User talk:Chuterix: difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Chuterix''' is currently blocked. |
'''Chuterix''' is currently blocked. |
||
* 7/14/2023, 4:03:13 PM: [[User:Eirikr|Eirikr]] blocked '''Chuterix''' ([[Special:Log|block log]]), expiring ''' |
* 7/14/2023, 4:03:13 PM: [[User:Eirikr|Eirikr]] blocked '''Chuterix''' ([[Special:Log|block log]]), expiring '''3/31/2024, 11:03:13 PM''' (Disruptive edits: Chuterix, please explain your edits. Unexplained removals, and unexplained reversions of restorations, are not acceptable (among other issues).) |
||
[[Special:Log|block log]] |
[[Special:Log|block log]] |
||
Revision as of 18:23, 19 July 2023
Chuterix is currently blocked.
- 7/14/2023, 4:03:13 PM: Eirikr blocked Chuterix (block log), expiring 3/31/2024, 11:03:13 PM (Disruptive edits: Chuterix, please explain your edits. Unexplained removals, and unexplained reversions of restorations, are not acceptable (among other issues).)
Templates
Userspace templates like what you have under User:Chuterix/Templates are great for prototyping and testing, but they really shouldn't be used in mainspace, like what you're doing here.
If your prototypes are ready for use, please copy or move them to somewhere in the Templates: namespace. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Accent is necessary to the Proto-Japonic
Please don't remove pitch accent from Proto-Japonic reconstructions. Without accent they don't have any sense to be reconstructed, since the some tone groups themselves imply vowel lengthen in Northern Ryukyuan words. If the accent group do not match, it is possible that they did not diverge from a common ancestor, but are in some kind of borrowing relationship or made from more complex compound even if they look like one morpheme.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Someone else removed all of the pronunciation sections on the PJ reconstructions a long time ago (around late 2021), and they're globally blocked. The PR pronunciation sections still survive, though.
- I simply reconstruct new PJ/PR words via the comparative method and internal reconstruction, and fix some issues on the already existing PJ/PR reconstructions.
- However, if you're talking about Old Japanese pitch accent not being there, it's because I can't find transcription info that would lead to the kō and otsu values, or I can't verify (see *mə). An example is *kəpa. Chuterix (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- To mix up *N (of each 濁音) and *n (/n/, consonant of ナ行) is wrong. *N can be developed from /m/, /r/ or something other than /n/. Without accent annotation, it is not the true part of Proto-Japonic. If they have different accent, they should have different page names. The current situation promoted by you is largely problematic and I think we should make guidelines about them.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Just deleted the redirect at Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/mo
There is some evidence for OJP with the form ⟨mo₁⟩, so leaving a hard redirect at Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/mo to Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/mə is probably incorrect. For instance, see MYS 1.1, particularly stanzas 1-4:
- 篭毛與 // 美篭母乳 // 布久思毛與 // 美夫君志持 [Man'yōgana]
- 篭もよ // み篭持ち // 堀串もよ // み堀串持ち [Modern spelling]
- ko₁ mo₁ yo₂ // mi₁ko₁ mo₂ti // pukusi mo₁ yo₂ // mibukusi mo₂ti
- A basket too, bringing a pretty basket, and with a spade too, bringing a good spade
I also just discovered that ONCOJ returns zero results when grepping for \bmwo\b, despite the existence of strings like what we see on this page from MYS 8.1613, which clearly has 跡毛奈久 (ato₁ mo₁ na → atwo mwo na). So it seems they omitted any mwo romanization for the particle, even though it does appear to be spelled as ⟨mo₁⟩ in various cases.
Aside from the linguistic side of things, it is generally against Wiktionary practice to use hard redirects: principle of least confusion, and all that. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
They should either be made into full entries or marked for deletion. Never a hard redirect. Theknightwho (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi - modules like these aren't a great idea, because they fork the code. I have been deprecating and deleting the equivalent modules for Okinawan, because it's much more practical to adapt the Japanese modules to be able to take language codes instead. That's what I did with Module:kanjitab (formerly Module:ja-kanjitab) and Module:Jpan-headword (formerly Module:ja-headword). Theknightwho (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can you do Module:ja-pron > Module:pron? So that we can do Okinawan pron w/pitch accent and even other Japonic lanugages? Chuterix (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Chuterix I will have a look, but it may take a little time as I don't know how complex a job it will be.
