Talk:tiếng Afrikaans

RFD discussion: October 2017–February 2021
A Vietnamese SoP. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Will possibly apply to many or all "tiếng" words, see CAT:vi:Languages. A similar cleanup happened with a few languages to get rid of entries containing the word "language" in that language. . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I know absolutely nothing about Vietmamese, but do the two words have to go together? There is no separate entry for 🇨🇬. DonnanZ (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would say so, though I'm still tempted to parallel them with Japanese words (I've hardly ever bothered with them though), and I'm a little ambivalent about a few cases like  or . Unlike Japanese, Korean and Chinese, Vietnamese doesn't distinguish "the UK", "Great Britain" and "England", so it's probably fine to consider  an SoP.  could be consider a free morpheme, but then it's usually used in a few compounds in non-literary contexts, so it's harder to tell if  is an SoP. Geez, Vietnamese, give me a break already. Personally, I'm not comfortable with  even being a Vietnamese entry, but this is also a good opportunity to re-evaluate Japanese  words, Korean  words and Chinese  words too: are they also SoPs? They do seem to parallel with instances such as,  or , which feature apparent bound morphemes, but also are coined very easily without consideration on how the morphemes would be affected by compounding like, say, Latin . ばかFumiko￥talk 11:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * : Thanks. I am suggesting to have separate CFI for languages with no clear word boundaries or scriptio continua, so that inclusion rules could be decided once and for all, hopefully. might be one of the few exception, I understand why you hesitate. Is  really a productive adjective?, , ,  or "人" words could be part of the CFI discussion - do we or do we not include words with these suffixes (prefixes) as words? In fact, there is little idiomatic about  - China person or  - China speech but dictionaries do include them, so do we. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth saying that when a page exists in the Vietnamese Wiktionary appears in the left-hand column. DonnanZ (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's true that there is no Vietnamese entry and many other foreign proper nouns, for which there is no equivalent created in Vietnamese or it's rarely used. For a Vietnamese entry, it would be necessary to provide the phonetic respelling but native speakers usually frown upon these words as they are not really considered Vietnamese. For example, "Pakistan" has a native Vietnamese words , even if English "Pakistan" is also commonly used. It's still an SoP, unless we decide that words containing  merit their entry. For comparison, Thai, Lao, Khmer, Burmese entries with the word "language" have been deleted, as was agreed by knowledgeable editors or native speakers in RFD discussions.
 * For example, Thai language can be expressed in various ways in Burmese:
 * Thai:
 * Vietnamese:.
 * Even if it's common to use the word "language", the pattern is predictable, so there is no need to "boost" the number of entries by these combinations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * tiếng means language, in one of the senses. In general, I am ok with keeping "X language" entries in various languages, especially if the "X language" pattern is the usual way of expression in that language, which I do not know for Vietnamese. Thus, if "tiếng Afrikaans" is more often used than "Afrikaans" to refer to the language, I'd prefer to keep "tiếng Afrikaans". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 21:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this discussion can be archived, as tiếng Afrikaans seems to hard-redirect to Afrikaans already. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Closed, no longer exists. &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 10:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)