) gives the false impression it's only used in English, French, German etc. but not in Japanese. --幽霊四 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I think having entries like this are useful in telling readers what can be used in Japanese, if there is a way to verify they have "entered the lexicon". General Vicinity (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep, mainly because CIA is fairly common in Japanese almost exclusively for the meaning of the US institution. I searched in a balanced corpus. The numbers of hits were: DNAの - 246 hits, PTAの - 111 hits, CIAの - 95 hits, UFOの - 38 hits, USAの - 21 hits. (I didn't check each entry's context to exclude possible homonyms, but I feel like they would be rare.) Whym (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
After puzzling over another highly suspicious set of Japanese "female names" with other people, I've come to the conclusion that these websites make up kanji spellings by combining known names and kanji readings for the less imaginative. Reading 李 as い is only explainable as the Korean surname, and surely would not appear in someone's given name. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Surjection, Fish bowl, Eirikr: Any objections if I go ahead and mass delete + mass revert Tim Euler? His German edits were as clueless as always (I actually already suspected it was him on the 13th: ) so I have little faith in his edits in other languages. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment. It or the variant ブルータスよ is in Daijisen, Daijirin, Kōjien, and various kotowaza references. The first two even say 用いられる. BRPXQZME (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
As abbreviations, I'm not sure that these are so transparent as to make them non-lexical. Some in particular have multiple senses, or even multiple readings, such as 日中(nitchū, “during the day, daytime; noon (in Buddhism); lunch; all day, a full day; Japan and China”) and 日中(hinaka, “daytime; a half-day (rare); free daytime (rare)”).
I note that other dictionaries include most of these: 日米, 日華, 日仏, 日ソ, 日蘭, 日朝, 日韓, 日伊, 日独, 日印, 日豪, 日台, 日清, 日満 (in my hard-copy Daijirin), 日英, 日中, 日支.
I'd like to note that 日 comes first because Japanese is spoken in an monolingual ethnostate; 日中 Japano-Chinese becomes 中日 Sino-Japanese in the name of the PRC-founded 中日友好. 日韓両国 is used by Japanese, and 韓日両国 is used by Koreans and in quotes of Koreans. It is obviously arbitrary. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd keep these because the pronunciation is not entirely predictable re sandhi (renjō, rendaku) and accent placement. Also most of these morphemes are bound. Then there can be more lexicalization than the combination alone would suggest, e.g. 日独伊 specifically refers to the Axis powers during the Second World War. Nardog (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
rfd-sense "the pronunciation of Chinese characters used in the Tang and Song dynasties of China, mainly limited to Zen vocabulary, and has less influence on general expressions". Tagged but not listed (diff) by @Poketalker. --Fytcha (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The Nihon Kokugo Daijitenreads: One of kanji readings in Japan. Transmitted by Zen monks, merchant class, etc. from the Kamakura/Muromachi to the Edo period, these are based on sounds since the Song dynasty. Digital Daijisen redirects to 唐音(tōon), with two definitions: (1) One of kanji readings in Japan. In a narrow sense, it is based on initial Chinese pronunciations during the Ming and Qing dynasties, transmitted by Zen monks, interpreters, and traders to Nagasaki during the Edo period. In a broader sense, it also includes 宋音(sōon) which was already widespred before the Edo period as tōsōon. (2) In general, term for a Chinese language or sound.
I'd argue that 8-cell isn't SOP due to the fact that most people wouldn't automatically picture a tesseract when they hear the word, even if they knew the relevant definition of cell. Besides, where do we draw the line between SOP and common formulas used to construct new terms? You could easily make a convincing argument that common prefixes like anti- and non- should fall under SOP, along with chemical formulas like trichloromethane (if anything, chemical formulas are quite literally "sum of parts").
Point is, I think we should at least consider the context of how words are used. All of the "X-cell" entries (and any translations thereof) are legitimate mathematical terms, and I think removing them would do more harm than good. There's a difference between a generic term like "wooden door" and technical jargon that has zero meaning outside a specific context. Binarystep (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Another way to argue would be to point out that, since pentachoron etc. are obviously inclusion-worthy, it would be ridiculous to exclude their much more commonly used n-cell synonyms, especially since deletion of 5-cell entails the removal thereof in the article pentachoron. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Without the articles for 正八胞体 and its siblings, I would have no way to find out what it means, because the individual article for 胞 doesn’t have the meaning “cell (in 4-dimensional geometry)”, only “cell (in biology)”. The articles also provide translation entries for the English articles for “8-cell” and its siblings, as well as “tesseract”. If these are to be deleted, at the very least there should be a redirect added to 多胞体 “polytope (in 4D geometry)”.
===Etymology===
From {{m|ja|電話||telephone|tr=denwa}} + {{m|ja|を|pos=a grammatical marker following the direct object|tr=o}} + {{m|ja|切る||to disconnect, to hang up; to cut|tr=kiru}}. Literally meaning "to hang up the phone" or to "disconnect or cut the phone".
===Verb===
{{ja-verb|でんわ を きる|type=1}}
# to ], to ] a ]
====Conjugation====
{{ja-go-ru|でんわ を き}}
Both of these might count as SOP, but the idiomatic (or at least non-obvious) use of the verbs makes me unsure.
If these entries are removed, the collocations should definitely be included as usexes on the relevant entries (at least the verbs, possibly the noun as well). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Not quite SOP though, in that this is definitely a proper noun (c.f. EnglishWhite House), and also a not-entirely-obvious translation. A literal translation of the EN into JA might be something more like 東南アジア諸国の協会(tōnan Ajia shokoku no kyōkai). The term 連合(rengō) is often rendered as something more like "union, alliance, confederation". Keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I think that, so long as our entries are well-formed and stick to describing the "word-ness" (etymology, pronunciation, glosses, usage examples, etc.), and we leave the description of "thing-ness" (what it is, how it functions, cultural impact, political analysis, etc.) to Wikipedia, then I have no problem at all with Wiktionary including such entries.
To put this another way, why shouldn't we have an entry at Association of Southeast Asian Nations? This is a distinct term: this is not just any association that happens to include countries from Southeast Asia, nor can we rephrase and say "Southeast Asia Country Society" and be understood with any certainty -- just as White House is not any house that happens to be white, nor can we rephrase and say "house that is white" and be understood with any certainty.