- By the way, I have created
{{kzg-head}},{{okn-head}}etc. which are generic headword templates. They work in the same way as{{ja-pos}}, but you should use them for all parts of speech. I've also converted Okinawan to the same format with{{ryu-head}}as a replacement for{{ryu-pos}}, because that's the format headword templates take in most languages.{{ryu-head|noun}}is identical to{{ryu-noun}}, so it's easier if we have just one template. Ideally, we'd do the same for Japanese so that we can get rid of{{ja-noun}},{{ja-verb}}etc, but that will take a large bot job. - I've also created
{{kzg-kanjitab}},{{okn-kanjitab}}etc. and{{kzg-kanji}},{{okn-kanji}}etc. for all of them as well. - The only exception is Old Japanese, which may need some discussion as to how we handle it. Theknightwho (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
== Troll Poem from an unknown language ==
집사이바멜모기이사내오손아침사람바다사내사내나루사람손들무거울사내모기무거울팔들사이나무등집팔등밭모기무리사내바퀴사람
- moedalgubat
jipsaibamelmogiisanae'osonachimsarambadasanaesanaenarusaramsondeulmugeoulsanaemogimugeoulpaldeulsainamudeungjip'paldeungbanmogimurisanaebakwisaram - (please add an English translation of this usage example)
Presumably title "Mountain Chicken Above the Field", then a string of nonsense.
(Notifying TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, HappyMidnight, Tibidibi, Quadmix77, Kaepoong, AG202, Atitarev, Tooironic, Fish bowl, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Michael Ly, Wpi, ND381, Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Fish bowl, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo, Sartma, Lugria, LittleWhole): take a look. Chuterix (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- (Notifying TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, HappyMidnight, Tibidibi, Quadmix77, Kaepoong, AG202, Atitarev, Tooironic, Fish bowl, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Michael Ly, Wpi, ND381, Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Fish bowl, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo, Sartma, Lugria, LittleWhole): also decipher Chuterix (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hint: *CmVtolC-u-pat? Still makes no sense. Chuterix (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Mountain in Chinese is 山 (MC srean).
- Mountain in Japanese is 山 (yama).
- Third word is tolk ("chicken") but just phonetic hanguel for Japanese *to?
- So we get: "Yamato-u-bat" which is related to Japanese, but still makes no sense.
- A string of random text goes literally translated:
- House Space Place;Thing
- Perhaps connected to 家間所 (iematokoro)? Or less likely 家的頃 (iematokoro, literally “span of a house targeet”)? Chuterix (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- No hits based on any searches. Also based on the limited Korean I know, I think the content as well as the title are gibberish. Hangul phonetic for Japanese is unlikely. Shen233 (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- this is why this is a troll poem; spoiler is that it's converting shakkun (phonetic kun'yomi) to korean equivalents or eumhun Chuterix (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Recovered:
- 山鶏上畑 (Yama-(niwa)tori-ue-hatake?)
- 家間事荷蚊歯
- ihe-ma-koto-ni-ka-ha
- (please add an English translation of this usage example)
- unfinished Chuterix (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- 家まことに川 [...]?
- 家まことに川 [...]?
- house river for real [...]
- grammar makes no sesne Chuterix (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- this is why this is a troll poem; spoiler is that it's converting shakkun (phonetic kun'yomi) to korean equivalents or eumhun Chuterix (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hint: *CmVtolC-u-pat? Still makes no sense. Chuterix (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
categories 'LANG terms spelled with KANJI read as KANA'
It was a mistake that allowed these to be created with just {{auto cat}}. The garbage display should have triggered you that something was wrong. I have deleted all the categories of this form that you created; if you re-create them you need to specify the type of reading in the {{auto cat}} param 1. In general I would not recommend that you manually create categories containing only {{auto cat}}; let my bot do it. Benwing2 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Smaller schwas, please?
I looked at the page "Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/mƏmƏ", and the reconstructed Proto-Japonic word should be "məmə", not "mƏmƏ". Please fix it. Thank you! 103.43.79.105 05:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- The larger schwa is due to undetermining whether this is */ə/ or */o/. Because Old Japanese only different mo and mwo in the Kojiki, and this word is not attested there. Chuterix (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Other notations which can be considered are notations using "...(.../...)..." or "... ~ ...". Such notations are used in Wiktionary at least for Proto-Sino-Tibetan (see Proto-Sino-Tibetan lemmas). In this case: "Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/m(ə/o)m(ə/o)". This would be my preference.
