User talk:Wyang/Archive7

Archives

• Archive 1 — 2013/01/18 21:12 (UTC) to 2014/05/24 00:43 (UTC)
• Archive 2 — 2014/05/25 15:03 (UTC) to 2015/01/25 11:17 (UTC)
• Archive 3 — 2015/01/23 00:31 (UTC) to 2015/07/10 05:42 (UTC)
• Archive 4 — 2015/08/15 18:18 (UTC) to 2016/07/18 01:13 (UTC)

User talk

Anon possibly spreading bogosity -- 118.110.169.110 (talk)

I just reverted this anon's clear confusion at 뒤 (dwi) -- JA 後 (ato, “behind; back”) is by extension from 跡 (ato, “footprint”), which apparently started out as a compound of 足 (a, “foot”) + 所 (to, “place”).

I'm going through this anon's contributions and vetting as best I can, but you're much more knowledgeable when it comes to Korean. It'd be great if you could vet their edits to Korean entries. I'll block them in a moment as a possible vandal; at a bare minimum, they appear to be dangerously misinformed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems most of the assertions are perhaps based on James Tyrone's 1978 thesis, which we really should have a read (when there is time) to see if it is inclusion-worthy. I guess it could be included in {{ko-ref}} and the various assertions discreetly included in etymology if there is no evidence pointing to potential falsehood. Wyang (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm slowly going through this. I see numerous places where Tyrone's cognate choices have serious problems.

• Confusion about compounds:

• Ainu sirokari (“round”, adjective) is supposed to be a reflex for Altaic cognates that all have to do with wrists or armbands, but there is some evidence that the Ainu term is a compound of uncertain element sir- + okari (“about, around”, postposition), with the latter element also appearing in okarira (“to put around”, transitive verb).
• Ainu sirotke (“to stick, to pierce”) is given as a reflex of Altaic cognates all starting with si- or sü-, but sirotke here is clearly a compound of sir- again + otke (“to pierce, to prick”), also found in verbs otkeotke (“to prick a lot”) and otkeekushna (“to pierce through”).

• Confusion about possible borrowings:

• Ainu kopeca (“a duck”) is given as a reflex of Altaic cognates about swimming, which is reasonable enough, but there is also no reason to suspect this wasn't a borrowing, given the lack of any Ainu terms related to swimming that have similar phonetics. (FWIW, to swim in Ainu is ma.)

• Excessively loose semantics:

• Ainu kut (“a girdle”) is equated with Altaic cognates meaning variously to hide or armful, demonstrating a worrying semantic breadth.
• Ainu serema (“god, guardian”) is somehow equated with Altaic cognates meaning ready, gift, help, and duty.

• Mistaken ancient forms of supposed Altaic cognates:

• Ainu mim (“fat; fish flesh”) is equated with OJP mi "flesh, fruit" -- which must be 実, which is cognate with 身, which was realized as mu in its oldest form. (Incidentally, a possible cognate for KO 몸 (mom)?)
• Ainu mosir (“island”) is recognized as a compound of mo- + sir (“land; mountain”), with this mo- hypothesized to be cognate with KO 물 (mul), which is traced back to older form mör. This disagrees with other sources I've read, that trace mul back to older form mil.

