User talk:Hongthay

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



Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page 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.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including, there is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aim to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

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! --Ivan Štambuk 06:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

can we talk?[edit]

skype: sven0921 --史凡 18:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll add you to my Skype but I won't have much time b/c I'm preparing to travel. What did you want to talk about? Hongthay 11:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

)minnan史凡 14:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) , , 11:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User page and recent creations[edit]

First of all, user pages should (obviously) not appear in main space categories. I can probably fix that somehow. Secondly, you created two Min Nan words without definitions. Why? They're currently nominated for deletion, please add definitions and we can keep them. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  • OK - you have added definitions, but you did not wikify them, or add a ===part of speech=== header. You really need to read those welcome links. SemperBlotto 11:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


To consume is not a noun. If it's a verb, add a verb section, don't delete what is already there unless it's false. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed mean "to consume". Don't worry I've fixed it now. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 23:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Tooironic! Hongthay 00:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries. If you have any questions about Chinese on Wiktionary you can always leave a message on my talk page. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 02:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Why did you change the pinyin to shānmò? I've never heard anyone pronounce it that way. And Google turns up nothing. ---> Tooironic 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Pls see Chungyang Shanmo. Maybe both ways should be included. Hongthay 12:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • We only include pinyin. Unless you can prove that shānmò is a variant pronunciation, it must remain shānmài. Nothing on Baidu or Google suggests either case. ---> Tooironic 23:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • 脈#Mandarin and Hongthay 04:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC). Plus indicates 注音 1.ㄇㄞˋ 2.ㄇㄛˋ. Gangdisi Shanmo / 冈底斯山脉, Xihuote Shanmo / 锡霍特山脉 and Xingdukushi Shanmo / 兴都库什山脉 from Hongthay 11:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Out of all those links you give me, I can only see [1] as actually mentioning "shanmo" (without tones). Are there any others? Neither of two of the major online Taiwan-based dictionaries list "shanmo" [2] and [3]. ---> Tooironic 11:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
          • First, 脈. yields two entries. One way is mo, one is mai. At, search in ASCII field "shanmo" to get the three results I pasted. Even under "Naam (taal-varianten)": Nan Ling shanmo 南岭山脉, Wu Ling 五岭, Wu Ling shanmo 五岭山脉. Shanmo appears to be a valid pinyin variant, although not popular. Hongthay 12:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, it is true that 脈 can be read as both mài and mò however my understanding was it is only read as mò in the compound mòmò 脈脈. Google and Baidu searches for "山脈" + "shānmò" reveal very little conclusive, however I've asked some speakers from Taiwan and they have confirmed it is a variant, albeit an uncommon one. I'll make the ammendments now. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 13:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm taking that back. Turns out this pronunciation doesn't exist in Mandarin, though I can't speak for any other Chinese languages. I've talked to half a dozen Taiwanese speakers and none of them have heard of such a thing. I can't account for those random sources you came up with - it's likely they're just dodgy romanisations. ---> Tooironic 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's a printed source: Concise Chinese/English Dictionary: Romanized by James C. Quo. (c) 1960. p. 155. SHAN1MO4 (in Wade-Giles) is the same as shānmò in pinyin. Hongthay 12:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • We need something that is durably archived though. ---> Tooironic 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Isn't mass-produced printed copy durably archived? As if that's not enough, see Books. Case Closed. Hongthay 13:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Not quite. The book you provided does not use pinyin as its romanisation system. Thus it would be simply incorrect to say that shānmò is a pinyin variant. ---> Tooironic 01:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
          • You are correct. But the book and "random" webpages (one more: [4]) show that "shānmò" represents a valid variant pronunciation. Even if you find the Wade-Giles SHAN1MO4 be a "dodgy romanization". Hongthay 01:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Still you must admit this is very peculiar. At the end of the day there are 721 hits for "山脈" "shānmài" but merely one and a half hits for "山脈" "shānmò". It hardly makes for a convincing case. ---> Tooironic 09:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Peculiar...yes. But more than one and a half hits for "shānmò". Hongthay 14:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


