User talk:Justinrleung

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




Hello, some people actually do pronounce "káung mièng" instead of "káung mìng" Qhwans (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Qhwans: Is that the Fuzhou pronunciation, or some other dialect? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Other dialects of MinDong Qhwans (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Qhwans: The pronunciation in {{zh-pron}} should only be Fuzhou for now. I'm not sure how well Foochow Romanized works for other dialects, especially if they're outside of the Houguan group. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Qhwans: Ahh, alright, fair enough Qhwans (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Catastrophic Mess with the Traditional/Simplified forms of Chinese Words in the monster 'Compounds' lists~ "五行/五行" & "行為科學" in the 'Compounds' list[edit]

In the 'Compounds' list for (xíng), 五行 appears as "五行/五行" as if there were a difference between two identical forms~ there's only one form of '五行', right? Also, while the traditional form of "行為科學" appears on the list, the simplified form is AWOL. Although some words are handled just fine, there seem to be literally hundreds of words handled inappropriately in that one 'Compounds' list alone. Just go take a gander at that 'Compounds' list- "sad"! What is wrong with the mega-sized compounds lists that start off with '{{zh-der|hide_pron=1|'? Some/many/all of the lists that start with 'hide_pron=1|' have this problem. Is there a simple solution to this catastrophic mess? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Yes, indeed, there's a simple solution to this. Fixed — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for going overboard with my description of the 'catastrophe'-- I was just trying to draw attention to the fact that it seemed pretty messed up. Thanks again! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: No worries :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Sorry if I unnecessarily pinged you, but what does AWOL stand for, anyway? Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: See AWOL. (This is Wiktionary - just look it up if don't know what it is :D) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: I made an edit to the AWOL page that should make the answer to your question pretty clear. [1] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Results from global Wikimedia survey 2018 are published[edit]

19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What was simplified? : 濫|f=臣|t=〢 versus 濫|f=監|t=监[edit]

Concerning [2], I believe that only the part(s) which were simplified should be included in the 'f=|t=' part of '{{Han simp|'. The actual simplification that took place in is exactly identical to the simplification that took place in . 监 is currently written as : 'Han simp|監|f=臣|t=〢' Therefore, I believe 滥 should also be written as '濫|f=臣|t=〢' --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I think that'd be a surface analysis of the simplification. I don't think 臣 → 〢 happened independently in both characters, but it first was simplified in 監 and was later applied to other characters. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I agree- it is a surface analysis. But that's what I'm trying to do: I want to tell you exactly what was simplified in this character. I think that if you want to try to inform readers about the patterns behind the 類推 simplification that were involved in making of , it should be written as 濫|f=臣|t=〢, see 监 or 濫|f=臣|t=〢, see 览 or maybe 濫|f=臣|t=〢 see 〢 (if there were an explanation of the 臣-〢 類推 on that page). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Surface analyses would not be the "glyph origin" then... it's just pointing out the differences, which the reader can probably do themselves. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Okay, I understand your point here. I looked at a copy of the 1964 简化总表 and 滥 appears under 监 in the 应用第二表所列简化字和简化偏旁得出来的简化字. In the future, when I do simplified forms, I will use this as my guide to tell what was simplified to what. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


You wrote [3] "just because 贵 doesn't have its own section in that chart doesn't mean it's not simplified from 貴". The chart says 溃 was simplified from 贝; there is no explicit link to 贵 given there. I am trying to establish a standard for determining the glyph origins for simplified characters and that list seems like a standard. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Well, there cannot be an explicit link to 贵 because 贵 belongs to 第三表 and the headings in 第三表 must be characters in 第二表. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I will be watching out for more information about the histories of the simplifications. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

C'est quoi?[edit]

Would you like to have a look at what's happening in here? Dokurrat (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Merci. Dokurrat (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
De rien :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply on the two pages[edit]

犯:In the sentence 俾個犯走甩咗呀, 犯 must be pronunced in faan2, because as a Cantonese noun 犯 alone is always pronunced with a rising tone (same with 囚犯), whereas 犯faan6 is used when it's a verb, or when it combines another word as a noun, like 犯人/犯罪者.