The mistakes in ancient forms raise questions about the accuracy of Tyrone's other phonetic correlations. The confusion surrounding compound terms is also quite troubling. Add in the loose semantic equivalents for some purported cognates, and I find myself not quite convinced. That said, I haven't gotten all the way through chapter 2, all about supposed phonetic matches. Chapter 3 starts going into morphological and lexical evidence for a possible Ainu-Altaic relationship. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for carefully reviewing the article. I cannot help much on Ainu etymology, but will try to have a read of its analysis of Korean forms when I have some time. From your critique so far it seems there are fundamental methodological flaws in the etymological comparisons done in the article. I'm not sure if the user is still around - I would suggest barring the inclusion of etymologies referencing this thesis for the moment, and presenting the above to ask for his/her opinions on the reliability of cognacy claims therein first, if the user continues adding these etymologies. Wyang (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello（そこの方々）? I'm the anon user（私がその人ですが）. Why you two talking without me(当事者抜きのコソコソ話は水臭いですよ)? I'm waiting for Eirikr's reply for longtime.(お話ししたかったのですがいけませんか？) At least I can understand somewhat English, please talk to me(少なくともあなた方の書いていることは読めます). Now I'm bewildering on silent block and revert during my act to wish to go well with spending long hours(何時間もかけ良かれと思ってやった事を無言で無にされて非常に困惑しました). Because I'm a newbie on this wiki and didn't know how to cite the sources here(私は右も左も分からない初心者であるために資料参照の作法を知りませんでした). I'm saying sorry about my submitting without sources(論拠を示さずに投稿したことは謝ります). Very sorry about I hadn't become along your policy (貴サイトの方針に沿えなくまことに申し訳ない). Simply just (ただ), I truely wouldn't like to be blocked and rollbacked as like trampling small insect without any mercy(虫を潰すみたいな何の警告や対話もないブロックは本当によして欲しかった), because I wanted to have talks(対話を待っていたというのに). I'm very wrecked and got hurt my heart(本当に傷ついています). I'm asking you please tell me what is good for here and what is bad at first(まず何が良くて、何が駄目なのかをどうか教えて下さい). Introducing hypothesis based on secondary sources in objective way is ok or not?(二次資料に基づく仮説の客観的な紹介は有りですか？禁止ですか？) If some doctrines are not afford to include, who decide that and what is requirement?(もしある学説を投稿すべきでないというのなら、それは誰が判断してどんな条件になりますか？) I pray you.(どうか宜しくお願いします) --荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@荒巻モロゾフ Hello. We do get a lot of anonymous editors who add suspicious info. We are volunteers here and don't have enough people and time to check in every detail any edits, which may look suspicious. The etymological theories you use don't seem to be well-known and popular (it doesn't mean they are wrong). Besides, you didn't provide references in your original edits and you didn't use a registered account then. Let's see also User:Eirikr has anything to say on this. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hello @荒巻モロゾフ --

I am sorry for the delay in replying to you. I had written up the following on my own Talk page last night, but I forgot to hit Save page.

• @荒巻モロゾフ I apologize for the inconvenience of blocking you. Please understand that Wiktionary has much fewer editors than Wikipedia, making it much more difficult to respond to edits that appear doubtful.

Thank you for writing here, and for creating an account. Communication is much easier with named accounts.

Regarding etymologies, sources can help. One additional consideration is how mainstream a theory is. I could say that Japanese 外人 (gaijin, “foreigner”) is possibly cognate with Hebrew גּוֹיִים (goyim, “non-Jew”), but this is not a mainstream theory, and thus other editors would be correct to remove such content.

I noticed that you added a link to James Patrie's paper on "The Genetic Relationship of the Ainu Language". I am now reading through that paper. I have run into a number of troubling issues with the paper; please see here for a discussion of some of them. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As Anatoli noted, we have very few editors here at the English Wiktionary, and we also have a lot of content added by anonymous editors who are sometimes very clever vandals. If editors see questionable content, we often use the Rollback feature to quickly restore the previous version. We simply do not have the time and manpower required to carefully consider every edit. I wish we did, but we don't. I apologize for the inconvenience of rolling back your edits. Please understand that 1) this was not meant as any kind of insult or injury -- it was simply an administrative response to questionable content, added by an unknown anonymous user; and 2) I greatly appreciate that you have created a named login, and that you are engaging us in conversation. I hope that we can all gain a clearer understanding of these etymologies. I also hope that you continue editing. Now that you have a named account, we can communicate more easily.

Regarding the specific etymologies from James Patrie's paper, we are now in the process of evaluating both the paper, and the etymologies you added previously. In specific:

• KO 뒤 (dwi) -- Very unlikely to be related to either Japanese 後 (ato) for the reasons stated at the top of this thread. Also unlikely to be related to Ainu os, due to the dubious phonetic shifts required: where did the initial vowel in Ainu come from? how can we correlate final /-s/ in Ainu with initial /d-/ or /t-/ in Korean? how can we correlate a final /wi/ diphthong in Korean with an initial /o/ monopthong in Ainu?
• KO 눈 (nun) -- Various problems here.

