Talk:בשר חזיר

RFD discussion: January–February 2016
Another crappy stub by Hippietrail, but in this case I don't even think it's one that deserves an entry. I think this is just "pig meat" in general, and thus SOP, but a Hebrew speaker should check that this treyf entry is kosher, so to speak. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Another crappy insult by Metaknowledge. I made an entry because it has existed as a single-link translation to the English word "pork" for nine and a half years with nobody addressing its crappiness. In many other languages the word for "pork" is SOP and gets entries both here and in printed dictionaries. Chinese, German, Japanese, Khmer, Lao, Maori, Thai, and Vietnamese are examples. In any case I leave it up to those who are expert in each language here as they each interpret the SOP rules differently. Just remember to fix the translation table if it's decided to delete the entry. Now back to your crappy insults, so to speak. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you made the entry blind with no knowledge of Hebrew, by your own admission? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with editors using available precedents in Wiktionary to create a stub entry in an unfamiliar language for experts to expand later. bd2412 T 15:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need a way to mark such stubs, so that the experts know to check them. --WikiTiki89 15:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have very little knowledge of Hebrew. Just a little bit above "no knowledge". Many templates and maybe some modules add their pages to categories, such as missing nikudot, missing transliteration, etc. I don't know whether that is done for Hebrew or not. Some experts like Stephen seem to regularly check some of them. The kind of stubs on en.wikt are good. Some information is better than no information. Some of the other Wiktionaries are full of the horrible kind of stubs that we thankfully don't get here. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer a red link than a bad entry, but I know not everyone agrees. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between an entry that is "bad" in that it is for a word that doesn't exist, or is completely unformatted garbage, and an entry that is "bad" in the sense of needing some work to have everything just right. bd2412 T 19:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but someone unfamiliar with the language cannot make that distinction. This is why, something like should be added. --WikiTiki89 20:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Hippietrail himself, some of these entries are inevitably going to end up on RFD. I think Hippietrail is more pissed off by the language used by Metaknowledge than the actual nomination itself. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if it's deleted. I do think redlinks have a meaning across Wikimedia that they link to an article that ought to exist and that if that's wrong they should not be redlinks. As far as I'm concerned I've either started off a future main entry or brought to light a bad translation entry and that either way the people expert in the particular language come along and improve it either way. That's how wikis work. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In many years at Wiktionary you haven't learned that to bring attention to a poorly made entry, you need to add . And you know it's poor. Just look at . Vahagn must have been upset about that. Besides, you know that many editors feel responsible for their work and want to keep some quality and consistence. You and Lo Ximiendo have never matured. No need to be shy about requesting to fix your edits, you're not shy mass adding translation requests to English entries, even for languages we don't have editors for. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Vahagn and myself are friends IRL. If he had any problem with me he'd let me know. You don't get to speak on his behalf. In many years at Wiktionary you haven't learned not to be rude and embrace the Wiki spirit., , , , , , , If you wish to communicate with me in the future you will need to do so through a polite contributor. I hereby ignore you. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to insult you. I am sorry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am very poor at interpersonal communication,, so please forgive any offence caused. However, being careful enough to learn how to make a good entry and follow the requests of others would negate this problem. I agree with Anatoli's comment just above mine in full. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, I'd like if the Hebrew editors would express their opinion on its SOPness. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I apply the template pretty often but I don't always remember. It also seems to have no effect most of the time when I try to keep track of them. Apologies for forgetting in this case. I might start applying it to dubious translation entries so experts can find them in less then nine and a half years too. No offence taken, Metaknowledge. Thanks for that. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added vocalisation and transliteration in case it's kept, feel free to fix now that it's under some attention. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is SOP. What's more, is that the usual way to pork is just with the word if you don't need to clarify that you're talking about the meat rather than the animal. --WikiTiki89 05:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding to the translations at pork. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently the usual way to say to (say?) pork is not just with the word after all. Very confusing:, . &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a typo, I meant to say: "the usual way to refer to pork". That doesn't necessarily mean that it "means" pork. --WikiTiki89 22:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is confusing. There's quite a number of languages where a single word covers both the animal and its meat, for a range of animals. If Hebrew has no word for "pork" but uses a word that doesn't mean "pork" as the usual way to refer to "pork" then it seems at the very least a Usage notes section could attempt to clarify that. Unfortunately all my Hebrew dictionaries are currently in storage. You've made me quite intrigued about what they say. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not so confusing. In Hebrew, for most animals whose meat we eat, the meat is not distinguished from the animal and there is no use having separate definitions for the meat and the animal. If I asked you if you have ever eaten "gorilla", you don't need a dictionary to tell you that I'm talking about "gorilla meat". --WikiTiki89 22:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it could be that to Hebrew speakers it is spoken of in the same way as exotic meats I suppose. In English we have several cases. 1) Distinct words for the animal and its meat. 2) Same word but distinct dictionary senses for the animal and its meat (chicken, fish, lamb, turkey). 3) Only one word and one dictionary sense for the animal which is not normally eaten but could be extended to cover its meat by native speakers (snake, camel, crocodile). 4) Probable regional difference between 2. and 3. where Australians might consider kangaroo to have both an animal sense and a meat sense and other English speakers might consider it to only have an animal sense.
