Talk:鉈

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Surjection in topic RFV discussion: September–October 2019
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFV discussion: September–October 2019

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 years ago26 comments14 people in discussion

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

User talk:Eirikr has insisted on 鉈 (nata) being defined as "a hatchet, a billhook, a machete, a froe".

This is clearly wrong. This is a picture of a fairly typical nata.
This is clearly not any kind of axe. (with a hatchet being a type of axe, as everyone knows, and every source, ever, anywhere, confirms)
Nor is it a billhook (there is a sub-type of nata, 鉈鎌 (natagama), where the blade curves forward at the end, in a way that makes them, essentially, billhooks ...but no one would define "knife" as "balisong", despite a balisong being a type of knife, so I don't see how it makes any more sense to define nata, as billhook)
...not to mention that it bears no resemblance to a machete, in any way. At all.
It serves the purpose of the above mentioned tools, certainly, but that is a separate issue.

As for froe... It shares nothing in common with a froe. In any way. There is no evidence in favour of it, at all (Eirikr has cited a picture in Daijirin's entry on 鉈, with something froe-like, labelled "板割り". I pointed out that it is impossible to find any reference to such a thing, outside of Daijirin ...to which he replied that he found one hit on Google, for "板割り鉈". Just one. On Google. This would seem to confirm that it either doesn't exist, or at least doesn't even come anywhere close to qualifying for the Criteria for inclusion. If it exists, it is extremely rare. There are many a misuse of a term/word, that doesn't get included into dictionaries, despite being far more common. Despite being not uncommon, even)

My suggested definition is something along the lines of:
"A type of sturdy broad-bladed knife for use in woodcraft and hunting. Used to cut vegetation, chop wood, and cut up animals. May be sharpened on only one side of the edge, or both. Usually has the blade set at an inward angle. Often with a rectangular blade, though it might instead have an inward curve (see 鉈鎌. These are essentially billhooks), or be tapered like a regular knife. (see 剣鉈)"
Or, more briefly:
"A type of sturdy broad-bladed knife for use in woodcraft and hunting. Used to cut vegetation, chop wood, and cut up animals. (often with a rectangular blade)"
Or possibly:
"sturdy broad-bladed knife, used in woodcraft and hunting (often with a rectangular blade)​"
...or something in-between.

