Template talk:zh-pron

Pronunciation file

@Wyang What's the right way to indicate the pronunciation file? 歷史 just uses |a=y. Can this be documented, please? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Done. Wyang (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

|a=y is a bit confusing on its own. What if it's only Mandarin file present, no Cantonese, etc.? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

|a=y is the parameter and argument used in {{Pinyin-IPA}}. For this template, the variety code has to be prefixed to 'a'. Wyang (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to that (|ma=y) but the audio link disappears, e.g. {{Pinyin-IPA|lìshǐ|ma=y}} in 歷史. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

{{Pinyin-IPA}} is Mandarin-only, hence |a=y or |a=zh-lìshǐ.ogg. {{zh-pron}} is across-topolectal, hence |ma=y or |ma=zh-lìshǐ.ogg. Wyang (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

{[ping|Wyang}} Thank you but I'm still confused. See 日本 (Rìběn), I had to use {{Pinyin-IPA|Rìběn|a=Zh-ri4ben3.ogg}}. It's !=a, not |ma=. "ma" doesn't work. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's {{Pinyin-IPA}} (Mandarin-only), not {{zh-pron}} (across-dialectal), which is why there is no |ma= parameter. Wyang (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Perhaps I need to see it used more often. :) BTW, I haven't listened to the audio on 日本‎. Was it really bad? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Here it is if you haven't heard it: . It's another non-native pronunciation by Peter Isotalo - inaccurate consonants, exaggerated tonal contours. Wyang (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will listen later but I trust your judgement. BTW, many of your templates use {{Hani}} and other script templates but without a language code, they get into Category:Language code missing/scripts/Hani, etc. Could you add language codes, please? "cmn" for now but then it can be replaced with "zh" in some cases. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

When you add "=y" (e.g. |ma=y|ca=y|ga=y|ha=y|ja=y|mna=y|wa=y|xa=y) it adds to " terms with audio links" categories but there is no link to audio. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

They are collapsed. Wyang (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinyin-IPA to zh-pron

These two templates are out of sync. How do you do erhua, alternative pronunciations? E.g {{Pinyin-IPA|ēipiān|er=y|py=A-piān}} on A片? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Replace all '|' with ','

{{zh-pron
|m=ēipiān,er=y,py=A-piān
}}

• Mandarin

  (Pinyin): ēipiān

  (Zhuyin): ㄟ ㄆㄧㄢ

---

• Mandarin
  • (Standard Chinese)⁺
    • Hanyu Pinyin: A-piān
    • Zhuyin: ㄟ ㄆㄧㄢ
    • Tongyong Pinyin: eipian
    • Wade–Giles: ei¹-pʻien¹
    • Yale: ēi-pyān
    • Gwoyeu Romatzyh: eipian
    • Palladius: эйпянь (ejpjanʹ)
    • Sinological IPA ^(key): /ˀeɪ̯⁵⁵ pʰi̯ɛn⁵⁵/
      
  • (Standard Chinese, erhua-ed)⁺
    • Hanyu Pinyin: ēipiānr
    • Zhuyin: ㄟ ㄆㄧㄢㄦ
    • Tongyong Pinyin: eipianr
    • Wade–Giles: ei¹-pʻien¹-ʼrh
    • Yale: ēi-pyānr
    • Gwoyeu Romatzyh: eipial
    • Palladius: эйпяньр (ejpjanʹr)
    • Sinological IPA ^(key): /ˀeɪ̯⁵⁵ pʰi̯ɑɻ⁵⁵/

Wyang (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A片 is not a noun any more, in any language :( --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад)

It is now. :) Wyang (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Why my addition

<includeonly>[[Category:Chinese nouns]]</includeonly>

didn't work? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It should work, I think. I'm not sure why it is not working. Wyang (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hakka

On 茶 Hakka pronunciation is not shown in collapsed mode and looks broken in the expanded mode. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What about IPA for Hakka? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Category names

In categories that include the language name, that name and the canonical name for the language code in the language data modules have to match- otherwise, the catboiler templates won't work. Of all the names in Module:zh-pron, Jin seems to be the only one that doesn't match: WT's canonical name is Jinyu, not Jin. That means we have to either change zh-pron to use Jinyu, or go to RFM to get the canonical name changed to Jin. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What is RFM? I have already changed to "Jin" in Module:languages/data3/c and moved categories. Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2014/May#cjy_-_Jin_or_Jinyu.3F. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

WT:RFM: Requests for moves, mergers and splits. Even though language codes are no longer templates, that's where we still discuss such things. You really need to get out of the habit of acting first and then thinking about the consequences. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz I posted Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2014/May#cjy_-_Jin_or_Jinyu.3F before acting. I saw that Jinyu categories were empty. What are the possible consequences apart from being told off by you? Are you aware of any active Jin/Jinyu editors? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, this time it's not a big deal, but it's not a good practice, in general. As for "posting", you first broached the subject at 5:11, got one response at 5:19, said at 5:22 you were going to make the change, then made the change at 5:24- 13 minutes.

