Wikipedia talk:當年今日/10月6號

「殺」只有一個意思。唔成功嘅叫「行刺」。* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年十月六號（星期六）格林尼治 15點39分35秒。
刺殺 = 刺 + 殺 = 行刺 + 殺死. * -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年十月六號（星期六）格林尼治 23點49分18秒。

都要睇 context 嘅，「暗殺」、「刺殺」、「殺人」做名詞嘅時候就話成功唔成功，亦冇暗示一定有人死。--WikiCantona 2007年10月6號 (六) 23:50 (UTC)[回覆]

Without stating otherwise,殺=殺死. 自殺＝committed suicide; attempted suicide=自殺未遂.* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年十月六號（星期六）格林尼治 23點54分22秒。

no, disagree. Chinese are more flexible than English. 『佢自殺，好彩死唔去』，『佢話去殺人』，『佢話要殺死你』。context. my friend. 殺死 in this context does not imply any death yet. Second, 名詞。--WikiCantona 2007年10月7號 (日) 00:12 (UTC)[回覆]

I believe that you are wrong. Strictly speaking, attempt to kill is not 殺. However, let us stop here and look for references. * -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年十月七號（星期日）格林尼治 00點05分20秒。

『佢自殺，好彩死唔去』 - this is colloquial, but wrong. As I already said, 自殺＝committed suicide; attempted suicide=自殺未遂.* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年十月七號（星期日）格林尼治 00點13分11秒。

there is no problem in 『佢話去殺人』，『佢話要殺死你』. - to go to kill or to want to kill are certainly different from to kill* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年十月七號（星期日）格林尼治 00點14分41秒。

Chinese is analytic language, the trouble is that Chinese is context depending, makes it somewhere ambiguous, say positively "flexible", I don't know if we know to Englishify Chinese or Cantonese in that matter. --WikiCantona 2007年10月7號 (日) 00:17 (UTC)[回覆]
『佢自殺，好彩死唔去』is not right or wrong, it is understood or not, we are not grammer teacher here.--WikiCantona 2007年10月7號 (日) 00:20 (UTC)[回覆]

This is a wrong attitude. A reference work is of no good if it fails in accuracy. We cannot produce ambiguities and expect the reader to understand it by himself. This expectation is itself a specific point of view, and it may not be always fulfilled. * -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年十月七號（星期日）格林尼治 00點22分06秒。

"Accuracy" is relevant to content. Text description is to understanding for reader. Two different things, my friend. Don't make things up. I sure you are a realist, believe in truth. Sure, I believe in truth to some degree, but okay with relativist practices. --WikiCantona 2007年10月7號 (日) 00:29 (UTC)[回覆]
Funny, you seems to argue for 「刺殺，死咗」，Because I afriad of 刺殺 being understood as unsuccessful 行刺, I repeat myself somewhat. Unambiguousity are we both go for, but different ways... --WikiCantona 2007年10月7號 (日) 00:45 (UTC)[回覆]

"Seems", not "Are". :-) :-) :-) , let me repeat myself again too. 名詞 does not imply the status for things (result of act itself), but describes the act itself. Hence, we cannot say 刺殺 = 行刺＋死咗 when it used as noun (but I believe it never use as noun). Rest my case again. Good day --WikiCantona 2007年10月7號 (日) 01:02 (UTC)[回覆]

殺, 自殺 are legal terms. I am not a lawyer, but we can be sure that they are clearly defined.* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年十月七號（星期日）格林尼治 00點20分26秒。

Dubious, we may clearly defined, but people care?... dubious. I rest my case --WikiCantona 2007年10月7號 (日) 00:29 (UTC)[回覆]