Talk:營養

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

To be added:

Wyang (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea but perhaps using standard header ====Descendants==== is better, see e.g. भाषा#Sanskrit. There may be other derivations from Chinese, apart form JKV - English, Thai, Burmese, Russian, etc. "Sinoxenic descendants" is not known here and is not in the glossary. "Sino-Xenic" spelling seems more common. Sino-Xenic or JKV derivations may be marked with (Sino-Xenic). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion in a more acceptable format:
Descendants

...

or
Descendants

Sino-Xenic:

Others: ...

Only I don't know if "Sino-Xenic" is the best choice for the label. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@Wyang: What do you think? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the second one, but with Romajis italicised. Wyang (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I have changed the layout in User:Wyang/Sinoxenic-word and moved it to Template:Sinoxenic-word. Wyang (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
See 歷史#Descendants for examples I made today. The transliterations are normally not italicised, pls note that there are many languages with automatic transliterations and the translation-adder tool - User:Conrad.Irwin/editor.js doesn't italicise. Derivations in all other pages are not italicised either, e.g. Appendix:Proto-Slavic/dьnь. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's see if 畜生#Descendants causes any protests. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice. I think it should be placed at the traditional entry only, since the simplified form was not in existence a millennium later. It also makes maintenance easier. Wyang (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You have a point there but I'm not sure, since simp./trad. are ALWAYS kept in sync. Yes, it's been a maintenance hell but it's the same with Serbo-Croatian (not just Cyrillic/Roman but Ekavian/Ijekavian, sometimes Ikavian). Perhaps a parameter on the template indicating that the derivation is from the traditional form? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be 100% synchronised. The simplified form is not where these languages borrowed the term from. It would be misleading to put the template there. Let's just put it on the traditional entry. This way we can also avoid having to put in the PAGENAME in the template, eg. using only {{Sinoxenic-word||ちくしょう|축생|súc sinh|v2=súc sanh}} for 畜生. Wyang (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you. We could have a generic message in the template from Traditional Chinese. Chinese is not the only language with the language reform, e.g. Serbo-Croatian поборник/pobornik is derived from the Russian побо́рник (pobórnik), even if it was spelled побо́рникъ (pobórnik) before 1918-reform :). We don't have to provide the original or dated spelling every time we refer to the source language, in my opinion. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
OK... How about now? 歷史 and 历史. The code is the same. Wyang (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel I'm being too negative today:) I don't want 简体字 users to be disadvantaged (I'm one too) or blamed for destruction of Chinese heritage and having to look at the other form or even having to choose traditional over simplified if it has more information, including when extracting the simplified Chinese database dump. Someone may like your idea and suggest to have 历史 entry definition as # See 歷史 to save typing or copy-pasting. If, only theoretically, Chinese abandoned hanzi and used "lìshǐ" as the spelling for "history", Japanese 歷史, Korean 역사 would still be its derivations, like Soviet is derived from сове́т (sovét), even if it was spelled совѣ́тъ (sově́t) when it was borrowed. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In CJKV perspective, Korean 역사 and Vietnamese lịch sử are still said to be derivations of 歷史/历史, even if they no longer use (or rarely use) Han characters. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
OK...... Wyang (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)