We're not all in the same room- it usually takes hours or even days to get people's attention. It just happens that most of the editors active in Chinese happen to be in either Australia or New Zealand, but most of the people who deal with language codes, templates and modules are in North America or Europe.

I'm not accusing you of trying to slip something by anyone- that would be completely out of character. I've never had any reason to question your intentions- just your lack of patience. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Another variant pronunciation question

@Wyang How do I add a variant pronunciation at 芥兰 - "jièlán" and "gàilán"? See also Talk:假期 for 期 and Taiwanese variants. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Atitarev You can separate the readings by comma. Please see my edit there. Wyang (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You must have changed something because I tried a comma before. Thank you for the fixes. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Middle Chinese and Old Chinese

@Wyang Apparently there are Category:Middle Chinese language (ltc) and Category:Old Chinese language (och). I think they should get PoS categories as well after they are merged and on any new entry. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. These are phonological concepts being applied in an incorrect context. Wyang (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself. That means we are deleting the two above when the merger is complete. Or they should be moved to Appendices as reconstructed languages are done, e.g. Appendix:Proto-Slavic/voda. What do you suggest - just keeping the pronunciations, without PoS categories? I have created Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Category:Middle_Chinese_language_.28ltc.29_and_Category:Old_Chinese_language_.28och.29.

BTW, please run your AWB, when you can, there are still unconverted multisyllabic Min Nan verbs, etc. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wyang I have another idea. We can categorise terms with transliteration in Category:Middle Chinese and Category:Old Chinese - new categories without PoS info. Just to have a list of term for which there are Old and Middle Chinese pronunciations.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've made {{zh-pron}} do so. Wyang (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh

I think this addition was an unnecessary burden. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Atitarev It may be unnecessary, but how is it a burden? --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Because we have to understand and maintain it. It's just my opinion but there are too many transliterations. Why this one, out of all? Even Wade-Giles is better known. (BTW, sorry for accidental reversals today)--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Atitarev No problem. I wouldn't include Wade-Giles because it is too similar to Pinyin. (Does this argument stand?) --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really:) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What about Yale for Mandarin? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the word that is ideal in that system would be 一点儿. :) Wyang (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hanzi templates and headers

I have already removed a lot of ===Hanzi=== when merging but I'm having second thoughts. They may contain alternative readings, which are not present in {{zh-pron}} for specific PoS, e.g. a pronunciation only used in a component, a rare reading. Should we keep ===Hanzi=== and {{cmn-hanzi}} (move to {{zh-hanzi}})? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should merge the definitions into one header named "Definitions", and divide it by MC readings, not by PoS, with the help of additional templates. In that way {{zh-pron}} accounts for all readings and is used only once, whereas the L4 reading templates in Definitions account for multiple readings. Wyang (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't fully accepted your idea about "Definitions" header yet, even if I understand your point, sorry. This approach has pluses and minuses and both approaches are challenging. However, using PoS headers is more common and most people are used to it, you don't have to change anything radically. Besides, this may not be accepted by the community, including Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. editors. It may require another vote. Sorry for not fully supporting you on this one! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wu Entry Transliteration Ideas

Could we be able to sort Wu entries by consonants and vowels instead of numerals? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, numbers stripped. Wyang (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could place the numbers behind the readings instead of before them? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think stripping all numbers would probably be better. There are words following phrasal tone sandhi rules as well, which are currently written with numbers after letters. 儂好 Wyang (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the transliteration without any numbers could be adopted in translations, see also's, synonyms, etc., e.g. "non hau", otherwise, complete numbers (for each syllable), e.g. "non33 hau34" should be used, which is error-prone (the only person who could do it error-free would be Wyang :)). I've got a textbook, which ignores tones. It's not perfect but accurate tone numbers could be reserved for Chinese entries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

How about something like "|w=zoe xiau3"? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Numbered pinyin, Jyutping, Wade-Giles with superscript?

