Talk:第二

Context of Siblings
The term pertains to anything that's second. Why would there be need to be specific for siblings? 第二 is the second for anything. Same goes with the rest of the 第. Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mar vin kaiser what's the missing character it is short for? Mlgc1998 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "missing character"? 第二 could refer to the second oldest sibling in any Chinese language, even Standard Mandarin. 第二 could refer to anything "second" really. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser this is like number two. if it is understood that way as well in other Chinese languages, then it can be added in the tag, or if for sure all of them, then the tag can be removed. Mlgc1998 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My point here is that I don't think it should be there at all. There's a difference between the general definition and a specific definitions even in "number two". It's the frequency of usage in the specific context and the flexibility of the definition even outside context clues. For example, if I say, "You have a number two, right?", a Filipino can understand that as accusing someone of a "mistress". But if in Hokkien, I say, "我愛有第二". Without context, no one will understand if I mean, I want a second sibling (given that I'm an only child). Even with some context, it's weird. But the definition you wrote is specific to talking about "siblings", not children. So, you see the difference? It's not flexible outside context clues, it's not associated with that specific definition. If I say "伊的第二佇遐", if I ask my parents that, they won't understand what I mean by 第二. That's evidence that it's not associated. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser It's basically short for, that people using just has in mind in cases where they use that alone. The 2nd example u cited does work, but it requires that the listener is aware of the context/topic being discussed, that is someone discussing with a parent referencing which child of theirs or another's from a sequence of siblings. The first sentence u mentioned tho, do you mean like "Gusto ko ng pangalawa (second eldest)"? If you're the parent and you want to express that you want a second child which u currently only have one, it would be more like "我愛我有第二", which to add context, it could be "我想欲愛我有第二，所以我有序大紲落去阮第二嘛是阮煞尾. " It is used more in reference to one or another's child referencing specifically their position in the order of seniority among siblings. Without the context tho, it can sound very random, because by default, it also primarily literally means "second"/"number two", and the above sense is just an extension of it so there is a missing character at the end it is short for that those who use it implicitly think, which is  as in , that people using just  has in mind in cases where they use that alone. Mlgc1998 (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant. The idea I'm going for is that, if it requires context to be established first, then it's not an actual definition, but an application of the original definition (in this case the definition "second"). --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser How about structuring it like:
 * Mlgc1998 (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's still the same though, that still means it's one of the definitions. There's no reason to include it, unless you'll include everything that 第二 can be short of, which Chinese dictionaries do not. For example, 第二 can be short for 第二名, both in Mandarin and Hokkien, but we don't put it in the definitions. Personally though, I just think it breaks from the entire theme of the dictionary. I think other Chinese varieties also use 第二 the same way. For example, this book has the sentence "別擔心，我岳母也是很晚才有孩子，有了一個便有第二個，你們也會的. " https://www.google.com.ph/books/edition/%E6%9D%9C%E9%B5%91%E8%8A%B1%E9%96%8B_%E4%B8%AD/Ebm6EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22%E6%83%B3%E8%A6%81%E7%AC%AC%E4%BA%8C%22&pg=PT104&printsec=frontcover
 * But they don't specify it too specifically because it can be inferred from the definition "second one". So it's more in theme if we didn't have the definition "second child" altogether. We can see it more as an application of the definition "second one". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But they don't specify it too specifically because it can be inferred from the definition "second one". So it's more in theme if we didn't have the definition "second child" altogether. We can see it more as an application of the definition "second one". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)