Talk:啲
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
If 點 supposedly came from 怎, could 啲 could have come from 之? (idle pondering) —suzukaze (t・c) 03:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Suzukaze-c: (not sure if ping will work) 本字 amateurs often point to 尐. (At one point, even the Multi-function Chinese Character Database said it could be related, but I can't find it any more. Not sure if they silently removed it.) There are various other theories such as 的 and 滴. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 03:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- (ping still broken) Yeah, I've heard of that one. I think it's mildly interesting that the Cantonese Wikipedia has a page on it. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the Cantonese Wikipedia also wonders this. I'm not crazy? —suzukaze (t・c) 04:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- (I thought for a second that you were asking because of it, but the way your question was posed made this seem less likely. Anyway, I'm always quite skeptical of Cantonese Wikipedia, though, since a lot of their pages are quite biased and based on what's popular on the Internet, not quite what academics say. Many of the pages do not have sufficient citations or just have terrible sources. For a while they were really keen on weird 本字 (e.g. 爾尐也 for 呢啲嘢), but because of recent "awakenings" by some people on the Internet who are more trained in linguistics, I think they've toned it down a bit. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 04:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that 之→啲 is no longer groundless, just that I'm not alone. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Of course. I was just ranting a bit... — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 06:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that 之→啲 is no longer groundless, just that I'm not alone. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- (I thought for a second that you were asking because of it, but the way your question was posed made this seem less likely. Anyway, I'm always quite skeptical of Cantonese Wikipedia, though, since a lot of their pages are quite biased and based on what's popular on the Internet, not quite what academics say. Many of the pages do not have sufficient citations or just have terrible sources. For a while they were really keen on weird 本字 (e.g. 爾尐也 for 呢啲嘢), but because of recent "awakenings" by some people on the Internet who are more trained in linguistics, I think they've toned it down a bit. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 04:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)