Talk:很Q
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- It is sum-of-parts in English (very cute) but not sum-of-parts in Chinese (很Q). There are many meanings of "Q". One of the meanings of "Q" is "penis" in Chinese. "很Q" is a word, it is not "sum of parts". If 很Q is "sum of parts", it could means "very penis".
- Hi. Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from. However, it seems that you have been avoiding the real argument. A valid dictionary term (wiktionary anyway) can only be qualified as such if the meanings of its parts do not add up to map the meaning of the whole term. Take 阿Q for example. It doesn't mean anything if you break the term down to 阿 and Q; therefore it is a valid term to be included in wiktionary. It's a different story with 很Q. You can break the term apart and the aggregate meaning of the two parts 很 ('very') and Q ('cute') will still map exactly to when they are placed right next to each other. As I mentioned on your talkpage, there is nothing to prevent someone from saying 非常Q, which further disqualifies 很Q as a valid dictionary term. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are too many meanings for Q in Chinese. Do we have enough meanings at Q? And can the user select the right meaning?
- There is only one for adjective at the moment. There are plenty of polysemous words in other languages - a very simple example - one that I recently edited - the Dutch meanings of pool. Remember it's a dictionary, it's not a book that tells someone how to use a dictionary. More often than not, users will have to figure out the meaning of a term based on the current context. Our responbility is to provide as many known definitions of an entry as we can without stepping over certain boundaries. If we start including terms like 很Q or 好Q, then we will also have to start doing so for terms like very happy, extremely happy, oh my god, I am so happy, or happy animals - as you see, it's simply not viable. That's why we need boundaries and guidelines for us to determine what to include and what not to. As I said, I'd never bring this up, if you were to include a term like 阿Q, which is perfectly valid. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- How about 多Q餘? It is an adjective as well.
- Hi. Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from. However, it seems that you have been avoiding the real argument. A valid dictionary term (wiktionary anyway) can only be qualified as such if the meanings of its parts do not add up to map the meaning of the whole term. Take 阿Q for example. It doesn't mean anything if you break the term down to 阿 and Q; therefore it is a valid term to be included in wiktionary. It's a different story with 很Q. You can break the term apart and the aggregate meaning of the two parts 很 ('very') and Q ('cute') will still map exactly to when they are placed right next to each other. As I mentioned on your talkpage, there is nothing to prevent someone from saying 非常Q, which further disqualifies 很Q as a valid dictionary term. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's actually a phrase used mostly in Cantonese. I've never seen it used in any online publications or forums in Mainland China (ie. not including HK). To be honest, I am not sure what Q here actually means as I am not versed in Cantonese. I assume that it serves as an intensifier. In this case, the Q cannot be used on its own. It only serves a purpose when it's wedged between 多 and 余. By this reasoning, it should be included. (Though, I'd recommend you to change its heading to Cantonese instead of Mandarin. It wouldn't make any sense to anyone who speaks no Cantonese in my experience.). Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 05:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wiktionary is not for Mainland China only. It is hard to distinguish which word is Putonghua, Cantonese or others.
Deletion debate[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Two things with this entry. Firstly, I believe it is sum of parts as it's a very generic adverb / adjective combo (not an idiom at all); the adverb can be replaced with any intensifer and the phrase will still stand. I have raised the issue with 123abc on his talkpage. Secondly, I removed his rebuttal comment from the page itself; however, in his defence, he decided to revert my edit and put the comment back onto the entry page resulting in a potential edit war. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 03:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is indeed SoP. The user has also added 好Q and *shudders* 很cute. Why s/he didn't just add a Mandarin entry for Q is beyond me. I'll go do that now. All three of these should be deleted. AFAIK the only two character word on Wiktionary we have that is prefixed by 很 is 很少 which IMO should probably be deleted but I suppose might be useful for CSL students. Tooironic 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- 很Q/好Q should not be deleted, please see the discussion of 很Q.
- Delete all for the reasons above. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem here is: you are treating every phrase as if they are the same, when others are trying to make you see the individual differences. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 00:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- delete I think this is beyond any shadow of doubt. I have dicussed this in detail with 123abc on Talk:很Q. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I mean, nǐhǎo, you can add almost anything to Q and make more or less the same meaning - 非常Q, Q死了, Q不得了, 太Q了, etc. IMO 123abc is not fit to continue editing Wiktionary if s/he continues to create non-dictionary entries here requiring more work from other editors. I just checked out Q and the user has made a complete mess of the entire Mandarin entry which we are going to have to fix again. And is it too much to ask if the user could sign his/her entries! Tooironic 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- delete I think this is beyond any shadow of doubt. I have dicussed this in detail with 123abc on Talk:很Q. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 23:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
All fail. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)