• Etym 1: JA 眼 (manako) is a compound of 目 (ma, combining form) + な (na, genitive / possessive particle, cognate with modern の no) + 子 (ko, “small thing”, diminutive suffix), and as a compound that includes the core term 目 (me), 眼 (manako) is irrelevant. The possible connections to JA 目 (me, “eye”), 芽 (me, “bud”) are interesting, as this is a match between one Japanese root (with two spellings) that has two senses, and one Korean root that has the same two senses. This suggests a possible semantic cluster. However, the phonetic changes are a little odd: how can we correlate initial /n-/ in Korean with initial /m-/ in Japanese? I do not think that this is not a regular sound correspondence. Also, how can we correlate final /-n/ in Korean with nothing in Japanese?
• Etym 2: Too many disparate terms, with too many disparate phonetic differences. If JA 生る (naru) is related to KO 눈 (nun), then neither JA 芽 (me) nor JA 実る (minoru) can be related. Alternatively, if JA 芽 (me) and JA 実る (minoru) are related to KO 눈 (nun), then JA 生る (naru) cannot be. Also, JA 実る (minoru) is another compound, of either 実 (mi, “fruit, nut”) + 乗る (noru, “to ride on → to get or be on top of”), or of 実 (mi, “fruit, nut”) + 生る (naru, “to bear”) with a required (and unlikely) phonetic shift of naru → noru.
• Etym 3: Too many disparate phonetic differences. Unless there are multiple authors listing this same set of cognates, with accepted reasoning for the phonetic correlations, this seems too unlikely. How can we correlate Korean monosyllablic /nuːn/ with Manchu nimanggi and Oroqen ɪmana?

• KO 덥다 (deopda) -- The current linguistic consensus for Old Chinese means that the Old Chinese root 點 (*tˁemʔ) cannot be related as anything but a borrowing. Furthermore, the core Old Chinese meaning seems to have been dot, speck, rather than to light, while the core Japanese meaning of root tom- appears to be to stop; to be (in a location).
• KO 똥 (ttong) -- While the meanings and phonetics of the Japanese and Manchu terms seem like good potential matches, the phonetics of the Ainu term seem quite unlikely: how do we correlate initial /o-/ in Ainu with no initial vowel in any of the others? And while the KO, MNC, and JA all have an interstitial /-t-/, the Ainu has none.
• KO 하나 (hana) -- Patrie's paper itself suggests that Ainu sine (“one”) is "apparently the regular development of the proto-Altaic first person singular pronoun ... and thus it would not be expected to be in correspondence with the Korean form" (page 116).
• KO 셋 (set), 넷 (net) -- Why does one Ainu term start with /i-/ while the other starts with just the consonant? What happened to the final consonants in Ainu? How does Ainu initial /r-/ correspond to Korean initial /s-/? Patrie's paper attempts to show that Ainu initial /r-/ correlates to Altaic initial /d-/ (starting from page 55). Then later, Patrie states that "Ainu /r-/ clearly corresponds to Japanese /h-/ < */p/ and Korean /p-/" (page 132). At the bottom of that same page, he acknowledges that this incongruity is a problem. However, he does not show that Ainu /r-/ corresponds to Korean Ainu /s-/.
• JA 星 (hoshi) -- I removed the mention of Proto-Austronesian *bituqen (“star”) as the phonetics are extremely unlikely: the final ⟨-tuqen⟩ does not match anything known in the Korean or Japanese terms. I removed the ====Related terms==== as this section is restricted to terms that are etymologically related. 火 (hi, “fire”) has an ancient form of ho, raising the distant possibility that this might be related to 星 (hoshi, “star”). However, the others are not. 日 (hi, “day”) and 昼 (hiru, “daytime; noon”) are probably related to each other, but they are unlikely to be related to 星 (hoshi, “star”). 蛍 (hotaru, “firefly”) is likely a compound of 火 (ho, ancient reading) + some other element taru, but again, this is unlikely to be related to 星 (hoshi, “star”).

