Talk:雞

Thai

Why is there Thai in this entry? Is the implication that the Thai word is of Sinitic origin? 24.29.228.33 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it- there was already an entry at ไก่. Added by 129.94.6.28 Nadando 06:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So, is the Thai from a Sinitic root (or is the Chinese from a Tai root?), or is it just a coincidence? 24.29.228.33 06:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Why does the definition says "chickens" and not "chicken"? 24.29.228.33 03:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sense "penis"

@Wyang I've not heard this sense, "(slang) penis", in MSM. I think erhuaed pronunciation may has this meaning, but the written form seems to always be 雞兒／鸡儿. Dokurrat (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it can definitely be written as 雞 though; try to search for the linked text in Google. I don't think it's slang, probably colloquial, euphemistic. Some dialects use unerhuaed 雞 for this sense too. Wyang (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Traditional Character

@Justinrleung Isn't both “雞”“鷄” traditional characters? But Taiwan prefers the former while Mainland prefers the latter (in the sense that Mainland dictionaries list the latter as the traditional form of 鸡). If that's the case, how do you think should this info be integrated into the entry? Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: We haven't really been showing these regional preferences in entries. In most cases, if Mainland and Taiwan differ, we generally choose Taiwan as the main form and the Mainland traditional form as t2. Also 鷄 is still relatively common as a variant, so it's not absolute in terms of regional usage. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

In Singapore, 雞 is also the more common traditional form. The dog2 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Not sure what you mean by "relatively common", but I'm just referring to when you consult Mainland sources giving "鷄" as the traditional form and Taiwan sources giving "雞" as the traditional form. Same thing seems to happen when Mainland sources give "墻" as the traditional form and Taiwan sources give "牆". It just seems to me that this info about regional preference should be part of the entries. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: What I mean is that the sources you’re consulting are based on (recent) regional standards, but in actual usage, the lines may be blurred. In HK, the standard is 雞 according to 常用字字形表, but 鷄 is still relatively common in actual usage. Another is 裏/裡, where the HK standard is 裏, but 裡 is super common in actual usage, especially when typing. I feel like there should be templatized solutions to this, but at the same time, there might be more nuance particular to each character. @RcAlex36, Wpi, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I believe there's already {{Chinese-region variant characters}}, used on a few pages like 裏, but that is not customisable at all.

In my opinion/observation, for 雞/鷄 the latter is slightly dated and less common; 裏/裡 are relatively similar in terms of frequency, though 裏 should be more common in handwritten texts. OTOH there's some pairs which I would in fact call them as prescriptive, e.g. 群/羣 where the latter is prescribed by 常用字字形表 but modern usage is 99.9% the other one.

In general I think we should indicate this sort of information on the main lemma, perhaps in {{zh-forms}} (not {{zh-hanzi-box}} as some pairs like 着/著 etc. require separate treatment for different etymologies), but I'm afraid that {{zh-forms}} is already quite messy currently, so a rewrite is perhaps necessary. Alternatively we could have a new section similar to how Japanese has a Kanji section (have I mentioned this before?), which would include lexigraphical information related to the character itself (see User:Wpi/sandbox2 for a very crude draft), but I imagine this will require a lot of effort to work through all the charcater entries.

BTW it wouldn't really make sense if the glyphs displayed are from TW fonts instead of HK fonts, so splitting the script code is likely needed. – wpi (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)