Talk:yếm

RFV discussion: November 2016–May 2018

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

yếm

Rfv-sense ばかFumiko￥^talk 09:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

http://imgur.com/a/zorsP in Nguyen Dinh-Hoa's Vietnamese-English Dictionary. Wyang (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang It's "Vietnamese bra" which is clearly a rough translation because there's that word "Vietnamese". You can call yếm the Vietnamese equivalent of a Western bra in a way. ばかFumiko￥^talk 05:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

(RFV failed? —suzukaze (t・c) 06:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC))

@Fumiko Take Not quite sure what you mean - the rfv was added to Etymology 2, not 1. Wyang (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang My concern was the rfv on the sense of "bra" which I've already removed. But the rfv under the Etymology 2 section should be dealt with too. ばかFumiko￥^talk 13:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with Etymology 2? Wyang (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang It seems obscure. I got nothing on it from [1]. Could you give citations? ばかFumiko￥^talk 04:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Added. Wyang (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This second etymology appears to not be Vietnamese at all. All the quotations given are no more than Classical Chinese text transcribed using the Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation. For example, the Việt Nam Sử Lược quotation is (in the original) first given as "遂令宣德之狡童，黷兵無厭" (original Chinese), then on a further page transliterated as "Toại lệnh Tuyên Đức chi giảo đồng, độc binh vô yếm" (transliterated Chinese) and finally translated into actual Vietnamese as "Đến nỗi đứa trẻ ranh như Tuyên-đức, nhàm võ không thôi" (actual Vietnamese). MuDavid (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: I am ignorant of the situation, so I cannot respond to MuDavid's concerns. Note that regardless of that, two of the quotations are from the same author and therefore are not independent, so one more quotation would be needed anyway to pass RFV. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course Hán-Việt is Vietnamese. I don't understand why it is so hard to keep Sino-Vietnamese information (it is found in compounds such as yếm thế), when Korean Hangul entries do it routinely (질) and yếm functions exactly like Korean 염 (yeom). Feel free to delete. The time of finding citations would be better spent elsewhere. Wyang (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sino-vietnamese vocabulary may be a part of Vietnamese, Chinese transcribed with the Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation (as the three quotations given) is not. The best that can be done in this case is to delete the quotations (which are not Vietnamese) and replace that part of the entry with something like in the case of minh here (which appears to be essentially what the state of affairs was before the request for verification was launched). The thing is that yếm with the Etymology 2 meaning is not an independent word in Vietnamese (making it impossible to "verify"), but it is used in compounds as Wyang notes (and many people not familiar with Vietnamese might encounter such compounds, think they are independent words and start looking up the parts; for them a note that yếm might be part of a compound as in the case of minh is certainly useful). MuDavid (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no longer anything in the entry tagged RFV, AFAICT, so this seems to have been resolved last year. - -sche (discuss) 23:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)