I have run out of time for today. I hope the above helps explain why some of your additions were reverted. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

彝器 vs 彞器

彝器 is the simplified form of 彞器, no? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see here. Wyang (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

So 彞器 is a variant then? We should keep it thus. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, restored now. Wyang (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Chinese terms derived from English

None of the entries here are transliterations of English words. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nor here. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

They should be 'transcription's and probably best handled by {{bor}}. Btw, a {{zh-psmatching}} for phono-semantic matchings is long overdue. Wyang (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem is, the term "transliteration" is misused almost everywhere in this Wiktionary, not only Chinese. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Tooironic likes to use it in Chinese entries. I'd just make those "derived from English" or "English borrowings" using standard templates. Methods of borrowing can be added optionally. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all of your comments. Wyang (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Is "transliteration" not the correct translation of 音译? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic It's just confuses people. It may not be always correct to use the word "transliteration" in regards to borrowings into Chinese when it's a phonosemantic translation or other methods. If you use standard {{bor|zh|en}} or other templates used with loanwords with other languages you don't get these problems. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. I will use that template from now on. In my defence, I started adding those transliterations six-ish years ago. You're right that "borrowing" is an easier to understand term than "transliteration", but how do we convey the meaning of the 音 in 音译? Because these are not just meaning-based translations. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You probably want to contrast 音译 to "calque of" (purely semantic borrowing) or a mixture of both. 必勝客／必胜客 (Bìshèngkè) remotely resembles "Pizza Hut" but it has semantics. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Transliteration (letter-to-letter conversion of scripts) is different from transcription (conversion of scripts by pronunciation in original language), and ideally these should be reworded to use the {{bor}} template. It's not a high-priority task for now in my opinion, and it is quite easily automatable. Wyang (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If we transliterated English words into Chinese, "egg" would become 衣機機/衣机机. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• I see. So I have been misinformed all these years by dictionaries which translate 音译 as "transliterate". Is "transcribe" the correct translation then? As a noun it would be "sound borrowing", I guess, or something to that effect? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I tried using the template you suggested at 夾克, could someone please check that I used it correctly? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Seems good! Wyang (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• One question: is our usage of "transliteration" for the pinyin pages correct? E.g. píngguǒ comes up as: Pinyin transliteration of 蘋果, 苹果. Should this be transliteration or transcription or something else?---> Tooironic (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Good point. I changed it to transcription. Wyang (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Module:hu-pron - mf, mv nasal assimilation

Hi Wyang, I've just discovered that due to my fault the mf, mv nasal assmilations are not covered in Module:hu-pron. The other two (nf, nv) are included. The [m] becomes [ɱ] in these combinations. I added two test cases to Module:hu-pron/testcases2 (baromfi, elhamvaszt). When you have a chance, could you please make this change? This is not urgent. I'm really sorry about this. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Panda10, it's not your fault mate. I added the change m[fv] → ɱ[fv] in, and the testcases are working. Let me know if there are other cases that need to be covered. Thanks! Wyang (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for fixing it so quickly! --Panda10 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Large seal script

I think the so-called "large seal script" in {{Han etyl}} isn't actually large seal script. The forms come from Liushutong, which is a collection of seal script characters for use in seals published in the Qing dynasty. Although some forms may be large seal script, not all are. We might need to sift through them to check which are actually large seal script. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It may be better to specify the source rather than label it as 'large seal script'. Wyang (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

QQ

• I would say that the term QQ is separate from just a singular Q. Why do you think it's better to have it as a redirect? Also the definition is not as detailed as it could be for this sense. 2WR1 (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Reduplication of monosyllabic adjectives is a regular process. [1][2] Wyang (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

激凸

I'm not saying that 激凸 can't be used as an adjective, but from multiple sources I've seen it used as a noun. Perhaps the page would be better if it showed both of these uses. 2WR1 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Any Chinese word labelled as a certain part of speech could be used in a wide variety of parts of speech in reality, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed as such. An example is 給力, which is labelled as an adjective, but can be used verbally ("to be awesome; to empower"), nominally ("awesomeness, coolness"), adverbially ("in an awesome/powerful way") or interjectionally ("Awesome! Cool!"). To me the primary meaning of 激凸 is adjectival, and perhaps verbal secondarily. Wyang (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

A couple of module errors from Module:zh-forms

冬瓜藤 & 矮冬瓜

Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, they have been fixed. Wyang (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