- Otherwise, meanings of Ə, O (seen in Osi) etc. should be documented in Wiktionary:About_Proto-Japonic page. Arfrever (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
OK word for "sea"
波珍飡, 海干, and 海飡 are both found in the most basic primary source, the Samguk sagi. The kana transcription is part of the kana for the Silla name 微叱己知波珍干岐 in 日本書紀. Hope this helps.--Saranamd (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- But where are you getting the kana gloss from? @Saranamd Chuterix (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- And what about other katakana glosses? @Saranamd Chuterix (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- No need to ping me multiple times. I don't have direct access to Japanese sources, but the kana transcription みしこちはとりかんき/ミシコチハトリカンキ is discussed in Korean-language sources (there seems to be several J hits also) and W. G. Aston's 1896 translation of the 日本書紀 explicitly says "the traditional kana has Mi-shi-ko-chi Ha-tori Kamu-ki".--Saranamd (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- This 2003 article also mentions the individual's name in NHSK as "Mishikochi hatorikanki". It's not something controversial or anything.--Saranamd (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Saranamd, I suspect that Chuterix is curious where the "traditional kana" came from. We have occasionally encountered words that dictionaries list with a specific reading and a citation from the 700s, but upon further digging, we find that the earlier attested spelling is only logographic, and the oldest phonemic spelling isn't until centuries later -- and thus cannot be viewed as an attestation of the actual ancient reading.
- In the kanji string 微叱己知波珍干岐, the tori reading for the 珍 character is a bit odd -- I've never encountered that before.
- FWIW, googling around just now for the kanji string also found me this hangul rendering: 미질기지파진간기 (mijilgijipajin'gan'gi)
- ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Eirikr Why not? My understanding was that the NHSK kana glossing tradition overall accurately preserved ancient linguistic knowledge. The Man'yoshu also did not have kana glosses until centuries later, but the said glosses nonetheless preserve the Old Japanese readings behind the obscurity of the man'yogana.
- In the case of the specific name, 微叱己知波珍干岐 is clearly a Korean orthography (probably from a Korean written source) that was adopted wholesale into Japanese. 叱 is always used in Old Korean to write coda -s, for example, and the sequence 波珍 for the OK word "sea" is directly attested in the Samguk sagi as mentioned above. If 微叱己知波珍干岐 was read as Korean, it would be easily read as *miskə-ti-patər-kan-ki or such even without any knowledge of the traditional kana spelling. The fact that the kana spelling matches this perfectly shows that we can trust the traditional kana here.
- The strange tori reading for 珍 only verifies the authenticity of the traditional kana. It cannot be read as such in any Japanese tradition and only makes sense if it preserves the Korean reading of 波珍 as the native word for "sea", cf. Middle Korean 바ᄅᆞᆯ〮 (pàrór) with */VtV/ > /VɾV/ shift in Middle Korean.--Saranamd (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Saranamd --
- "Why not?"
- I don't understand what you're asking about.
- If you mean, "why would kana renderings from centuries after the Old Japanese stage not be dependable as accurate representations of Old Japanese", the simple fact is that the language changed, sometimes substantially. The most obvious shift is the loss of the 甲・乙 (kō-otsu) vowel distinctions for the vowels /i/, /e/, and /o/ (which we mark in romanization with subscript "1" for 甲 and "2" for 乙).
- For this particular kanji string 微叱己知波珍干岐, the kana rendering みしこちはとりかんき tells us nothing about 甲・乙 vowel distinctions, for instance.
- "The Man'yoshu also did not have kana glosses until centuries later, ..."
- I must assume here that you are referring to those portions of the Man'yōshū (MYS) that were written in kanbun? A very large portion of the MYS was written in phonemic man'yōgana, for which we have a decent understanding of the vowel values -- albeit with some disagreement on what exactly the 甲・乙 distinctions were realized as on the phonetic level, hence the practice of subscripting in romanization.
- In addition, some of the kanbun poems may well not be kanbun at all, and might instead be written in entirely other languages. Alexander Vovin made a strong case for MYS poem #9 being half Old Korean, about which you can read more at the Wikipedia article: w:Princess_Nukata#Poem_9.
- “The strange tori reading for 珍 only verifies the authenticity of the traditional kana. It cannot be read as such in any Japanese tradition and only makes sense if it preserves the Korean reading of 波珍 as the native word for "sea"”...
