Talk:外銷

Definition

@Atitarev, Justinrleung Hey- the definition Atitarev used is identical to that found in the PLC dictionary in Pleco and seems to be derived from the definition found in the LAC (兩岸辭典) and Xiandai Hanyu Cidian [1]. My guess is that the second half of the definition "or in another part of the country" is added because sales between China and Taiwan might be called "外銷". However, the Jianbian and Chongbian don't include the "or in another part of the country" part [2][3]. I don't know exactly what action to take (maybe split the definition into two?), but some example usages of the "or in another part of the country" usage of this word would be interesting indeed. Would sales between Beijing and Canton or Taipei and Kaohsiung be considered 外銷? I somehow doubt it. Seems a little political. Anyway, I split the definitions into Mainland and Taiwan versions, but that may not be a perfect way to do this and I welcome any changes. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No opinion. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will try to keep an eye out for example uses of this word. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: The absence of "or in another part of the country" in certain Taiwanese dictionaries doesn't necessarily merit the recent change. I've found some quotes treating sales between different parts of Taiwan as 外銷:

• [4]: 一口答應，當地農產品外銷到台北，柯文哲擄獲農民的心，但卑南鄉可是全台東，唯一一塊綠地，民進黨籍的鄉長許文獻，不怕白綠撕破臉，面臨選邊站。
• [5]: 吳立民認為，頭城臨山面海，農業耕地不大，但是在海風長年吹拂下，農特產風味都優於其他地區，歷年來的桶柑品質都居於宜蘭縣之冠，從改良自土芭樂的甜心芭樂，因為其後期快速熟成特性，色澤、香氣都遠優其他芭樂，卻不耐久放，僅能外銷台北與花蓮。

It seems to be less common in Taiwan, but it's definitely not restricted to Mainland China. The main reason is probably not the political aspect, but because Taiwan is much smaller - everything is quite close and another city would not be considered 外地. In Mainland China, 外銷 can definitely be used between provinces - which is something Taiwan doesn't really have (even Taiwan proper to Matsu or Kinmen is very close):

• [6]: 而旺苍县柑橘产量不高，根本没有外销到外省，疫情已得到有效控制。
• [7]: 3月30日，在大余县新世纪工业小区，工人正在将“酱醋萝卜”打包封罐，准备装箱外销到广东、山东等地。 — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung I just assumed the worst I guess! Everywhere I look it's "1984"! Well anyway, if you are okay with it, I (or you?) could send these two example sentences from Taiwan news sources (as well as the Mainland ones) to the Jianbian and Chongbian editors and see what they say. They may want to update the definitions or 否認 this kind of usage. Do you think it's worth it? I definitely think so- let me know what you think. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: If you'd like to contact them, feel free to do so. As for how we should deal with the definitions here, I think it's good just to have it the way before. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I don't yet agree that returning to the definition as before is necessarily the best option yet. Why do those two dictionaries, Jianbian and Chongbian, not mention regional trade? Is the China Times article reflective of common parlance in Taiwanese Mandarin? The usage in TVBS is in close proximity to political talk. I am going to need a little more clarity before reverting back. Chongbian especially can be a really good dictionary, so I am inclined to stick with it. The examples you presented from Taiwanese media are not convincing enough to me to use to ask for a reassessment from Jianbian and Chongbian- I don't want to send something in that isn't conclusive. I suspect they could say that these two usages are incidental or aberrant. If I were going to contact them, I would need such usages in books or by trading companies I think- established usage. I've corrected one or two of their definitions for obscure geography, but changing the definition for a word used in common parlance is a much bigger deal. Anyway, that's where I'm at at the moment. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: While Jianbian and Chongbian are good dictionaries, they are not perfect. Silence/absence (on Jianbian and Chongbian's part) is not good evidence for the split in the definitions, but the quotes in real usage (political or not) is good evidence against the split. These two dictionaries may not have mentioned regional trade because it may be much less common in usage. Also, LAC, a dictionary dedicated to highlighting Mainland-Taiwan differences, does not mention this kind of difference in usage between the regions; while this is not great evidence, it points to the lack of clarity on the issue. There needs to be more evidence to explicitly say that Mainland has one definition and Taiwan has another than to be more ambiguous by saying "to sell abroad or in another part of the country" without mentioning which regions use what. Furthermore, by splitting this up into a Mainland-Taiwan difference, it unnecessarily excludes other Chinese-speaking regions like Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. In addition, we're just looking at a handful of dictionaries, with many more dictionaries excluded. Dictionaries, while valuable, are limited; that's why we value real quotations more than what particular dictionaries say. Sticking to Chongbian while ignoring quotations (dismissing them as political or aberrant) is not quite what we want. I'll try to look up more examples to see if there's more evidence, but with what we're working with, I still think the way it was before would be better because it better reflects the actual evidence. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

