Appendix talk:Proto-Hmong-Mien reconstructions
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Justinrleung in topic Additional Chinese comparanda
Additional Chinese comparanda
[edit]@Ngôn Ngữ Học Have you consulted other sources for these additional comparanda? If so, could you provide them? If not, I don't think they should be on the page. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 14:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung Yes, Ostapirat (2016), Baxter & Sagart (2014), and various other sources. Others are very obvious Old Chinese loanwords that Ratliff did not include, such as PHM *mbrat < 辣 (OC *mə.rˤat). I have also just added Baxter & Sagart (2015) Old Chinese reconstructions to make it clearer that many of the words are undoubtedly cognates. Ngôn Ngữ Học (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ngôn Ngữ Học: Where are the comparisons of 足 to Proto-Hmongic *towC and *ɟæwB found? RcAlex36 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @RcAlex36 Removed. Looks like it's much more likely from Mandarin 脚. Ngôn Ngữ Học (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ngôn Ngữ Học: It would be nice if you could provide references to every comparison listed in the rightmost column so that they are easier to trace. I'm not sure if any are your personal speculations and they should not be there in my opinion. I would probably compare Proto-Mienic *tsekD to 炙 (MC tsyek). RcAlex36 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ngôn Ngữ Học: If you think your personal speculations must be recorded somewhere then I suppose this talk page would be a suitable place for that. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @RcAlex36 I will go ahead and remove all additional comparanda that could could be considered to be controversial. There are some comparisons that are very obvious and don't need citations, for example Proto-Mienic *kʰuB < 好 (OC *qʰˤuʔ), but I agree that the others can be iffy. Ngôn Ngữ Học (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @RcAlex36 What's a good wiki site for doing original research on new etymologies? I guess Wikiversity could be a good place for that? Ngôn Ngữ Học (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ngôn Ngữ Học: I don't use Wikiversity myself, but some Wiktionary users like to post their own opinion on their user pages. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @RcAlex36 What's a good wiki site for doing original research on new etymologies? I guess Wikiversity could be a good place for that? Ngôn Ngữ Học (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @RcAlex36 I will go ahead and remove all additional comparanda that could could be considered to be controversial. There are some comparisons that are very obvious and don't need citations, for example Proto-Mienic *kʰuB < 好 (OC *qʰˤuʔ), but I agree that the others can be iffy. Ngôn Ngữ Học (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ngôn Ngữ Học: If you think your personal speculations must be recorded somewhere then I suppose this talk page would be a suitable place for that. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ngôn Ngữ Học: It would be nice if you could provide references to every comparison listed in the rightmost column so that they are easier to trace. I'm not sure if any are your personal speculations and they should not be there in my opinion. I would probably compare Proto-Mienic *tsekD to 炙 (MC tsyek). RcAlex36 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @RcAlex36 Removed. Looks like it's much more likely from Mandarin 脚. Ngôn Ngữ Học (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ngôn Ngữ Học: Where are the comparisons of 足 to Proto-Hmongic *towC and *ɟæwB found? RcAlex36 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung @RcAlex36 I've cleaned up the additional comparanda column and have left only the fairly uncontroversial ones remaining. You can trim some more if you see any unlikely ones. Ngôn Ngữ Học (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ngôn Ngữ Học: Thanks for the clean up. I would say any uncited comparisons would be potentially controversial. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 20:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)