===Etymology===
Borrowed from {{bor|ja|en|mill}}, from {{m|en|Millstone}}, a ''{{w|Magic: The Gathering}}'' card with a similar effect.
===Noun===
{{ja-noun}}
# {{lb|ja|Hearthstone}} A strategy centered on depleting the opponent's deck.
====Derived terms====
* {{l|ja|ミルウォーロック}}
* {{l|ja|ミルウォリアー}}
* {{l|ja|ミルデッキ}}
* {{l|ja|ミルドルイド}}, {{l|ja|ミルドル}}
* {{l|ja|ミルローグ}}
Crikey, what a dog's breakfast. The entry misses the perfectly cromulent senses of English surname Mill, or the mil that is one thousandth of an inch, or the ミル(miru) that is the common name for Codium, a kind of edible seaweed, or the borrowing of Englishmill that appears in various borrowed compounds, such as コーヒーミル(kōhī miru, “coffee mill”).
Hmm, it looks like our entry at にほん is deficient. Certainly the country name should be capitalized, but there are also common nouns with this romanization, specifically 二本(nihon, “two long slender objects”) and 二品(nihon, “under the Ritsuryō system of ancient Japan, the second rank of imperial princes”). Actually, I'm unclear if the 二品 one might be a title, in which case capitalization might be more appropriate there too, but 二本 at least doesn't have any such connotations. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
It's odd / an idiomatic translation of the title, as we'd expect something more like 千一夜物語(Sen'ichiya Monogatari). Rendering "thousand and one nights" as 千夜一夜(sen'ya ichiya, literally “thousand nights one night”) is weird.
That said, it is only the title of a book, and thus is not something to include here, so far as I understand WT:CFI.
The creator of all three entries has struggled with various Wiktionary norms and standards. I suspect this might be a similar case. They have ceased editing from their named account, but still occasionally edit from IP addresses geolocating to Vietnam.
Delete as "not dictionary material", for all of these:
Perhaps something akin to Chinese 一千零一夜? It's a very emphatic "one thousand and one", so maybe they're just both going for the English emphasis on the starting one. The repetition of 夜 doesn't make sense to me either, but I don't know any Japanese and I have no idea what the translator was trying to get at. I suppose there's a bit of interesting lexical background to it, but the same goes for the titles of loads of other books too. At best, it should go in an appendix. Theknightwho (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Theknightwho: I don't see how it would have any more specific meaning than the sum of its parts. Liturgy can look very different across different branches of Christianity. Also, 禮拜的儀式 is also commonly attested, which suggests that the "compound" isn't that tight. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }14:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I think the reason why I added this is because it can be said as the equivalent of the English word "liturgy" which itself can be used for Islam and Buddhism (Islamic liturgy and Buddhist liturgy). I think the meaning of 禮儀 is broad enough (it could mean etiquette? ceremony?) that it would be useful and reasonable to have this entry remain to provide people the technical term in Chinese for "liturgy". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep since AAB reduplication only implies the diminutive sense. Most AAB reduplications are not commonly used sarcastically. -- 12.124.183.21021:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I've gone through some of their contributions. Most (all?) of this appears to be copy-paste from some other bilingual JA→EN dictionary, which includes lots of things that we would treat as SOP. There's the occasional nugget of validity in there, but most of the entries they've created are problematic. I've flat-out deleted a small handful of them as patently obvious phrasal SOP, and I've listed a few others below. I don't have time to fully vet the rest of their contributions, however, so I'd like to ask the rest of us to pitch in. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Also SOP, just using the related verb stem 預け(azuke, “putting something or someone in someone else's care”) to express the other side of the action (putting into care, as opposed to taking into care). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
There might be some value to this, as the first term 一言 could also have the pronunciation hitokoto or ichigen, and in this particular turn of phrase, it seems like ichigon is more common / traditional. I would argue that this would be better as a usex at 一言(ichigon) though, as I don't think this is enough to merit a full independent entry. There's also the problem that this might be shifted to more polite forms such as 一言もありません(ichigon mo arimasen) or 一言もございません(ichigon mo gozaimasen). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
These names for Kangxi radicals were all deleted for supposedly being SOP, despite the fact that they reference the characters' shapes rather than their meanings. They're no more "sum-of-parts" than 十字 or H-shaped. Binarystep (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that 丿部 was deleted after four months by an RFD with zero votes (not counting the nomination), and no discussion other than my initial objection. There are entries at the top of this page (such as 死人(sǐrén)) that have managed to survive for over a year under similar circumstances. Binarystep (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Support undeletion it doesn't make sense to do so, since there are useful non-encyclopedic information about these radicals, such as their names and pronunciation in each languages, which sometimes can be different from the normal pronunciation. Also it is absurd that we have entries like 單人旁 and 走之底 which are the descriptive names of the radicals, but not the standard 人部 or 辵部. I do see the reason of the deletion about SoP to be sort of valid, but if they are treated as such the radicals would require a separate etymology in the character pages, since they "reference the characters' shapes rather than their meanings" as BinaryStep suggested. However this would mean that the information about radicals to be extremely scattered across an already lengthy page, if not forgetting about them entirely, which is the case for most pages. –Wpi31 (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment: 部 is added to each Kangxi radical name, so in a way these are kind of SoP. These should probably be instead be a definition under 丿, 支, 辵, etc. Also, it's not fair to compare these to 單人旁; things like 人部 and 辵部 (as far as I can tell) refer to the classification of a character under a particular radical, which may or may not reflect a particular component of a character (i.e., it's an abstraction from character components). — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }06:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
What about separating 人(U+4EBA) and ⼈(U+2F08) etc? That way it won't be SoP, but also allows separate radical entries to be created at the codepoints in the Kangxi Radical block. –Wpi31 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fish bowl: I count 1 support vote and 0 oppose votes. Given that 丿部 was deleted without any votes at all, it doesn't seem fair to hold this RFD to a higher standard. Binarystep (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Why on earth should a user have to click through to an entry in a completely different language, or a completely different project, in order to finally find what might be a definition? If we start at くぁw背drftgy富士子lp, that's at least two clicks away. This is unacceptable. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Undecided. One may argue that there is a semantic shift from "thin; not thick" to "filmsy; weak" and therefore this should be kept, but I wonder if this particular sense is actually attested or not. The vast majority of ghits seems to only mean "thin; not thick". Might be an RFV issue? – wpi (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Delete. SOP. The only conceivable idiomaticity I can think of here (which I also think is insufficient to clear the SOP bar) is the wrinkle that 装置(sōchi) refers specifically to a physical device or other hardware, and thus this particular collocation cannot be used to refer to a software speech synthesizer. For the latter, we have the collocation 音声合成ソフト(onsei gōsei sofuto, literally “speech synthesis software”), which is also SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Japanese SOP: The term can be translated as "(National) Police Agency" or "Police Office", is an unidiomatic sum of part of 警察 (Police)+庁 (Agency; Office; Department). As per what discussed in Talk:Federal Reserve System, encyclopedic yet unidiomatic entries are deletable SOPs. Per opinion stated above at #聯邦儲備系統, I also don't think that national/jurisdictional government department responsible for policing is high-profile enough to survive under WT:IDIOM.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Response Thanks for your opinion. Given by the term's inclusion in Daijisen, it seems that it may have a chance of survival under WT:LEMMING.