敬詞 and 客套話

Could you help us create a category for 敬詞? Like 光臨, 拜託, 蒞臨, etc.? I suppose we should translate 敬詞 as honorific or polite terms? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Also, we should probably have a separate category for 客套話, like 勞駕, 借光, 留步, etc. We could call it something like "polite expressions". ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• There is already Category:Chinese honorific terms created by the label honorific. There is also the label polite, although it does not lead to categorisation. Sometimes I also use respectful. @Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c, what do you think? Wyang (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(I'm just a humble ABC, I don't have opinions on this... —suzukaze (t・c) 08:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC))

身上

When you get time could you help me take a look at the third definition I wrote here? I have no idea how to word this grammatical function. Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. I added some examples and tweaked the wording slightly, but I'm not 100% sure either. Wyang (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Korean endings은

Do you think we should include them as separate entries? For example, it would be helpful to know that -(은)니까 means "because". --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course. —니까 (-nikka)/—으니까 (-eunikka) need to be created. Wyang (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

Your reverts were in error. Please explain why you made them. —CodeCat 22:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Where is your actual input at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/June#Automatic_transliteration_for_Thai_has_been_disabled_for_now? Wyang (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

All you gave there is straw men. There's nothing to argue or input. Thai code belongs in Thai modules, I have said this then and I say this now. —CodeCat 22:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Transcriptions and transliterations are different things and support of the appropriate mode of romanisation should be given at a higher level. In the absence of such central support, language-specific accommodation should be adopted, as Module:translations. You refuse to address this issue and engage in discussion, but rather you choose to blindly revert to your versions. Wyang (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a straw man. Transliteration, as provided by Module:th-translit, is what all general-purpose modules use to provide romanization. We just call it transliteration, just as we always have done. When a module or template needs to romanize a term, it uses the transliteration module. That's what it's for, as defined by longstanding Wiktionary practice. Your own views on the matter are irrelevant, you must follow the consensus and use terms, templates and modules as they are intended by the Wiktionary community. —CodeCat 22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No. It's longstanding "practice", because it's longstanding Eurocentrism. I have argued in length in the Beer Parlour discussion the bias in place in the Wiktionary infrastructure against languages which distinguish between transcription and transliteration on a romanisation level, citing examples in many of such languages. You did not respond to this at all (or other arguments in my posts), and only reverted. The relevant pages should be restored to the versions before your reversions since there is an unwillingness to participate in discussions. Wyang (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What discussion? I have never once seen a discussion where you proposed changing this longstanding practice. In fact, your reply here seems to imply that, since the current practice and consensus is Eurocentric, you're free to ignore it and do whatever you like. That's not how it works. When you want to change something big like this, you propose, discuss, get a consensus, and only then do you apply your proposed changes. If you're not willing to work with the community, don't be surprised if it works against you instead. —CodeCat 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are making personal accusations and ignoring the question at hand. The issue here is support should be given to languages which distinguish between transcription and transliteration on a romanisation level, as I have said ad nauseum in the discussion. You did not respond to this and have been deliberately avoiding providing any input regarding this issue. There is no consensus - there is only what people who work on European languages have come up step by step to support their work on European languages, which fails to provide support to other languages. Wyang (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Where have you proposed distinguishing transcription and transliteration? Unless there is a proposal that was accepted by consensus, the point is moot. Your dislike for "Eurocentric" editors doesn't preclude the fact that you have to come to a consensus with those same editors. —CodeCat 23:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The distinction between transliteration and transcription and why the support for the distinction should be provided in Module:links was discussed ad nauseum In the Beer Parlour discussion, which you apparently did not care to respond to. There is no consensus for the Eurocentric equivalence of romanisation = transliteration, and the lack of genuine participation in the discussion of the topic at hand was disappointing. Wyang (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That's because the discussion was overwhelmed by the two of us bickering. Nobody could get a word in and it got ignored. Furthermore, I think that this is such a big shift in the paradigms we use on Wiktionary, it would require a vote anyway. —CodeCat 23:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's as simple as a couple of lines in Module:links to at least acknowledge that such difference exists, instead of ignoring it outright and insisting Module:th-translit should be used as a misnomer (i.e. transcription). There was a subsequent discussion at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/June#Thai_Transliteration_Debate_Explained_.28I_think.29 which you again barely participated in, apart from the unhelpful line ignoring all the discussions. I argued in length in those discussions why the change needs to be done at the central level. Wyang (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a misnomer, but that's the way it is. You argued at length, but that alone doesn't make for an agreement or consensus. Maybe you should argue some more in the BP if you think it'll help. —CodeCat 00:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why would you rather have modules in other languages behaving as misnomers just so that you get to keep your revisions at the central modules? Isn't that a bit unthoughtful, showing your indifference to how non-European languages make a distinction between something that is rarely distinguished in European languages? Lack of argument from you regarding the issue at hand indicates you are short of arguments - that is the simple rule in debating. Wyang (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'd rather have it that way. I'm saying that's the