As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

DefinedMeaning talk:second hand (1377995)

From OmegaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Please delete this page.‎

why: Sum-of-parts definition for the English expression.‎

--InfoCan 18:35, 3 May 2012 (CEST)

I don't agree. It is also defined at the English wiktionary
And the French word is not a sum-of-part anyway. --Kip 22:53, 3 May 2012 (CEST)
I guess I'll have to concede on this one because other dictionaries do have this expression defined as well. But then I don't understand any more what makes a definition a sum-of-parts definition. The word "hand" does have the meaning of "each of the pointers on the face of an analog clock, which are used to indicate the time of day", so to me, the meaning of "second hand" is derivable from the meanings of the constituent words... I would like to be educated on this matter. --InfoCan 16:24, 4 May 2012 (CEST)
Well... I think the distinction is not clear cut, and I am not really able to explain it with a general rule.
Maybe in this case, the real (linguistic) reason is that "second hand" is two nouns together, and this is not really correct English if you consider it as a sum-of-part (it would be if it was "second hand" as in "first hand", "third hand", ..., but here I think it's clear that "second" as a noun is meant"). So, it is not like "blue car", "big hand", where the first word is an adjective that describes the noun.
Usually, when in doubt, I check if they defined it at Wiktionary. They have a larger community than we have to discuss these kind of issues.
For this particular case, I also think that sum-of-part are ok if at least one of the translation is not a sum of part (here in French for example), because if I want to translate "trotteuse" in English, I would find useful to have "second hand" as a translation, and not just the English definition. --Kip 19:49, 4 May 2012 (CEST)

Hmmm... I think you have just given the operational definition of when something is considered an SoP. If, as a French person having a reasonable knowledge of English, it is not obvious that this thing should be called "second hand", then it deserves to be in the dictionary.

However, to make a general argument, I want to point out that there are cases where one language uses a sum-of-parts expression for something that other languages have a specific term for. The example I am thinking of is the English adjective "shallow" (and in Turkish "sığ"). I would argue that for the definition "Having little depth" the SynTranses would be en:"shallow" and tr:"sığ" but it would be incorrect to include fr:"pas profond", because this would be a case of SoP. Would you agree? --InfoCan 21:46, 4 May 2012 (CEST)