Talk:邲

RFV discussion: February–September 2021

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

邲

Rfv-sense: "good-looking". Tagged by @Geographyinitiative but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Didn't see it here [1] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, looks like what I call "Unihanism"; i.e. weird and out-of-place "definition" in English from the Unihan database. Apparently this is how some historical dictionaries have glossed it, for example: 《廣韻》：邲，好皃 (that's it; no example given). The Unihan DB for some reason immortalized this historical dictionary-only entry as "good-looking" (under the "kDefinitions" field), and that's exactly the phrasing that ended up here. Personally I don't think one could rely on such dictionary-only definitions at all, and the English glosses in the Unihan only makes things worse by 以訛傳訛. --Frigoris (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: It seems like it was used in some versions of Shijing, where other versions have 匪 (in 有匪君子). See this. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: If the sole citations are based on lost work that survives in fragments only in dictionary-like secondary sources (such as the Jingdian Shiwen as shown on the page), to me it's indistinguishable from a dictionary-only term. --Frigoris (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• RFV failed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)