Respectfully I disagree with the opinion that This is idiomatic inasmuch ... rather specifically the National Police Agency (Japan): take a look at w:ja:警察庁 (曖昧さ回避) and you'll find that it's not unique to Japan (unlike terms like 廉政公署 in Chinese — the ICAC in Hong Kong or the CCAC in Macau — that is unique to both places). As long as there are similar agencies in other countries, they're to be translated in this same way. Similarly, unless it's so uniquely composed like Home Office in the UK, if we had entries like department of the interior (likely won't survive per WT:RFD#ministry of education), we also wouldn't link them to specific national agencies like United States Department of the Interior or so.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
@廣九直通車, interesting re: use to refer to other nation's police agencies. Even so, the "national" element seems to be a common thread in all these uses of 警察庁, something that is missing from the constituent parts of the term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig16:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
知らん, the classical volitional form of 知る(shiru), directly translates intelligam, a form of the verb intelligere(“to understand”) in the present subjunctive;
信ず would be the classical conclusive form of modern 信ずる(shinzuru), so 我は信ず directly translates credō, which is a first person singular form of crēdere(“to believe”).
About whether it’s a proverb, I googled it and it seems to be used mostly in reference to Anselm’s position of credo ut intelligam. Examples:
@Mcph2, thank you for the breakdown, at first blush I clearly got the wrong end of the stick.
That said, I see that google books:"知らんがために我は信ず" -wiki -dict nets a paltry 29 ostensible hits, collapsing to just 16 when paging through. While clearing CFI's bar of three, this is still clearly not widely used in the Japanese-writing world. Searching instead for google books:"credo ut intelligam" "は" -dict -wikt -wiki (adding the Japanese topic particle は(wa) to filter for Japanese texts), we get 367 ostensible hits, collapsing to 167 when paging through, most of which seem to offer different translations of the Latin.
By way of contrast, google books:"我思う、故に我在り" gives us 1,780 ostensible hits. Still not tons, but substantially more. Alternative spelling google books:"我思う、故に我あり" yields another 2,950 ostensible hits. I see also that both the Kojien and Gakken dictionaries include this latter phrase, while omitting the former.
@Eirikr: I hadn’t thought of searching Google Books like that. Since it’s rarely used and it’s one of many translations of the same Latin phrase, I agree that we should delete it. Mcph2 (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't have any comments as to whether or not this should be deleted, but if that is the official name of the park, I'd avoid making the rationale SOP and focus around whether or not it's encyclopedic (especially because there's no subentry for it at 九龍/九龙(jiǔlóng) nor a redirect already and since it's a public park). See: Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion § Place names. An example of a clear keep would be if 科科斯板块 were an entry: it would be kept by default or redirected to 科科斯 with a subsense with 板块(bǎnkuài) at the definition line. AG202 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
After some thought, I do think this is not quite SoP. I agree with AG202's and Tooironic's comments. I'd probably say at least a weak keep as a rather notable park in Hong Kong. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }23:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
It is claimed that 뽈스카 is the north Korean term for Poland. However, no such term is documented in any north Korean sources (unless they have been purged and retroactively changed, which in this case is unlikely), or even the south Korean archives. It seems that such term has never been in use. The correct term is 뽈스까, which also has a Wiktionary page. As 뽈스카 doesn't seem to have ever existed, I think it should be deleted. Παραλλάξιος (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this root should have it's own page. Each verb can simply go as "cognate with transitive/intranstive verb *xxx". Chuterix (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I've encountered a separate theory, that Japanese verbs なる(naru, “to become”, intransitive, mediopassive) and なす(nasu, “to make, to do”, transitive) can be viewed as extensions of a theorized ancient Japonic copula ぬ(nu), which manifests still in modern Japanese as an archaic verb conjugation suffix indicating that an action is complete, usually without intent (contrasting with the more common action-completion and past-tense suffix た(ta), evolving from older つ(tsu), which did indicate intent).
I'd argue that this is not SOP as Japanese: this literally breaks down to "four seas siblings", which isn't immediately associatable with the gloss of "universal brotherhood". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@justinrleung: the three HKC senses should be the same with or without the suffix.