@Kc kennylau, @Wyang Can numbered pinyin, Jyutping and Wade-Giles (if introduced) use superscript numbers? E.g. gwok³ in 國? I don't why we need linked numbered pinyin hyperlinked, just displaying guo² in monosyllabic entries is sufficient, IMHO. (There's some problem with the expand button in 國). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All seem to be superscripted now. I don't seem to have trouble expanding zh-pron at 國. Wyang (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The button seems at a lower than usual position, not at the top but almost the middle of the box. It's not a big deal, though. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

While you're at it, could you remove the hyperlink to the numbered pinyin? They are not maintained and getting of sync with toned pinyin. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Template currently broken

The current template requires the following to be displayed at Shanghai:

It should read

or possibly

but both of those currently give "module errors". I'm not sure what in the script could cause it to get so buggy when properly capitalized and hyphenated Cantonese and Shanghainese are included, but whatever it is needs fixing. — LlywelynII 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Jyutping does not capitalise proper nouns (see how the article Jyutping treats "jyut6 ping3"). The Wiktionary romanisation of Wu does not capitalise proper nouns either and does not make use of hyphens. For Jyutping, normal numbers are used for tone numbers, since the original Jyutping scheme does not actually make tone numbers superscripts (see the link above). Making them superscripts is a modification of the original scheme adopted by Wiktionary and some other sites. Normal numbers are also easier to type. Wyang (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Jyutping should also be disabled in zh-usex. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why does this categorise in part-of-speech categories?

It shouldn't be doing this. The part of speech should be handled by the headword template. —CodeCat 13:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder, why are you asking now, when it's been used like that for a long time by a very large number of entries, which have converted to use {{zh-pron}}? I have asked a while ago on GP about sorting in {{zh-noun}} and I thought you knew it all along. All categorisations and sorting is done by this template and modules. User:Wyang could explain this better - it was his idea and design but this template contains pronunciations for various Chinese topolects and as soon a pronunciation is given (transliteration or audio file), it adds to PoS categories for that topolect and they are sorted by the transliteration, e.g. 醫院／医院 (yīyuàn) has 5 topolects and one PoS category. A template like {{zh-noun}} would require some complex logic to do that. Also pinging @Kc kennylau who has been taking an active part in the development and the use. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking now because I am adding the lemma categories to {{head}}, but I'm finding that a number of Chinese entries has no part of speech specified at all, which prevents categorisation. I still don't understand why part of speech categories are added in the pronunciation section; what does the PoS have to do with pronunciation at all? Why not use normal headword templates like any other language? —CodeCat 00:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to explain again. The overwhelming majority of Chinese words use the same characters but have different pronunciations in topolects and dialects, so 醫院 is just a Chinese word for "hospital". "yīyuàn" is Mandarin transliteration, "ji1 jyun6-2" is Cantonese, etc., without pronunciation "ji1 jyun6-2", there is no point in adding 醫院 to Category:Cantonese nouns because it wouldn't contain anything Cantonese. 噉样 is a Cantonese specific term, it's not used in Mandarin, there is no pronunciation for Mandarin, so it's not added to any Mandarin PoS categories. Potentially, "zh" headword templates could be used for Chinese PoS categorisations, which is also handled nicely by this and other PoS templates. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but why do we even have Category:Cantonese nouns? Wasn't the whole point of the merger to get rid of the more specific categories and have only Category:Chinese nouns? —CodeCat 00:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood the purpose. How can users find Cantonese pronunciations, usage examples? They can't assume that every Chinese entry will have Cantonese Jyutping, it's not automatic but it's now made easy to add contents in at least 5 topolects + Old and Middle Chinese. Chinese topolects are now thriving with the merger. Cantonese nouns have grown tenfold, with IPA, usage examples and proper transliterations. Wu has grown from nearly nothing to a few hundred. There is work going for Old Chinese and Middle Chinese. Hakka and Min Nan entries are improved and increased. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

But they're really just Chinese entries with a Cantonese transliteration in the pronunciation section. Does that really merit a separate Category:Cantonese nouns? Why not Category:Chinese entries with Cantonese pronunciation? —CodeCat 01:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The exact categorisation and formatting may not have been thoroughly thought through and discussed but it's now accepted by Chinese editors (natives and learners). I personally see no problem with the usual Category:Cantonese nouns, which may contain other topolects as well. Well, only those who supported and understood the merger discussed and took part in it. The opponents didn't suggest anything constructive. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation is not the only Cantonese content on those pages. Wyang (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to Chinese editors working with it and understanding how it works. But it's a problem when it comes to editors like me who are not familiar with the Chinese practices. It's a real headache. Furthermore, there are a lot of technical difficulties because the way templates and modules are being used deviates so strongly from how the equivalents in other languages work. That's not a problem if the languages' stuff is maintained by its own set of editors, but it's confusing when it comes to points where the language-specific stuff meshes with general templates, like {{head}}, which I am currently working on to allow proper categorisation of all lemmas and non-lemma forms. If Chinese handles part-of-speech categories in a totally different way, then all of that breaks down, and it's a real mess for me to make it work for Chinese. —CodeCat 01:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you describe the challenges and Wyang or Kenny, who are technically better than me, can try to help? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The primary problem is that Module:headword/templates contains a list of recognised parts of speech that I am working on. As part of this, I'm trying to ensure that {{head}} always has a second parameter, so that the template is able to categorise it properly. However, there is currently the template {{zh-pos}} which does not give a POS, and it's used in quite a few entries. Furthermore, because the {{zh-pron}} template is not a headword line template that can use {{head}}, it entirely bypasses this, so Category:Cantonese lemmas will not be populated by it. —CodeCat 01:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This could be easily done by modifying the make_cat function in Module:zh-pron. Done now. Wyang (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case, there would need to be a separate function in Module:headword that is exported for Module:zh-pron to use, just for categorising into lemma/POS categories. —CodeCat 01:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

