Talk:無變

RFV discussion: April–June 2020

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

無變

Please provide attestations from verified sources per requirements stated in WT:ATTEST. Can we find three quotations each for Teochew, Penang and Singapore Hokkien? 125.11.179.175 05:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Since you're linking to WT:ATTEST, I suggest you read it. If you consider these all to be Chinese dialects, that would require 3 attestations. If you consider them separate languages (my interpretation), then they would each require one mention in sources that the community editing those languages agrees are adequate. Either way, there's no requirement for 9 attestations by any interpretation. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Exactly. That being said, I think it's usually written as 無變 (e.g. 潮·普双言语词典, 新加坡闽南话词典). The pronunciations seem to be wrong as well based on these sources. Pinging @The dog2. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I basically just lifted the characters from Wikipedia's page about Singaporean Hokkien, so please just change it if you have a more authoritative source. Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with dialectal Romanisations since I mainly learn by just listening to how people say it, so I may make mistakes sometimes. The dog2 (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, The dog2: The Singlish derivative bo bian has also listed 無便 as the etymology for many years fwiw. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Moved to 無變, which has three attestations in Teochew, one dictionary entry for Teochew (潮·普双言语词典), and one dictionary entry for Singaporean Hokkien (新加坡闽南话词典). Penang Hokkien Dictionary has this word as well, written as boh3 pien3. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• The Teochew part is settled, but not the Hokkien part. Can anyone provide actual citations of the word being used in Malaysia and Singapore Hokkien? Entries created based on external word lists or online dictionaries are not reliable. WT:ATTEST explicitly states: "an appearance in someone’s online dictionary is suggestive, but it does not show the word actually used to convey meaning". So go out there and find three independent citations in Malaysia and Singapore Hokkien with the sense "there is nothing to be done; one can't do anything about it" or the Hokkien part has to be deleted. Also don't create the entry just because you are a native speaker. What if this word is only used by a small number of bilingual Teochew speakers who code-switch between Teochew and Hokkien? 125.11.221.159 04:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

justin(r)leung has already cited 新加坡闽南话词典. And the pronunciations are slightly different between Hokkien and Teochew, so while it is probably a loan word from Teochew, it is not pronounced the same as the original Teochew word in Singaporean Hokkien. The dog2 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

And, to reiterate what Chuck said above, per WT:ATTEST itself one citation is enough in this case. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify a little bit for the IP, Malaysian and Singaporean Hokkien are very difficult to cite. Most content in these varieties are not written. There might some chance of finding them in songs (like for Teochew), but the chance is very slim. WT:WDL does list Chinese as a well-documented language, so there needs to be 3 actual uses - which we do (for Teochew). I would treat varieties like Malaysian and Singaporean Hokkien differently - these should not be treated as well-documented. This means that mentions in dictionaries should be sufficient. 新加坡闽南话词典 is a reliable source for Singaporean Hokkien, and Penang Hokkien Dictionary is a relatively reliable source for Penang Hokkien. I think @Freelance Intellectual has some print Penang Hokkien dictionaries; would you be able to check if this word is documented in these dictionaries? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not listed in Tan Siew Imm's dictionary. Luc de Gijzel's dictionary is English>Hokkien, so it's harder to check this way round, but I haven't found it. I have found an example in an unpublished Penang source so I believe it's used in Penang but I can't add that as a citation. However, I would also like to ask a clarification point about attestation for varieties of Chinese. Teochew and Hokkien are very closely related and some linguists regard them as the same language. In fact, Kwok (2018) argues that Zhangzhou Hokkien is more closely related to Teochew than to Quanzhou Hokkien. The oldest extant play in Min Nan (Tale of the Lychee Mirror) mixes Teochew and Quanzhou Hokkien. I wouldn't expect everyone to agree that they're the same language (even if we could agree on criteria for what counts as the "same language"), but it's not obvious to me that additional attestations would be required according to WT:ATTEST. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Freelance Intellectual: Yes, it's true that they are closely related, and even though my Teochew is at a very rudimentary level, I was able to understand quite a fair bit of the Teochew that was spoken in Bangkok Chinatown through my knowledge of Hokkien. However, there are still some clear differences. For instance, Teochew has merged the "n" and "ng" final consonants into "ng", while the two consonants remain distinct in Hokkien. Likewise Teochew has merged the "k" and "t" final consonants into "k", while they remain distinct in Hokkien. The tones have also changed, to words like 人, 暝 and 卵 have different tones in Hokkien and Teochew, and the pronunciation of the some vowels is also different, like what you will hear in 茶 and 好. And whether or not Zhangzhou Hokkien is closer to Teochew than to Quanzhou Hokkien is not that clear cut. For instance, 豬 is pronounced the same in Teochew and Quanzhou Hokkien, but differently in Zhangzhou Hokkien. So in short, they're similar but not the same. Granted though that as a Singaporean, I had exposure to both Hokkien and Teochew growing up, and I'm not sure how mutually intelligible they are for speakers from China, like say if you get someone from Xiamen and someone from Chaozhou to talk to each other in their local dialects. I asked my Taiwanese friend to listen to some Teochew, and he said he could only understand about half of it.