The problematic one is the Mandarin neologism sense, which AFAIK is borrowed from HKC and is always followed by the suffix. (and I don't think it could be used in this way in HKC) – Wpi31 (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Chinese. Sense 1 does not need to be with 住; it could be other aspectual markers like 咗, e.g. 門外嘅餐牌寫咗今日有咩好食 . I also don't think it's distinct from "write". The same can be said of other verbs, like 掛 (e.g. 門口掛咗一件衫). Sense 2 seems to need a little more context, like 寫住個⋯⋯字, so unless there's usage apart from this construction that's figurative, I would also think that this meaning isn't really attributable to 寫住 by itself. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }08:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep For comparison, see google:"招牌寫住" vs google:"招牌寫咗". The text on the sign does not necessarily have to be written (with a pen), they could might as well be printed or created in some other way (e.g. neon light billboards), hence it is distinct from "write". – Wpi31 (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Wpi31: It perhaps is a different sense from "to write", but it doesn't need to have 住 to have this meaning. In "餐牌寫嘅嘢一般分套餐同散餐兩種" , I don't think the 寫 needs to be written with a pen either. "佢著緊嗰件衫寫咗啲咩?" is used to translate "And what is she wearing on her shirt?" — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }15:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Chinese. Probably code-switching of outlook#Etymology 2. Main question is whether the “look; appearance” meaning of outlook appeared first in English (then this would be code-switching and deleted) or Chinese (then this should be kept). – Wpi31 (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
PS: I believe there's a slight semantic difference here: in Chinese, "outlook" only refers to the appearance of a person, whereas in English it could also mean the appearance of objetcs in general (as evidenced by some of the quotes). – Wpi31 (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete. See Weird regional usages of English: "There is a huge amount of (Cantonese to English) negative language transfers in Hong Kong English (or ‘Honglish’), such as the proverbial oddball misuse of outlook for 外貌 (‘outward appearance‘), body check (for medical checkup), and open/close (for switch on/off)." -- Ywhy (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Please avoid using a non-academic source (i.e. a random wordpress post). It is obvious that the word is originally from English, but the question is whether the "appearance" sense is an internal development in English or is it a semantic shift or (mis)interpretation in Cantonese. Note that research is hard since Cantonese is pretty much non-existent on the Internet pre-2000, and most conversations resort to using English since most netizens in that era are well-educated. Until we know the answer to the question, it is difficult to make any decision. I think we could stale this discussion (i.e. keeping it open) or close as no consensus. – Wpi (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I share the blog author's take on this matter and he put it way more eloquently than the tongue-tied me can ever do. In addition, in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 5th ed.(2009), Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 4th ed.(1989), 6th ed.(2000) & 9th ed.(2015), no definition of outlook includes 'outward appearance'. So it must have been calqued on Cantonese 外表 rather than stemmed from standard English. -- Ywhy (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it is developed in standard English - even the English entry outlook says it's a Hong Kong English word; I was instead considering the possibility that the word is an internal development within Hong Kong English. Even then we can't rush to such conclusion. – Wpi (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Japanese. Rfv-sense: person who is infected by (novel) coronavirus
I found one use of this in 2020 (see Citations:コロナ), but haven't been able to find others. It is difficult to search for, as most written sources that would include it would also include terms such as 新型コロナウイルス感染症 etc. I've searched several Japanese newspapers and only found that one. I've searched the web, but gave up after being inundated by mention of the pandemic generally. Cnilep (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Just noticed that the definition has "Internet slang" in it. The quotes suggest that this label is too specific, or that this usage has escaped the Internet. This should be amended. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I parse all these attestations as referring to the novel coronavirus (disease), or at best the state of being infected with it, much like the famous "僕はうなぎだ". Notice they're all preceded by a topic of a person. Defining it as a person with the virus would be akin to defining うなぎ as "a person who eats eel". Nardog (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Nardog: Yeah I can see that interpretation. Then what do you think of the definition "infected person" itself? Does it exist? Should it be removed? —Fish bowl (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it should, that's what I was implying. At least I don't see it's supported by any of the citations above or in Citations:コロナ so far. The "小" in "コロナ小" is clearly the suffix standing for "小学校", so it better translates as "Corona Elementary". Nardog (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete. The citations simply do not support this definition (so I don't understand why it was moved here). You could replace the word in them with 癌, 糖尿病, etc. and they would be still grammatical, but we don't define them as "person with cancer" or "person with diabetes". This is a function of the syntax, not of this lexical item. Nardog (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, I note that this is a set phrase. One doesn't say, for instance, 富貧の差(fuhin no sa, literally “rich poor 's difference”). An alternative way to say this in Japanese is 持てる者と持たざる者の差(moteru mono to motazaru mono no sa, literally “can-have people and not-have people 's difference”), but this is also a set phrase: one cannot swap the noun order to 持たざる者と持てる者の差(motazaru mono to moteru mono no sa) and still have it sound "right" -- just as one cannot say "the difference between the have-nots and the haves" and have that still work stylistically / idiomatically.
I think 貧富 vs 富貧 is a separate matter. 寒暖の差 is much more common than 暖寒の差, but that doesn't inform us anything about the の差 part, which is the main part to look at when discussing whether it is a sum of parts or not. --Whym (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This was tagged long ago but seems not to have been listed here. The fate of this RFD should probably be tethered to that of its donor language term, at Jeanne d'Arc, unless we can see metaphorical use in one language not present in the other. —Soap—11:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
It occurred to me after I posted this that I'd rather see it at RFV, since what we're looking for is metaphorical use, but I will leave this here as its French counterpart stands currently at its own RFD. —Soap—11:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Neutral: are there other figurative uses of 密碼 like this? Is it a collocation with other similar collocations, or is it more unique? —Fish bowl (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
@Fish bowl: likely an artifact of translation. off the top of my head:
Japanese. The term is the courtesy title of Fujiwara no Tadamichi. According to WT:NSE, o individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic, which should also applies to specific names referring to a person like this. The entry is therefore out of scope.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems that you overlooked the last part of the green text: “...page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic”; linking the four for emphasis. Don’t see the alleged proper names there... what seems to be the matter? You were probably thinking about card numbers 6, 11, 16, etc. of that particular anthology which do have said names... by the way, there’s a few more! ~ POKéTalker(=◉=)05:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the first time am seeing a user appealing to the SOP card when the sense(s) do mean more than just them... assuredly, the above three aren’t the so-called “non-idiomatic sum of parts” you were expecting; and do not drag English to this discussion. An example that would both qualify for SOP and NSE is 6 (Middle Counselor Yakamochi) and 11 (Councillor Takamura) mentioned earlier. Since when is the “courtesy title of...” sense out of scope for this or other non-English language? Never seen such a case... what of Zhongni (second-born from Ni Hill), for Confucius? ~ POKéTalker(=◉=)05:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but as the terms's meaning are clearly directing to the courtesy names of people, why are you speaking card numbers? Some sort of playing card meanings like king of spades? I don't understand.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
To the point: at least read Hyakunin Isshu on Wikipedia to know what these three really are. Where in the NSE says that courtesy names, especially in foreign languages, are “out of scope” from your understanding? Don’t see any proper names of persons somewhere in the three you are requesting for deletion.. ~ POKéTalker(=◉=)13:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Silghtly weak keep.You know what, I’ll say keep as well, instead of delete. As the creator of the 耳朵聾 page, I don’t usually keep a check and research before making any pages here. I’m just a normal editor. I’m not a linguist or anything like that in any way. So I am sorry that I didn’t research beforewards. It is shown as a dialectal variant on the 聾 page. (I know this page (link here) is my creation) Kanjishowa21-4 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep. It seems to be 'idiomatic' (not necessarily non-SoP, but a normal way of expressing this, as opposed to 耳聾) in some varieties (see the dialectal synonyms at 耳聾). (The page needs a clean-up, though, if we keep this.) — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }20:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Upon a quick check in a handful of Wu topolectal dictionaries (Suzhounese, Chongmingnese, Hangzhounese), all of them define the term as equivalent to 耳背 (hard of hearing) instead of "deaf" - i.e. not equivalent to 耳聾. The Chongming dictionary in fact distinguishes between 聾耳朵 (deaf) and 耳朵聾 (hard of hearing) which to me seems like it could warrant a keep. – Musetta6729 (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep. The Wu word exists warrants an entry per above, but the current entry itself is SoP and requires some heavy reworking/clean up. – Wpi31 (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Although this was incorporated into KFC's official marketing, the original campaign didn't have this phrase, which likely started as an Internet slang later. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Common collocation. This word is somewhat formal, often used in written form, and the colloquial counterpart is 女裝. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Mainly I felt as if 值銅鈿 was not a distinctly lexicalized construction. It is (to me) a somewhat acceptable way to say "valuable" but I wouldn't say it's that idiomatic at all - in Shanghainese at least I would default to 價鈿大 or 價鈿貴, and 值銅鈿 isn't necessarily a defined standalone adjective either, compared to something like 吃價鈿 "expensive, valuable".