way it is, and to change such a big part of how countless templates and modules work, and requiring everyone to adapt, requires a lot of discussion and a clear consensus in favour of the change. So far, there is no such thing. And even then, if the change were accepted, it would be implemented quite differently from your ad-hoc workaround. We'd develop a proper infrastructure for it, very similar to what we have now for transliterations (which you don't call transliterations, but everyone else still does). —CodeCat 00:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, by eliminating and continuously reverting edits which use the modules as they are intended and removing the support in the central modules which takes into account the need by some languages to have a separate romanisation, you are implying that you would rather have modules in languages you do not work with behaving suboptimally (i.e. you would rather have modules in other languages behaving as misnomers just so that you get to keep your revisions at the central modules). By showing hostility to my suggestion and showing a genuine lack of participation in discussion of the issue in the Beer Parlour, you are also implying that you are indifferent to the need to deal with this issue at the core level. By reverting my edits at Module:links, Module:th and Module:th-translit, you are again implying that you would rather have languages which make a distinction between transcription and transliteration use a flawed system of infrastructure, by having modules which do not even describe what they are doing, simply so that you get to protect your central modules even though the consideration to these languages could be given with a simple few lines of code. You are throwing the word 'consensus' around too much - could you show me where the vote for the treating romanisation and transliteration as equivalent in Module:links was? If there is no such clear and thorough discussion leading to the factually incorrect equivalence of the two, why are you so unreceptive to any change to your central module? Wyang (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So now when you don't get things your way, you start edit warring again rather than come to a consensus. I have already said that you need an agreement among Wiktionary editors to change the way we treat transliterations. Instead you refuse to do so, and since you think you must absolutely be right, if anyone disagrees with you then they can be dismissed and edit warring is warranted to force your position? —CodeCat 01:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything of substance to say about the issue at all? Again and again, it is evasion, evasion, evasion. Unreceptive to suggestion, poor participation in discussions at the Beer Parlour, blocking wilfully, replying with completely irrelevant comments, and impetuous reverts without any input to the topic at hand. These are the perfect manifestations of bullying. I have asked repeatedly for your opinions on why you are insisting on treating romanisation as equivalent to transliteration, and why you are even willing to destroy infrastructures of other languages at the expense of this absurdity. You would rather render Thai modules not describe their actual functions than provide any real input to the discussion, and is always prepared to abuse your power to defend the stupidity. I asked for consensus for treating romanisation and transliteration as equivalent in Module:links - where is it? Wyang (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to argue this any further. I have said what I need to. You cannot make such big changes without coming to a consensus on them. The current status quo is that transliterations are romanizations. This is not written down anywhere, it's codified in the current practice of our transliteration modules and the transliteration parameters on templates. To change this would be a big change that you can't just force through when you feel like it. I am completely unreceptive to any suggestion because you're skirting the issue. The issue is not the merit of your changes, but the method. This discussion isn't about convincing me that transliteration and romanization should be separate things, because it's not just me you have to convince, it's everyone else too. I am just trying to preserve the status quo and stop you messing with things you shouldn't be. As long as you refuse to discuss this properly in the BP and craft up a vote, there is nothing more I can do. —CodeCat 02:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You can refuse to discuss this any further. Quite simply, that is a sign that you do not have arguments for your position to contribute to the discussion. Whoever is unwilling to discuss should stay out of the issue at hand, and stop all involvements in the issue, as it will quite evidently become bullying. As I said, there is no consensus for your position, therefore edits to Module:links to include support for languages with transcription-transliteration distinctions are improvements to the infrastructure and any revert of such edits is vandalistic and unjustified. It is particularly poor form if one refuses to participate in discussion. Wyang (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I really thought that this wasn't going to come up again in exactly the same way... Anyway, there's really no consensus, merely inertia, and it takes two to edit-war. Instead of arguing, why don't you draft a vote on whatever change in structure is proposed so we can see what the community really thinks? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, please do that CodeCat, we need a consensus on the treatment of romanisation as equivalent to transliteration. Without that to begin with, there is no rule barring using transliteration and/or transcription as romanisations. Wyang (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • It was never resolved the first time. The edit war stopped because Wyang had the last word, not because he was in any way right to make his changes. I had hoped that Wyang would be more sensible this time and not continue the edit war, but apparently my hopes were too high. Since Wyang is an admin, I am not able to lock any of the modules to protect them, so reverting his changes over and over while trying to bring the point across in this discussion is the best I can do. Not reverting him is not an option, as the past experience has shown: once he gets his way (i.e. when I get fed up reverting him all the time), he loses any interest in coming to an agreement, so reverting is all I can do to motivate him to discuss. —CodeCat 02:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• • The edit war was stopped because there is no input of substance from User:CodeCat to the discussions at the Beer Parlour (Automatic_transliteration_for_Thai_has_been_disabled_for_now, Thai_Transliteration_Debate_Explained_.28I_think.29). I posted in length explaining the rationales for the implementation of support for languages which make a transcription-transliteration distinction, and the response from User:CodeCat regarding my arguments? Nil. If you had been less of a bully, you would have realised that lack of participation in discussions of the topic at hand and impetuous reversions are perfect manifestations of bullying. Wyang (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

