Talk:西語
RFV[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
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.
Rfv-sense: "Western language; Western language study". One of the oldest tagged RFVs, but apparently never listed here. The tag was added with an edit summary that asks if it's "really in use or just a guess based on the kanjis?" —RuakhTALK 20:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- This term is certainly showing up with the same two meanings in my Japanese-only copy of Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten, Shinsou-ban (Japanese Big Dictionary, Revised Edition) from 1988. My dictionary doesn't give any sample sentences or I'd add them to the term's page, but I'd say it's verified. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi Tala við mig 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- We do not rely on a term's being in a dictionary (listed in a dictionary. Used in the dictionary is fine) for attestation.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. What counts, then? Googling about shows lots of use on the Japanese web (a cursory look shows the term used mostly to mean Spanish, showing up quite often on university course listings like this web page or this PDF), and a good bit too in Chinese (which I cannot read as fluently). -- Eiríkr Útlendi Tala við mig 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The best citations are from printed books (not self-published), printed (not self-published) periodicals, and academic journals (print or not). Also generally accepted are Usenet postings archived by Google and e-books (not self-published), and self-published books (e-, if available on Google, or print). Citations must show the word used, not just mentioned (as it is in a dictionary), although people have argued that a good source, like an academic journal, which notes that others use the term is also okay; certainly a work that quotes an interviewee (e.g.) is fine even though that's technically mention rather than use. (I think that pretty much sums up the way we've been doing things lately. Others may differ.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Poking around further, the only use I can find of 西語 in the sense of "western languages" is in Chinese; every Japanese online mention I've looked at means "Spanish". The wording in the Shogakukan listing makes me think the editors there were thinking more of an abbreviation of 西洋語学 or 西洋言語 to 西語, rather than a bog-standard term unto itself:
- 2 （「西」は「西洋」の略）西洋の言語。また、その語学。
- Even so, I cannot find any Japanese use that matches this, despite applying some fun Google-fu. I thus have no objection if anyone wants to remove the second definition on the 西語 page. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi Tala við mig 22:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- In Chinese it means 1) (= 西班牙語) Spanish; 2) Western language(s). Same in Japanese. [1][2] Wjcd 23:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Poking around further, the only use I can find of 西語 in the sense of "western languages" is in Chinese; every Japanese online mention I've looked at means "Spanish". The wording in the Shogakukan listing makes me think the editors there were thinking more of an abbreviation of 西洋語学 or 西洋言語 to 西語, rather than a bog-standard term unto itself:
- The best citations are from printed books (not self-published), printed (not self-published) periodicals, and academic journals (print or not). Also generally accepted are Usenet postings archived by Google and e-books (not self-published), and self-published books (e-, if available on Google, or print). Citations must show the word used, not just mentioned (as it is in a dictionary), although people have argued that a good source, like an academic journal, which notes that others use the term is also okay; certainly a work that quotes an interviewee (e.g.) is fine even though that's technically mention rather than use. (I think that pretty much sums up the way we've been doing things lately. Others may differ.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. What counts, then? Googling about shows lots of use on the Japanese web (a cursory look shows the term used mostly to mean Spanish, showing up quite often on university course listings like this web page or this PDF), and a good bit too in Chinese (which I cannot read as fluently). -- Eiríkr Útlendi Tala við mig 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- We do not rely on a term's being in a dictionary (listed in a dictionary. Used in the dictionary is fine) for attestation.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Removed as uncited (RFV-failed). - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)