It also sounds a lot better to me separated e.g. as 值交關銅鈿 "worth a lot of money", and in that sense I also don't necessarily see how it's special as opposed to, say, a phrase like 值鈔票. Musetta6729 (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
That said, I think it is still lexically significant and useful information that these terms can be used as ship names.
As an example, what would you think about rewording the Japanese大和(Yamato) sense line to something more like what we see in the topmost line at w:Yamato#Ships?
We have plenty of other entries that basically say "this is a given name", "this is a surname", "this is a place name". Why would "this is a ship name" not be similarly significant lexical information about a given term? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig05:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I incorrectly assumed any internet-related slang (and me judging it by the English term is also questionable) would be a neologism. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep as per the trend of keeping English borrowings/calques into Cantonese. Personally I think those are just code switching unless the meaning is innovative, but keeping this type of entry seems to be the consensus here. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this is definitely not code-switching, and it is unclear that this is even from English. It could very well be an independently created phrase. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }07:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@RcAlex36: I adapted these from actual usages. I googled "到轆地 -笑到轆地" and found 到轆地. I suppose are reasonable too so I improvised one. I was merely suggesting 轆地 is flexible and should not be confined to 笑到轆地. -- Ywhy (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Ywhy: While these examples might be fine, it might be a little excessive to come up with our own examples, which are less weighty evidence than usage independently found "in the wild". It would be preferable if we directly added (preferably durably archived) quotes to the entry, especially since it might be contentious. See WT:QUOTE and WT:ATTEST. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }06:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
This rigidity in attestation and quotation is what stiffled creativity and engagement. Cantonese is rapidly wasting away and further bound by rote learning and we imbue no individual thought and style into it. No wonder are there many entries with none examples, for word without context is extinction!
@Ywhy: I'm not saying you can't create examples, but there should only be enough to illustrate usage. Having quotes that function the same as examples would be preferable because it shows that we aren't making stuff up from thin air. The primary purpose of Wiktionary is documentation and usability, not creativity. The fact that we have so many Cantonese editors actively engaged in editing here shows that Cantonese is not necessarily rapidly wasting away. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }07:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, delete. This is pretty straightforward WT:SOP as 大事(daiji) with the adverbial particle に(ni). The construction にする(ni suru) is basic Japanese grammar, "treat something -ly, treat something as ; make something ". You could just as well have 親切にする(shinsetsu ni suru, “to treat someone or something nicely / kindly”), 静かにする(shizuka ni suru, “to make something quiet, to be quiet”), etc. etc.
I would argue that we should keep the form お大事に(o-daiji ni) for it's idiomatic sense of take care -- but then I see that we already have that entry. Although that is bafflingly marked as "rare", when the o-daiji ni form is the only form I've heard for this in decades of working in Japanese-speaking offices. Just last week, a native-Japanese-speaking coworker texted another who was feeling poorly to お大事にしてください(o-daiji ni shite kudasai, “please take care ”). Time allowing, I may have a go at お大事に to expand and clean it up. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig17:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
In deliberately casual contexts, the honorific prefix お(o) might be omitted. We can tell that this is such a context, in part due to the どうだい(dōdai) in the first line -- I don't think だい(dai) as an inquisitive copula ever appears outside of casual / intimate speech.
Korean. Originally tagged for speedy deletion, but I wanted to open this up to other links currently at 이리, and I don't know which ones are SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Japanese. Katakana was used predominantly before the modern era in some genres of text (w:Meiji Constitution, etc.) in the same way that hiragana is today, so attestation is not the issue. Rather, I doubt that recording these is meaningful, as it would apply to essentially every native word in the language, and the search function is capable of finding words in either hiragana or katakana. —Fish bowl (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Fish bowl: Could you explain what the problem is with having entries for these forms with katakana where we would normally find hiragana, please? 0DF (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be an unnecessary proliferation of entries ("apply to essentially every native word in the language"). —Fish bowl (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@Fish bowl: Thanks for responding. I'd like to rebut your earlier assertion that "the search function is capable of finding words in either hiragana or katakana", by which I took you to mean that the search function finds hiragana terms given katakana queries and vice versa: Whilst working on the quotation at Citations:失フ, I searched for クシ(kushi), which didn't and still doesn't exist in the English Wiktionary; the search box's shortlist for that query currently comprises (in order) クシノマヴロ(kushinomavro), クシー(kushī), クシャクシャ(kushakusha), クジラ(kujira), クジャク(kujaku), and グジャグジャ(gujaguja); くし(kushi) exists, but isn't shortlisted. IMO, the shortlist for a katakana query should give, in priority order: 1) the katakana term that exactly matches the query; 2) the katakana term(s) that differ(s) from the query by the addition or removal of one or more 濁点(dakuten) and/or 半濁点(handakuten), and/or by variation in kana size relating to 促音(sokuon) and/or 拗音(yōon); 3) the hiragana term that is the exact equivalent of the katakana query; 4) the hiragana term(s) that differ(s) from the katakana query in the same manner as that described in point 2, with the added qualification that it or they be the hiragana equivalent(s). (And, of course, the shortlist for a hiragana query should give the same results re hiragana and katakana terms, mutatis mutandis.) Insofar as the search box doesn't prioritise other-kana equivalents in its shortlists (in the same way that it does prioritise letter-case equivalents for Latin-script queries), having entries for other-kana equivalent terms has greater utility. I would say that that utility outweighs the drawback of entry-proliferation. Besides that, there is the matter of consistency: Why, if they're unnecessary, do entries exist for クシャクシャ(kushakusha) and グジャグジャ(gujaguja), the katakana equivalents of the hiragana くしゃくしゃ(kushakusha, “crumpled, wrinkled, disheveled”) and ぐじゃぐじゃ(gujaguja, “soggy, soaking”)? Why does 孔雀(“peafowl”) have both くじゃく(kujaku) and クジャク(kujaku)? And why does 鯨(“whale”) have くじら(kujira), クジラ(kujira), and the historical くぢら(kudira), but not the historical クヂラ(kudira)? It is a remarkable coincidence that I should find four unnecessarily proliferated kana entries from the six-entry shortlist yielded by a single katakana query. Is there a clearly stated policy on this matter somewhere? 0DF (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Different approaches to searching will produce different results, unfortunately.
