Talk:外銷

Definition

(Withdrawn) 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

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

(Withdrawn) 00:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinit1iative: 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:

• [1]: 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。
• [2]: 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):

• [3]: 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。
• [4]: 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)

(Withdrawn) 08:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 04:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 06:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 06:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 06:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 10:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 01:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinit1iative: 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

(Withdrawn) 04:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 04:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) 04:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) 04:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) 04:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 04:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) 04:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) 04:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) 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)

(Withdrawn) 05:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 05:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 05:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 05:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Geographyinit1iative: 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)

(Withdrawn) 00:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) 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)

(Withdrawn) 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

(Withdrawn) 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)