Talk:질이 나쁘다

RFD discussion: February–March 2016
Not a word or a set phrase. Wyang (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Even though the second sense (bad quality) is sum of the meanings of individual words, the first sense (ill-natured) is not. Monni95 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the constituent parts as an effective non-speaker of Korean, both senses look SOP to me: +  +  covers both sense lines currently at : “ill-natured” and “bad quality”.  I don't see anything unexpected or particularly idiomatic about this.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When someone is a bad person, Korean use plain . Adding in this sense is more vulgar tone, close to English "cheap shit". Monni95 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This example can be handled well at and/or . There is no sense beyond "ill-natured" and "bad quality", both of which can be inferred from the individual entries. Wyang (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Expanded and . Wyang (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a sentence (“the quality is low”), not even a fixed expression. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, would a move to be warranted ? Leasnam (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since is just the attributive form (“present determiner”?) of, I'm not sure that move would amount to much.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that the entry exists in Naver dictionary.
 * I don't think Shinji meant that the collocation being predicative as a reason for deletion, predicative verbs and expressions are easily made attributive (example sentence from Naver): --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. 질이 나쁜 is “whose quality is low” and the problem persists. As in the example above, 질이 나쁘다 is only as fixed as 값이 싸다 (“the price is low”). — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As for keeping the entry I am neutral on this. Naver dictionary has entries for both and . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, does Naver have entries for the antonyms? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Naver Korean Dictionary doesn’t have an entry for them. The Naver English-Korean Dictionary does, and it is clearly for usefulness over strictness. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * RFD failed, per the Korean speakers and dictionaries. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel the text of the closure is inappropriate: what matters is consensus, not Korean speakers or dictionaries. A voter in RFD might consider input of Korean speakers and dictionaries, but a closer of RFD not so. On a less related note, when a dictionary mentioned abote favors "usefulness over strictness", that's the sort of dictionary I'd like to consult. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)