Talk:娑

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.

Rfv-sense for Chinese: "to lounge" and "saunter". Dokurrat (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm certainly no authority on Chinese, but YellowBridge has always been my go-to. See: here. An actual lexical source would be more appropriate, but there does appear to be etymological backing at least. Ozelot911 (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ozelot911: Do you have any citation to back up this website's claim? Dokurrat (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dokurrat: Oh I'm sorry I should have clarified better, I actually agree that there seems to be little to no such evidence for the character's usage as a standalone morpheme (with phonetic usage being the only apparent exception). I only reference YellowBridge as a quick summary/reference regarding etymology as seen in my other sources (see below). Etymologically there is clear evidence that it possesses a meaning of "to lounge/saunter" but its usage as an independent morpheme doesn't seem to exist so far as I can discern. That is to say, I have no knowledge-base as to whether this distinction of meaning vs. usage is typical in Chinese. Here are the resources that link up with YellowBridge (my reason for citing it as a summary):

• hanziyuan.net
• ctext.org
• nihongo.monash.edu (seems to imply standalone usage, though only by omission with Japanese)

It seems to be sufficiently justifiable to go ahead and move this "sense" content to an etymology L3. Ozelot911 (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ozelot911: The third link didn't mention "to lounge" and "saunter". The second link copied "to lounge" and "saunter" from Unicode.org, which I failed to see any verification. The first link gaves meaning "to lounge" and "saunter" without any reason. Do you have anything else? Dokurrat (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dokurrat: I am quite aware of the content of these three links (which is why I used them as sources). As I have made clear in my clarification above, I am "assisting" in hunting down what little information on this topic there seems to be. I have also clarified that I am not presenting data for the purpose of verifying these senses as inclusionary on the article. I am presenting data that illustrates that there more likely seems to be no reason to keep these senses and that they most likely need to be removed. Once again I am lending my assistance by providing etymological data and likewise a lack of data on the character's usability as a morpheme; I am not providing a point-blank answer to this RFV (because all such information is quite sparse).

So I will simplify what I am finding: there does not seem to be sufficient evidence in the public knowledge-base to merit that the senses "to lounge" and "saunter" be included in the article for the character [娑]. In addition, the only evidence that I can discern is that the etymology and stroke combinations of the character [娑] correspond to it being a modifying auxiliary character denoting a meaning akin to "to dance" or similar, which has little to no bearing on the legitimacy of it as an independent morpheme in that it is nigh exclusively used in conjunction with other characters. I would advise that one may wish to pursue this information further, but as per my findings, it appears to be most likely that the senses in question are illegitimate and will likely merit removal.

The content of the third link makes an implication, and is of little objective use; included only as an interesting consideration on the topic. The first link and second link are both attested by the University of Chicago (http://edoc.uchicago.edu/edoc2013/digitaledoc_linearformat.php). This is the nature of discerning academic information. There is no firm objective source criterion, on-, or off-wiki. Given that the first and second link correspond and are both attested by an academic body they qualify as legitimate citable data to support the inclusion, strictly, of etymological data only (regarding the character), as per No original research § Synthesis of published material. Likewise then, policy dictates at the current time that there is no sufficient data to merit the inclusion of these senses as senses on the article due to a lack of sound sourcing post-research. Possible actions therefore are 1.) continue research to be certain (because I, a single user, cannot be deemed 100% thorough in this research) , 2.) include an etymology L3 with the sourced data, or 3.) include etymology and remove the uncited "sense" data as per a lack of current supporting evidence. Options 2 and 3 to be enacted as per RFV policy of deletion, of course. Ozelot911 (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Rfv failed. Dokurrat (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply