Talk:给

There seems to me something utterly stupid about using an extract from the Middle Eastern religious tracts of two thousand years ago to illustrate the meaning of a Chinese word.

This is particularly so when the example shown illustrates the somewhat deceptive nature of "gei" as looking like a verb -- not wholly inaccurate, just rather off point for getting the actual Chinese meaning and grammatical role of the word across.

These is clearly some very bad judgement, in choice of words -- and in choice of editors -- here.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the example sentence, in part because you say it's not ideal for illustrating the nature of the verb, and in part because it was badly formatted and didn't seem to identify its source (which raises issues of plagiarism/copyright violation). It had been added by an IP from Bristol in the UK. - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)