Interestingly though, if you listen to the dialect spoken in Shanwei, it does sound like an intermediate between Hokkien and Teochew, which is kind of strange given that Shanwei is farther away from the Hokkien homeland than Chaozhou or Shantou. The dog2 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Kwok (2018) discusses those sound correspondences. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but since when have lone definitions on external dictionaries or word lists been considered as proof of attestation on Wiktionary? Haven't you heard of dictionary-only terms such as those in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms? What if this is a ghost word or a dictionary-only term? And don't tell me those dictionaries you mentioned above are the only dictionaries for Malaysia or Singapore Hokkien (there are other dictionaries). If the word is only found in one dictionary and absent from other dictionaries, then how can you be sure that the word actually exists? So once again, can you find actual citations of this word in Malaysia and Singapore Hokkien? Any TV shows, audio recordings, blogs, podcasts in Hokkien? What if this word is only a sum of parts in Hokkien, 無 = did not, 變 = change, 無變 = did not change? If no citations can be found for the sense "there is nothing to be done; one can't do anything about it", then please remove the label for Malaysia and Singapore Hokkien. Dictionaries don't count as citations, do they? 125.14.128.54 10:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Since at least 2015. Appendix:English dictionary-only terms is for English; we've chosen to accept the risk of dictionary-only terms for poorly documented languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Hokkien has been listed as a well documented language on Wiktionary since 2012. Do you know there is Appendix:Chinese dictionary-only terms? So please remove the label for Malaysia and Singapore Hokkien unless you can prove that it is not a dictionary-only term. 125.9.22.48 15:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages does not mention Hokkien, even if it once did. Please don't issue demands; this is a consensus-based system, and sometimes consensus will go against you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• It doesn't mention Hokkien because Hokkien has been merged under Chinese per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified_Chinese. The rules are clear. Hokkien, Cantonese and Standard Mandarin were treated as well-documented languages before they were all merged into a unified Chinese section. So three citations needed. 125.9.22.48 18:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• From the above discussion, it seems that there is no clear policy on how WT:ATTEST should apply to Chinese topolects, and WT:AZH does not mention attestation. On the basis that Chinese topolects are treated together, 無變 has four citations, which more than satisfies the policy. (WT:ATTEST does not discuss attestations for regional varieties; e.g. for an English word, there is no requirement to have separate attestations for each major English-speaking city.) Even if we suppose that attestation should apply to different Chinese topolects, there is no policy (or consensus) on what level of granularity should be used (e.g. Min Nan / Hokkien / Singapore Hokkien). Perhaps attestation policy for Chinese could be further developed, but that seems out of scope here. I suggest that this RFV should be closed. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• This is absolute evil. Treating all Chinese topolects as the same language? The 2014 vote only mention "treat various Chinese varieties under the same header" not "treat Chinese varieties as the same language". Separate attestations are not required for each major English-speaking city? Can I add the New Zealand label to terms that are used in Australian English, or add British label to words used in American English without any attestation? How about adding information for Hakka, Cantonese, Hokkien even though there are only attestations in Mandarin? What is the purpose of RFV if not used to dispute these claims? Iambluemon (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If Wiktionary policy is "evil", this RFV is not the place to update it. To quote WT:LT, for Chinese, "Only the macrolanguage is treated as a language". As mentioned before, WT:ATTEST does not discuss attestation for subvarieties. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• RFV closed for Teochew (3 citations found) but not for Hokkien. I want to challenge the Hokkien citation in the "Happy Can Already! Episode 1" Youtube Video because there is too many code-switching in that video. From 6:26 to 7:00 there is code-switching in Teochew and Cantonese. In 7:24, there is Malay word agak-agak. In 15:15, there is English word "last paper". In 21:14 and 21:32, there is Mandarin words mixed with Hokkien. There is code-switching of 5 languages in that video, and in 2:12 of the video, the host says that Teochew will also be spoken in the show, so the video is not that reliable. Also, no citations yet in Malaysia Hokkien. Wiktionary:Context labels says that context labels are used for restricted usage of definition, so need citations to attest restricted usage, otherwise anyone can add any labels they want. Iambluemon (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Iambluemon: 無變 in Hokkien is pronounced differently from 無變 in Teochew; it ends in [n] in Hokkien but [ŋ] in Teochew. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Teochew or Hokkien, but you should be able to hear a difference. This should be enough evidence to say that it is Hokkien because it has adapted into Hokkien phonology. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'm sure the same applies to words such as Robert in 14:04, salah in 15:20, agak-agak in 7:24. These words are adapted into Hokkien phonology, so they have become Hokkien words. No, this is not a reliable source because the speaker likes to show off the ability in speak other languages and code-switches throughout the video (Teochew, Cantonese, English, Malay, Mandarin). Oh and that's Singapore Hokkien, not Malaysia Hokkien, so RFV fail for Malaysia Hokkien. Iambluemon (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that Min Nan entries for loanwords deriving from Malay "salah" and "agak agak" should be added to Wiktionary. I would tentatively write these in POJ as "sa-la" and "a-gah-a-gah". Freelance Intellectual (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Iambluemon: It hasn't even been a month since the request for verification was added. Please do not RFV-fail anything before one month has passed. Also, if we are changing the status of non-Standard Chinese varieties (in terms of WT:WDL), then this RFV process would proceed differently. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• This Facebook post supports 無變 in Singapore Hokkien, although it's more like a dictionary entry than an example of use. In the comments, there is an example of "bopien" as a loanword from Hokkien into Malay. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As previously said, Hokkien and Teochew have different phonologies, so you can tell the difference. One dead giveaway is that Teochew does not have the [n] final consonant, and has instead merged it into [ŋ], so if you can hear distinct [n] and [ŋ] finals, it cannot be Teochew. Hokkien, on the other hand, still makes that distinction. For a comparison between standard Hokkien (Xiamen) and standard Teochew (Chaozhou), compare the pronunciations of 炸彈 and 面. The dog2 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• RFV passed. Varieties of Chinese that are not Standard Written Chinese are no longer considered well-documented, so we do not need three attestations for each variety. We have already established Teochew, Singaporean Hokkien and Penang Hokkien before. It turns out that Xiamen, Quanzhou, Zhangzhou and Meixian also use 無變 per 闽南方言大词典 and 梅縣方言詞典. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• That is very smart of you, changing the rules for well documented languages so less citation needed. Has anyone verified these dictionaries? Anyway I did. 闽南方言大词典 does not have entry for 無變／无变. It has entry for 【无变（步）】 <Xiamen> bo^2-6 pian^5-3 pɔ⁶ <Quanzhou> bo^2-4 pian^5-3 (pɔ⁵) <Zhangzhou> bo^2-6 pian⁵ so it is 无变步/無變步 or 无变/無變 in Xiamen and Quanzhou whereas Zhangzhou uses the exact phrase 无变/無變. Do you think the relationship between 無變步 and 無變 can be added to etymology section or usage note? Taiwanese Hokkien still uses 無變步 https://www.moedict.tw/'變步 but I cannot find anything for 無變 in Taiwan.
• For the Meixian Hakka, it is recorded in 梅縣方言詞典 for that meaning but Taiwanese Hakka 客語萌典 says 無變 means "did not change", so it is a sum of parts in Taiwanese Hakka https://www.moedict.tw/:無變 How about other Hakka dictionaries, is it also a sum of parts like in Taiwan? — This unsigned comment was added by Iambluemon (talk • contribs).