    Why would I have to respond? The whole point was to come to a consensus with all editors, and I do not clearly see editors agreeing that separating transliterations from romanizations is a good thing. It's not me you have to convince, it's everyone. I'll be convinced once there is a clear agreement to allow this, sealed with a vote. Your efforts to convince me personally of the merit of your changes are futile and miss the point. —CodeCat 02:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• • You don't have to respond if you don't have any arguments; response in a debate is only required if you actually find your position worth arguing for. Again, where is the consensus with all editors you keep citing? You are citing a nonexistent consensus and use this to illogically illegitimatise any counterarguments. This only makes your argument much less credible as it is a sign of lack of arguments. From the discussion: "You make some good points. I'll need to think about this for a bit." (WikiTiki89), " I don't see a huge reason for Module:links not to take some of the work (language-specific customisations) and/or accommodate handling of complex scripts with various levels of possible transliteration/transcription." (Atitarev), and "Do you have any constructive suggestions?" (DCDuring in response to your call for further edit warring). Are these signs of agreement with your edits? Wyang (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Chuck Entz, or really anyone else: a vote sounds like a good plan, and evidently neither of them wants to do the work. I know from the linked discussion that you know the issue, but I don't want to make you feel obliged to do it for them. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I would welcome it if someone else could make the vote, especially Wyang himself. I have no idea what Wyang actually wants to change, I mostly just know what he doesn't want. "Separating transliteration from transcription modules" is not a good enough proposal IMO because it doesn't address any further steps, like what the modules would be used for, what would be displayed by templates, what happens when a language has both kinds of module, etc. —CodeCat 12:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    • "I have no idea what Wyang actually wants to change" – you would have been less ignorant if you actually wished to participate in discussions. Time and again, you failed to respond to my request for the consensus showing that romanisation should be treated as equivalent to transliteration in Module:links. The basis for your edits is the mindset that languages should use transliteration to describe whatever the romanisation is (as evident in your edits to Module:th-translit), even though the language uses transcription for romanisation. Without the core evidence for your claim that your edit is consensus, stop reverting, as reverting is unjustified - it is factually incorrect and hence vandalistic. I am proposing that romanisation be properly recognised as transliteration + transcription, and that there be acknowledgement in the core module infrastructure for languages which make a distinction between these two modes of romanisation. Wyang (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• • I'm not good at crafting votes, and I don't have time to address this properly this morning. I'll see what I can do- probably this evening (it's about 6:30 a.m. here and I have to get ready for work). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Tibetan