For the discussion (if it can be called that) that has occurred previous to this: See User_talk:Eirikr/2019#Nata--213.113.49.180 04:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The definition you're quoting here is the one you tried to revert back to an rfdef
The definition you tried to replace with your suggested one is:
  1. a hatchet, a billhook, a machete, a froe: a broad term for a one-handed thick-bladed cutting tool, generally used for cutting through wood or vegetation; the blade may be in various shapes depending on intended use, either straight or curved, long or short
The addition of the colon and the non-gloss definition make the parts before the colon into illustrations of the variability in whats covered by the term, rather than a series of sub-definitions. Thus the definition as a whole doesn't say that nata=axe, but that some natas are within the realm of what can be considered an axe, and likewise with billhooks, machetes etc.
The image search that you posted on Eirikr's talk page with the comment "Then see what a nata is. " includes a huge variety of shapes and sizes, one of which looks to me like an ice axe. Even the image you posted above looks more like a cleaver than a knife. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
"The definition you're quoting here is the one you tried to revert back to an rfdef"
To be precise, the first definition I quoted, is the one I wrote last. The second one is the one I wrote first, and the last one is the definition on EDICT/JMdict.
"The addition of the colon and the non-gloss definition make the parts before the colon into illustrations of the variability in whats covered by the term, rather than a series of sub-definitions."
Pretty much anyone who looks at it, understands the part preceding the colon to be the definition, and the part after as being a more detailed/in-depth explanation. As such, the entry is defining "nata" as hatchet etc. If the conventions of Wiktionary say otherwise, then the conventions are wrong, as they run completely counter to peoples understanding/intuition. Wikimedia projects are supposed to serve the common man, the layman, are they not? To strive to be easily understood? It also runs counter to the convention, of other dictionaries (and hence also the understanding of people who are very familiar with dictionaries).
"but that some natas are within the realm of what can be considered an axe, and likewise with billhooks, machetes etc."
They don't.
There are no nata, that are within the realm of an axe (of any kind), machete or froe. (billhooks being the one exception. See my answer above, concerning that)
"one of which looks to me like an ice axe."
If there is, then why haven't you linked to it? I certainly can't seem to find it ...and even if there is one, not all results in an image search, actually show what you search for. In this one, for example, most of the images are natas, sure, but there are several that clearly aren't, and which, should you go to the page they appear in, are not stated to be nata there. Perhaps because they are on a site that also happens to have the word nata in it. (and may have pictures of nata, but also several non-nata ones, that also appear in the search ...or possibly because it's a thing that is, on the site, in a category, such as "nata and axes")
There are also some examples of a non-nata object, genuinely being referred to as a nata, but... mislabelling and misuse of terms, doesn't generally guide dictionary definitions, now do they? Mixing up "pistol" and "revolver" isn't too uncommon, but that doesn't effect the definition. There may be some "Usage notes", noting the common error, but... (granted, with time, the error may become so common as to become the definition, but that's beside the point)
"Even the image you posted above looks more like a cleaver than a knife."
First of all, a cleaver is a type of knife, but more importantly: Just because two knives superficially look similar, when seen in profile, doesn't mean that they are anything alike, at all. Try to split wood with a cleaver, and you will destroy the cleaver. Try to chop through bone, as you would with a cleaver, with a [Chinese chef's knife] (which looks identical to a cleaver), and you will ruin the chef's knife. There are massive differences in the thickness, toughness, cross-section, edge geometry etc. There is far more to blades, than what superficial looks can tell you.--85.229.232.123 01:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
An Amazon search for 鉈 shows a large variation in appearance. The Japanese Wikipedia also suggests quite some variation (no images; text only). The tool is described as having a thick and strong blade, 15 to 60 cm long, suitable for holding with one hand, used for pruning and chopping trees. The Japanese Wiktionary concurs. The Modern Reader’s Japanese-English Character Dictionary has “hatchet”. Kenkyusha’s New Pocket Japanese–English Dictionary has: “a hatchet; a sax (スレート工用)”, where the gloss identifies “sax” as a slate tool, not the obsolete “sword”. A difference between the typical nata and the typical machete seems to be the angle between the handle and the blade, but this is not universal.  --Lambiam 11:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Amazon (and shops, generally) does not define words, nor do they always label things correctly.　(and note how the results include a saw, which is not labelled as nata, anywhere ...and also whetstones ...and a naked picture of a woman, quite bizarrely) There is variety in nata, sure (these are all nata, as are these), but...
"The Japanese Wikipedia also suggests quite some variation (no images; text only)."
Japanese Wikipedia is very clear in describing what is clearly a sturdy single-edged knife, and nothing else. Either sharpened on only one side of the edge (like Japanese kitchen knives) or both (which is noted as being better for splitting wood). Either with a rectangular blade, a billhook-blade (being no different to a "Western" billhook, other than in how the hilt is constructed ...and, indeed, being a billhook), or a blade that tapers like (and superficially looking no different to) a normal knife, and may have the blade at an angle (the degree of which varies) or not ...but notably not an axe. Nor at all similar to a machete (other than in purpose and function), and certainly not a froe.
