Talk:柴可夫

A few issues

@Justinrleung: Following our discussion on RFV page, the issues I find with this entry:

1. etymology: I don't think it's Short for and more like originated from, what do you think?
2. Cantonese or not: 司机 and 斯基 being homophone is not limited to Cantonese-only, is it really necessary to tag this as Cantonese, and include only Jyutping?
3. neologism: do you think this should be added besides Cantonese and humorous? I'd definitely add it if you haven't added the quotation from 1991, but now I'm not so sure.

- ZypA13510 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ZypA13510:

1. I've seen 柴可夫司機, so perhaps we could say it's short for that? Alternatively, we could say it's a reanalysis of 柴可夫斯基.
2. All the examples I've seen are from Hong Kong. If you can find any quotes of this term being used in Mainland China, Taiwan or any non-Cantonese source, we could consider changing it to "chiefly Cantonese".
3. I probably could be tagged as a neologism, but it seems to be around long enough for it not needing it. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung:

1. Or just "xiehouyu, using the first three syllables of 柴可夫斯基(Tchaikovsky) to hint at the last two, 斯基, a homophone of 司機", avoid mentioning "short for" at all?
2. Yes, you're right about 2 and 3. It seems this usage is more widespread than I realized, and it's also much older than I realized. Let's keep it as it is. - ZypA13510 (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@ZypA13510: Sure, that works. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2020

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

柴可夫

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.

I believe this page should be deleted for two reasons:

1. It is not used long and widely enough and may not meet the criteria for inclusion. I'm sure even for Chinese, a lot of people don't know what it means. It's very obscure, and this can be witnessed by people asking the meaning of 柴可夫 司机 on the Internet. In my personal opinion it seems to fit the description of protologism more.

2. Part of the etymology does not make sense, in Cantonese, 柴可夫斯基 (caai4 ho2 fu1 si1 gei1) is so different from the sound of "Tchaikovsky", that it's more likely a translation originated from Mandarin and then spread to Cantonese. Yet the entire entry suggests this being a Cantonese-only word. This suggests that the entry is not well-attested and again, may not meet the criteria for inclusion. - ZypA13510 (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ZypA13510: 1. If it's a question of attestation, this should be sent to RFV (request for verification) rather than deletion.

2. Even though 柴可夫斯基 is likely a borrowing from Mandarin to Cantonese, it doesn't mean that Cantonese cannot develop a new sense/usage from the borrowed word. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Well, I assume the following from WT:DELETE no longer applies because of WT:CDP?

Protologisms (i.e. words that have been made up by the poster) have their place in Appendix:List of protologisms. Usually, it is decided during the RFD process whether a word deserves listing, but you can also be bold and add it yourself. The remaining entry can then be tagged by {{delete}} to be deleted.

If so, let's move it to RFV then, how do I do it now that it's in RFD? - ZypA13510 (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ZypA13510: Well, I don't think it's an obvious protologism. Maybe you're unfamiliar with it because you're not exposed to it. Since the main issue is attestation, RFV would be the way to go since requests for attestation are out of scope according to the top of this page. What we can do is move this discussion over there and also change the tag on the entry itself. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I'm not saying I'm unfamiliar with it, I do understand what it means, and I agree that it could've been somewhat popular at one time among a particular group of people. Maybe you can help me with my understanding of protologism, but my sentiment is that, there are a lot of protologistic/neologistic (whatever you decide to call them) words in Chinese subcultures that could've in theory satisfy the requirement of 3 separate mentions, yet their popularity also fall pretty quickly, exists only in the memory of some people, and never makes it into wider usage. Should we include all of them? For example: 要啥自行车 is undoubtfully more prevalent than 柴可夫, and still understood by a lot of people, should we create it as well? What about 呀啦那一卡 or 所累哇多卡纳?

But I agree let's move this to RFV for now.

Maybe we also need to discuss how to treat Chinese internet neologism in general. - ZypA13510 (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ZypA13510: Our goal is to document "all words in all languages" so long as they satisfy WT:CFI. It's not just about having 3 independent attestations (not mentions), but we also have to consider whether they span at least one year (which should take care of your concern of including words that fade quickly) and are durably archived. I've found 3 CFI-compliant quotes for 柴可夫, so it's definitely cited. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: You mean 3 CFI-compliant quotes for 柴可夫 in the sense of 司机, and not as part of the translation of the name Tchaikovsky? - ZypA13510 (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@ZypA13510: Of course. See the entry for the quotes. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I'm not able to verify your source. However, I think it'll pass (for me), unless someone else decides to challenge this I'll resolve it for now. I think there're still other issues with the page, if you're interested, let's continue this conversation in the talk page, ok? - ZypA13510 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• RFV passed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)