Talk:可耕地

可供軍用, 可供军用, 可耕地, 可得到, 可編程, 可编程, 可共患難, 可共患难, 可讀音性, 可读音性, 可變化合價, 可变化合价
Sum of parts. Wyang (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't always agree with CEDICT when it comes to proper nouns, because some terms are SOP, but I don't think these are in the same category, and all of these terms are found in CEDICT. --WikiWinters (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do think they are not SoPs? Wyang (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you take 可得到, for example, it has the distinct meaning of "available," whereas 得到 means "to obtain." One is an adjective and the other is a verb. 可得到 is not the same as 可的得到 or 可以的得到, which are both certainly SOP as they are simply literal variations of the original. --WikiWinters (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 可得到 is SoP, as 可 is not tightly attached as in a word, e.g. 1) adverbs may be inserted: one may say 可轻易得到 (that can be easily obtained; easily obtainable); 2) it may act as the predicate of a sentence: 一些小幸福可得到. ("Little moments of happiness can be obtained.") These show that its actual meaning is "can be obtained", not "obtainable". Wyang (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you, that's understandable. I shall practice more discretion when creating entries in the future. Do you think all of the terms nominated for deletion should now indeed be deleted? --WikiWinters (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wyang (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "可得到 is SoP, as 可 is not tightly attached as in a word": Seems to be a non-sequitur: what has deducibility of the meaning from parts have to do with tight attachment? Consider look up and the phrase "look it up" for an English example of a separable non-sum-of-parts term. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep 可耕地, 可读音性 and 可讀音性. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * These are not words in Chinese. Wyang (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, some terms are worth keeping. I haven't checked well, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A few will pass Lemming test. Terms, are also included in the ABC dictionary, which is shipped with  software.  seems very idiomatic. Component  seems a very productive prefix to form "-able" adjectives (in English translations), e.g. Wenlin generates a big list of such words, just a few, which we are currently missing:
 * "insurable"
 * "both pitiable and ridiculous"
 * "quotable"
 * "measurable"
 * "removable; detachable".
 * --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This should have been posted as individual items. I don't envy the editor who is going to close this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * These terms should be assessed individually.
 * 可供軍用 - Delete. Not idiomatic.
 * 可耕地 - Keep of course. This is in the 現代漢語規範詞典 for goodness sake.
 * 可得到 - Delete. Sum of parts.
 * 可編程 - Delete. Sum of parts.
 * 可共患難 - Keep. Idiom. We should also add the idiom 可共患難不可共安樂.
 * 可讀音性 - Keep. Technical term.
 * 可變化合價 - Keep. Technical term.
 * ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are technical terms a problem? We have English technical terms. --WikiWinters (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 可耕地 means "arable land" not "cultivable"! 可共患難 should be deleted; 共患難 and 可共患難不可共安樂 can be kept. 可讀音性 - not a technical term and not a word in itself - there is something wrong when what you yield on Google is nothing but foreign dictionary hits. 可變化合價 - not a technical term, sum of parts 可變 and 化合價. Wyang (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

可供軍用, 可供军用, 可得到, 可編程, and 可编程 deleted; no consensus to delete 可耕地, 可共患難, 可共患难, 可讀音性, 可读音性, 可變化合價, and 可变化合价. bd2412 T 04:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)