The sorting of alternative hits that you describe (starting from "IMO") relies upon collation settings that, if memory serves, are not entirely within our control as Witkionary editors -- for that, I think we need to get help from the WikiMedia folks, and they have not always been generous with their time when it comes to Wiktionary.
As for "why ... do entries exist" for equivalent hiragana ones, that often comes down to the simple fact that this is an open wiki, with many participating editors who are not familiar with (or sometimes don't agree with) our various practices and policies. If you peruse the user contributions of the editor who created the クシャクシャ entry, you'll see that they spent a lot of time and effort creating these alternative-from entries as stubs using {{ja-see}} to refer readers to the "main" entries. I have no details as to their motivation for doing so.
Re: "Is there a clearly stated policy on this matter somewhere?", I presume you're asking if there's a policy on including katakana-only entries? The closest I can think of is a general practice to only have lower-case entries for English terms, at least for those that aren't proper nouns or for some reason otherwise usually written with special capitalization. Even that is only a practice, as best I can find at the moment -- I see nothing in WT:ELE or WT:CFI that specifically says "don't create entries like PEACOCK" (which is essentially not too different from what we have at クジャク). The rule of thumb for languages using the Latin alphabet appears to be, "only create entries for a specific capitalized form if there is a solid lexical reason for doing so."
For Japanese, we generally don't have any solid lexical reason for creating katakana-only entries, so our modus operandi has been to not create these. There is no hard and fast prohibition against creating katakana-only entries, as mentioned at Wiktionary:About_Japanese#Considerations_about_Japanese_language_entries, but these may be viewed as cruft by the Japanese-language editors here (including me, for many such entries), and if there is no clear reason for these to exist on usability-related or lexical grounds, they might be removed -- as this thread is discussing.
In most cases, it looks to me like users create katakana-only entries simply because the underlying MediaWiki software platform is, frankly, not all that good at properly handling Japanese text. See the third paragraph above in this very post. This is a large part of why we have such "unnecessarily proliferated kana entries". If the MediaWiki folk were serious about supporting Wiktionary, and serious about supporting all the languages we work with, most (all?) of the issues you bring up would vanish.
----
Separately, about the main point in this thread that @Fish bowl brought up, our basic standard for creating Japanese entries is outlined at Wiktionary:About_Japanese, specifically in the #Lemma_entries section:
As a general rule, the most common spelling is considered the lemma.
In modern usage, particles and verb conjugation endings are all written in hiragana. As such, we should have an entry at 失ふ (using hiragana for the okurigana), but not at 失フ. Any historical citations of spellings using katakana should go on the citations page for the form using hiragana.
We definitely do have variant-script versions of Japanese words. I think the policy should be attestation: if we can find 3 qualifying citations for a term written in unusual orthography, where the entire passage is not written in such orthography, then it should be included. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠01:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Three is a vanishingly small number for a well-attested language like Japanese. Especially if we include manga in the scope of any such search, given that manga authors are famously / notoriously flexible in their spellings. Let alone the simple fact that katakana was the de facto "main" kana variety for governmental and other official texts from the Meiji period up through the end of WWII.
Again, the hiragana / katakana distinction in Japanese is analogous to the lower-case / upper-case distinction for Latin-alphabet text. I notice we have no entry at ], for instance, despite that company's use of the all-caps spelling on its website and products. Similarly, we don't have any entry at ] (the diacritic-less katakana rendering of 非ず(arazu, “there isn't”)), despite this particular spelling's use in the Japanese text of the script of the proclamation of surrender made by Emperor Hirohito.
I maintain that, if a term's katakana spelling is not lexically significant (with the possible exception of discoverability / usability concerns, as I outlined earlier in this thread), I don't think it merits inclusion. Just like how ] is not lexically significant, and does not merit inclusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Thanks for your long comment. You've given me much to think about. As a resolution to this particular case, what do you think about using redirects? 失ウ would redirect to 失う、 失フ would redirect to 失ふ、 ウシナウ would redirect to うしなう、 and ウシナフ would redirect to うしなふ (the katakana sense at ushinau would simply be deleted). What do you think of that as a solution? 0DF (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@0DF, I am mildly concerned about the potential for unintended behavior, and the maintenance overhead of keeping track of entries like this. That said, I am open to the idea of redirects, if other editors are also amenable. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Katakana being the default kana variety in Meiji-era Japan does not address my point, because I've explicitly excluded the case where the entire passage uses unusual orthography by modern standards. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠22:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts, the question remains, are these alternative spellings like 失ウ demonstrably lexically significant? Or are these the functional equivalent of all-caps spellings of regular English terms like ]? Until and unless we can show lexical significance, or there is a compelling technical reason (such as the usability and discoverability issues outlined above), we have no grounds for creating entries for such katakana spellings. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
If PEACOCK appears 3 separate times, each in the course of otherwise normally capitalized English text, then yes I would include it as an alternate spelling. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠18:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there any lexical significance in that alternate spelling? If not, and the only difference is capitalization (or swapping hiragana / katakana), then the behavior should be an automatic redirection to the correct variant. This is already laid out at Wiktionary:Entry_layout#Entry_name:
If someone tries to access the entry with incorrect capitalization, the software will try to redirect to the correct page automatically.