What I am disputing is the quality of the evidence. I'm saying Jianbian and Chongbian trump two pieces of journalism in terms of what the standard is for Taiwanese Mandarin. If the Jianbian and Chongbian are not perfect, then they must be changed. The fact is, they can be changed by you and me. So I'm waiting until I have enough clear evidence (a kind of 'open and shut' case which gives them no outs from my perspective) before I would be willing to contact them to ask for a change or a clarification. The fact is, the Mainland dictionaries give "international and regional" and the Taiwan dictionaries give "international". My doubt is that the two quotes from Taiwan media are not going to be enough to convince Jianbian and Chongbian. I don't have a relevant Hong Kong or Malaysia dictionary givng their Chinese usage for 外銷. If you have one, open it up and add the definition from there. All I'm saying is, I need (and I expect the Jianbian and Chongbian dictionary editors need) more than two quotes from journalistic sources to show that the "regional" trade definition is part of 外銷 in the context of Taiwanese Mandarin. They would probably want multiple quotations over time from good sources that are totally Taiwan that clearly and literally mean to say "regional" trade. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: That's why we're in a way better than those dictionaries. We can make changes to our dictionary in a way we see fit. There is absolutely no need to follow Jianbian, Chongbian or any other dictionary. Whether they decide to change their definition has no effect on what we do here. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Don't they have an authoritative perspective on what is "Taiwanese Mandarin"? I'm not trying to run over Kouyu- I'm trying to figure out what is considered the real meaning of 外銷 in the context of Taiwan. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: They have some degree of authority but only in a regulatory sense. They do not dictate actual usage. The "real" meaning in Taiwan is reflected by actual usage, not in the definition given by a particular dictionary (even if it were deemed authoritative in some sense). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

They have some degree of authority on what Taiwanese Mandarin is. So if the evidence for "regional" trade being part of the definition becomes overwhelming, then it will be reflected here and also in those dictionaries. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: They don't really have much power in dictating "what Taiwanese Mandarin is". We don't really need to wait for them to change (if we decide to contact them). These dictionaries are not meant to be the be-all end-all of Taiwanese Mandarin. The two quotes above should be enough evidence for us here - it doesn't have to be "overwhelming". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: It all comes back to the question of the "standardness" and authoritativeness of these dictionaries. Is all Mandarin written in traditional characters in Taiwan Taiwanese Mandarin? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Definitions and pronunciations are different. Pronunciations have a stricter regulation by MoE than definitions. Definitions in dictionaries can be incomplete, which seems to be the case here. Not mentioning 外地 doesn't mean it's not used in Taiwan; it could simply be a deficiency of the dictionary. Yes, I would agree that all Mandarin written (in traditional Chinese, at least in print) in Taiwan can be considered Taiwanese Mandarin. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: (1) I won't change this definition back to original version on the basis of two modern example sentences alone. (2) At this stage, I also don't have the linguistic/intellectual ability, personal interest or academic resources to do a conscientious and thorough examination of this word as it has been used historically in Taiwanese Mandarin. If a change were warranted, I would want to do such an examination before I would make a case to the dictionary editors of Jianbian and Chongbian Guoyu Cidian to ask them to change their definitions. (3) I can defer to your judgement on this issue for the time being within the rules and standards of Wiktionary and will not reject a revert or edits if you make them. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I've reverted your edit for now. As I've said before, it's better to be silent on something we're not sure about than to make claims that are not fully supported. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Verification

@Justinrleung Hello. In the spirit of the wise admonition that "it's better to be silent on something we're not sure about than to make claims that are not fully supported." I have added a request for verification to this definition. When we say "another part of the country" does that mean Wuhan to Ezhou? Wuhan to Beijing? Wuhan to Urumqi? Wuhan to a Special Administrative Region? Wuhan to Taiwan? Does actual usage in Taiwanese Mandarin agree on this second clause to the definition, or does Taiwanese Mandarin follow Jianbian and Chongbian Guoyu Cidian? In the end, is there any meaningful difference between 外銷 and 內銷 in Mandarin or other Chinese languages today? There may not really be a difference- the words may have originally meant "selling outside the country" and "selling inside the country" but have now become meaningless- probably need a word meaning something like "selling outside the customs area" or something similar in today's markets. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC) (modified)