 * For instance, I can't guess as a native English speaker before looking at an English dictionary whether goat will or won't have a meat sense as well as an animal sense. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, 2 and 3 are the same thing and only reflect whether a given dictionary decided it was necessary to include the meat sense for a particular word. --WikiTiki89 23:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, for 1, the animal word can always also be used in a meat sense, and even the meat sense can sometimes be used in an animal sense. --WikiTiki89 23:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is all a separate issue that has probably been discussed somewhere on Wiktionary in the past. To my personal sprachgefuhl as a native English speaker, especially "chicken" and "lamb" have just as strong meat senses as animal senses. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Aren't they always distinct in English, since the "meat" sense will be uncountable and the animal sense will be countable? - TheDaveRoss 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The senses may be distinct, but we aren't talking about the senses. We're talking about a distinction between words for animals for which a meat sense is included in dictionaries and words for animals for which the meat sense can theoretically exist but is not included in dictionaries. And I'm saying that this distinction is meaningless. --WikiTiki89 21:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, #2 and #3 above, which are the subject of this digression, are both about senses when the headword is shared. It isn't meaningless, because they are very often two distinct senses, not a single sense.  If one were asked to buy some pork and one bought a pig, that would be an error.  If one were asked to buy a pig and bought pork, that would also be an error.  If one were asked to buy chicken and bought a chicken, that would be an error.  If one were asked to buy a chicken and bought chicken, that would be an error. - TheDaveRoss 22:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are completely misunderstanding what we are talking about. Category #2 is for words like chicken, fish, lamb, turkey, for which both the animal sense and the meat sense are commonly found in dictionaries and category #3 is for words like snake, camel, crocodile, for which the meat sense is not commonly found in dictionaries, but nevertheless exists. So I am saying that whether the meat sense is found in dictionaries or not is irrelevant, since the meat sense exists for both sets of words and the only difference between the sets is the frequency of the meat sense (or at least the perceived frequency on the part of the lexicographers). --WikiTiki89 22:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * New subtopic: I had a brief opportunity to scan a Hebrew-English-Hebrew dictionary in a bookshop. In the English-Hebrew side they did give בשר חזיר for pork but did not have an entry in the Hebrew-English side. That's the print dictionary equivalent of our single-link vs split-link in translation tables. But it also included another term in both sides of the dictionary, and which also already had an entry here: . I added this one to the "pork" translation table and as a synonym to the term under RFD here. I added to all appropriate places. The print dictionary labelled it as "colloquial" whereas we currently label it as "euphemistic". We could also consider labelling it as "idiomatic". Anyway, over to the Hebrew experts here. Thanks. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. When vocalizing Hebrew noun phrases, keep in mind the distinction between noun+noun and noun+adjective. Noun+noun (i.e. construct, equivalent to Arabic ʾiḍāfa) uses the construct state of the first noun, while noun+adjective uses the indefinite state (a.k.a. the absolute state). The indefinite state of  is vocalized as, while the construct state is vocalized . These states can be found in the headword line of , with the indefinite state being the lemma and the construct state given after it (labeled as "singular construct" for the singular).  is noun+noun, and  is noun+adjective. I hope that helps you avoid these mistakes in the future. --WikiTiki89 17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying and fixing. Online dictionaries only give the indefinite state. I might just stay away from compound words if I can't find them with the vocalisation.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we do include construct states on Wiktionary, as I pointed out (or at least we try to). --WikiTiki89 20:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In this case I could have used Wiktionary entries as the source. (My own Hebrew sources are quite poor, especially for verbs. I might shop around for a better dictionary).--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually that's exactly why I didn't vocalize it myself even though there was an entry for each word and each having nikudot. I just had a hunch that there could be more than one way to vocalize a word depending on its grammatical role in a compound or phrase. Interesting stuff. &mdash; hippietrail (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)