Weak keep: It seems to me the big difference ultimately is between a two-character transcription and a one-character one. I assume there wouldn't be a problem with noting that 嗪 is commonly used for -ine, right, even though that too cannot stand on its own as a word (but it's a character)? But -卡因 seems to be a productive suffix for new drugs. Kungming2 (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
In short, these entries don't make sense. There are no official or widely agreed-upon systems for romanising any of the Ryukyuan languages, and as far as I can tell, our current transliterations don't follow any of the systems that do exist.
The only reason these were created is because the Japonic modules were written with Japanese in mind (which does link transliterations), and these hard-coded links remained in place when the modules were expanded to account for the Ryukyuan languages. Unfortunately, some people then decided to waste their time by creating romaji entries based on these links, despite the fact that in many cases they're not very good (e.g. あち(achi) should probably be romanised as 'achi('achi), due to the initial glottal stop).
The vast majority of languages don't have entries for romanisations, including major languages like Korean, and those that do follow widely-known, established systems like Pinyin or Hepburn. That certainly doesn't apply here, so let's get rid. Theknightwho (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, hmm, for mijiushi and mutu, the first is arguably problematic.
みじうし#Okinawan is romanized in our entry as mijiushi. JLect instead renders this as miji'ushi or mijiqushi.
Separately, as described in the JA WP at w:ja:沖縄方言の表記体系#基本音節と開拗音, orthographies for the Ryukyuan languages are not entirely settled, even in kana. There's an argument to be made that this same term above should be written in kana as みじ'うし instead.
We (the EN Wikt editor community) need to figure out what standards we are using -- for both kana and Latin characters, and clearly document that somewhere easily discoverable -- before we do much more to build out our coverage for these languages. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Leaning towards delete, but the romanisation module needs to be fixed to reflect the correct romanisation that would be reflective of the actual phonology, as many of them are currently inaccurate/wrong after TKW started to convert them to use the new module. Hold for Okinawan as that seems to have some non-kana writing (there was a Latin script spelling of 沖縄 but I forgot which page it is). – wpi (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Abstain. SoP indeed but disputable due to WT:LEMMING. See 漢語大詞典 & 辭源. The entry is wanting in quotations and translations though. Unless someone takes the plough plunge, I'm fine with Deletion. 弗躬弗親,庶民弗信. -- Ywhy (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Tagged by 157.65.230.118. I couldn't find any words for "커먼" in the Standard Korean Language Dictionary. And according to the CBD-CHM Korea, "callithrix jacchus" (common marmoset) is officially called "마모셋원숭이" in Korean. --Dubukimchi (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Chinese. 燂 rfd-senses: "to simmer with low heat", "to simmer slowly". 醃燂鮮/腌燂鲜 is the name of a common dish derived from these two verb senses, the main entry for which has now been moved to 醃篤鮮.
The reading for the verb in question had been wrong on all three pages, and the character selection seems to be unconventional at best.
All of these three pages seem to have been created with the Shanghainese verb 篤 7toq "to simmer" in mind. However, the unconventional character choice 燂 also meant that all three pages had mistakenly represented the reading of said verb as 6doe (the expected reading of the character) instead of 7toq.
I struggle to find any resources that write either the Shanghainese verb or the name of the related dish with the character 燂. With this being the case the verb senses should be deleted from 燂 and maybe moved to some more commonly used glyph such as 篤. 醃燂鮮 and 腌燂鲜 should probably similarly be deleted due to their low attestability, now that the main entry has been moved instead to 醃篤鮮. — Musetta6729 (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Since it's a rare case of 1:2 mapping between traditional and simplified and 蘋 -> 苹 is much more common than 蘋 -> 𬞟, I don't think the automatic simplification will be corrected. We'll just have to deal with it manually. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }15:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Part of this is due to automatic conversion between traditional and simplified, and the other part is that many years ago the simplified character 𬞟 is difficult to input and show, many devices and input methods just don't support it. Maraschino Cherry (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Old Japanese spellings in man'yōgana are so variable that I don't think we should create lemma entries at any man'yōgana spelling. Instead, I think we should formalize our EN Wikt approach to romanizations for Old Japanese (particularly with regard to the as-yet-uncertain vowel variants marked in many materials as /i₁, i₂, e₁, e₂, o₁, o₂/), and use the romanized spellings for our Old Japanese entries.
→ I am personally a fan of using the subscript numerals as above, as this distinguishes the vowel values without making any implicit or explicit judgment on how these were actually pronounced. That said, I recognize that it is not obvious how to input these for many people's keyboard layouts, and I am open to argument for some other notation.
I am perfectly happy for there to be soft-redirect entries for the various and sundry attestable man'yōgana spellings for any given term, provided that the main lemma entry is at a standardized spelling -- which, as far as I can think this through, would have to be a romanization.
I am opposed to creating entries at truncated root forms like ko2ro2s-. No reference that I am aware of collates verbs using truncated roots; they all use the terminal / predicative for Old Japanese, same as for modern Japanese. We know what the terminal / predicative form of Old Japanese verbs would be even for those verbs where we don't have attestations of such conjugations (such as /ko₂ro₂su/ for the 許呂佐 example above), so we should follow the principle of least surprise and use these for our lemmata. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Old languages are surprising in at least one way.
Perhaps we could input them as normal ASCII numbers, like a sample ko2ro2s-. This is like how we see a romanization link like Mandarin mi3 (Pinyin (numbered tone) reading of 米 (mǐ, “rice”)). Then, it could be sufficent that way. What do you think? Chuterix (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Western linguists often use the truncated root form for yodan verbs, and renyokei for nidan/ichidan. Vovin, Pellard, Frellesvig, etc. See ONCOJ dictionary hereChuterix (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
That may well be, but outside of such niche academic contexts (which includes ONCOJ's morphological analysis), every dictionary I've seen uses the terminal / predicative form for verbs as the lemma. I recommend that we do the same. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
That discussion is still ongoing, and we have not achieved consensus. Given my current read of that thread, ko2ro2su would indeed be one of the proposed forms for the Old Japanese lemma.
Ya, I think this is a naive entry, possibly inspired by other bilingual resources that might include otherwise-SOP terms and phrases as translations. See, for instance, the EJ ↔ JE Weblio entry here, and the corresponding lack of any such entry in the monolingual Japanese Weblio here.