老母:I admit that my edit is not perfect. It is true that when pronuncing 老母 in Cantonese, a higher rising tone in the later word is common. I think, however, that since 老母 is a very old term that can be tracked as far back as Han era, a literay pronunciation should be noted. I think the best solution is to add a new quote that is exclusively from the classics. So that the sentence with lou5 mou2 is for Cantonese and the new quote for every Chinese languages. -Vc06697 12:28pm HK time 8th October 2018.

@Vc06697: You could actually reply on your own talk page and ping me, just like what I'm doing now. I think you're mistaken on the notation of the tone marked as x-y. This notation is saying that the character's original tone is x, and the actual pronunciation (due to tone change) is y. For (faan6-2), it doesn't mean it's ever pronounced with the 6th tone in that context, but just that its original tone is 6th tone and there has been a derivational tone change to the 2nd tone (高升變調). The same applies to 老母 (lou5 mou5-2 vs. lou5 mou5). Your edits have combined these two pronunciations and the contexts where these pronunciations appear, which makes the entry less useful. Adding quotations would definitely help for the definitions, which were already there before your edits were made, but would not help in distinguishing the pronunciations of lou5 mou5-2 (for the colloquial Cantonese sense) and lou5 mou5 (literary). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


Right now it's split into 'Pronunciation 1' and 'Pronunciation 2'. But I was thinking, this way of labelling it seems inaccurate and maybe Orwellian to me, because in this case, 'Pronunciation 1' encompasses at least two Mandarin pronunciations plus a host of dialect pronunciations. Can I use 'Etymology 1' and 'Etymology 2' or some phrasing other than 'Pronunciation 1 & 2'? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I see where you're coming at, but I don't really want to imply anything about the etymology. Pronunciation 1, 2, etc. are pretty standard headers. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

in zh-dial|誰[edit]

Shouldn't be part of zh-dial|誰 then? Maybe under Classical Chinese? idk; I never knew about this until yesterday. Also, do not know how to edit it into zh-dial|誰 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Yes, definitely. I was going to add it but forgot. To go to the data module for the dialectal synonyms, you just have to expand the dialectal synonyms box and press the edit link. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"# zh-div|社區|f=村 place|zh|t=.....|formerly a village"[edit]

Following your example at 大興 with the 'zh-div|區|f=縣', if I make the entry at 臺頭 into this:

  1. zh-div|社區|f=村 place|zh|t=Taitou|residential community|town/Gaocun|district/Wuqing|direct-administered municipality /Tianjin|country/China|formerly a village

...then it looks like Taitou would be no longer included in the category "zh:Villages" (in the same way that Daxing is currently not in the category for counties). There is evidence that it was a village, and that now it's a residential community. I was thinking we were throwing all the Chinese names of all the places throughout history that were ever called a village anywhere on Earth into the category zh:Villages. Is there a way to use the 'zh-div||f=' but keep Taitou in the zh:Villages category?? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I don't know of a way we can use {{place}} to categorize the former things, but we can always add the categories using {{zh-cat}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I have made changes to the two pages based on this. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous pronunciation additions to pages like 你 and 汝[edit]