As for essentially all Japanese Japanese-English dictionaries translating nata as hatchet...
If a dictionary definition conflicts with usage, how the word is actually used, what it is actually used to refer to, then the dictionary is wrong! (as has been stated here on Wiktionary, and is confirmed by the rules/guidelines)
I would further suggest you look up the word "hip" (in the sense of the body part), in any Japanese English-Japanese dictionary. Whichever one you use, they will all tell you that "hip" translates as "尻" (buttocks). Do you think that is a correct definition? Do you think Wiktionary should defer to that definition/translation? When anyone with half a brain, knows that it is completely and utterly wrong? That what English speakers refer to, when they say "hip", and what Japanese speakers refer to, when they say "尻", are two completely different things?
"A difference between the typical nata and the typical machete seems to be the angle between the handle and the blade"
In what possible way, are they, at all similar? Please explain. This is a complete mystery to me. As far as I can tell, they look nothing alike. Even superficially. (not to mention the non-superficial differences)--85.229.232.123 01:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think I've figured out where the disconnect is: you keep referring to a nata as a knife. A knife is a relatively thin-bladed, hand-held implement used for slicing, stabbing, and for cutting up things like food (there are also more specialized types used for opening letters and spreading various substances). There's a famous scene from Crocodile Dundee where a criminal in New York tries to threaten Dundee and says "I've got a knife". Dundee responds by laughing and saying "that's not a knife: this is a knife", and pulling out a knife that's upwards of a foot long- at which the criminal runs away in terror. The scene works because Dundee's knife is absolutely huge compared to what most people think of as a knife. Although things like cleavers and machetes may technically be knives, they certainly don't fit the image that most English-speakers have. Since this is an English dictionary and relies on the understandings of English-speakers, a term like "knife" is misleading for something used to chop wood, hack through thick brush or chop up whole animal carcasses. A nata may not technically be a hatchet, axe or machete, but it fills a similar role. The truth is, I don't think there's a good English term for what a nata is, which makes the second half of Eirikr's definition probably pretty close to what we need. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
"The scene works because Dundee's knife is absolutely huge compared to what most people think of as a knife."
...but everyone recognizes that Dundee's knife, is obviously and clearly a knife. It either is, or is very similar to, a Bowie knife. (just checked a clip of the scene, on Youtube)
No one who sees such a blade, would term it as anything other than a knife.
"Although things like cleavers and machetes may technically be knives, they certainly don't fit the image that most English-speakers have."
All English speakers consider it an obvious fact, that cleavers are knives. (longer machetes, however, do make people wonder a bit, as to how long a thing can be, and still count as a knife)
A scalpel is not what people generally think of, when they think "knife", but no one would argue that it isn't obviously a knife.
"a term like "knife" is misleading for something used to chop wood, hack through thick brush or chop up whole animal carcasses."
How?
No one would argue that a hunting knife or a butcher's knife (both being used for chopping up whole animal carcasses) is a knife.
In fact, essentially no one defines the term "knife", or conditions their understanding of what is or isn't a knife, by the use or purpose it has.
As for hacking through thick brush, that is regularly done with objects that no one would term as anything other than a knife. Camp knives, Bowie knives, survival knives, some hunting knives... also machetes, the smaller of which no one would dispute being knives (longer ones may cause some uncertainty, though, to be fair)
"A nata may not technically be a hatchet, axe or machete, but it fills a similar role."
That is completely irrelevant.
That is not how you define things, nor would that make any sense. It would be completely incoherent.
A nata is no more a hatchet, than bicycle is a horse. (and a bicycle fills a similar role to a horse)
A sword and a battle axe serve similar roles. That doesn't make it an axe, nor the axe a sword.
A Zweihänder (a very large, exclusively, two handed sword) serves the role of a polearm. That doesn't make it one. (a polearm is a weapon on a pole. By definition)
A pistol is not a revolver. They both serve the exact same function and purpose, but no one would say that a pistol is a revolver (people do, sometimes, wrongly use the word "pistol", in reference to revolver, as they mistakenly think "pistol" means the same thing as handgun", but never the other way around ...though that did occur a bit, when multiple shot pistol were new).--85.228.52.161 07:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Looking specifically at the machete sense, there are visual similarities between certain kinds of nata and certain kinds of machete that, for whatever reason, the anon states they do not see. Even aside from imagery, various Japanese resources define machete as essentially "a kind of nata". Examples (emphasis mine):
Of the three usage examples below the definition there, the two sourced from the dictionary itself also use nata to translate machete.

