User talk:Dokurrat

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

User talk:Dokurrat/Archive 1


deletion of derived terms[edit]

Why did you remove the derived terms from 中華 and 中華民國? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I don't think these terms comply with WT:CFI. Do you have any reasons for inclusions of them? Dokurrat (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you're right. Sorry for bothering you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: No problem. Dokurrat (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Difference between several templates[edit]

Hi, what's the difference between {{zh-alt-inline}}, {{zh-alt-lb}} and {{zh-also}}? When should we be using which template? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: There is no intentional difference between {{zh-alt-inline}} and {{zh-alt-lb}}. I was just exploring different layout options. I don't use {{zh-also}} (I think). Dokurrat (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Then we probably should stick to one of {{zh-alt-inline}} and {{zh-alt-lb}}. {{zh-also}} might have broader usages, so it doesn't have to be merged with the other two. @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, KevinUp, which do you guys prefer? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the first two, I am not sure. But I think that {{zh-also}} is too vague. —Suzukaze-c 04:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
We should unify the display with other inline post-definition templates like {{zh-syn}}, and try to get a consensus for the usage of these. Wyang (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I've been using {{zh-alt-lb}} more often than {{zh-alt-inline}}, because I've always assumed that {{zh-alt-inline}} is the inverse statement of {{zh-alt-form}}. For example, (fēi) is listed as 」 in 漢語大字典 while (bèi) is listed as 」 in 漢語大字典 so I used {{zh-alt-form}} for Pronunciations 2 and 4 of but I haven't actually added inverse statements containing {{zh-alt-inline}} to the entries for (fēi) and (bèi) because usage of {{zh-forms|alt=}} (mainly used for variant forms 異體字, ie. characters with same meaning and pronunciation but different in appearance) would be more suitable compared to {{zh-alt-inline}}. Meanwhile, I would recommend using {{zh-alt-lb}} or {{zh-alt-form}} for situations that are much more delicate, as in (), which has alternative forms () and 𩓣 () that can only be linked with the sense of "to wait" but not with the other meanings of ; or (kuò, guā) which has an alternative form 𨓈 that has the same sense of "swift" but does not have the sense of "surname" as . Technically, {{zh-alt-lb}} and {{zh-alt-inline}} are both the same but I find {{zh-alt-lb}} to be much neater compared to {{zh-alt-inline}} which can be easily confused with the variant forms listed under {{zh-forms|alt=}} Note also that although漢語大字典 mentions (fēi) as 」 , inverse statements such as " has an alternative form (或體) of " is usually not taken note of in most Chinese dictionaries. Anyway, it is up to you whether you prefer {{zh-alt-lb}} or {{zh-alt-inline}}. KevinUp (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Pinyin for 得過[edit]

I agree that there is a problem with the example quotation I provided on the 腦炎 page. The 得 and the 過 in the example I added at 腦炎 are obviously not part of one word. However, I believe the pinyin for the example quotation should be written as 'déguo' and should not be written as 'dé guo'. The basis for my assertion is:

1) 汉语拼音正词法基本规则6.1.2.1 "动词与后面的动态助词“着”、“了”、“过”,连写。例如:{...}jìnxíngguo (进行过)"

2) 普通话水平测试实施纲要,2004 page 435: "Yǒu gè tā bízi de xiǎonánháir, yīn·wèi liǎng suì shí déguo nǎoyán, zhìlì shòusǔn, xuéxí qǐ·lái hěn chīlì."

Does what I am saying make sense? Is there anything that defeats what I'm saying here? I think there may be a way to remove the space between 'dé' and 'guo' in the pinyin while not combining 得 and 過 as a word in the Chinese text, but I don't remember what the trick is. Do you know where I can find a list of the 'modulating symbols' for the pinyin text of an example quotation? The ones I know now are ^ for adding capitalization to pinyin, . for adding a space between syllables and {} for giving a pinyin different from the one generated automatically by the system. Thanks for your help! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Roger. I've removed the space there. Dokurrat (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: See Template:zh-x#Tricks :) —Suzukaze-c 02:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of cited Ext. D character article readings[edit]

I'm just curious as to how citing zdic.net counts as "unattested" or "unverified" regarding the readings for CJKV single-charcter articles in Extension D that you removed? Bumm13 (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bumm13: Because such claims made by zdic.net are unverified. No proof was found. Dokurrat (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: I'm curious as to what makes you think zdic.net is less reliable than, say, a random IP editing one of the articles in the CJKV Extension ranges, such as 𬽡. You haven't given a real answer to my question. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bumm13: I've replied your question. I'll say it again. No proof was found for such zdic.net's claims. Dokurrat (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Good job on removing these claims. Keep up the good work. KevinUp (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bumm13: I think that zdic.net is not suitable as a primary source of reference because definitions provided often lack proper citations or references. When editing CJKV entries it is best to use references that are reliable, well-documented and attestable, such as those listed under the {{Han ref}} template. Other excellent work of references can also be found here: Wiktionary:About Chinese/references. For characters with vague origins we would need to refer back to the IRG (Ideographic Rapporteur Group), which submits prospective CJKV characters to the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 2 working group for consideration/approval before the characters can be encoded by the Unicode consortium. Here is an example: [1]. I think it is good practice to list references for Chinese characters, especially those using the {{zh-see}} template to prevent IP users from adding unverified statements. KevinUp (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinyin for 好好先生[edit]

Hi, I don't think it should be hyphenated as hǎo-hǎo xiānsheng. See 5.4 in the Basic rules of the Chinese phonetic alphabet orthography. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

tl=y[edit]

I like what you did with 合同. Does that mean we are getting rid of 'tl=y'? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Definately no. I'm just doing this because the case 合同 is special. Dokurrat (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

撲稜蛾子[edit]

I'm pretty sure that it is pronounced pūlēng though, I might be wrong. Qhwans (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Qhwans: What makes you pretty sure that it is pronounced pūlēng? Dokurrat (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Well, my Beijing friend/cousin(s) say it that way. Moreover 百度 and 汉典 says so (I know, not reliable, that's why the "pretty sure"). Qhwans (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Qhwans: I see. Dokurrat (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)