Hello, I added some philippine hokkien pronunciations before in pages like 你 and 汝. I see you have reverted them back. I don't know if there are rules here on editing or something so, sorry for the random edits but I just wanted to add how we hokkien chinese-filipinos here in the philippines pronounce some hokkien words differently since we are an obscure demographic to the world's eyes that has existed in the philippines for many many centuries already because our people have always been gradually assimilating through every century but still somewhat retain at least a thriving demographic of chinese-filipinos every century. I'm no professional expert nor an established wiki user so I'll just leave to you my findings on the dialectical changes I've noticed that I'm surprised to know are different from hokkien in other countries who may see it as maybe wrong mispronunciations or something, straight from the eyes of a native born chinese-filipino with family members that speak philippine hokkien regularly and grew up in a chinese-filipino upbringing. I'm from Manila and hokkien is used mostly by old chinese-filipino grandparents and parents in home with their families. Some families don't anymore and some only sometimes include hokkien in their vocabulary while using another language like english or tagalog or another regional language like cebuano bisaya, etc or combinations of 2 or 3 of them. Older generations of chinese-filipinos especially the pure chinese ones with no intermixing like my grandparents and parents use them regularly on a daily basis. They code switch some times too but they know when they are speaking only straight hokkien and when they are codeswitching just like any bilingual or multilingual. Anyways, I have observed that it seems to be a regular normal widespread phenomenon among chinese-filipinos to pronounce certain select hokkien words that start with the letter "L" into the letter "D" such as the words 你(lí→dí), 了(liáu→diáu), 冷氣(líng-khì→díng-khì) and when I mean "D", I mean it's mostly leaning on like the english alphabet "D" with only slightly like the pinyin "d". Also, this doesn't happen to all hokkien words that start with "L" since we still call 南 as (lâm) and etc. Although maybe now that I think of it, perhaps this mostly happens to those that go like "Li-" since I remember too that sometimes people say 生日 as sometimes "si-li̍t" but more often times as "si-di̍t". This also happens with 生意(seng-ì) despite no "L" since people here pronounce it more commonly nowadays as "seng-dì" and in the spanish colonial times(16th-19th century) of the philippines, people most likely pronounced it as "seng-lì" because chinese in the spanish colonial period were officially called as "sangley" because spanish governors and/or local native filipinos asked hokkien merchant sea traders before who they were and only heard them say 生意 and spelled it as "sangley" because the hokkien chinese traders answered that they wanted to do "business". Anyways, this seems to also be observable in other chinese-filipinos in other provinces of the philippines since I also have a chinese-filipino classmate from Cebu and I also know or have classmates of other chinese-filipinos who hail from other provinces like Davao, Northern Samar, Negros Occidental, Pangasinan and etc. (each of which use a different dominant regional language), though I've not personally talked and checked this phenomenon with every single one of them specifically for this. I think this is probably a phonological shift since the difference in "D" and "L" is just the slight change in position of the tongue behind the teeth and local filipino languages don't have any obvious elements of this nor any spanish influences in the philippines. Anyways, our hokkien here seems to mostly take its roots from Quanzhou dialect since most chinese-filipinos trace roots from there although maybe there are taishanese or cantonese influences too since there historically were a few cantonese or perhaps specifically taishanese immigrants here too in the past who in the present day are mostly hard to find nowadays since most have either assimilated in the philippine populace or now use hokkien instead to relate with other chinese-filipinos(this too happened with mixed japanese-filipinos and mixed chinese-japanese-filipinos from centuries ago, they assimilated to us or to other filipinos or went back to japan). I think their effect to our hokkien is like for example we pronounce 了 as "lo". Also, there is also 嗎 which I see on the internet that in hokkien in other countries pronounce it as "ma" but sometimes some of us here say "ba" instead as in like the english alphabet "B" sound. I'm not sure about this one specifically if every chinese-filipino does it but I think some of us pronounce it as "ba" because in philippine languages like tagalog, "ba?" is the question marker similar with how chinese uses "嗎?". Anyways, that is my first-hand observations of Philippine Hokkien since this dialect is not frequently heard of in the world (even compared to singaporean hokkien, taiwanese hokkien, malaysian hokkien, indonesian hokkien, etc.) and perhaps maybe you guys are experts who may have use of this knowledge here in wiktionary or somewhere else since I am not a professional linguist. —Mlgc1998 (talk) Previously([Anon] 11:31, 14 October 2018‎ (UTC)