(中南米原住民が伐採用や武器に用いる)長刀のなた、マチェーテ

  • He slashed at the vines with a machete.
    彼はなたでつる草を切りつけた.
  • He cut his way through the jungle with a machete.
    彼はなたを振るってジャングルの中に道を切り開いた.

[名]ママチェーテ:中南米で用いる伐採用なた；武器.

《中南米先住民の》刀, なた《長さ 60‐90 cm で, サトウキビを切ったり下生えを払うのに使用, 武器にもする》

machete
マチェーテ、マシェティ◆中南米でサトウキビの伐採などに用いられる山刀（なたに似た刃物）

  • take a machete to
    ～になたを振るう
  • lop ~ with a machete
    なたで～を切り落とす
  • machete-wielding assailant
    《a ～》なたを持った襲撃者
The above suggests that the reverse -- defining a nata as "a kind of machete" -- is not unreasonable.
Granted, these two terms are not fully equivalent, and also, the two types of tool come out of different traditions and have differences in manufacture. However, the finer details of how they differ are more appropriate for an encyclopedia article than for a dictionary entry.
In addition, some of the anon's comments about various usage examples being "wrong" lead me to think they might be arguing from a prescriptive viewpoint about what the term nata should mean, rather than from the descriptive viewpoint of what the term nata is actually used to mean. See also WT:WWIN #2. This would not be the first time that confusion on this point has led to a dispute. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
"Looking specifically at the machete sense, there are visual similarities between certain kinds of nata and certain kinds of machete that, for whatever reason, the anon states they do not see."
Such as? (and, as stated before: mere superficial visual similarities, are far from enough)
"Even aside from imagery, various Japanese resources define machete as essentially "a kind of nata". Examples (emphasis mine):"
To quote what I've stated before "If a dictionary definition conflicts with usage, how the word is actually used, what it is actually used to refer to, then the dictionary is wrong! (as has been stated here on Wiktionary, and is confirmed by the rules/guidelines)"
"Granted, these two terms are not fully equivalent, and also, the two types of tool come out of different traditions and have differences in manufacture."
...amongst other differences. Differences that essentially always make it so that they are precluded from being referred to, by the same term.
"In addition, some of the anon's comments about various usage examples being "wrong" lead me to think they might be arguing from a prescriptive viewpoint about what the term nata should mean, rather than from the descriptive viewpoint of what the term nata is actually used to mean."
Being descriptive doesn't mean that you accept every error as legitimate. If you do that, then there are no rules and no way to decide on any definitions, at all.
You are using Japanese dictionaries (treating them as prescriptive), to make your claim, where I counter with pointing to reality and usage (which is a descriptive case) ...and now you say that I'm being prescriptive, whilst you are descriptive? A clear case of projection.--85.228.52.161 07:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
The IP is annoying. Too much noise. We don't have paid staff to handle you. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад)
　I think a nata is closest to a machete. It is certainly not a knife. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
This isn't the issue of what it is close to, but what it is and it's clearly not a machete. How is it not a knife? By what definition, is it not a knife? (also, a machete is a type of knife)--213.113.49.85 11:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
The only definition that matters in this context: the one that's going to be in the minds of most of our users. Don't forget that Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary of language as it's used. It's not an encyclopedia dealing with concepts and facts. A nata may fit the technical definition of a knife, just as a watermelon or a tomato is technically a berry and a strawberry technically isn't. If I insist on writing a definition for watermelon that says "a large berry with a smooth, greenish exterior", it will make sense to a few botanists who wouldn't be looking up such things in a dictionary, anyway- but it will lose just about everyone else. You made a point above about pistols and revolvers: see how we handle that sort of thing in our entry for pistol. If enough people mean a revolver when they say "pistol", that's what the word means, regardless of whether it's technically correct or not. There's a difference between describing a nata and describing the word "nata". Wikipedia is concerned with the thing and Wiktionary is concerned with the word. If I go to England and drive on the right side of the street, it doesn't really matter what's correct in the United States- in England that's the wrong side of the street, and I'll be better off if I get stopped by a police officer before I get in an accident. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
"The only definition that matters in this context: the one that's going to be in the minds of most of our users. Don't forget that Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary of language as it's used."
...according to which, a nata is obviously a knife.
Clearly not a hatchet, froe, or machete. Also not a billhook, anymore than a knife is a balisong. (a balisong is a type of knife, yes, but "knife" cannot be defined as a specific subtype of knife. The definition of "knife" must define "knife". By the same token, "nata" must define "nata")
"It's not an encyclopedia dealing with concepts and facts."
You're saying that dictionaries aren't concerned with facts? So it's not concerned with the facts concerning how words are used, at all? Dictionaries are completely and utterly arbitrary, then? (and, hence, useless?)