Speculation- perhaps the 外 just means "outside" of any region or anything that the seller is in. Outside the province, or even outside the county or maybe even out of network or outside a certain commercial framework. 內 just a relative term in the context and doesn't mean 國內 although the words were probably originally meant to be used for international and domestic sales. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Geographyinitiative: I think the investigation we did before is sufficient. If you want to dig deeper and find examples, go ahead, but I don't think we need to overcomplicate this with the RFV process. We've already found examples of 外銷 within a country without any dispute, so the current definition is good enough. We already have too many words that need RFV. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung No no, you're just using Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and ignoring the meaning of the words and the definition used in the Guoyu Cidian, so it really isn't "good enough". It's not clear at all that Taiwan Mandarin uses it this way or that other dialects would use the word in its perverted interregional commerce sense. Needs real verification in all Chinese languages, sorry. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

And why settle for something you admit yourself is only "good enough"? How about "correct"? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

貨物由本國向外國銷售的交易，稱為「外銷」。 相反詞 內銷 [8] 內銷 相反詞 外銷 本國生產的商品，只在國內市場上銷售，而不運送到國外銷售。如：「這家工廠生產的球鞋以內銷為主。」 [9] Have they got amateurs that don't understand their own language writing those authoritative dictionaries or what? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as Xiandai Hanyu Cidian goes, I would say "Доверяй, но проверяй" --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Okay, if you want to send to rfv, I can't stop you. That said, if you could investigate yourself, it'd be much appreciated. We've already verified it to some extent, so I guess we could use that as the starting point. However, there is no way to verify this in "all Chinese languages" - what does this even mean? And it is very prescriptive to say that the usage is "perverted". "Correct" is what we aim at, but this is difficult; we are amateurs after all. As I've said before, the "authoritative" dictionaries are excellent but not perfect. There may also be some degree of prescriptivism. Of course, there may just be some variation between speakers - some might think it's restricted to trade between countries, but others may think it's restricted to trade between regions. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung What do you mean "what does this even mean?" Does Cantonese use the word this way? It's 'perverted' when a free people have one definition of the word in their dictionary and the communist dictatorship's dictionary has a different definition. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If I can't directly point out that the Communist Party of China's dictionary may not necessarily be a reliable source on some things, how will we ever be able to create a real dictionary? I'm having doubts and I'm asking for real verification, not kinda sorta good enough. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It may very well be that the Hakka dictionaries and normal Hakka use of the word doesn't use the word in the way that Mandarin's Xiandai Hanyu Cidian wants. They may more closely adhere to a more original meaning of the term. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to VERIFY something when the cross straits dictionaries are different rather than just pooh pooh me and say "good enough". --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You can probably verify Cantonese, maybe Hokkien, possibly Hakka, but what about Gan, Xiang, Min Dong, Min Bei, Min Zhong, Puxian Min, etc., which have so little written material available? Also, how far do we divide? Are Hokkien and Teochew the same language or different? Also, stop politicizing this discussion - we are not trying to push communism just because we're following a definition from their dictionaries. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Not my problem you can't verify your bold claims about other Chinese languages. There's a word for sales in another part of a country- it's called "內銷". Do the full work up and show that this term is really like the Communist Party wants it to be and not like Guoyu Cidian says it is, for as many languages/regions as you want or can. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative: You are sick and I don't mean it as an insult. Have a shower and some warm tea with honey. Justin is too polite to tell you where to go. I will block you permanently if you don't stop molesting people! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev You should be banned for personal attacks.

@Justinrleung Send them an email at the MOE about what you've found concerning interregional sales- have they made any comments yet? They are pretty responsive. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I don't think this is such a big deal to report to the MoE. If you want to ask them what they think, go ahead. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I think it is a big deal. They ought to know that their dictionary is wrong, wouldn't you say? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: It's not entirely wrong; it's just suboptimal. Why don't you ask if it's a big deal to you? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung You know those dictionary writers- they don't mind too much if definitions are suboptimal. It's more likely that every word is closely checked and compared with a corpus of literature and that they know what they are doing and didn't decide to include extra content. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's no use to argue about it. Just do the thoroughgoing verification. That's what we want on Wiktionary anyway. Maybe I and the Guoyu Cidian really are truly in error, and this word has a wider scope. Just work on it or let someone work on it later. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Geographyinitiative: Even if that is so, it may be an incompleteness in their corpora and/or a recent development of the word (in Taiwan). I still don't want to bother the MoE with this. As for our side of things, go ahead with the RFV process if you really want to, i.e. list it on WT:RFVN. However, don't expect "all varieties of Chinese" to be verified since such a task is too much to ask. (Also, one more advice, please try to have your thoughts gathered into one edit so that I could actually respond and not get into an edit conflict.) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev You are of course right in a way. I am too vitriolic. I understand. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