@ Hello, thanks for your interest in improving Wiktionary, especially for underrepresented varieties like Philippine Hokkien. I personally am not quite an expert in this particular variety, but I think in POJ (the system of romanization we are using), we should probably still write [d] as l, unless it's contrastive with [l]. I'll redirect this question to @Mar vin kaiser, who's a native speaker of Philippine Hokkien. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@, @Justinrleung: Actually, to explain, there is a colloquial perception in the Filipino-Chinese community that whenever in POJ or Tai-lo, the word starts with "l" and the first vowel is "i" or "u", it "sounds like" a "d" sound, but actually it's not. When locals try to write out Hokkien in letters, "d" is often used, but it's not a voiced alveolar stop, but more like a voiced alveolar flap. The thing is, I hear people from Mainland China using the voiced alveolar flap too, but I never see the sound in any Mainland China resources showing Hokkien phonology. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser: Yeah, l is more like a flap in Taiwanese Hokkien as well. In broad transcription, it's usually written as /l/. About the Xiamen dialect's l, 汉语方言词汇 says: “声母 l 发音时舌边气流较弱,除阻时舌尖部位破裂稍强,听感上与塞音 d 相近。” — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung:, @Mar vin kaiser: I suppose young and middle aged people around here even in some youtube videos that I've seen people since most everyone hears it like a d sound has sort of shifted their tongues closer to the back of the teeth nowadays. I tried to pronounce those with the voiced alveolar flap thing and it does feel similar, original and older, as if the feeling that the rare elderly person would pronounce it that way but it feels sort of restrictive to the tongue like I'm holding back what I could've otherwise said more smoothly. I suppose if I start further back behind the teeth and then slide my tongue towards the teeth, the shift from the l/r sound to d sound seems more smoother. I don't know if people around here that I commonly hear from still do this though, perhaps some conservative speakers around the country may still do this since a lot of older people use hokkien more often. I suppose our supposed common pronunciation of it that way could be seen as just colloquial in a language that isn't much regulated by local educational bodies, at least to most chinese-filipino's common knowledge. —Mlgc1998 (talk) Previously([Anon] 12:17, 22 October 2018‎ (UTC)
(@Anon: you sound like a pretty cool person. Consider joining us :D —Suzukaze-c 01:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC))

Northern Territory[edit]

Hi there. When you get time, could you check the Min Dong translation there, and add hanzi too? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: It seems to be from Min Dong Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if it's actually used in Min Dong. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I saw another hanzi-less 'lect translation at Magna Carta, could you take a look? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
And another Min Nan entry to verify whenever you're free: 戶填. Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Yes check.svg Done — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: No problem! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What Chinese variety is it?[edit]

Hi, If I were to use [4] as a citation in zh-x, what Chinese variety is it? This article confused me; the grammar is of MSC, but the article contains some significant Cantonese words. Dokurrat (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd call it C-LIT (Literary Cantonese), which probably isn't ideal, but I can't think of a better name for this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright then, thanks! I think I will not use it as a citation for now, since you said the name isn't ideal, (and I seems to think it isn't ideal either). Dokurrat (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


Hi Justin. Are you sure that chíguó is an acceptable literary reading here? According to my Gu Hanyu Da Zidian, chí refers to the 古水名. Every other sense is under 治 is labelled zhì. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Guoyu Cidian lists chí as the literary reading for definition 1 of zhì (管理、統理). This is supported by Guangyun, which, for 直之切 (Mandarin reflex would be chí), gives "水名,出東萊。亦理也。" as the definition. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the clarification. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

暈車, 暈船, 暈機, etc.[edit]

Hi Justin. Could you help me fix the Mandarin-reading module entry for ? Its reading as yūn is not just the standard in Taiwan, it's also a very common variant on the Mainland. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Yes check.svg Done — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Not a problem! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

伍的, [edit]

Would you like to review the translation I made in zh-x there? I'm not sure if I wrote acceptable English there. Dokurrat (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup! Dokurrat (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Pas de quoi! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Glyph origin[edit]

What do you think of the fifteen-twenty edits I made on the glyph origin sections for simplified characters? My goal is to tell the reader about part of the story of the origin of these simplified characters- they were in the 1956 Chinese Character Simplification Scheme.djvu. I will wait for some community input before continuing this series of edits. It seems like I could do the remaining characters pretty quickly but I don't want to do something that will need to be reverted or significantly altered immediately after I finish-- would rather do it right from the start. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)--Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: That's kind of interesting information, but we might want to work on the wording to say that the character was officially adopted as the standard simplified form. Some of the characters may have been used before the adoption of the scheme. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, many of the characters we call "simplified" nowadays have been in use for centuries. You may want to check a good calligraphy dictionary for verification, e.g. at 国学大师 ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


