Talk:唐裝

tangzhuang = 唐裝?

@-sche, RcAlex36, Frigoris, 沈澄心, does this really only to a tangzhuang (as in a jacket) rather than the whole set of clothes? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It certainly seems like tángzhuāng can at least sometimes refer to just a tangzhuang, and sometimes to a whole set of clothes. A Google Image search for 唐裝 turns up some images of just the jacket/top (not just photos which are cropped to where they only show the jacket, but some of just the jacket against a whit background like in a clothing store photo), and google books:"唐裝" jacket turns up some results which gloss 唐裝 as Tang jacket. (If there is a sense intermediate between the two currently-listed senses, by which it refers to some specific set of clothes, not just the jacket, but also not just any clothing typical of the Tang, that should probably be added too...?) - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July–August 2021

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

唐裝

Rfv-sense: the clothing of Tang dynasty --Frigoris (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: Hanyu Da Cidian has this sense, but the quote is more of a mention (if I'm reading it right). 唐朝人的裝束。宋陸遊《老學庵筆記》卷八：“翟耆年，字伯壽……巾服一如唐人，自名唐裝。” 重編國語辭典修訂本 also has this sense, with the same quote. This sense is also in 中華語文大辭典: 原指唐朝人的服裝。 — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, To me this looks like a candidate for converting to {{&lit}} with quotation. --Frigoris (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: Hmm, to me, 裝 is a bound morpheme in modern Chinese languages, so it would not be appropriate to convert this into {{&lit}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, That's precisely the point, since the quotation dating from the 13th century isn't exactly "modern Chinese language". I presume that the usage like that were fairly isolated even in classical sources; and if so, there isn't strong indication that the user were intending to use it idiomatically. The passage suggests that it was supposed to refer to the Tang era. (In the next sentence the person met immediate ridicule by someone wearing a labourer's culottes and platform sandals, claimed to be 晉裝). --Frigoris (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: I've found one more quote from the 12th c., as well as two modern quotes. I think this should be cited, and since it's not restricted to classical sources, I think it shouldn't be converted to {{&lit}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: thanks, but I still don't see how in these two quoted examples it's not a sum of parts. To me this feels analogous to the FWOTD today, Filmriss = Film + Riss; a tear in the film, which abruptly stops the screening. (BTW I'm don't know where lies the distinction between "labelled as literally" and "marked as {{&lit}}") --Frigoris (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: As I've said, since 裝 seems to be a bound morpheme in modern Chinese, 唐裝 would not be considered SoP because at least one of its parts are not free morphemes. I know that this criterion not explicit in WT:SOP, but in practice, I think it seems to be a reason that certain words may be included (e.g. ungoogleable) even though they would be SoP purely based on meaning-to-component correspondence. Anyway, the SoP-ness of this definition isn't really something to be dealt with in RFV. As for the difference between "labelling as literally" and "marking as {{&lit}}", I am not quite sure, but maybe "literally" is used when the phrase is still idiomatic (in the sense that it has a narrower meaning than based on the sum of parts) but contrasted with "figuratively". (That's how I use them, but yeah, it doesn't seem to be used in this way in Filmriss.) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: It's just that I'm not so sure about the "boundedness" of 裝 during the Song-era as shown in these examples; as I understand it, in these quoted examples, even without the supposed boundedness the sentences could be understood perfectly. It's also possible that I have a higher bar for "boundedness" than usual. --Frigoris (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: Perhaps it's not bound in the Song era, but it has become bound over the years. And maybe you do have a higher bar for boundedness, but what I mean by "boundedness" is how free it can be in terms of syntax. For you, can 裝 be used freely without being in a compound? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: as with many terms in Chinese, it seems to have undergone gradual increase in "boundedness" as time went by. For example, we find

1. 約車治裝 - 戰國策 object of verb, although here the sense seems to be the older one, close to the English term "trappings".
2. 眉不施黛，裝不求飾 - 東觀漢記 noun as topic
3. 鼓史何不改裝，而輕敢進乎？ - 後漢書 object of verb

so to answer the question, it's a qualified "yes" - since I'm not sure about whether, by the time of the Song, the term is already mostly compound-bound. --Frigoris (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: As long as a term is still in usage in modern Chinese, I think we can judge its SoP-ness by modern Chinese standards. It would be interesting to try to see if it's SoP in the Song dynasty, but that exercise is not necessary for the purposes here imho. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, oh, I see that you mean by the current standard rather than the contemporaneous one. In that case, will the quotations from the olden time be as helpful for backing up the definition as, say, sentences found in contemporary sources? I can see a way to reuse the old quotations by adding the "dated" and preferably "literally" labels, which will indicate the usage as defined is no longer considered "fresh" and bear little relation to the more widespread definition. --Frigoris (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: I'm not sure if "dated" would be appropriate if there are still recent uses, but we could say {{lb|zh|literally|now|rare}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, thanks, I think that's a clear label, and we can go on to place it. Perhaps with "uncommon" in the place of "rare" --Frigoris (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris:  Done — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: thanks! --Frigoris (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• RFV passed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)