Talk:질이 나쁘다
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Dan Polansky in topic RFD discussion: February–March 2016
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
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)
- 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)
- 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.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- geu gapsi ssago jir-i nappeun eumsig-eun naemsae-ga goyakhaetda.
- The cheap and nasty food smelled awful.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- RFD failed, per the Korean speakers and dictionaries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/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)