I am to create Chinese section for entry (My current draft is here), but I honestly don't know where that dak1 should be (or whether it should be). May I ask what's your opinion? Dokurrat (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC) (modified)

@Dokurrat: 广州话正音字典 gives dak1 for the Mandarin pronunciations and dēi. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Roger. Dokurrat (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


May I seek advice from you? Do you think the sense "to go" as a free morpheme, is still used now dialectally? Dokurrat (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: I'm not aware of this usage in modern dialects. I'm not sure if @Vc06697's edit is right. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Looking back, it's actually more like "formal" than "dialectal". 如廁 originally means "to go to a toilet". Today, in formal writings, government/business signs, 如廁 usually means "to (go to) use a toilet". In classical Chinese, when written to mean "to go to", it's grammatically the same as using 之. eg. 公如晉 means "公 went to 晉". This use can be seen in several classics and history records, including 左氏春秋/Zuo zhuan: "(文公二年)晉人以公不朝,來討,公如晉,夏,四月,己巳,晉人使陽處父盟公,以恥之,書曰,及晉處父盟,以厭之也,適晉不書,諱之也。" (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2018 (HK time)
@Vc06697, Dokurrat: Ah, that makes more sense. I think in the modern context, it is restricted to 如廁; it's not used elsewhere AFAIK. In this case, I would just use {{zh-obsolete}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Merci! Dokurrat (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


Bonjour, je suis ici again. 䓴 should be homophonic with 軟 and pronounced jyun5, am I right? I just wanna make sure, and you're a native speaker of Cantonese and I think you're yinyunxue savvy. Dokurrat (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: This character is a rare one, not used in actual Cantonese, so being a native speaker of Cantonese doesn't really help. The only place where I can find this character's Cantonese pronunciation is at the Jyutping Database, which does indeed give jyun5 as its pronunciation. Under the "Query Hanzi" column, the fourth entry is [1], which means it should be more or less reliable (i.e. it's probably found in one of the following: 廣州話正音字典, 廣州話標準音字彙, 商務新詞典, 粵語拼音字表). BTW, my knowledge of traditional Chinese phonology (yinyunxue) is quite limited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Okay. I'll go with jyun5... Oh, you've already edited that page. Thanks! Dokurrat (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

working with plural forms[edit]