  @Iambluemon: "Has anyone verified these dictionaries?" I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I did (lol) - or else what was I talking about above? I haven't found evidence of 無變 in Taiwan for the sense in question; hence, I have not included a Taiwanese Hakka or Hokkien pronunciation nor have I included it in the dialectal synonyms table for any Taiwanese Hakka or Hokkien variety. The relationship 無變步 and 無變 is interesting, but it is unclear if 無變 is actually shortened from 無變步; that's just the way it's presented in said dictionary. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 10:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean double-check the dictionary, just to be sure. What if newer edition has deleted that entry? Some dictionaries like to add or delete entries when they publish newer versions. Anyway, what about the "LDL" box mentioned in WT:ATTEST? Does this not apply to this entry? Only Singapore Hokkien and mainland Teochew has actual citations. Other varieties (Penang/Xiamen/Quanzhou/Zhangzhou Hokkien and Meixian Hakka) are based only on dictionary entries. Iambluemon (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Iambluemon: The dictionaries mentioned above don't have newer editions AFAIK. As for the "LDL" box, I still wouldn't add it because we have more than 3 citations for Chinese (as the macrolanguage, which we treat as a language for the purposes of entry making). The notice on the box would be misleading. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 10:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I will write my concern for dictionary-only entries at the Beer Parlour. Thank you for verifying this entry. Discussion now closed. User talk:iambluemon 11:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)