Talk:huat ah
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Supposedly English. The example sentences are all "mentions" (use the term in quotes). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- As a Singaporean, I'd say this term has not been fully assimilated into English. However, because it is an interjection and thus not used within a longer sentence (e.g., *"She wished him huat for his examinations"), it is going to be virtually impossible to tell from quotations in print whether the speakers were speaking English or Hokkien (Min Nan). — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose the person who added it believes it to be Singapore English when used in English contexts. I added four citations for the interjection to the entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, of the ten quotations currently in the entry and the citations page, the three from 2015 are the only ones that are durably archived. Two of those are from the same author, Howie Hau B.H., so we only have two independent durably archived citations. We need one more to keep the entry. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose the person who added it believes it to be Singapore English when used in English contexts. I added four citations for the interjection to the entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay - have added more cites - from Google Groups.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- A similar Singaporean English discussion about jiak ba buay seems to have ended in delete.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to be RFV passed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
These are all claimed to be Singaporean English verbs. All of them come with copious cites but I still don't believe they belong. IMO they are examples of code switching between Hokkien and English. You can see this by the fact that they are often stuck in quotes or italicized in the cites, are often glossed, and don't have fixed spellings. Benwing2 (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Given all the citations, I think this is more a matter for RFD than RFV. Kiwima (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)