"A nata may fit the technical definition of a knife, just as a watermelon or a tomato is technically a berry and a strawberry technically isn't."
A watermelon may be a berry in the biological/botanical sense, but not in the (original) colloquial or culinary sense. In that sense, it is a fruit. Much the same applies to the other things you mention.
A nata is a knife, by any definition. Technical, specialist, common, layman, colloquial. Show someone completely ignorant, a nata, and they'll say it's a knife (or use the term for a particular kind of knife ...which a nata isn't, and is very different from, as that same ignorant person would realise, if shown how the different knife types are shaped and formed, how they are used, how they can't be used...)
"If enough people mean a revolver when they say "pistol", that's what the word means, regardless of whether it's technically correct or not."
...but until then, the definition excludes revolvers. As I said.
"There's a difference between describing a nata and describing the word "nata"."
Of course, but I fail to see how that is relevant, here.--85.229.234.72 11:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
P.S. How do you defend definitions of technical terms? More specialized terms? Jargon? Technical/scientific/scholarly definitions of terms? ...that most laymen don't know or understand, but which still have strong and regular use.--85.229.234.72 11:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • We have multiple references clearly showing the term machete used to describe the term 鉈 (nata). We have multiple editors concurring with this. We have at least one native Japanese speaker concurring with this.
On the other side, we have an anonymous user who has offered no references and only their own vociferous and extremely voluble opinion in opposition to the suggestion that a nata could be glossed as "machete", or any of various other things that certain kinds of nata appear to be at least functionally equivalent to.
RFV is about verifying. Does anyone other than this IP think that this "machete" sense has not been sufficiently verified? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
"We have multiple references clearly showing the term machete used to describe the term 鉈 (nata)."
Where? When? Where/when have this been shown? ...and no, a mere shop mislabelling a nata, (the one and only thing I can recall, as having been proposed as an example) is hardly a proper source.--85.229.234.72 10:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Everyone, anyone else -- are there any concerns with the Japanese 鉈 (nata) entry? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
"There are the four reference works listed above."
Those are not examples of usage! Dictionaries are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive ...and Japanese dictionaries are notoriously error prone, at any rate.
You are clearly unable to show me any real examples, but yet you claim you already have.
"There are other links in the thread on my Talk page."
No there aren't. The closest thing to it was the natas you linked to, claiming that they look just like machete. Setting aside the issue I've pointed out, multiple times, that countless things that look superficially the same, are nevertheless significantly (sometimes extremely) different and termed very differently, that superficial looks is far from enough to determine anything... None of them look anything like machetes. At all. (as I mentioned, there)
You (and the other editors who have chimed in) clearly aren't particularly knowledgable or familiar, with bladed tools. Especially the ones mentioned in the discussion.
"There are 1.4M google hits for "nata" "machete"."
How is that relevant? There are 2.4M results for "spoon" "machete". Does that mean that machetes and spoons are the same?--85.229.233.209 20:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Regarding the tool itself, I've used a nata doing forestry work in the north of Japan. I had one handed to me and told in English by a native Japanese speaker, "this is a Japanese machete." The ones we used were about 40, 45cm long, straight, square end, back of the blade perhaps 8mm thick. Sharpened on only one side of the edge, which I thought was interesting. We had to sharpen them by hand at the end of every day using whetstones set on the floor. Keeping the angle of the cutting edge was important, and a bit of a skill to do by hand. I am not as ignorant of this tool as you seem to think.
  • Regarding the link to Google results, did you even look? The first page alone has nine clear non-duped instances of usage describing a nata as a "machete", and even five that describe it as a "hatchet". And that's just in the summary text on the hits page itself, without even visiting each site.
I can only infer that 1) you didn't click through, 2) you clicked through, but for some reason Google's results were completely different for you, 3) you clicked through and got similar results, but didn't read them, 4) you clicked through and got similar results, read them, but didn't understand them, or 5) you clicked through and got similar results, read them, understood them, but decided to ignore them. I'm not sure how to help you at this point.
  • All of the research I've done so far appears to confirm that nata can be described in English variously as machete, hatchet, billhook, or even froe. I will happily admit that I've found the least evidence for the froe sense, but that evidence exists. You dismiss Daijirin out of hand, apparently because you distrust dictionaries, even though the dead-tree version includes an image showing many different kinds of nata, one of which looks a lot like a froe. Here's the entry in the Sekai Dai Hyakka Jiten, no pictures, but the text description indicates a wide variety of nata types, including one that sounds a lot like a froe. Here's one more example, a tool clearly labeled as a 鉈 (nata) with a handle at a right angle to the blade, with the edge of the blade facing away from the handle, and described as a traditional tool for making wooden roofing shingles -- functionally identical to a froe. Meanwhile, you have provided zero references in support of your argument.