This term is almost never used in English, whereas aluminum oxide is common. Defintions should use more familiar terms to define words, whenever possible. --EncycloPetey 19:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)




Thanks for your edits. Do you speak Min Nan/Hokkien? Could you add a Babel table to your user page? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


rfe goes under the ===Etymology=== header and inside a language section. Thanks, Renard Migrant (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Min Nan MOE characters[edit]

I appreciate your work on Min Nan entries. One thing I've noticed you've been doing is that you are moving existing Min Nan entries to the versions recommended by Taiwan's MOE. I think a better way to deal with these entries is to make then soft redirects instead of hard redirects, i.e. don't move them, but use {{zh-see}}. AFAIK Wiktionary is descriptivist, so it keeps all forms, "standard" or alternative. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 04:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you succeed in saving a soft redirect when stripping L3? "This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed." Hongthay (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It might be due to my user rights. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It appears that abuse filters (such as those that prevent the removal of === headers) are disabled for autopatrollers, for this problem used to happen to me toosuzukaze (tc) 07:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


We do not usually include References on Wiktionary unless under extraordinary circumstances. Do we have to include it for this entry? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Did not seem to be in conflict with WT:Entry layout explained#References to begin with (and no mention of "extraordinary circumstances" there either), but I moved the ref to ne-kut-tái anyway. Hongthay (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That looks fine to me. I actually hadn't read that part of the CFI but having edited and moderated Wiktionary for many years I am of the opinion that references should only be included for information that is hard to come by or controversial. What we care more about here is attestation. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Where to use {{theaji}}[edit]

Hi Hongthay. I don't think {{theaji}} is need if the etymologies have been split, since it's already showing that the character is borrowed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thx for posting. After reversion, the entry does not explicitly indicate that the character is borrowed for the two pronunciations á and ah. But the entry at the MoE site does...why not be consistent? Hongthay (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think having different etymologies should suffice in expressing that the character is "borrowed". The template as it stands just says that the character "may not" be etymologically related (implying that they are possibly related), which sort of contradicts the splitting of etymologies. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


其實"theaji"本字為何?--kc_kennylau (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

替字 in Modern Literal Taiwanese. See Hokkien#Writing_systems. Hongthay (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
We even included Phofsit Daibuun and Tai-lo but not MLT; do you suggest that MLT be added into Wiktionary? --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I would suggest it because it is the basis for PSDB. Plus it should be easy to implement since PSDB is already implemented. The POJ to PSDB converter here seems to be good but I have seen some possible errors in the conversion from POJ to PSDB. For example, 田野, the PSDB given is dieniar. Maybe the rules differ, but in MTL it would be tien'iar, since tieniar would be tix + niar. Hongthay (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Better now? --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes! How did you do that? Please show me how I can contribute. Another bug is tone 7 + a2 is being sandhi'd but should not be, i.e. 檨仔. Currently says svoaix'ar but should be svoai'ar. Hongthay (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The code is in Module:nan-pron which is written in Lua. Regarding the sandhi, I cannot find another example of non-sandhi'd words from [5] when searching for "仔". --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
For example, see (rather listen to) [6] and [7] ( vs. 網仔). Someone recently added more detailed rules at Taiwanese_Hokkien#Tone_sandhi. Hongthay (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Changed the code. You may now test the new code. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Is the "á" rule only limited to the diminutive suffix? That is, does "明仔早" follow the rule, since the "仔" in "明仔早" came from elsewhere? --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I would guess probably but I am not sure. In that specific case, the first syllable is tone 5 so it should sandhi to tone 7 anyway. Hongthay (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Only in Zhangzhou. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi Hongthay, do you know if the two Min Nan readings for 同房 (tâng-pâng vs. tông-pâng) give different meanings? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

人氣 (lâng-khì)[edit]

FWIW [8] lists "lâng-khì" as a reading. —suzukaze (tc) 02:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


"peng'iuo" iaqsi "pengiuo"? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Technically there is no ambiguity in "pengiuo" ("giuo" is a valid syllable but "pen" would not be). But for ease of reading, we use "peng'iuo". Hongthay (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Language codes in the etyl template[edit]

When you added {{etyl|ja|mn}} to 預備, you added the entry to Category:Mongolian terms derived from Japanese. The first language code in the {{etyl}} template is the language code the entry is derived from and the second language code is the language of the entry itself. If you don't want to add the entry to a category, use "-" as the second parameter, as in {{etyl|ja|-}}. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was an obvious mistake. "mn" is used inside {{zh-pron. Turns out I should have used "nan". Thanks! Hongthay (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Kana forms for Min Nan terms[edit]

I was previously advised not to use kana forms for Min Nan loanwords from Japanese and to stick with POJ. See User_talk:Justinrleung#tempura and Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/March#Min_Nan_loanwords. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Did I leave any kana forms still out there? If so please let me knows. 3Q. Hongthay (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there are any more left, but if I see any more, I'll change them. Also, you might also want to see this and maybe this. There is currently no consensus to make POJ entries soft redirects to the Chinese character pages. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


What character is the second character? It's a private use area (PUA) character, so it needs to be moved to something else with actual Unicode characters, since PUA characters don't display properly. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. Hongthay (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, never mind. I thought you created it. I would think it's the same character as ⿸疒哥 then. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


If your source is telling you that 水道 derives from Japanese, you might want to look into its reliability. 水道 is easily attested in pre-Qin texts. Please think carefully before reaching conclusions on borrowed Japanese terms in Chinese. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. Let's talk at the Discussion page for 水道. Hongthay (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wasei Kango[edit]

To be honest, I doubt there are many reliable references that can be cited to show a word is or is not wasei kango definitively... Wyang (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and I see no need in putting {{rfe}} everywhere. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I plan to move many of them to the sandbox unless there is a more appropriate mechanism. Hongthay (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Simplified forms[edit]

When you're making Chinese entries, please don't forget to make simplified forms. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Was hoping for a way to automated that. Hongthay (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You could just create it with {{subst:zh-new}} on a simplified form page. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
What about rounding up the forms for {{also ? Hongthay (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about those... Those are for bots to handle. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Chinese Text Project[edit]

Just wanted to leave you a note on using the Chinese Text Project for attestation in classical texts. Please use it with a little more scrutiny. Since there are no spaces in Chinese text, you need to actually read the text to see if a compound is actually used in the text. For example, you said 公立 is attestable in pre-Qin texts. This is not quite right; it so happens that 公 and 立 are side-by-side. For instance, in 立節, "公立驪姬為夫人" does not use 公立 as a compound. It should be read as 公 立 驪姬 為 夫人. I just looked at the first page and the last page, but they all seem to be a similar construction with some 公 designating someone/something as something. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Thanks. Are there any tools or other resources that could help us with that (parsing)? Hongthay (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we have any hard and fast way that will automatically parse things correctly at this point. You need to have some knowledge of classical Chinese and read the passages manually. You could also check out 汉语大词典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

About TDJ and dialectal differences[edit]

Hi Hongthay, I just wanted to point out that TDJ is not the best dictionary for looking up Quanzhou/Zhangzhou pronunciations. I feel that what they call Quanzhou and Zhangzhou do not reflect the "real deal". They are probably talking about Quanzhou (泉) and Zhangzhou (漳) dialects spoken in Taiwan, and these would now be called 偏泉腔 and 偏漳腔 by some scholars. 泉 looks a lot like what is spoken in Sanxia, which is labelled by some as 老安溪腔, and 漳 seems to be something like Yilan, which is labelled by some as 老漳州腔. The discrepancies between TDJ's 泉 and actual Quanzhou dialect is quite obvious, since TDJ does not indicate the 6th tone, which is one of the key aspects of Quanzhou phonology. Hopefully this helps! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does! Thank you for taking a moment to explain! Hongthay (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)