Hi Justin. What do you think is the best way to present plural forms in Chinese? For example, we currently do not display any information for 孩子們 at 孩子, while the entry at 孩子們 does not have a "plural forms" category. I think this is something we could improve on, and as you know, the number of plural forms in Chinese is relatively limited to people-words. More examples: 老師 and 老師們 同志 and 同志們 朋友 and 朋友們 女士 and 女士們 先生 and 先生們 ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I don't really know how it would be done either. Putting it in the headword template (like in {{zh-noun}}) is one way to do it, but the suffix doesn't apply to all lects (Cantonese borrowed this from Mandarin but uses it to a lesser extent, and Min Nan doesn't use it AFAIK). Perhaps something like {{zh-mw}} would be good, but we also don't want to clutter the definition line. @Wyang, Dokurrat, Suzukaze-c, KevinUp, any thoughts on this? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I think most of these non-pronoun 們 words are SoP (excl. 哥們, 姐們, 爺們, etc.). 們 can be applied to any people-word: 好人們, 客人們, 救星們, 遊客們, ... Wyang (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang: That depends on how we want to analyse . Is it a suffix (a bound morpheme) or a word (a free morpheme) on its own? Another thought: if we do want to treat these as plurals, then they should not be treated as lemmas. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, it is a plural suffix, but the words it forms do not belong in a dictionary. Wyang (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang: Well, we have non-lemma entries for plural forms for various other languages, and it's not like print dictionaries for English or French usually have entries for plurals. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
That is because people are likely to look up a 'word' that they see in English or French. We don't want tens of thousands of 'Chinese plural terms': 檢察官們, 宅男們, 太上皇們, 皇后娘娘們, ... that is just ridiculous. Wyang (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not necessarily ridiculous, though. I think it'd be nice to let people know if -們 can be added to a particular noun. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. It's a waste of time and effort, and makes us look like a joke. Wyang (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I don't have an opinion (yet?) for now. @Wyang I want to say that -們 is not restricted for "people-word" when personification is used. Dokurrat (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. There are also 小狗們, 小豬們, 貓咪們, 星星們, etc. Wyang (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang, Dokurrat: I'm not necessarily into making entries with -們, but I do see some value in this kind of information. If we don't want to including all these entries with -們, we should probably send them to RFD or bring this up at WT:BP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The usage of 們 should be handled on the entry itself IMO. It is actually quite complex; apart from personification uses it should also be noted that 們 plural words can usually not be preceded by a modifying phrase, e.g. one cannot say 我們的同學們 or 五個朋友們. Wyang (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:Wyang that it's a bit ridiculous to have tens of thousands of Chinese plural terms, but then again, it would be useful to let people know if (men) could be added to a particular noun as a Mandarin suffix. I think we could have an inline definition template (similar to what we have for {{zh-syn}} or {{zh-alt-inline}}) that is called 'Mandarin plural' but the default output would be displayed as a sum of parts with an optional parameter to make it link to a full lemma form (if it qualifies as a lemma). KevinUp (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, I think that we need to have a rule for Mandarin plural lemmas: The plural form lemma is created only if the singular form, e.g. 寶貝宝贝 (bǎobèi) has multiple senses while the plural form, e.g. 寶貝們宝贝们 (“kids or babies, term of endearment for treasure”) only refers to one or more specific senses. KevinUp (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
(寶貝們 may also mean the other senses) Wyang (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I support adding 們#Usage notes, and perhaps entries for only the most overwhelmingly common ones. —Suzukaze-c 05:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


I apologize for adding the RFE template to this page in error. I meant to add the template that read "(Can this etymology be sourced?)" or something like that. But I'm not sure what the name of this template is. Please help? Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: You're looking for {{rfv-etymology|zh}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Johnny Shiz (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: No problem, and welcome back! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy between two Chinese characters[edit]

On , it tells me to "see for more on the etymology." But on the page, no etymology is listed. In fact, there is a RFE template! What shall I make of this? Should I remove that line from altogether, or would it be best to wait for an etymology to be added on ? Johnny Shiz (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: I've added an etymology at . — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
These characters do not have etymology either: (<), (<), (<), (<), (<), in each case the latter terms mentions "see ... for more".--2001:DA8:201:3032:64DD:1AAF:8B70:8914 01:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The relationship between the Mainland dictionaries and the use of "1nb=standard in Mainland" on Wiktionary[edit]

A few months ago, we had a discussion here about whether 现代汉语词典第7版 or 现代汉语规范词典第3版 was the standard for Putonghua. After months of comparison and consultation of these dictionaries (and after writing a stub for Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian as part of Asian Month-- please edit it if interested), I have basically come to the conclusion that both dictionaries are subjective attempts to describe Mandarin within their respective interpretations of the standards for Putonghua. Even 辞海第6版 might be construed conform to the standards for Putonghua according to their interpretation. There are many divergent opinions about the interpretation of standards like Putonghua Shenyinbiao, The First Series of Standardized Forms of Words with Non-standardized Variant Forms, etc. When judging what the 'standard' for 'Putonghua' is, we can't rely on these or any dictionaries- we are supposed to look at the official documents which put forth the standard. The dictionaries are not the standard, the documents that describe the standard are the standard. Correct interpretation is an opinion.

(PS: But there can be no doubt about the overwhelming dominance of Xiandai Hanyu Cidian: The 2014 printing of the 普通话水平测试实施纲要 (originally published in 2004; the 2014 printing has some corrections) still cites the 3rd edition of 现代汉语词典 (from 1996) as the source of the pronunciations for the list of 12,000 words that could appear on the second part of that test. Note that they didn't use the 4th edition of 现代汉语词典 (from 2002). It seems like almost all educational materials in Mainland China use the definitions, pronunciations and examples from some edition of Xiandai Hanyu Cidian.)