  • Of the Japanese-entry editors here, none have voiced any concerns about the entry. Of the many more non-Japanese-entry editors here, none have voiced any concerns about the entry. There's only you, with much noise and fury, but no apparent substance.
In all honesty, you have my pity. I can only imagine how much pain you must be in to carry on like this.
I ask that you do something to be productive and constructive here. As a pointer, none of your edits related to 鉈 (nata) have been constructive so far. Please change your behavior. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I agree with User:Eirikr and I think we should close this case and do some work. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
"I had one handed to me and told in English by a native Japanese speaker, "this is a Japanese machete.""
That is a statement by a random Japanese person, who is bad at English (as the Japanese typically are), and tries to find the closest English equivalent. Trying to say something that gives you some idea of what it is, whilst not caring if it's at all accurate (unlike if he'd be writing a book on Japanese tools, or something, where the considerations would be different)
That doesn't mean it's the same thing.
Also, everything in your description of the nata, reveals how it is nothing like a machete.
"I am not as ignorant of this tool as you seem to think."
That doesn't mean that you aren't ignorant of tools, generally, and machetes and hatchets in particular ...and you can't make a comparison between one thing.
"Regarding the link to Google results, did you even look?"
I did, but that's irrelevant. It's invalid, regardless of the results.
"The first page alone has nine clear non-duped instances of usage describing a nata as a "machete", and even five that describe it as a "hatchet"."
Descriptions like "similar to" or "used like", don't count as calling it a machete or hatchet.
"All of the research I've done so far appears to confirm that nata can be described in English variously as machete, hatchet, billhook, or even froe."
You have shown no valid evidence of that. At all.
"I will happily admit that I've found the least evidence for the froe sense, but that evidence exists. You dismiss Daijirin out of hand, apparently because you distrust dictionaries, even though the dead-tree version includes an image showing many different kinds of nata, one of which looks a lot like a froe."
One single solitary instance, with no corroborating evidence, is not valid evidence.
"but the text description indicates a wide variety of nata types"
Again: Would you define "knife" as "balisong"? You cannot define nata, as being one of its subtypes, which is significantly different to its other subtypes.
"including one that sounds a lot like a froe."
I can't see anything like that, in the text. Where? Can you quote that bit?
"Here's one more example, a tool clearly labeled as a 鉈 (nata) with a handle at a right angle to the blade, with the edge of the blade facing away from the handle, and described as a traditional tool for making wooden roofing shingles -- functionally identical to a froe."
First of all, that is one single instance of a person using the word nata, to refer to a tool like that. That doesn't confirm that it qualifies to be included on Wiktionary.
A froe has its blade attached to the handle, at a right angle. That blade is attached with a tang, straight in the centre of the handle. I notice you have enough integrity not to claim it to be identical to a froe, but "functionally identical". That qualifier is there, because that blade is, quite obviously, not a froe. (also, I don't really see how/why it'd be called a nata, as it is nothing like one, nor does it do anything that a nata does)
"There's only you, with much noise and fury, but no apparent substance."
Oh, the projection... Can't you come up with anything beyond repeating baseless ad hominems?
"I ask that you do something to be productive and constructive here."
You have no right to say that.
You have done nothing, but to be unhelpful, uncivil, obstructive, unwilling to discuss, malicious, offensive and destructive, right from the start.
I have, at every instance, made arguments and presented evidence. You have only reluctantly been dragged into making responses, and the responses you've made, have been filled with fallacies and "evidence" that is full of holes.--213.113.51.51 18:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Closed as not an RFV matter (the existence of a meaning has not been questioned, just the wording) and because this all is objectively a waste of everyone's time. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Korean 나대 (nadae) and 낫 (nat) are both possible cognates of 鉈(なた) (nata) with various related meanings (hatchet, machete, sickle, froe, etc.) Feel free to move to WT:RFT or WT:RFE --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
This isn't an issue of wording, at all, but of definition and meaning.--85.229.235.21 16:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Since you seemingly don't even realize what you are arguing about, it's even more safe to say that this has been a waste of time. Please do not post any further comments here under this closed RFV, as they will be ignored. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:鉈&oldid=65184027"