Talk:和尚摸得，我摸不得

@Poketalker

s:zh:阿Q正傳#第三章　續優勝記略

小尼姑全不睬，低了頭只是走。阿Q走近伊身旁，突然伸出手去摩著伊新剃的頭皮，呆笑著，說：
“禿兒！快回去，和尚等著你……”
“你怎麼動手動腳……”尼姑滿臉通紅的說，一面趕快走。
酒店裏的人大笑了。阿Q看見自己的勛業得了賞識，便愈加興高采烈起來：
“和尚動得，我動不得？”他扭住伊的面頰。
酒店裏的人大笑了。阿Q更得意，而且為了滿足那些賞鑒家起見，再用力的一擰，纔放手。
他這一戰，早忘卻了王胡，也忘卻了假洋鬼子，似乎對於今天的一切“晦氣”都報了仇；而且奇怪，又仿佛全身比拍拍的響了之後輕鬆，飄飄然的似乎要飛去了。 

恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Xiexie. The sense “two wrongs make a right” is enough. @Frigoris, Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c, help this one on how to use {{zh-x}} in the Etymology section. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 03:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker:  Done. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker, Justinrleung: By adding {{zh-x}} you introduced two sentences:

阿Q看見自己的勛業得了賞識，便愈加興高采烈起來

How does these two sentences further clarify the meaning or context in the original novel? The etymology section is only made more verbose for virtually no merit.

two wrongs make a right is not enough. "Two wrongs make a right" is also used for a wrongful conduct in revenge for another. 和尚摸得，我摸不得 is not used for this sense. It is only used for the case when the two wrongdoings are the same or similar. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: The most important thing to show is probably that the wording is slightly different (摸 vs. 動). We may also want to add a little more context, but I agree that it would make it quite verbose. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Then we only need to show the original form 和尚動得，我動不得, without the two preceding sentences which can not further explain the context anyway. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: It isn't entirely useless. It points out that it's Ah Q who's saying it and it gives the tone to the quote (興高采烈). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: This has nothing to do with the proverb itself. Explaining "和尚動得，我動不得"'s literal meaning has already made the semantical development of this metaphor very clear:

Monks have touched the nun (a wrongdoing), so I can too. - If someone else has done something (wrongdoing), I can too.

How does it matter whether the quote was by 阿Q or 王胡, or was said 興高采烈-ly or 垂头丧气-ly? We are not writing an entry for 《阿Q正传》 here. If someone is really interested, he can just go read the novel instead. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: It's not the most important thing in the world, so remove what you see fit. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: By the time of this novel, 和尚 is a general term for "Buddhist monk", not "high-ranked monk". 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: Yup, agreed. It wasn't me who added it. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: pardon my ignorance; was preoccupied with researching about Rajneesh. Had to move the quote and fix the sense a bit. How's that? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 12:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker: I don't know why you just want a quote so much. As I have stated above:

This has nothing to do with the proverb itself. Explaining "和尚動得，我動不得"'s literal meaning has already made the semantical development of this metaphor very clear. How does it matter whether the quote was by 阿Q or 王胡, or was said 興高采烈-ly or 垂头丧气-ly? We are not writing an entry for 《阿Q正传》 here. If someone is really interested, he can just go read the novel instead.

恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: I will be plain on this matter since I am not familiar with the novel/pre-war Chinese literature and was only concerned for the formatting. I have my own preference where to put things like "literally..." in either the Etymology section (with or without {{zh-x}}) or the {{zh-forms|lit=}}. In here, preferring the former because it is part of the verification process (confirm the source and quotation). Here are some examples: 割雞焉用牛刀 and 青出於藍，而青於藍. Let me know if this reply is still unclear to you, was up all night just pondering on this Talk page. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 15:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker: I don't even understand what the "verification process" you are talking about is. Neither why readers must read the so-called "verification process". Do you mean a good Wiktionary reader should first come to discussion pages and watch us arguing all around before starting to read main entries? 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker: Besides, look at this entry 割雞焉用牛刀. How awful it looks with such a plumpy etymology section. People visit that page to check whether it means "something big is not necessary to handle small problems", not to confirm "Confucius was visiting his disciple Yan Yan, who was commandant of Wucheng at the time". Why don't you use footnotes? 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: please note that it was not me who did the Etymology section of 割雞焉用牛刀, it was @A-cai. My only edit there is the addition of in-wiki links and Japanese calques descended from it. Regarding the "verification process", it's not a verification per se but like "where did that phrase come from?" kind of thing. Thus, the selection from the novel. If you have any better ideas, reply away. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 13:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker: I don't care who did it. Mentioning that entry as an example means you agree with the style of that page. Where did that phrase come from? The novel. How did it developed its current meaning? Literal meaning explained. And that's enough. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker: About "literally", we should not follow your personal preferences but what Chinese editors usually do. What we usually do is to use |lit= in {{zh-x}}. I don't recall anything that requires a quotation to be present in the etymology for verification of etymologies. As long as we are clear about what was meant in the original text and how that connects with present meaning of the proverb, I think we can do without a quotation, especially when it's a word-for-word quotation from the source. As @恨国党非蠢即坏 has said, the blurb cited before the quotation isn't really clarifying the context, and the whole passage from the novel would be excessive. It's better to have a short paraphrase of the context rather than quoting extraneous material from the source. Generally, we want to aim for minimality and clarity rather than verbosity in our etymologies so that we don't detract from the primary purpose of a dictionary - namely the definitions. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: fair enough. Just concerned about @恨国党非蠢即坏's formatting within {{zh-x}} and the sense as of now. How about a short commentary of that passage for the non-Chinese readers? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 13:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: please show me the proof that my last edit was arguably "unfounded". Else, this edit war is over formatting issues regarding the use of {{synonyms}} vs. {{zh-syn}}, and in my honest opinion, your correction(s) make the other way around. If placing {{noncognate}} in a sense for a loose English translation does not work, why not under put it under the See also header? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 10:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker: "See also" L3 are for entries of the same language, not for English translations. English translations are directly written in the definitions. This is how all other entries go.

Are you arguing for {{zh-syn}}? I do not oppose that. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

As you said, "'two wrongs make a right' is also used for a wrongful conduct in revenge for another". This term should not be translated as that, but close to that; hence, the See also header. Don't start an edit war, it is preferable to use "one's" or "the speaker's" instead of "My" for it may embarrass a reader especially one who has little knowledge of Chinese. Furthermore, capitalizing the first word only applies to senses under the English header. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 05:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker: I think two wrongs make a right is okay as a translation (i.e. as part of the definition line) because the Chinese proverb matches some uses of the English one, but further clarification is needed because they are not fully equivalent. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker: You are starting edit war. Please stop. No such rule or consensus prohibiting the usage of "My", or capitalization. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: that was a rude undo there, no offense. Putting "My" is not necessary there as, repeat, it may embarrass the reader(s) into applying it to themselves subconsciously. As far as concerned, "my" can be put as a sense under a foreign word meaning a first-person possessive pronoun. A neutral sense contains either "one's", "speaker's", or the related. Have yet to see the proof of my "unfounded edit" on your part. On the contrary though, the edit war began when you started undoing my edit with probably the correct formatting and links--you're conversing with someone with a bit more experience here in Wiktionary.

@Justinrleung: any ideas for "further clarification" aside from a See also? I'm out of some, except making the sense "two wrongs make a right" without @恨国党非蠢即坏's probably unnecessary preceding text, replacing it instead with putting "same or similar" between "two" and "wrongs". ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 10:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker: Repeat, there is no such rule or consensus prohibiting the usage of "My", or capitalization. The burden of proof is on you not me. The edit war began when you tried to change the content of an earlier version. Don't use your "experiencedness" to justify yourself. It is illogical. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The question that comes to my mind is whether this can be used when talking about someone else: if person A did something, and person B did something else, can person C use this expression? If so, then "my" is misleading. It's true that the quote itself uses the first person, but this is a definition, not a paraphrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it can be used in a third-person perspective, though it's often used as a direct quote. It does seem a little unnatural to use "my" in English. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If @恨国党非蠢即坏 had a {{Babel}} template on their user page regarding the level of English, I would have understand their position more. Trying not to be too hard, this is the first time being in a position like this; and not justifying anything. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: In most cases, people literally refer to themselves when using this proverb. When talking about someone else, it is used as though it were said by that person (person A in your scenario). Or a modified version like 和尚动得，A动不得？ is used. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)