Talk:lim pei

RFV
Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is common English slang in Singarpore-produced movie "INotStupid", etc. 58.83.252.59 07:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A (to B):“Good idea! Lim pei like(s) it very much.”
 * B (to A):“Lim Pei?”
 * C (to B):“‘Lim pei’ means your father.”
 * A (to B):“No, ‘lim pei’ is ‘I’; ‘I’ is ‘lim pei’”.
 * 58.83.252.59 08:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All you have to do is provide evidence - point us to some books, newspapers or other permanently archived source that uses the term. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A movie is as evidential as a book - both are 'published material. 58.83.252.59 09:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a good citation, but three citations are needed. I looked at the Singaporean cultural Usenet group, but did not find anything under lim pei, limpei, limbei or limbei. I also looked at Google Books and the Straits Times but did not find anything. --BB12 (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, to some degree it is codeswitching, but it's ok to say it's an English word rather than a Chinese phrase because if you speak that word in English everybody will understand. Similar phrase include lim lau peh (from Hokkien "你老爸" lin lau peh), lim pek (lin peh), so it's also possible if you find some other forms. 58.83.252.59 10:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, evidence rather than anecdotes please. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Google searches for "lim pei want", "lim pei like", "lim pei don't", etc. return hits, so this seems to be genuine Singlish slang. Editors unfamiliar with Singaporean culture are at a disadvantage when it comes to knowing where to look for acceptable cites, but if you can remember any other Singaporean movies, TV shows, or magazine articles in which this term has been used, that would help, 58.83.252.59. We'd need at least two more quotes in addition to the one from I Not Stupid to attest this term. Astral (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The criteria for Wiktionary (WT:CFI) basically require three citations in published materials or Usenet. It seems like this might not yet meet those criteria. --BB12 (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ISBN 1617353841. "But lim peh ha li kong?". 58.83.252.44 15:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WT:CFI "Other recorded media such as audio and video are also acceptable, provided they are of verifiable origin and are durably archived." I'm not sure how this works for non-written materials, do we need a durably archived transcript? Can we include audio files on citation pages? I don't see why not. It's much trickier than it first appears if you want to do it really well, but if you want to do it just 'ok' that's easy enough; if it sounds like the word it's supposed to be verifying and it's in the right context, assume it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I say this not so much in general as a reply to Astral's "We'd need at least two more quotes in addition to the one from I Not Stupid to attest this term." Well we don't have the I Not Stupid one yet, someone would need to add it, and back it up with evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Audio files don't have spelling, and they don't have italics, so it doesn't have that cue that it's a foreign word. (Including of foreign words in English that were italicized in the original seems to be controversial, which makes Usenet a useful source sometimes because it doesn't have italics.) I used a TV show cite for sancocho recently; maybe I should note someplace other than an HTML comment that it was copied from a subtitle, and hence spelling questions and italics aren't issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Aside from potential copyright issues, the disadvantage of using audio clips in lieu of text quotes is that it would make the cites in question inaccessible to hearing-impaired Wiktionary readers, and also that some cites are difficult to make out from the original audio, but are confirmed by DVD captions, official lyric sheets, etc. For example, the Breakfast Club cite I included in doobage is difficult to make out from the film's audio because Judd Nelson mutters the line, but what he says is revealed by the captions. Most DVDs and Blu-rays released today have captions. It's not as convenient as searching Google Books, but chances are that at least one Wiktionary editor has access to the audio or video media containing a cite. Since the anon quoted I Not Stupid above, I thought this was the case. Astral (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - the correct usage should be "lim pei like it", not "lim pei likes it". And the best translation is "I, as your father, like it" not "your father, i.e. me, likes it". See INotStupid 45:00~45:30.
 * References:
 * 1) ISBN 1617353841. Page 137. "But lim peh ha li kong?". Translation: But I tell you
 * 2) INotStupid 45:00~45:30 the some version has English subtitle. 58.83.252.40 16:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What is this book ISBN 1617353841? Where can we see it? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can search Amazon or Abebooks by ISBN. But it will cost you to actually read "Critical Qualitative Research in Second Language Studies: Agency and Advocacy (Contemporary Language Education)" SemperBlotto (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So it's a mention not a use? Also "But lim peh ha li kong?" isn't English anyway is it? Note that despite all the discussion, lim pei has zero citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just watched that part of the film. Thing is, the whole film is in English and I guess what you call 'Hokkien'. You're right that it does appear in an English sentence, but I'm not sure that makes it English per se. A bit like if I say "the French word for house is 'maison'" I've said 'maison' in an English sentence. FWIW unless there are two other citations, it doesn't matter anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole movie is in English, Singlish, Mandarin, Sindarin, and Singaporean Hokkien (Singaporean) English, Singlish (C.S.E.), (Singaporean) Mandarin, Singdarin (C.S.M.), and (Singaporean) Hokkien.
 * It's is so clear that when Mr. Khoo say "lim pei like it" he is speaking that naturally and not using it as a qoute (i.e. different from quoting French word 'maison' in English) while when he say "'Lim Pei' is 'I' and 'I' is 'Lim Pei'" he is quote it like "'I' is a pronoun" (i.e. identical to quoting French word 'maison' in English) that I can't imagine why you have this question.