- Excellent that this particular kana rendering has a likely external corroboration. Other kana renderings of uncertain provenance, such as those for MYS poem #9, remain problematic.
- ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Saranamd, I notice a problem.
- The 海等#Old_Korean entry describes the likely equivalence of 海 (logogram) and 波珍 (apparently a phonogram?) in Silla texts. The problem arises in the next bit:
波珍, Old Chinese reading */pˁaj trə[n]/, is thought to be a purely phonogramic writing of this same word.
- The problem is that, by the time of any Classical Chinese texts written by either Koreanic or Japonic speakers, Chinese had already progressed to the w:Middle Chinese phase -- so reconstructions of w:Old Chinese pronunciations would seem to be irrelevant. The Middle Chinese reconstructed pronunciation for 珍#Chinese is /ʈˠiɪn/, so 波珍 doesn't seem like it could be a phonogrammatic spelling of Old Korean *patol.
- → I have no argument against the Old Korean pronunciation of the word for "sea" being something like patol. I just don't think that 波珍 would fit as a phonogrammatic spelling for this pronunciation. I wonder if this might instead be a kind of poetic ideogrammatic spelling ("waves" + "jewel / treasure" certainly seems poetic). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Eirikr 珍 does indisputably transcribe /*tVr/. Besides the "sea" example being discussed, there are also Samguk sagi toponym examples:
- While not from the SGSG, there is also alternation between place names 武珍 and 無等. The character 等 traditionally writes ᄃᆞᆯ (tol) in Sinographic orthography because ᄃᆞᆶ (-tólh, /h/ not pronounced in isolation) is the plural-forming suffix and 等 is also a pluralizing morpheme in Chinese; this was a practice that continued into the 1800s. This leaves 珍 as transcribing *tVr also.
- However, the transcription is probably not from Old Chinese as you note. According to this chapter by Lee Ki-Moon, 珍 was perhaps used to transcribe *tVr because its rough Korean equivalent is *tworVk "stone" as mentioned above. It would then be a 훈가자(訓假字) (hun'gaja). This explanation does seem neater.--Saranamd (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Saranamd, thank you very much for the additional corroboration of the /*tVr/ pronunciation for 珍 in Koreanic contexts, that is super helpful. I am very early in my Korean studies, and based solely on the reconstructed Chinese phonetic values, /*tVr/ did not make much sense to me (as described earlier). Seeing this used in Koreanic in multiple other texts and contexts, and the crossover with the "stone" meaning, does much to clarify things. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Saranamd --
Edit on the BP
Did you get hacked or something? Vininn126 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Block
@Eirikr Why? Chuterix (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, perhaps you did not see the block log? Copying here:
(Disruptive edits: Chuterix, please explain your edits. Unexplained removals, and unexplained reversions of restorations, are not acceptable (among other issues).)
- In truth, I've been growing increasingly concerned by the disruptiveness of your edits -- edit comments mostly missing, removing content without comment or explanation, excessive moves, strange reconstructions apparently arrived at in isolation, excessive pinging (in terms of both frequency and number of people pinged at once), demanding tones in messages left on Talk pages, etc. I've commented on all of this in various ways, sometimes on multiple occasions, but I have not seen much meaningful change in your editing behavior.
- Earlier today, you removed an explanatory paragraph from the 悲しい entry, without adding any edit comment. I restored it, with an edit comment explaining that: "+restoring para about possible cognate that was removed without explanation". You then partially reverted that restoration, again without any edit comment. This is disruptive editing and unacceptable behavior. I applied a one-day block with the above block log note in the hopes of getting your attention and, ideally, getting through to you that you need to change how you edit. Specifically:
- Use edit comments to briefly explain what you are doing, and if appropriate, also explain why.
- Be especially sure to use edit comments when removing chunks from entries, and when reverting (in whole or in part) another editor's reversion.
- Slow down. Evaluate what you are doing more fully before executing. Moving and re-moving reconstruction pages multiple times is not helpful. Fully research what form a reconstruction should take, before creating an entry. Things like the Proto-Ryukyuan *pE((p/b)E)t(O)zi(C)a entry simply should not exist.
- Do more to coordinate with other editors. If you are unsure about something, ask. If a particular editor is not responding, ask someone else. Better yet, use the public forum pages, like the WT:Beer parlour and the WT:Etymology scriptorium.
- I do value your passion and interest. I also hope that you can shift gears to edit in a less disruptive and more judicious fashion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)