E/C: What you did now doesn't actually work the way it should. Now, not just lemmas will be categorised, but also non-lemma forms. That is why I am creating the list of POSs in the first place, so that the template knows what parts of speech are lemmas and which aren't. It also seems that it's categorising this talk page, so something is clearly wrong. —CodeCat 01:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if it matters but Chinese is not an inflected language and every Chinese (also Vietnamese, Thai, Lao, etc.) entry is a lemma. Should phrases, idioms, etc. be broken apart? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Idiom is not a part of speech in any case. Rather, other parts of speech can be optionally considered idioms. —CodeCat 01:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(E/C) I asked because idioms get entries and have headers, like {{zh-idiom}}. Does my comment answer your question? Every Chinese term that merited an entry is a lemma. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are idioms not lemmas? Chinese idioms are as lemma-like as nouns, verbs, adjectives, ... Wyang (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just checking, if idioms, proverbs, phrases in general (not just Chinese) are considered lemmata, sorry if it was a silly question. "Lemma - the canonical form of an inflected word" and phrases (and many idioms) are not words. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't lemmas. I said that idiom is not a part of speech. "Phrase" is, but "idiom" isn't, nor is "proverb". Part of speech relates only to the use of the word in a sentence, to syntax. And idiomatic phrases act like any other phrase, and are therefore not parts of speech in themselves. They are just phrases that happen to be idioms. —CodeCat 02:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Phrase is a part of speech, and is also a lemma because it's not an inflected form of a lemma. But idiom is not a lemma because it's not even a part of speech. —CodeCat 02:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To me, idioms in Chinese (e.g. 大驚小怪) do not behave any differently from nouns, verbs and adjectives. Lemmas are clearly a concept stemming from inflecting languages, as are the headword templates themselves, and the idea that word senses should always be split by part of speech. I'm not sure whether such a distinction of lemmas and non-lemmas is traditionally made for inflecting languages, but personally I think carrying this distinction over to non-inflecting languages would be an unnecessary complication. Wyang (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the definition in the entry you gave, that should be labelled "verb", not "idiom". —CodeCat 11:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's also a noun, adjective, adverb. Wenlin dictionary (software, based on ABC dictionary) just gives it as f.e - "fixed expression". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then why doesn't the entry say that? —CodeCat 12:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just added examples of noun, adjective and adverb usages. Why? It's actually endless. Many Chinese words behave that way - they are used in various functions. Dictionaries just make arbitrary choices about parts of speech to make it a bit easier for foreign learners. It's even more complicated with single-character words. That's why our current translingual sections have vague definitions without the part of speech info. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This kind of Chinese exceptionalism is aggravating me to be honest. Chinese has parts of speech just like other languages, as those concepts are common to all human languages and even wired into our brains. I don't see why Chinese should be treated differently from other languages. In other languages, if words have more than one part of speech, we list them all. The same can easily be done for Chinese as well. —CodeCat 12:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no Chinese exceptionalism. Chinese also has parts of speech but they are often ignored or shown only partially in dictionaries. Editors, dictionary publishers make choices but other editors do it differently. I don't know, e.g. why 那邊 is shown as adverb and noun. It's also used as a postposition, Wenlin has it as "place word" and pronoun! Languages, which were originally monosyllabic and completely lack inflections have this in common. If you dig deeper into Vietnamese, Burmese, Thai, Lao, etc. they are very similar in this respect. It's possible to classify them comprehensively but too damn hard. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Another example - 以后. Two reputable dictionaries list them with different PoS - Oxford Chinese dictionary - as a noun (名), ABC dictionary lists it as an adverb (adv.). And Pleco dictionary simply omits PoS info altogether but gives extensive examples. The choice is arbitrary, whatever suits better in a current situation. Sorry if it's aggravating you. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

nǐhǎo or níhǎo

Correct pronounciation of 你好 is níhǎo but the other form (root tones) is used here on wiktionary in zh-pron. On the page Wiktionary:About_Chinese#Tone_sandhi there are a description of it. The text is written before the zh-pron template was introduced and is about the inflection template. I think was has happened is that the infomation from the inflection template has been copied to zh-pron. I think we need to update the info in zh-pron. There are very clear rules about pronounciation so I think a bot can make the update. What do you think? Kinamand (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)