As for Jianbian and Chongbian, I got the impression that Jianbian was 'standard'- is it really "the standard" or is it a subjective opinion based upon the published standards for Guoyu? Is Jianbian just 'dominant' or is it 'standard'?

How does this influence Wiktionary? I think that writing '1nb=standard in Mainland' should be restricted to cases where there is specific evidence that an official document that describes the standard (aka: not a dictionary) has put forth the pronunciation in question as the Mainland standard. '1nb=Mainland' may be more appropriate in cases where there is a divergence between Xiandai Hanyu Cidian/Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian/Cihai and Jianbian Guoyu Cidian/Chongbian Guoyu Cidian that is not found in a non-dictionary official document that is supposed to be a standard.

I believe this point was brought up before by @Suzukaze-c on the talk page of some word. This issue is important because Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian can by no means be considered 'the standard'- it is just an opinion, just like 'Xiandai Hanyu Cidian' is just an opinion- albeit an opinion which is functionally treated as if it were the standard in many cases.

Just a thought.

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Tooironic, Dokurrat, KevinUp Here is an example of an edit that meets my new standard for writing "standard in Mainland" and "standard in Taiwan": [5]. Here is an example that does not meet my criteria for using "standard in Mainland" and "standard in Taiwan", but previously would have: [6]. I now believe that any differences that arise based solely on the comparison of dictionaries do not rise to the level of a difference in the standards of Mainland and Taiwan. The word 'standard' should only be associated with the pronunciations given in specific government standards. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think we could use Taiwan's 國語一字多音審訂表 and mainland China's 普通话异读词审音表 as our main reference for standard/variant pronunciation pairs. Then again, these documents are constantly being updated over the years, so it wouldn't be wise to use these as our only source of reference in case it becomes outdated in the future. Pronunciations listed in major dictionaries published in mainland China such as 现代汉语词典 and 现代汉语规范词典 are acceptable as well, as long as you're using the latest edition (2014 onwards) and not an outdated one. KevinUp (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: I agree with @KevinUp on this. The main problem is that neither 國語一字多音審訂表 nor 普通话异读词审音表 provides pronunciation standards for 詞, and this is especially tricky with neutral tone pronunciations. I think it would be more helpful if we have a page detailing what we call "standard" (perhaps at WT:About Chinese/Mandarin) and link the word "standard" to that page. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


Would you mind adding the non-Mandarin 'lects for this when you have the time? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I've added an entry for Min Nan only. Different sources seem to say different things about who the 紅毛人 refer to - should we say it's British, Dutch or Westerner (in general)? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


May I ask where did you get gàng? Dokurrat (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: It's found in 汉语方言词汇 and 汉语方言字汇. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Merci! Dokurrat (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Translation of 汉语大字典[edit]

I guess I wasn't awaken then😂. Thanks for your correction! Dokurrat (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Haha, no problem! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

May I ask, what's this word?[edit]

In this video, 01:26, what is the word after "幾乎全部"? Dokurrat (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I just realized it is "GG". LOL! Dokurrat (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Haha! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for citation[edit]

The etymology for 乒乓 reads:

"A similar-sounding onomatopoeia to the source character (bīng, “soldier”). First attested in Ming Dynasty and referred to the sound of collisions (during a fight). Later used as a translation of English ping pong."

May I ask, where? Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: I didn't add the etymology, so I'm not sure. @Wyang isn't around, but I'll see if he can tell me to where he got this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Didn't Wyang quit? —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 01:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC).

