Talk:盲目的

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

盲目的

A Chinese adjective with 的 (de), which is ... derived from Chinese. At best it should be a redirect to 盲目 (mángmù). [UNRELATED MESSAGE REDACTED]. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

main topic

I think redirects from 的 forms (and other alt forms, like macronned Latin) would be great, but I've previously heard that this project frowns massively upon them for some reason.

In the case of 盲目的, Ati seems not to have read the entry or be falling back on policy. It's not generally a bad policy, either: usually ~的 can be left to the reader's imagination and ignored. In this specific case, 盲目的 has shades of meaning (per www.nciku.com & presumably other dictionaries) that 盲目 does not: spec., "senseless", "unreasoning". That usage is available w/ the 的 but never without it. — LlywelynII 00:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

subtopics

Your issues with that formatting (which, again, I copied from an existing article) have no relevance to a discussion on whether to keep this entry. Keep that to my talk page.

Pinyin entries, especially long ones, should have glosses (not definitions) to direct readers, but that's also a discussion for another place.

Finally, I'm only a single person, not a hive mind. Feel free to use the English gender neutral "he" or, if you're feeling PC, "she or he". — LlywelynII 00:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No offence was meant re subtopics. I have no idea about your gender, so used "they", which is quite polite when gender is unknown (but you can never win). Sorry, in any case, for anything irrelevant to this discussion.

You're referring to Nciku. My search shows it doesn't exist there but it shows hits in user examples. I'm afraid you have to prove that 盲目的 is different from 盲目 apart from the usual and expected created by the particle "的". I couldn't find 盲目的 in any other dictionary with the particle. I have suggested on your talk page to enhance 盲目 to include any additional senses, which are only created with the particle (I doubt they exist, it's about the particle itself). BTW, a few policies are behind and not written specifically in Wiktionary:About Sinitic languages, especially those, which haven't created any controversy. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Senses "ignorant, lacking understanding, senseless" (the expanded meanings of "blind") are simply covered by "盲目", which obviously loses its particle or attaches it when required. Nciku shows examples of both senses with and without "的". The policy on Japanese particle "な" (na) explicitly disallows it in the entry. Chinese needs to catch up. Adjectives with "的" are also avoided in translations to Mandarin, even if the lemma is an obvious noun. In such cases "alt=" parameter with "的" is used, the raw page linking to the word without it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Anyone with basic knowledge of Chinese syntax and morphology knows that 的 is never used to create words (词组), though there are about 30 or so exceptions which I have listed on my blog [1], but even these are considered very controversial among linguists. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Before anyone deletes the page itself, allow me to add the Japanese term spelled the same way. Haplogy (話) 07:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the Japanese term. It's not in danger, the RFD is for the Mandarin term. The suffix 的 (teki) is derived from Chinese particle 的 (de), which often plays the same role in Mandarin as the Japanese な (na) with adjectival nouns or の (no) with nouns. So, Japanese adds な (na) to 盲目的 (mōmokuteki) in the attributive form, which would be 盲目的 (盲目 + 的) in Chinese. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. That's the first thing I've learned about Chinese grammar. I should probably study Mandarin more at some point. It can't be that hard... (笑) Haplogy (話) 20:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, inappropriate title. Definitions are inadequate too. Chinese entries by User:LlywelynII should be double-checked. Wyang (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)