Talk:질이 나쁘다

RFD discussion: February–March 2016

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

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

질이 나쁘다

Not a word or a set phrase. Wyang (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Even though the second sense (bad quality) is sum of the meanings of individual words, the first sense (ill-natured) is not. Monni95 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Just looking at the constituent parts as an effective non-speaker of Korean, both senses look SOP to me: 질 (jil, “quality; nature, disposition”) + 이 (i, subject particle) + 나쁘다 (nappeuda, “is bad”) covers both sense lines currently at 질이 나쁘다 (jiri nappeuda): “ill-natured” and “bad quality”. I don't see anything unexpected or particularly idiomatic about this. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • When someone is a bad person, Korean use plain 나쁘다 (nappeuda). Adding 질이 (jiri) in this sense is more vulgar tone, close to English "cheap shit". Monni95 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • This example can be handled well at 질 (jil) and/or 나쁘다 (nappeuda). There is no sense beyond "ill-natured" and "bad quality", both of which can be inferred from the individual entries. Wyang (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Expanded 질 (jil) and 나쁘다 (nappeuda). Wyang (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete. It is a sentence (“the quality is low”), not even a fixed expression. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, would a move to 질이 나쁜 (jiri nappeun, “cheap; worn-out; decrepit; mouldy”) be warranted ? Leasnam (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Since 나쁜 (nappeun) is just the attributive form (“present determiner”?) of 나쁘다 (nappeuda), I'm not sure that move would amount to much. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's interesting that the entry exists in Naver dictionary.
• I don't think Shinji meant that the collocation being predicative as a reason for deletion, predicative verbs and expressions are easily made attributive (example sentence from Naver):
  그 값이 싸고 질이 나쁜 음식은 냄새가 고약했다.

  geu gapsi ssago jir-i nappeun eumsig-eun naemsae-ga goyakhaetda.

  The cheap and nasty food smelled awful.

  --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Right. 질이 나쁜 is “whose quality is low” and the problem persists. As in the example above, 질이 나쁘다 is only as fixed as 값이 싸다 (“the price is low”). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As for keeping the entry I am neutral on this. Naver dictionary has entries for both 값이 싸다 (gapsi ssada, “cheap, low-price”) and 질이 나쁘다 (jiri nappeuda, “bad-quality”). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, does Naver have entries for the antonyms? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The Naver Korean Dictionary doesn’t have an entry for them. The Naver English-Korean Dictionary does, and it is clearly for usefulness over strictness. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• RFD failed, per the Korean speakers and dictionaries. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  I feel the text of the closure is inappropriate: what matters is consensus, not Korean speakers or dictionaries. A voter in RFD might consider input of Korean speakers and dictionaries, but a closer of RFD not so. On a less related note, when a dictionary mentioned abote favors "usefulness over strictness", that's the sort of dictionary I'd like to consult. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)