Talk:розовая слизь
Add topicLatest comment: 12 years ago by Mglovesfun in topic RFV discussion
RFV discussion
[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I doubt this meets our Criteria for Inclusion, specifically our requirement that terms have citations from more than one year ago, in durably archived media. It seems to be a neologism, and our CFI are specifically "meant to filter out words that may appear and see brief use, but then never be used again". - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't take this personally, Anatoli. I just think our CFI specifically exclude these newly-coined terms. - -sche (discuss) 01:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Single-word coinages are often a different case from multiple-word phrases, and outright coinages are different from translations. It is usually a mistake for anyone who does not speak a language to try to judge the validity of a term in that language, as it is for someone who doesn’t know the language to try to argue with fluent, educated speakers about the spelling, forms, usages, and pronunciations. Most other languages are more conservative than English, and those who know a language well will usually agree on whether to accept or reject a given term. —Stephen (Talk) 06:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Funny enough, nothing in that statement says a single thing about WT:CFI. We don't try and judge the validity of a term; we try and discover if it meets CFI, whether or not it is "valid" or "invalid" in some sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the definition is bad, as I cannot understand the meaning of the word from this definition (pink slime has several senses). Lmaltier (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- It’s not a definition, it’s a translation. English terms are defined, foreign terms are translated. —Stephen (Talk) 06:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's useful. We shouldn't say that 唱片 means "record". That may be a translation, but out of context it doesn't tell the reader what 唱片 means. Heck, we should fix all those definitions that just say cat to make it clear whether the word applies to all members of the feline family, and whether it applies especially to the domesticated cat. розовая слизь needs to say enough to make it clear what it signifies in Russian, even if it takes a full definition to get there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- That’s how bilingual dictionaries work. It is extremely useful. I’ve been a professional translator all my life and I’ve used thousands of bilingual dictionaries, and they are very useful. A Russian-Russian dictionary gives definitions of Russian words; an English-English dictionary gives definitions of English words; a Russian-English dictionary gives translations of Russian words. I almost never use monolingual dictionaries that give definitions, I only use bilingual dictionaries that give translations. I would not waste my time trying to use a bilingual dictionary that gives definitions instead of translations, which is why all bilingual dictionaries give translations instead of definitions. —Stephen (Talk) 08:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's how paper bilingual dictionaries and their immediate descendents worked. Among its values is an never ending supply of humor as novice users are given insufficient guidance to the use of language they aren't familiar with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- That’s like saying novice surgeons who are given insufficient guidance to perform heart transplants in their freshman year of college. Novices translate the examples from their grammar textbooks in the classroom for their teachers, they don’t do professional work. Not only is it how paper bilingual dictionaries worked, it’s how digital bilingual dictionaries continue to work and how translators choose and use their dictionaries. Listen, I have tried to explain it to you and I am wasting my breath on you. You have no training or experience in the field and what you are saying is nonsense. I’m not going to discuss it with you any further. —Stephen (Talk) 09:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if you two are talking over each other. What we need (and currently lack the technological infrastructure to feasibly implement) is a way to specify translations, so that we can simply translate a foreign word, and have the user know which sense of the English translation we meant. For the time being, we can use short glosses, such as "record (disc)". -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Any of you heard of
{{gloss}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Any of you heard of
- I wonder if you two are talking over each other. What we need (and currently lack the technological infrastructure to feasibly implement) is a way to specify translations, so that we can simply translate a foreign word, and have the user know which sense of the English translation we meant. For the time being, we can use short glosses, such as "record (disc)". -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- That’s like saying novice surgeons who are given insufficient guidance to perform heart transplants in their freshman year of college. Novices translate the examples from their grammar textbooks in the classroom for their teachers, they don’t do professional work. Not only is it how paper bilingual dictionaries worked, it’s how digital bilingual dictionaries continue to work and how translators choose and use their dictionaries. Listen, I have tried to explain it to you and I am wasting my breath on you. You have no training or experience in the field and what you are saying is nonsense. I’m not going to discuss it with you any further. —Stephen (Talk) 09:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's how paper bilingual dictionaries and their immediate descendents worked. Among its values is an never ending supply of humor as novice users are given insufficient guidance to the use of language they aren't familiar with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- That’s how bilingual dictionaries work. It is extremely useful. I’ve been a professional translator all my life and I’ve used thousands of bilingual dictionaries, and they are very useful. A Russian-Russian dictionary gives definitions of Russian words; an English-English dictionary gives definitions of English words; a Russian-English dictionary gives translations of Russian words. I almost never use monolingual dictionaries that give definitions, I only use bilingual dictionaries that give translations. I would not waste my time trying to use a bilingual dictionary that gives definitions instead of translations, which is why all bilingual dictionaries give translations instead of definitions. —Stephen (Talk) 08:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's useful. We shouldn't say that 唱片 means "record". That may be a translation, but out of context it doesn't tell the reader what 唱片 means. Heck, we should fix all those definitions that just say cat to make it clear whether the word applies to all members of the feline family, and whether it applies especially to the domesticated cat. розовая слизь needs to say enough to make it clear what it signifies in Russian, even if it takes a full definition to get there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- It’s not a definition, it’s a translation. English terms are defined, foreign terms are translated. —Stephen (Talk) 06:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe it could be improved, but I'm hardly loosing sleep over it; it's as good as half the definitions on Wiktionary. It does literally mean "pink" "slime", as clicking on the individual words shows you, and if you look at the quotation, it shows you that it applies to the food sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- We could informally sit on this for a year and come back to it then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Whenever I add a Spanish term I try to add every sense of it in the royal spanish academie to our page for it with (what sense it is): so that people will know each and every context of the term.Lucifer (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
rfv-failed, not cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)