Talk:a-bú
Add topicLatest comment: 10 years ago by Atitarev in topic RFD 2014
RFD 2014
[edit]
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.
See also WT:RFV#a-bú
An example of the above - the attestable proper writing is 阿母. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep; it does not follow from Pe̍h-ōe-jī that POJ spellings "don't seem to be attestable": the WP article states, "A large amount of printed material, religious and secular, has been produced in the script, including Taiwan's first newspaper, the Taiwan Church News"; there's more discussion of its use in the Current status section of the article. Its use doesn't seem to be comparable at all with Pinyin, which is used as a romanization of a widely used non-Roman writing system, whereas POJ is used as a primary writing system for speakers of a predominantly unwritten language. The fact that it's used at Min Nan Wikipedia shouldn't count against it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have commented on the RFV discussion. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have commented on the RFV discussion. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
See also WT:RFD#a-bú
Or anything in Category:Min Nan nouns in POJ script and other PoS. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're questioning the attestability of all Min Nan in POJ? From {{w|Pe̍h-ōe-jī}}: "A large amount of printed material, religious and secular, has been produced in the script, including Taiwan's first newspaper, the Taiwan Church News" and "POJ remains the Taiwanese orthography 'with the richest inventory of written work, including dictionaries, textbooks, literature [...] and other publications in many areas'." Do you have reason to doubt that? I could see requesting verification for very rare words in Min Nan (which, however, is presumably an LDL since it's a separate language from Mandarin), but not for such common words as 'mother'. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The RVF can take the normal course and if there are archived versions in permanently recorded media of Min Nan in POJ, then so be it. I chose the first noun on the list and made sure it's a common word, such as "mother", so it should be easy to check if it's used. Or do you think the criteria for Min Nan in POJ should be different? If yes, please clarify, we have special criteria for languages hard to attest. I liken the use of POJ to (Volga) Tatar written in Roman letters - plenty of material in Wikipedia and other wikiprojects but hardly attestable in books. The mixed Han-Roman texts look especially weird, so I'd like to have some attestation of those and possibly have a rule about their inclusion, if we have a precedent. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't think the criteria for Min Nan in POJ should be different than they are for other LDLs (i.e. a single mention is sufficient), but I do think RFVing a common word in a fairly widely spoken language in one of its most common writing systems (in which the entire Bible has been printed, not to mention the first 84 years of Taiwan's oldest newspaper) is a waste of people's time and just a little POINTy. The photo alone, not to mention the sources referenced in the WP article, shows that POJ is not just a Wikimedia thing. If you want to find books in POJ, go to w:Pe̍h-ōe-jī#External links and browse through the links under "Texts and dictionaries". POJ may not be seeing a lot of non-Wikimedia use nowadays, but it certainly has in the past, and that's enough for us. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- You may think I have an agenda, I'm being ignorant or whatever. I just don't think that POJ is so widely used or even was used. Southern Min is a well-developed spoken topolect but it lacks a standardised written form and like Cantonese, Min Nan speakers use Han characters, including cognates, when there's no Chinese character for some words. The use of Pe̍h-ōe-jī or a mixed script is one attempt to develop a separate writing system but if it's not accepted by the majority of Southern Min speakers and speakers of other Chinese varieties it remains just an attempt. I prefer to check a number of POJ words. If I find something useful, I'll withdraw the RFV myself. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, POJ never had a large proportion of users among speakers of Taiwanese, but it was for a time the most widely used writing system among the ones that existed – Hanzi has also never had a large proportion of users for Taiwanese (as opposed to Mandarin). If you have a language in which 95% of the speakers are illiterate (or literate only in a different language), while 3% use writing system A and 2% use writing system B, then writing system A is the most widely used writing system for that language, even though it's not actually very widely used. That seems to be the situation POJ was in from the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th. Finding an attestation for a-bú is bound to be trivial – but only for someone willing to tear himself away from the Internet and go to the library (outside of Taiwan it will probably have to be the library of a major research university) to find the POJ Bible, the back issues of TCN, and the other works printed in POJ. I'm not in a position to do that research myself, but I fully believe that there is at least as much Min Nan in POJ extant in durably archived sources as there is of any number of small, usually unwritten languages we have here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- You may think I have an agenda, I'm being ignorant or whatever. I just don't think that POJ is so widely used or even was used. Southern Min is a well-developed spoken topolect but it lacks a standardised written form and like Cantonese, Min Nan speakers use Han characters, including cognates, when there's no Chinese character for some words. The use of Pe̍h-ōe-jī or a mixed script is one attempt to develop a separate writing system but if it's not accepted by the majority of Southern Min speakers and speakers of other Chinese varieties it remains just an attempt. I prefer to check a number of POJ words. If I find something useful, I'll withdraw the RFV myself. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't think the criteria for Min Nan in POJ should be different than they are for other LDLs (i.e. a single mention is sufficient), but I do think RFVing a common word in a fairly widely spoken language in one of its most common writing systems (in which the entire Bible has been printed, not to mention the first 84 years of Taiwan's oldest newspaper) is a waste of people's time and just a little POINTy. The photo alone, not to mention the sources referenced in the WP article, shows that POJ is not just a Wikimedia thing. If you want to find books in POJ, go to w:Pe̍h-ōe-jī#External links and browse through the links under "Texts and dictionaries". POJ may not be seeing a lot of non-Wikimedia use nowadays, but it certainly has in the past, and that's enough for us. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The RVF can take the normal course and if there are archived versions in permanently recorded media of Min Nan in POJ, then so be it. I chose the first noun on the list and made sure it's a common word, such as "mother", so it should be easy to check if it's used. Or do you think the criteria for Min Nan in POJ should be different? If yes, please clarify, we have special criteria for languages hard to attest. I liken the use of POJ to (Volga) Tatar written in Roman letters - plenty of material in Wikipedia and other wikiprojects but hardly attestable in books. The mixed Han-Roman texts look especially weird, so I'd like to have some attestation of those and possibly have a rule about their inclusion, if we have a precedent. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think there is probably enough material for POJ for it to be kept. If you search for 'a-bú' in this page, and click on the blue link 'a-bú' in result #1, you can see attestations of 'a-bú' in the corpus of digitised POJ documents. Wyang (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- I can't find it, sorry. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
台語文語詞檢索系統─查詢[a-bú] ê結果 1 Lé-pài-ji̍t ta̍k-ê chò-hóe beh khì kàu-tn̂g chò lé-pài. A-bú the̍h 2 kâi 50 kho͘ ê gîn-kak-á hō͘ 10 hòe ê A-Koan. Koh te̍k-pia̍t 2 -kak-á soah lìn tùi pâi-chúi-kau lo̍h--khì. I tōa siaⁿ hoah kóng: “ A-bú , Siōng-tè ê chîⁿ lak bô--khì-a!” 3 mn̂g, kóng, “Góa sim-koaⁿ-á, lí teh siūⁿ sím-mi̍h ?” Gín-ná kóng, “ A-bú -á, m̂-á-chhiū teh kóng sím-mi̍h ? I tùi lî-pa āu-bīn thâu tàm- 4 I tùi lî-pa āu-bīn thâu tàm-cheh, tàm-cheh ; teh kóng sím-mi̍h ? a-bú -á.” 5 Lâu-téng chio lâu-kha, a-bú chio a-pa, 6 S: A-bú góa tńg-lâi lah! 7 S: Beh thài ū. A-bú chi̍t-kóa chhiú-chí, liān-á, saⁿ-á-kûn lóng hō͘ lín A-pa the̍h khì 8 chhēng, hó-mi̍h thang chia̍h, sì-kòe thit-thô. A-bú lóng bē thang hō͘ lí chhin-chhiūⁿ lâng. 9 K: A-pa m̄-thang koh phah A-bú lah. 10 K: A-bú ! 11 Chú-un:A-pa, a-bú , tiūⁿ-lâng, tiūⁿ-ḿ, Gô͘ Hāu-tiúⁿ kap chu-ūi tông-ha̍k, tāi-ke chinto 12 Sòng Phok-sū: A-bú , pêng-an! (tāi-ke ak-chhiú). 13 Sòng phok-sū: Kèng-ài ê hāu-tiúⁿ, a-pa, a-bú kap chu-ūi. Góa kap lín lī-pia̍t 7 nî pòaⁿ, kim-ji̍t pêng-an tńg- 14 Sòng Phok-sū: A-bú ê thiàⁿ-thàng un chhim bû ke̍k, koe chú liáu chin bó-chia̍h. Kiat- 15 chhim bû ke̍k, koe chú liáu chin bó-chia̍h. Kiat-hun ê sū chhiáⁿ a-pa, a-bú siat-hoat chiū-sī, góa bô ì-kiàn. 16 lú: A-pa, góa bêng-pe̍k lí ethi5aN. Góa ōe thiàⁿ sió-bē, iú-hàu a-bú , chhiáⁿ lí an-sim. Góan sui-jiân sī ko͘-jî, bô pē ê lú-chú, chóng 17 góan sìn a-pa lí sī chit sè-kan chòe úi-tāi ê lāu-pē, góa kap a-bú ta̍k ji̍t teh thòe lí kî-tó bô soah, chhiáⁿ a-pa lí an-sim.(Ông Bêng 18 Sió-bē: (Ki-ki-kiò) (ǹg tùi lāu-bú ê heng-chêng bong) A-bú ! 19 : Sian-siⁿ, góan siā-nih kin-á-ji̍t phó͘-tō͘, iā ū chòe hì, góan a-bú chhiáⁿ Sian-siⁿ tio̍h lâi hō͘ góan chhiáⁿ. 20 Sūn-ì : A-pa, a-bú . 21 Sūn-ì : A-pa, a-bú góa kōaⁿ chi̍t chiah koe tīm jîn-sam lâi beh hō͘ lín chia̍h, Ài-ah 22 Sūn-ì : A-pa, a-bú , thài ū iàu-kín, kūn-lâi Chài-sêng ah hōan-chiá chin-chōe, siu- 23 Sūn-ài : A-pa, a-bú , jī ché góa tò-lâi lah. 24 Sūn-ài: Sím-mi̍h kiò-chò îⁿ á píⁿ leh, a-bú . 25 Sūn-ì: A-pa, a-bú , góa khòaⁿ Ài-ah bô ì-kiàn, lín nn̄g lâng kā phah-sǹg chiū hó. 26 In-ūi peng-teng teh lâi chhōe eⁿ-á, góa chiū kín-kín chōa lí ê a-bú cháu kàu chia an-chôan ê só͘-chāi, Bí-liân lí ū gū-tio̍h peng-tūi 27 á lí kiám thang kap ché-ché pun-khui mah!! (koh tùi lāu-bú kóng) A-bú í-góa kiám bô sím-mi̍h hó ê pān-hoat thang lâi kiù góa ê sió- 28 美廉: A-bú ! Góa ū siūⁿ hó kè-tì thang chiong góa só͘ thiàⁿ ê sió-tī-á lâi
...
Wyang (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. I have removed RVF. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)