User talk:Dokurrat

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


Welcome to Wiktionary. If you have any questions feel free to ask me or any of the other Chinese language contributors. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A few things to be careful about[edit]

Hi Dokurrat! Thanks for your edits so far! Just a few things to keep in mind:

  • The Definitions header is only used on monosyllablic entries (single characters). Entries for polysyllabic words need part-of-speech headers.
  • The standard pronunciation in Taiwan is slightly confusing. I recommend you check 兩岸詞典 (on moedict or its original website) and 國語辭典簡編本 for actual standard pronunciation. 重編國語辭典修訂本 has many "non-standard" pronunciations because its focus is mostly for historical/literary reference. Question 3 should clear things up for you.

Anyway, hope this helps you, and enjoy editing! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Roger. Thank you. ^_^ Dokurrat (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Looking forward to your edits! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Disyllabic morphemes[edit]

Hi, I think it might be more appropriate to call them morphemes (smallest unit of meaning). If you call them disyllabic lemmas, then any two-character word would be included even though it might be a compound of two morphemes. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Yes, I realized this only after my action. 😂 It's just a temporary operation; I am still thinking a name now. Dokurrat (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung How about “Category:Chinese polysyllabic monomorphemic lemmas” ? Dokurrat (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Or could we just use the Chinese name, i.e. lianmianci, akin to Category:Chinese chengyu? It's pretty much a Chinese-only concept, so I think that's an appropriate name. @Wyang, Atitarev, Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, any better ideas for the category name? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I think "Chinese disyllabic morphemes" is fine. Definitely not "Chinese polysyllabic monomorphemic lemmas"... Also, this needs to be integrated into Module:zh-cat ({{zh-cat}}) so that it is properly sorted. Wyang (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
"Chinese morphemic polysyllable" 😂 I actually don't mind "Chinese disyllabic morphemes"; I was just surprised to see there are only bound morphemes in "Category:Chinese morphemes" and "Category:English morphemes". Dokurrat (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I repopulated Category:Chinese disyllabic morphemes using {{zh-cat|Disyllabic}}. 😀 Wyang (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang Roger. Dokurrat (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


I have reverted your edit. I am not sure what you mean by fake spread words; fake rumour. This is not grammatical English. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tooironic Because after looking multiple dictionaries, I think 謠言 and rumour may be potentially different; rumour may be either fake or real; yet 謠言 is either "not fact-based" (Xiandai Hanyu Cidian: 没有事实根据的消息) or "fabricated" [1]. But i don't really mind this if you want to revert. Dokurrat (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have added additional translations to that effect. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic You're welcome. Dokurrat (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I still think the translations do not really capture the nuances of this word. It may be better to explain rather than try to match with English equivalents. 謠言 is always fallacious and fabricated, and often spread with a malicious intent, and the word carries a strong negative tone to it. The equivalent of rumour in Chinese is 傳言. Wyang (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
slander? —suzukaze (tc) 22:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Not quite as well. 謠言 refers to a common misbelief, based on a collective negative attitude towards something (such as a groundless rumour about the government circulating in a population). Slander seems more targeted and severe. Wyang (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Could you explain the Classical Chinese usage, "to guard the life"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it may be referring to the sense of "養生;保護生命" in Hanyu Da Cidian. Wyang (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@tooironic Yes, I was referring to that sense. Dokurrat (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Any idea what the nuance of that is? ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@tooironic No, I don't. Dokurrat (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic You can take a look at this. I think it's more like "to maintain good health". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung Hmmm... So I removed my edit. Dokurrat (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think your addition was wrong. We could keep it, but tweak the wording a bit. I'm not sure if I'm understanding the definition and quotations correctly. You're probably better at Classical Chinese than I. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung You can add back / modify it if you want. Dokurrat (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

New entries[edit]