Any resources you would recommend for learning Tibetan? I recently made a Tibetan friend and he said he's happy to help me learn if I'm up for it. I'm curious but wouldn't know where to start. Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be learning soon as well (although I already have resources lined up). Just thought I'd mention it, because once I get going and make sure I can create good entries I'll probably want to add some. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool, what resources have you found so far? ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, speakers are the main thing. Colloquial Tibetan: a textbook of the Lhasa dialect with reference grammar and exercises is the main book I'll be using for reference. It's a pity you asked this right after Wyang raqequitted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Is he gone for good???? But he's one of the most useful contributors we have on here! ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic I really hope not. He is very upset about community's attitude to his edit war with CodeCat over Thai modules. One latest discussion is here: [[3]]. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

He's talking, which is a good sign. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's hoping! Wyang is brilliant. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. His mixture of hard work, technical adeptness, and linguistic knowledge is matched by very few editors. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Tibetan was... way more difficult than I initially imagined. It confused the hell out of me when I learned it - the spelling (including the various styles), the pronunciation, the grammar (especially conjugation), and the level of internal variation. On the other hand, it is an incredibly interesting and beautiful language with a very rich linguistic and religious history. It is perhaps the living epitome of phonetically-spelt languages which had fixed their written forms; most of its spelling faithfully reflects the pronunciation more than a millennium ago, and this is the concept (how to systemically convert spelling to modern pronunciation) I had most difficulty with. I loved the green book The Classical Tibetan Language by Beyer; it is a good introduction to the Tibetan language. Chinese books for learning written Tibetan include 《實用藏文文法教程》 and 《藏文閱讀入門》. If you would like to learn the colloquial language, 《藏文拼音教材》 and 《藏漢對照口語詞典》 will be useful.

In terms of dictionaries, I used 《藏漢詞典》 (a blue pocketbook, which I summarised here) and 《藏漢大詞典》 (red two-volumed series). The Tibetan & Himalayan Library and Rangjung Yeshe Wiki are super-helpful comprehensive Tibetan-English dictionaries online. Monlam has developed many easy-to-use dictionaries for computers and mobile devices, including Tb-Tb/Tb-En/En-Tb Mac dictionaries, although their site address seems to change every now and then.

In terms of script utilities, Rishida is an awesome site regarding exotic scripts in general; it has Unicode script pickers (Tibetan) and script notes (Tibetan), as well as other utilities. I haven't read the Tibetan notes at Rishida, but notes for the other scripts have been fantastic. Alternatively, you can use this site to convert from Wylie to the Tibetan script (settings: Wylie + single line + Unicode); their transliteration function (Tibetan script --> Wylie) is more buggy than ours (ha).

Hope this helps, Wyang (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed and helpful reply. In the end I decided not to go ahead with learning Tibetan and go back to Korean instead. But I hope someone else can benefit from this response. Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah well. I do appreciate the reply, though I can't use the Chinese-language resources. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Shanghainese Lord's Prayer

Hi Wyang
Is there a translation of the Lord's Prayer in the Shanghainese dialect. I have to do this for an assignment I have and any help is much appreciated. Awesomemeeos (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I found a clip here. The transcript is below:

0:19: 㑚禱告個辰光要講 - you need to say this when you pray

0:21: 我伲在天個父 - Our Father in Heaven

0:22: 願人們儕尊儂個名為聖 - Hallowed be Your name

0:24: 願儂個國降臨 - Your kingdom come

0:27: 願儂個意旨行於地浪 - Your will be done

0:29: 儕像行勒天浪 - On Earth as in Heaven

0:32: 天天賜撥我伲日用個飲食 - Give us today our daily bread

0:34: 赦免我伲個債 - Forgive us our sins

0:36: 因為我伲也赦免虧欠我伲個人 - As we forgive those who sin against us

0:38: 覅叫我伲碰著淫慾(?) - Save us from the time of trial

0:41: 解救我伲脫離兇惡 - And deliver us from evil.

Wyang (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You saved me from lots of trouble :-) Awesomemeeos (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad to be of help! Wyang (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

About your proposal

I'd like to help in creating a vote or editing the current vote. I know you discussed your idea in various places. But I'd like to ask anyway: Can you explain your idea for me again, in a way that people might choose to vote Support/Oppose/Abstain?

For example:

"Proposal: Do this thing with the Thai entries. (Support/Oppose/Abstain)"

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)