Talk:可耕地

Deletion discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

可供軍用, 可供军用, 可耕地, 可得到, 可編程, 可编程, 可共患難, 可共患难, 可讀音性, 可读音性, 可變化合價, 可变化合价

@WikiWinters Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wyang, Atitarev I don't always agree with CEDICT when it comes to proper nouns, because some terms are SOP, but I don't think these are in the same category, and all of these terms are found in CEDICT. --WikiWinters (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do think they are not SoPs? Wyang (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If you take 可得到, for example, it has the distinct meaning of "available," whereas 得到 means "to obtain." One is an adjective and the other is a verb. 可得到 is not the same as 可的得到 or 可以的得到, which are both certainly SOP as they are simply literal variations of the original. --WikiWinters (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

可得到 is SoP, as 可 is not tightly attached as in a word, e.g. 1) adverbs may be inserted: one may say 可轻易得到 (that can be easily obtained; easily obtainable); 2) it may act as the predicate of a sentence: 一些小幸福可得到。("Little moments of happiness can be obtained.") These show that its actual meaning is "can be obtained", not "obtainable". Wyang (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you, that's understandable. I shall practice more discretion when creating entries in the future. Do you think all of the terms nominated for deletion should now indeed be deleted? --WikiWinters (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Wyang (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: "可得到 is SoP, as 可 is not tightly attached as in a word": Seems to be a non-sequitur: what has deducibility of the meaning from parts have to do with tight attachment? Consider look up and the phrase "look it up" for an English example of a separable non-sum-of-parts term. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep 可耕地, 可读音性 and 可讀音性. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

These are not words in Chinese. Wyang (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO, some terms are worth keeping. I haven't checked well, though. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A few will pass Lemming test. Terms 可耕地 (kěgēngdì), 可共患難／可共患难 are also included in the ABC dictionary, which is shipped with Wenlin software. 可共患難／可共患难 seems very idiomatic. Component 可 (kě) seems a very productive prefix to form "-able" adjectives (in English translations), e.g. Wenlin generates a big list of such words, just a few, which we are currently missing:

• 可保 "insurable"
• 可悲可笑 "both pitiable and ridiculous"
• 可被引用 "quotable"
• 可測／可测 "measurable"
• 可拆 "removable; detachable".

--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• This should have been posted as individual items. I don't envy the editor who is going to close this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• These terms should be assessed individually.

可供軍用 - Delete. Not idiomatic.

可耕地 - Keep of course. This is in the 現代漢語規範詞典 for goodness sake.

可得到 - Delete. Sum of parts.

可編程 - Delete. Sum of parts.

可共患難 - Keep. Idiom. We should also add the idiom 可共患難不可共安樂.

可讀音性 - Keep. Technical term.

可變化合價 - Keep. Technical term.

---> Tooironic (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Are technical terms a problem? We have English technical terms. --WikiWinters (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

可耕地 means "arable land" not "cultivable"! 可共患難 should be deleted; 共患難 and 可共患難不可共安樂 can be kept. 可讀音性 - not a technical term and not a word in itself - there is something wrong when what you yield on Google is nothing but foreign dictionary hits. 可變化合價 - not a technical term, sum of parts 可變 and 化合價. Wyang (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

可供軍用, 可供军用, 可得到, 可編程, and 可编程 deleted; no consensus to delete 可耕地, 可共患難, 可共患难, 可讀音性, 可读音性, 可變化合價, and 可变化合价. bd2412 T 04:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)