Discussion in 'Chinese Language' started by 朱真明, Jan 20, 2016.
Then all they had to say was "sweetheart; lover (specifically between a man and woman only)".
But I would advise against assuming that the monolingual dictionaries are correct(unless you think that they are), mikelove and abun both thought that 情侶 could be used more broadly than the monolingual dictionaries suggested.
Definitely. They might be a little bit more precise, but not perfect, either.
The dictionaries are just a guide; I wouldn't assume any of them, in any language, are necessarily "correct". That's one of the reasons why it's so useful that Pleco has many dictionaries, so you can easily identify where there may be other meanings or lack of consensus among the nuances of particular words (like you have here - no doubt traditionally all romantic love was expected to be between a man and a woman, now things have changed and the usages of words are changing to catch up, dictionaries then need to catch up with that so there will be a time lag).
Thanks for the likes, Alex!
I'm not a fallacious-like person. I don't assume that dictionaries have to be perfect or fully representational of reality. I created a scenario where two widley renowned monolingual Chinese dictionaries, one from Taiwan and one from China completly agree with each other whilst on the other hand 5 other C~E bilingual dictionaries completely agree among themselves whilst simultaneously disagreeing with the monolingual dictionaries. This is not just a coincidence, it goes beyond just saying that dictionaries are not always right or that they are just a guide.
No, we just established that in English, it isn't possible to give a translation that comes any closer. It's better to have an English definition that could have more meanings than none at all, isn't it?
But you havn't proved that, you've just suggested it as a possibility. There are many possibilities.
1~ The Bilingual dictionaries are wrong
2~ The Monolingual dictionaries are wrong
3~ The Bilingual dictionaries didn't fully explain the concept correctly
4~ Both dictionaries are wrong
Given that all of the Bilingual dictionaries define the term in the same way, No.3 doesn't make much sense. I already showed that you can define the term accurately (see post #21) where you agreed with me.
Mike and Abun agree that No.2 is correct and I am still unsure.
You forgot number 5: Both kinds of dictionaries are correct.
Assuming that the meaning still is as the monolingual dictionaries say, I think it is proven, or evident, that no word exists in English which comes closer; otherwise, at least one of the bilingual dictionaries would very likely have used it, or it would show up in English synonym dictionaries. (or you could think of one)
It's also clear that most Chinese or English words have more than one meaning, and it is very rare for the meanings of any one pair of Chinese and English words to overlap completely. Usually there is only some overlap, which is why you need more than one English word to describe a Chinese word's meaning as precisely as possible. So the situation you describe is a very standard one. My advice is just not to regard dictionaries too highly. Then you should realize that this happens very often.
The definition you gave in #21 would probably be more accurate, but it would feel like a monolingual dictionary with the definitions written in another language. It wouldn't be a pure bilingual dictionary anymore.
Looking at the logic: You made the claim that something must be wrong with either the mono-lingual or bilingual dictionaries. I gave a possible explanation which would allow for both the monolingual and bilingual dictionaries to be correct. So there is no need for me to prove that my explanation has to be the truth. It is sufficient to give one possible explanation to refute the thesis that one of the dictionaries has to be wrong. Then again, you would like to find out what the truth is. Sometimes it's better to be happy with partial knowledge, or just to take an "educated guess". Sometimes there is also nothing behind a seemingly interesting question.
1) A difference is not a contradiction. It is an important distinction to make between the two. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction
2) Both threads in question are expressly about gender. One is labeled such, the other brings it up again and again, from the first post in a way that makes it wholly necessary to any discussion of the thread. As I said in an earlier post, "If you have "contradictions" that are not about 'gender', that would illuminate matters for me; otherwise, . . . "
3) You mention more than once that something 'political' is going on, and refer more than once to Mengdyen/MoE's dict as "conservative". Therefore you are being political. I can't say, "George Bush is conservative, but I'm not being political."
4) You clearly have disapproved, making statements such as, "I have found Chinese dictionaries especially 萌典 to be quite conservative. I wonder how Audrey really feels about this???"
"... if what you said is correct then the 萌典 dictionary is technically wrong and misleading. That being so, why wouldn't it be updated (if there isn't any politics involved)?"
among other places
The point is, just because you don't say "I disapprove" doesn't mean you are not disapproving. For example, if a student in school asks the teacher for permission to leave and the teacher says have a seat, the teacher is disapproving of the student's aim to leave the classroom.
5) As for the suggestion that I am stalking you (not your word, I know), that is silly for a number of reasons.
First, I have been on this board for a number of years and tend to come here after months away (or more than a year) because I am busy, at which time I tend to look at the recent posts (but have been known to dig through back pages), and answer or reply as I see fit.
Second, Your posts were all on the first page, and all from January of this year! (not a while back)
Third, You replied to a very old post of mine, so it is odd for you to make such an accusation.
Fourth, my replies to your threads are reasonable:
a) 妝: I just gave the standard linguistic opinion. You'd be hard-pressed to find a linguist who disagrees with that.
b) Chinese names: a number of the things you said on that post are total nonsense (though I was polite enough there not to say so directly). Your vision of what the tones mean or the visual forms of characters represent is 100% nonsense, made up by you. You also don't even know how Chinese speakers talk about names (danming, shwangming). In summary, don't give advice about a subject unless you know what you are talking about.
c) Radicals: I did not disagree with you at that time, or even reply to you, though I wanted to due to some of your recommendations (I should post again). I simply replied to the OP, without any reference to your reply. And that is not your thread.
d) I did agree with you vocally, more than once, on the only other time I am aware of replying to you (earlier than the current crop), on Sy's rambling thread about sorting characters.
e) I have replied to or referenced you on only four threads, agreeing with you once, making factual/widely agreed upon statements on two others, and making my opinion known (which dares to disagree with you) on only one.
Good day to you
1) Both can be contradictory if both cannot be true at the same time, pretty simple.
2) Qing lv is about sex, learn the difference.
3) I didn't say something political was going on I suggested it, learn the difference.
4) Learn what "if" means.
A) As Shun suggested, your comment was meaningless.
B) The first part of my article was about explaining how a Chinese name is normally constructed and showing how a foreign transliterated name destroys that structure. Everything I said was correct. The second part was about how to construct a name that represents yourself which is more artistic. I am not claiming that this is how Chinese construct their name or that they would understand the structure hence why you would have to explain it to them if they asked.
6) Shall I in the future write more simplistically to ease your understanding and prevent unnecessary misunderstandings?
They both can't be right if they contradict each other.
They agree in their meaning, they only differ in their range of meaning. Don't worry, I just think this question is of the kind where you're talking about an imperfection of dictionaries, and nothing particularly interesting that might be revealed through further study. I would just let it rest, IMHO.
Separate names with a comma.