Hi. Please do not put "'" in Korean romanization. I believe "-" is used to distinguish the syllables.
- Apostrophe is used by The 2000 South Korean Revised Romanization. The hyphen is used by the former Romanization, McCune-Reischauer. --Menchi 22:16 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
- What's your source? I found this, and there's no "'". ---Xaos
- I'm wrong. I live in Bizarro World. It's the other way around, McCune-Reischauer uses apostrophe (alif) while 2000 uses hyphen. I'll change the spelling now. Thanks for notifying me.
- So you're Xaos! Long time no see. Good to know that you're contributing here too. --Menchi 18:35 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
This is quoted from the above noted site on their "what has changed" page
1. "어", "으" have been changed from ǒ and ǔ to "eo" and "eu." 2. "ㄱ, ㄷ, ㅂ, ㅈ" have been changed from "k, t, p, and ch" to "g, d, b, and j." 3. "ㅋ, ㅌ, ㅍ, ㅊ" have been changed from "k', t', p', and ch'" to "k, t, p, and ch." 4. "ㅅ" used to be written as "sh" and "s," depending on context. Now it will be written as "s" in all cases.
Item #1 which used carons on the letter "o" and "u" appears to parallel the problem of representing the third tone in Chinese. In the text quoted the Korean site uses an external link to a graphical representation rather than the Unicode numbers as I have done.
Items #2 and #3 are similar to the Chinese transition from Wade-Giles to Pinyin.
Item #4 appears to resolve an ambiguity.
These "official" changes are recent, and it is to be expected that we will continue to see both the old and new ways used for at least a full generation. Also, I have no idea where the North Koreans (who do use the same language) stand on this issue. Unless the two countries have some kind of joint commission on the matter I don't expect that there will be any final resolution until the political problems on the peninsula have been solved. My guess is that the South Koreans will eventually prevail on this, if for no other reason than that they have more ties with more other countries.
On that basis Wiktionary needs to maintain flexibility, and we should not be too quick to treat an alternative approach as necessarily wrong. Eclecticology 17:00 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
- Currently the old system (McCune-Reischauer) and the new are both included on the Chinese character page. --Menchi 18:35 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
Hi, Menchi, I found u here again! I didn't know u r working here as well! I think the English-Chinese translation standard is needed to be improved ( is there any? I can't find it!). c, there r simplified Chinese and tranditional Chinese, also Mandarin, Cantonese or so on....(messes, brb). so what do u think? --Samuel 19:07 Jul 27, 2003 (UTC)
“USA” in Korean and Japanese
Hi Menchi. In this edit, you give Lua error in Module:script_utilities at line 14: The language code "ko-KP" is not valid. as the North Korean hanja for “USA”. Apart from the issue of how relevant hanja are in North Korea (I think it's good to have them in the Wiktionary for etymological reasons), where did you get the information that the North Korean word Lua error in Module:script_utilities at line 14: The language code "ko-KP" is not valid. comes from different hanja than the South Korean word Lua error in Module:script_utilities at line 14: The language code "ko-KR" is not valid.? It seems unlikely to me that North Korea would use the same characters as are used in the written Japanese language. Perhaps due to its Japanese spelling, some South Koreans think Lua error in Module:script_utilities at line 14: The language code "ko-KR" is not valid.'s hanja are Lua error in Module:script_utilities at line 14: The language code "ko-KR" is not valid., but all Korean dictionaries I've seen give Lua error in Module:script_utilities at line 14: The language code "ko-KR" is not valid..
On another note, do you know whether Japanese authorities have ever encouraged replacing 美國 with 米國 in the Japanese language at some point during the Imperialist period or WW2, or whether 米國 has always been used? I cannot find anything on this by googling, so it's probably an urban legend. Dustsucker 13:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
How wonderful that you are making etymologies for Chinese characters. I hope that eventually every character will have one listed. 22.214.171.124 05:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. You've been doing some nice work around the site as well!
- With the collective power of the Wiktionarians, that day when all the etymlogies are entered shall be sooner than later! --Menchi 05:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
One thing we should think about is that Westerners often take Chinese words (and characters) too literally, but in many cases there's something like a sound borrowing and the character doesn't always look exactly like what it is representing (as is the case for simple ones like 人, 木, 日, etc. So when characters don't look like what they are representing, we should be as detailed as possible in explaining how that character came to be used to refer to that particular term.
One question: here's one (髒) where the etymology you added doesn't explain how "bone" can become the meanings of this character. In this case, is there any more information about how this character, with "bone" in it, got these meanings when adding the phonetic component on the right? 126.96.36.199 21:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with being as explicit as possible in order to be helpful to the readers. The resources available aren't always specific enough to do so, however. To extrapolate the etymology any farther would require guessing on my part, since the exact logic behind sometimes escapes as well.
- It's the case with 髒. "Bone" is identified as its phonetic component but is unexplained in Zhongwen.com and ChineseEtymology.org. The character seems to be absent in online Shuowen databases (Zdic & Chinese99).
- My personal, unreferenced, anecdotal rationalization is that it's that bones being buried (or dugged up for cleaning & reburial after some years, as was the tradition) are pretty dusty and hence "髒". I can't be sure of my ad hoc justification, particularly since the Kangxi Dictionary’s very short (and etymology-less) entry on 髒 defines it as "corpulent/fat", which may be its original meaning and which would require a different rationalization (chunky meat on bone?). --Menchi
This is another one--I wonder why the meaning of "solitary" [獨] has a dog radical (I always wondered this when seeing the Chinese word for musical "solo"), and the etymology doesn't explain it. Is it known? 188.8.131.52 22:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- An interesting observation. Hadn't thought about it before. According to the Shuowen, it's based on the observation of lone canines that don't roam around in packs:
--Menchi 11:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Good work on your Mandarin contributions. Unfortunately these entries are not using the standard templates. Could you please fix this? See How to Create a Basic Chinese Entry for more information. The correct formatting should be used in entry you make, as it saves us cleaning up after you.^^ If you have any questions please leave them on my talk page. Thanks. ---> Tooironic 22:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing it out. The parameter got buried during the template's copying & pasting and the subsequent editing of contents. – Menchi (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)