 * ISBN 1617353841 can be previewed in Google Books. It's not a mention but a use, since it's in a whole material. And you can see that it is English.
 * "Lim peh" and "lim pei" are different spelling of one word, i.e., like "color" and "colour". They should be seen identical. 123.125.157.17 18:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems it can be previewed on Google Books... but lim pei does not feature in that preview. Anyway the book is called "Critical Qualitative Research in Second Language Studies: Agency and Advocacy", why are you so reluctant to link to it or to call it by its name. Are you hoping that nobody will actually check the book if you don't give it's name? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The cite is part of a fictional online conversation invented by the author, but based on actual usage, "to examine the place of Singlish amid the sociocultural realities of English oracy acquisition". Here is the quote:
 * I find Singlish extremely sexist. How many popular Singlish expletives treat women's bodies as violently and disrespectfully!  Lietenant Kilat says it's all part of the "male-bonding culture" But (and pardon my Singlish) lim peh ka li kong. "kan ni na bu chao chee bye!"
 * Yours faithfully,
 * Miss Feminist
 * The italics would seem to indicate that she does not consider it English. Spinning Spark  00:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * However she mentioned "and pardon my Singlish", i.e., 'she consider it Singlish (i.e. Colloquial Singaporean English) though she may not consider Singlish English. In Wikipedia, Singlish is considered either a creole or a dialect of English. Whatever it is, the word may be listed under some entry in Wiktionary, because all languages are equal. 58.83.252.37 05:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus, italic may either be quoting or emphasizing. It may be English. 58.83.252.37 05:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused how this could be considered English if the only people who could be expected to understand it live in Singapore. Wouldn't that, at best, make it Singlish or some variant thereof?  Frankly, it seems more like a slangy form of code switching.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PS -- Last I knew, Sindarin was a conlang invented by Tolkien. I assume you mean "Singaporean Mandarin"?  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean Singdarin (sorry for misspelling), i.e., Colloquial Singaporean Mandarin. 58.83.252.37 05:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Singlish is a dialect of English, is it not?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My impression is that Singlish is even less English than Spanglish is -- i.e., whereas Spanglish is a blend of English and Spanish where the terms from each language function as they do in the source language, Singlish is more of a pidgin or patois or creole of many different languages where the terms from each language function within the separate paradigm of Singlish grammar and morphology. The EN WT entry at  characterizes it as a creole and the EN WP article does likewise.  Other online articles such as  or, also describe Singlish as a creole.  Meanwhile, other articles also describe it as a dialect, suggesting that this is an unsettled question.  However, the prevalence of Malaysian and Chinese vocabulary and the divergence in morphology for at least the English vocabulary leads me to lean more towards viewing Singlish as an English-based creole rather than a dialect of English.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Two side issues in contention are: A) whether this is a pronoun, and B) whether it's first person. It's quite normal in English for parents to refer to themselves in the third person in certain contexts, as in "Pay attention when your mother is talking to you, young man!". Semantically, it may be the speaker referring to him- or herself, but first person and third person are used here in the context of grammar, which doesn't always have to match reality. It stretches credibility to claim that "lim pei" is both a 1st person and a 3rd person pronoun. I suspect the "1st person" and "3rd person" distinction has everything to do with context, and nothing to do with the lim pei itself. Likewise, the fact that a phrase can be used like a pronoun doesn't make it one. Pronouns and nouns are interchangeable (within certain limits), which is where the "pro" in pronoun comes from.
 * I believe the underlying problem is misunderstanding the nature of translation: translation is a way of transferring meaning between languages, not grammar. A literal translation can come close to showing the grammar of the source language (or dialect, in this case), but it never really achieves it- and this doesn't look like a literal translation. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Critical Qualitative Research in Second Language Studies: Agency and Advocacy" is indeed a mention, or not English; see Use-mention distinction. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are gaming the rule. The whole letter was mentioned in the book but the phrase was used in the letter, which was mentioned in the book. So it is a permenantely archived use. 58.83.252.37 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think people should use American English or British English logic to understand Singlish (C.S.E./S.C.E.) because when Singaporeans speak C.S.E. they use Colloquial Singaporean English logic, i.e., a mix of British English logic, Hokkien logic and Malay logic. So their understanding of "first person" may be different to either American English or Chinese. 58.83.252.37 05:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not English anyway, so the use/mention distinction is moot. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The quotes given so far don't use the term "first person", so it isn't a question of their understanding of "first person". You're applying an English term, so ordinary English logic (I'm not British, so I wouldn't call it "British English logic") is inherent in its definition. Creating special rules that don't apply anywhere else, and redefining terms to fit your analysis doesn't really work: it doesn't change the reality of things, it just gets in the way of communication. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is English. The author emphasis "and pardon my Singlish", that is, s/he considered it Colloquial Singaporean English.--58.83.252.66 10:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I have to admit that I didn't quite get the exact meaning of "ordinary English logic"? Would you mind to clarify it? IMHO English people believe British English ordinary, Indians believe Indian English ordinary, and Singarporean believe C.S.E. ordinary. --58.83.252.66 10:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted as uncited, I did say all the arguing in the world won't replace citations. Did you listen? No. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)