| Change log entry 86862 | |
|---|---|
| Processed by: | richwarm (2024-10-13 22:32:52 UTC) |
| Comment: |
<< review queue entry 79979 - submitted by 'braulio' >> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%8F%9C https://www.hanbook.com/Chinese-dictionary/words/cai4-vegetable-food https://www.purpleculture.net/dictionary-details/?word=%E8%8F%9C ---------------------------- Editor: You are proposing to add an extra sense: "food; groceries" Please don't leave a comment that is merely a list of webpages. Webpages typically contain a lot of information that is irrelevant to the point you want to make. Don't make me read through all that to try and find the bits that might be pertinent. Instead, provide specific, relevant quotes from the webpages *along with* their URLs. Also, your third source seems to contain nothing relevant to your submission at all. It quotes an old version of CC-CEDICT's definition, which – like our current definition – doesn't include your extra sense. And there is nothing in that source to support your extra sense. 我要去买菜, for example, is translated as "I'm going to buy some vegetables", not "I'm going to buy some groceries." * * * In the following, I explain why I'm not adding your extra sense. If we have a single character with a sense X in its definition, and there are some compounds in which the character can be thought of as X', i.e., not X exactly, but rather - something similar to X - a shape analog of X - something for which X is a metaphor - things of which X is a prototype ... then there are, broadly speaking, two possible approaches: 1) Explicit: Add the extra, related sense in the definition of the character. 2) Implicit: Leave the related sense out of the definition, but make sure the compounds in which the meaning is "not exactly X" are included in the dictionary to exemplify the related sense. In CC-CEDICT, if the related sense is used only in compounds, then we tend to go with the implicit approach, especially if there are only one or two such compounds. (But if the character is used as a standalone word, we would be more inclined to go with the explicit approach.) One dictionary defines 菜 as 1. 蔬類的總稱。 2. 餚饌的總稱。 3. 差勁、不出色。 ... but it also includes entries for 買菜 and 菜市場 that make it clear that 菜 is used in these compounds to mean "things of which 'vegetable' is a prototype" (i.e. non-staple foods). This can be considered an example of the implicit approach. It has the virtue of keeping single-character definitions relatively clean, simple and memorable, while also illustrating related senses in the entries of compounds. Users interested in exploring the full range of the character's usage can do so by perusing the character's compounds instead of just looking at the entry for the character. A dictionary that takes a more explicit approach has the following in its definition of 菜: 蔬菜；用作副食的植物。 But in this instance, I'm going to go with the implicit approach. |
| Diff: |
# - 菜 菜 [[cai4]] /vegetable; greens (CL:棵[ke1])/dish (of food) (CL:樣|样[yang4],道[dao4],盤|盘[pan2])/(of one's skills etc) weak; poor/(coll.) (one's) type/ # + 菜 菜 [[cai4]] /vegetable; greens (CL:棵[ke1])/dish (of food) (CL:樣|样[yang4],道[dao4],盤|盘[pan2])/food; groceries/(of one's skills etc) weak; poor/(coll.) (one's) type/ |