Looks like the same user added this as the translation at Englishphotogenic. I have no objection to including this as a translation in our table there, but it should be clearly broken down into its components -- as Japanese, 写真写りがいい(shashin utsuri ga ii) is an SOP phrase (actually an entire grammatical sentence), and this literally breaks down to 写真(shashin, “photo”) + 写り(utsuri, “appearance in something, as an image”, from verb 写る(utsuru, “to appear in something as an image”), our entry is currently defective) + が(ga, subject particle) + いい(ii, “good”). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not really relevant whether it's been encoded in Unicode: plenty of legitimate (but rare) characters still haven't been encoded, and on the fipside, some encoded characters don't exist.
Chinese. SOP of 法(“French”) + 租界(zūjiè, “concession”). If this is allowed, then should we have other terms like 英租界(yīng zūjiè, “British concession”) or 日租界(“Japanese concession”)?廣九直通車 (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Chinese. Rfd-sense: "diplomatic service", which should be the same sense of "foreign ministry; department of foreign affairs". RcAlex36 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Chinese. Rfd-sense: "guard at a gate; entrance guard; gatekeeper; doorkeeper; sentry", which should be under the sense as "security guard; security man" as 保安 does not refer specifically to a guard at a gate. RcAlex36 (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Ainu. The term リュキュ(ryukyu) cannot be seen in real texts and has no historical probability. The word itself is also phonologically invalid in Ainu, which if valid would be リユキユ (riyukiyu) without the palatalization (no CyV in Ainu, all CyV would become Ci.yV such as Kiyo for Kyo=Kyoto, and Tokiyo for Tokyo). Ōta Mitsuru has coined ルチュ (Rucu) for Ryukyu based on Ryukyuian pronouciation) in his 和愛辞典. This リュキュ (ryukyu) can be seen as coinage most likely from a English or Japanese speaker without enough Ainu knowledge. So I would suggest the deletion. Mkpoli (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
As you note, this is historically improbable, as the population of Ainu speakers in Hokkaido, Sakhalin, and other northern islands would not have had much contact with anyone talking about the Ryūkyū islands.
This might alternatively be a modern borrowing into Ainu, which could also account for the palatal glide.
Unsure what the nominator intends for リンゴ(ringo, “apple”). Batchelor recorded it as an Ainu borrowing from Japanese, in the 1905 second edition of his Ainu-English-Japanese Dictionary, as we can see here in the scanned version available via Archive.org.
Thanks for your evidence. リンゴ seems to somewhat in used, although Batchelor's dictionary is infamous of its accuracy, and for the modern usage it is difficult to determine if it is code-switching or proper borrowing. In late 20th century, almost all (if not all) Ainu speakers are bilingual, so it's probable if the Japanese term with a voiced plosive ('g') is borrowed with that as a marginal phone. Anyway, I would like to withdraw my request for リンゴ for now. Although it should be disscused if the Hiragana form should be used. -- Mkpoli (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I mis-clicked the Send button. There is a entry, but the Aynu term is Ratchako instead . There is no direct usage of rosoku. Mkpoli (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Batchelor recorded ロソク(rosoku, “candle”) on page 380 of his dictionary here. Meanwhile, per Batchelor's other entry here, ラッチャコ(ratchako) means "lamp", not "candle".
Hmm, interesting. There is a Japanese reading rassoku for the modern term rōsoku (蝋燭). I can find suggestions that 蝋燭 might rarely have been pronounced as rōshoku, so while I cannot find evidence of any rasshoku pronunciation, it is plausible enough to suppose that this might have existed.
However, it seems less plausible to me for Japanese rassoku or rasshoku to become Ainu ratchaku — how and why would the medial consonant /sː/ or /ʃː/ fortify to become /tʃː/? Ainu has a native /sː/ phone. And how and why would the second vowel /o/ become /a/? These are contrastive in both Japanese and Ainu.
Separately, I note on page 73 of the PDF that the authors record Ainu terms rosoku and rósugu as borrowings from Japanese rōsoku. These are much more straightforward.
Chinese. In modern standard Cantonese, this isn't a neutral "Who are you?" but a more impolite "Who the heck are you?" or "Who do you think you are?" It probably should not be a phrasebook entry. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }06:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Chinese. RFD sense "Ho Chi Minh". Per WT:NSE, No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name and a family name. Clear case of such violation by listing the person's meaning.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be no need to create a word with a derogatory meaning toward the President of the Republic of Korea. --YeBoy371 (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
So, by your reasoning, we shouldn't have entries for derogatory terms for the former President of the US, but we have Mango Mussolini (among others that I couldn't bother finding). Take this to WT:RFVCJK if you have doubts about its existence instead. ItMarki (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
google:문재앙 yields 1.22 million ostensible hits, including news publications like this one or even government websites like this one.
We (the English Wiktionary editor community) have not created this word. We are simply documenting its existence, and lexicographically significant details like meaning and derivation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig17:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Chinese. Rfd-sense: "(informal, punning) Alternative form of 越 (“more”), usually in reference to the Cantonese language." Pun usage. – wpi (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wpi: Ok, that I think I understand, but is it widespread enough to be encountered online, etc.? If that's the case, I would still keep it. I would have not known unless I read that definition... — Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Chinese, SoP of 施行(shīxíng, “implementing”) + 細則/细则(xìzé, “rules and regulations”). Similarly we also won't create corresponding terms like 实施条例(shíshī tiáolì, “implementing regulations”), 实施细则(shíshī xìzé, “implementing rules and regulations”) or 实施办法(shíshī bànfǎ, “implementing rules”) in Mainland China.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Looking more deeply now, I can't confirm this sense in any of the references I have access to, such as the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry here at Kotobank, or the Daijisen entry here at Weblio (both in Japanese). In the context of the quote added by the anon, the "enemy" sense still fits. I suspect the "revenge" sense is a mistake, due either to the anon misunderstanding a Japanese text, or reading a mistaken translation.
I think @PhanAnh123 means we shouldn’t include multiword phrases in Hán–Nôm, as the separate parts can be looked up. I certainly agree with the sentiment, but we don’t yet have policy on this. If this passes here, I’ll nominate it for verification. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Cantonese Jyutping transcription for morphemes with a changed tone (3→2). Do we want this? This feels like it is entering "word" territory, and we do not have Jyutping entries for compound words. —Fish bowl (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Chinese, traditional Chinese main page 斷背情 was deleted due to SOP. 断背情 (as a simplified version) is now orphaned and should also be deleted. Kungming2 (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)