Talk:you suck
why is this a seperate idiom, shouldn't it just all be part of suck? Both of the definitions you gave could/should be part of the suck definition. --Eean 21:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- ah, I see the 'category phrasebook'. I'm still not sure about it though. --Eean 21:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Assuming we have a phrasebook category at all, we might as well have well-known colloquialisms like this. The real value added is in providing an idiomatic translation: something that a native speaker would say in the similar situation. BTW, I'm not convinced the Spanish translation is the best possible, but I did get it from a native speaker. -dmh 21:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Right, I see.
- Assuming we have a phrasebook category at all, we might as well have well-known colloquialisms like this. The real value added is in providing an idiomatic translation: something that a native speaker would say in the similar situation. BTW, I'm not convinced the Spanish translation is the best possible, but I did get it from a native speaker. -dmh 21:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The problem with Spanish is that anything you choose would probably be a regionalism. And figuring all that out is hard. I'd say Spanish is worse then English on this. At least its worse for the international dictionary writers. --Eean 00:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Eean - there is nothing here that doesn't just go at "suck". I don't think it is common enough to warrant inclusion in the phrasebook. I'm going to recommend it for deletion for these reasons. — Paul G 11:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- (More Beer Parlour fodder follows)
- I agree that the key test here is idomaticity. I can't think of any idiomatic usage that can't be deduced from the parts, and I don't know of any interesting non-literal translation (for example, one that didn't involve the word/inflection for "you", or which only held for "you" and not other pronouns).
- I put this up partly because I'm a bit nervous as to how wide a net the "phrasebook" category (which I think is quite a useful idea) might cast. In particular, could a phrase that wouldn't otherwise merit inclusion merit a phrasebook entry. Again, the key is idiomatic usage (and not so much frequency of use), with possible exceptions for very common or useful phrases.
- By this reasoning, Where is the toilet? should probably be deleted in favor of Where is ..?, but How are you? is fine because it is not generally used literally.
- In any case, I'm OK with deleting. But let's make sure suck covers both senses. -66.26.58.221 15:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) (-dmh)
- If you pick up an entertaining phrase book such as from the w:Lonely Planet it would probably have phrases like 'you suck'. Whether something is an idiom or not isn't what merits inclusion in a phrase book. The point of a phrase book is too be able to speak a language without properly learning its gammar. I think we should keep the article, but only the translations. Phrase books do not have definitions. So, like where is the toilet?. It is extending the scope of Wiktionary a bit, but I think its useful.--Eean 08:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Contents of rfd prior to deletion: ==you suck== - *you suck See my reasoning the discussion page, but also consider what others have said there about this page. — Paul G 11:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) - ** As I say in the discussion page, I'm fine with deleting it. -dmh 06:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) - *** I suggested making it translation only on the talk page. - --Eean 10:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) - **** Deleted Polyglot 14:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Now it's back (I found how to restore stuff) Enjoy Polyglot 23:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deletion debate
[edit]The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
- I don't follow the argument about this phrase being part of the phrase book. This phrase to me is not idiomatic at all. You can simply replace the pronoun with a name or another pronoun and the meaning stays the same except now it applies to a different entity. It's just the sum of parts to me. Jamesjiao 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Print phrasebooks are not dictionaries either. They have hundreds of common phrases or constructions that occur in the everyday life of a foreigner visiting a country where a given language is spoken.
- Here, the phrasebook is sometimes used as a means of keeping phrases that are SoP and would not meet any reasonable interpretation of CFI. This is such a phrase. The phrasebook notion does not seem to have interested anyone enough to make it into a well-defined project. Thus we have many entries that do not meet CFI that might merit inclusion in a phrasebook. They await someone with the vision to make a proper phrasebook component at WMF probably within en.wikt (like Wikisaurus) but perhaps not. DCDuring TALK 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note that Wiktionary:Phrasebook is a redirect, so we have virtually no written policy on the phrasebook. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't even in the phrasebook. --Yair rand 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note that Wiktionary:Phrasebook is a redirect, so we have virtually no written policy on the phrasebook. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly the kind of colloquial entry that would be in a subversive phrasebook. Certainly more colloquial than the stilted "what is your name". It certainly doesn't seem to be nonsense. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per this discussion. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)