America’s Muzzled Freedom "The crimes under this new tyranny are perceived speech-crimes or thought-crimes. Those who commit such crimes will be isolated. They will become strangers in the land or exiles. When exiles approach, former friends will flee as from someone impure. Many may believe that these exiles are innocent or may wish to extend them forgiveness. A former friend may whisper encouragement, privately, but even he shall abandon the impure to their fate for fear that something like this may happen to him. Whose heart does not ache for these injustices? Whose conscience is so seared as to think such un-personings are causes for celebration?
The uncancelled remain free, but their freedom is not what it used to be. The free have something to lose, after all. They could lose their jobs, their good name, the honor that comes from inventing, and the ability to educate others or to influence institutions. They could bring shame or ignominy on their children, or have a difficult time providing for the lifestyle that families have grown accustomed to. So are the free really free?
A careless word (no matter how long ago it was uttered) or gesture or even a studied silence can lead a former person to be thrown into the void. Nearly every American stands on a trap door above this void. If you love the fruits of your freedom, it is best to avoid opening that trap door and losing all that you have held dear.
This fear makes you do things you wouldn’t ordinarily do. It makes you refrain from doing things you normally would. It makes you raise questions you don’t really think are fair, and it makes you refrain from raising questions that you think are fair." --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

On behalf of Xi Jinping and the Central Committee I cancel you for promoting splittism among Chinese provinces. This page is 26,318 bytes large. How much of it is of you constructively resolving your own question with evidence? Or #staywoke I guess lmao. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand the humor. But I was perma banned for hate speech because of this page dude. All I'm saying is that not all people may agree about this definition, as illustrated by the Jianbian Guoyu Cidan/Chongbian Guoyu Cidian definitions. I have a very special perspective on the world that allows me to make edits no one else is able or willing to make- see all the Wade-Giles pages, Tongyong Pinyin info, and the Talk:老外 page. We agree on 99% of stuff man. 和二不同! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As regards to splittism, Taiwan is interesting and we need more info about it, but I started working on Xinjiang because Xinjiang is TOTALLY unknown in English. That's one of the problems with this whole Uyghur issue: nobody in the English speaking world has any information about Xinjiang. Wikipedia pages for areas larger than many countries were stubs before I came along. I'm working on it- slowly, conscientiously, using various resources, and without respect to what Xi Jinping or Donald Trump would want me to write. Spittism or unification or whatever is interesting but beside the point of ascertaining factual knowledge. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The most important knowledge is the knowledge you are discouraged from knowing about. The important questions are the questions you are not allowed to ask- not politically correct, not civil enough, etc excuses. It is really a great saying: 實事求是--- but if you are not permitted to know the 實事 you can't begin to approach 是. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c I'd love to return a joke to you- something mentioning Pompeo's speech about "distrust and verify"- but the atmosphere toward me is so hostile that I bet a quote from Pompeo would be deemed hate speech. That's what Wiktionary is. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

dude just find evidence to back up your concerns regarding this entry? kk? you're the only one who keeps dragging politics into every conversation. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c The real rules are, you can be rude to me all day with no repercussions, but if I say one word out of line, BOOM.
This word (外銷) is not defined the same way in Taiwanese Mandarin dictionaries as it is in the official Mandarin dictionaries of mainland China, and we need to let people know that. Cantonese and Min Nan probably don't follow the mainland China definition either. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Consider why I'm being a snarky mf. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–August 2020

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

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.

---

外銷

Rfv-sense: ‘to another part of the country' in all Chinese languages or only some contexts in Mandarin Chinese? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggest closing and continuing discussion at Talk:外銷. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Suzukaze-c. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

In case there's no consensus to close, I've started collecting citations at Citations:外銷. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• RFV closed. This was never appropriate for RFV, and the definition in the entry as given is correct. Usage notes may be appropriate. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)