Hi! When you create a new entry, please leave the Edit Summary box empty. Then we can see the actual contents of the page in Recent Changes, so it's easier to patrol and to understand what was created. Equinox 23:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox Okay! Dokurrat (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. (By the way, from this talk page I can see your English proficiency is above en-1! But maybe you're modest. Heheh.) Equinox 00:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox You're welcome. 😁 Dokurrat (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I would recommend {{subst:zh-n}} to create new entries. It does the formatting for you and automatically gets pronunciation information for Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka and Min Nan. If you have any questions on how to use that template, feel free to ask other editors, including myself. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Okay ! Dokurrat (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


Why did you remove the etymology for this entry? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Because I don't think 怪裡怪氣 is the source. Dokurrat (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious to me. What else would it be? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I added the etymology. Wyang (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Wyang. I just thought that a relation to 怪裡怪氣 would be most likely considering the alliteration. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

通用规范汉字表 and "standard" simplified forms[edit]

Does it have to be in 通用规范汉字表 to be considered "standard"? If 通用规范汉字表 doesn't address it, couldn't we just consider 類推 simplified forms as "standard"? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I have no courage to call them don't consider them standard as they are not given official status. Dokurrat (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
But we don't even call them standard; it's just an implied "standard". On the other hand, if we call it "nonstandard", I guess we are informing users that it's not official, but I think it might be giving them an impression that the simplified form should not be used at all. Perhaps we should modify {{zh-forms}} to include something similar to the case of unofficial shinjitai ("extended shinjitai"), but I'm not sure what to call them. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Okay. Roger. Dokurrat (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


I don't see what's wrong with the previous version of the file. 㐄 and 𡕒 are the same character. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Because it doesn't make sense. You can revert my edit if you like. Dokurrat (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
What in particular doesn't make sense? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung:There're two 㐄's in my mind. One, the 㐄 which is typo/variant of 𡕒; the other one, a non-morphemic glyph 㐄 used in compound characters. I just feel bad seeing the typo/variant 㐄 speak up to "overwrite" the glyph history of the compound glyph 㐄. I think this may be misleading. Maybe such judgement is called prescriptivity. Dokurrat (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Can you give me an example where 㐄 is used in compounds? I can't find any. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: , . (I made a mistake here). But the glyph composition isn't explicitly mentioned by Shuo Wen, and I think this issue is blur and vague. Dokurrat (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
That's unrelated and doesn't exist as a character AFAIK. It's from flipping 夂. I'll revert back to the previous version. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Okay. But they are not flipping 夂's, at least visually. Dokurrat (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Oh, I get what you meant. They are flipping 夊's. Dokurrat (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I knew it was one or the other. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


Please considering reverting your edit. Sexually explicit is the common collocation in English. Obscene only covers extreme or hardcore content. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Here's what I've thought. The concept "sexually explicit" (性露骨), which is an euphemistic (?) term referring to pornography, virtually does not exsit in Chinese in my observation. Describe 淫穢 as "erotic" seems problematic too. Erotic can be a neutral word; yet 淫穢 is a strong, critical word. Dokurrat (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong. Explicit can be used to describe anything that has adult content - it doesn't refer exclusively to pornography (e.g. an M-rated movie can be considered explicit without being pornographic). It is used with about the same flexibility as 淫穢 in Chinese (much like 很黃很暴力). Obscene is much too strong a word. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic: You're right 'bout what makes being explicit. And I'm okay with reverting. But I'm still a bit concerned about the sense. 淫穢 carries a "sexually dirty" sense, which i don't expect in "sexually expllicity". Dokurrat (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Since we mentioned movie. Assume there's a movie. It has scenes of sexual intercouse. I think, as long as the movie has aesthetical or artisic or scientific value, and lay stress on story-telling rather than being an arousal stimuli. Then it is being sexually explicit yet not 淫穢. Therefore I'm concerned about the potential meaning difference between "sexually explicit" and "淫穢". Dokurrat (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here... My impression is that 淫穢 is only used to describe items, videos, photos and other things that are sexually explicit, basically to the extent that it is illegal and is what the police would seize in a search. Its use carries with it a strongly negative, disapproving, and perhaps officialese tone. I think "obscene" is an appropriate translation, and so is "sexually explicit", as long as there is a tag saying "derogatory" or "disapproving", and a tag of "usually of videos, photos and other items". Wyang (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)