Talk:sĩ

Derivation

Does this word derive from 士 or 仕? 71.66.97.228 07:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July–September 2024

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

sĩ

In this discusssion, User:PhanAnh123 and I, who are both native Vietnamese speakers, agreed that we never saw sĩ being used as an adjective glossed as "(archaic) intelligent; wise; well educated". Two Vietnamese dictionaries (Hồ Ngọc Đức, Nguyễn & Phan ) which I can access, both classify sĩ as a noun. I personally vote yes for deleting just the "Adjective" subsection, @PhanAnh123, @MuDavid, @Billcipher123, what do you think? Erminwin (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Erminwin, PhanAnh123, Billcipher123, must go through RfV before it can be deleted. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Erminwin: Yeah, sounds fair enough. Most dictionaries (Từ điển - Lê Văn Đức, Từ điển mở - Hồ Ngọc Đức, Đại Từ điển Tiếng Việt, Từ điển - Nguyễn Lân, etc.) classify "sĩ" as noun.
Seriously though, I don't know why you feel the need to go through the whole RfD and RfV process, seems a bit overkill. Billcipher123 (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's not a matter of the entire page being deleted by an admin, just removal of some content on the page. If the editors who have already discussed it agree and published dictionaries agree, just remove the content. You don't have to wait for the formal RFV to be complete. If someone later does turn up a noun usage, it's easy enough to re-add the info. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not a question of “feeling the need”: this is the rules of Wiktionary; and it is not overkill, as being a native speaker does not in any way guarantee knowledge of all words (let alone archaic ones) and other dictionaries often have lacunae (especially when it comes to archaic words). At least Fumiko Take should have a chance to tell us where she found this sense, and maybe other editors (currently active or otherwise) may have knowledge of manuscripts none of us has read. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Native speakers are not aware of tons of words. It's about what has quotes and uses, not about what our given editor base is familiar with. Vininn126 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Two months without cites (plus the previous discussion) in spite of all the attention, that’s RfV deleted. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)