@Johnny Shiz: Yes, but I've contacted him off Wiktionary. He pointed me to this, which includes passages from Journey to the West from the Ming dynasty. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


Do you happen to know what's up with these to characters? What they mean, their pronunciations, etc. Johnny Shiz (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: These are Vietnamese Chu Nom characters. I'm not so familiar with Vietnamese, so that's all I can tell you, I guess. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: I found 𠀫𠀪 read as khề khà "to have a drunken drawl". They always come together. [7] --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

May I ask?[edit]

Are four examples for adv. usage of 雞巴 a little too much? Dokurrat (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: It is a little excessive, but I think it's ok. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
IMO, the more, the better~ —Suzukaze-c 05:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Well, I think if additional example sentences don't show anything new, I don't see the point in having more... — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I like how usage examples elucidate the types of situations in which a word can be used. Sometimes just a part of speech + gloss isn't enough, IMO. —Suzukaze-c 07:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Yup, I completely agree. That's what I meant by "show anything new". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, oops. But I think that the current sentences at 雞巴 are fairly diverse. —Suzukaze-c 08:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Fair enough :) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi, seems that I come here frequently recently. (XD). Would you like to check the Mandarin translation in this entry? I think 吹波糖 and 吹波膠 sound like Cantonese to me, but I don't speak Cantonese so I'm not sure. Dokurrat (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Yes, they're Cantonese. The latter can also refer to some kind of plastic(?) in a tube that can be blown into a bubble, like in this video. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Merci beaucoup! Dokurrat (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Bienvenue! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, it's français québécois 😂! Dokurrat (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Chinese words in Roman letters, Wyang and Chinese CFI[edit]

Hi Justin,

I think it's very disappointing that Frank left again and the last straw this time was the inclusion of APP#Chinese. I'm also frustrated about this inclusion (well, no serious Chinese printed dictionary includes them) but I've developed some stamina about things that don't go the way I want. Also, I believe in consensus and think we should seek compromise, discuss and vote. In any case, I think such words should not be welcome, would require good citations and, more importantly, I think Chinese may require language-specific CFI, not only because of such colloquial borrowings but also to define what represents a Chinese word, which is allowed to be kept here. One major reason being that Chinese belongs to "scriptio continua" and sometimes it's not to clear of some 的 collocations are words or SoP's. What do you think? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I agree we do need to have a language-specific CFI for Chinese, but I don't where we should start. Did you have any ideas of what we should be including in the CFI? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Frank = Wyang, am I right? Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: Yes. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Justin, sorry for getting back late. I think we need to start preparing a draught for Chinese CFI. I will take part in it and throw some ideas, if nobody does. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Would you like to check my current draft for the rfdef sense in 你媽 at User:Dokurrat/Sandbox_2? CC: @Tooironic. Dokurrat (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a good start to me. What in particular were you concerned about? The English expression can be improved later on. (It is hard to translate.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I've no specific concern; I'm just not confident with my English, and, as I unwillingly ended up flooded entry 你媽's edit history, I think I'd better have more eyes check the draft. Dokurrat (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much. Most editors on Wiktionary are native speakers (or high-level speakers) of English, so any problems with expression will be fixed eventually. Your contributions are much appreciated regardless. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: I agree with Tooironic that it looks good for the most part. I'd probably translate first example with "Late your a**", and use "rush" instead of "urge" for the second example. The third example could be "Your mom's good". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Okay! But I would publish my draft first, then you can edit things you'd like to edit in your credit (I zhòngshì this). Dokurrat (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Alright :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

synonyms problem[edit]

Are the synonyms coming up correctly for you e.g. at 幫助? They're not displaying for me right now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC) (And neither are Derived terms.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: It should be fixed now. (See WT:GP#zh-der and zh-syn-saurus.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

🎄Sing3 daan3 faai3 lok6! Joyeux Noël! Dokurrat (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Shèngdàn kuàilè! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Christmas and Yule! Here's my contribution to the list of tasks for Chinese entries. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
And to you, @Dokurrat! May my exploration of traditional Chinese culture help me explore traditional Europid culture (歐裔傳統文化). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Lo Ximiendo: Merry Christmas to you too! I'd like for those varieties to be covered in {{zh-pron}} too, but using PFS for Sixian Hakka seems to make it odd for us to use the MoE system (Hakka Romanization System) for other varieties. We'll have to figure out a better solution for Hakka eventually - we probably should split it into multiple parameters rather than putting everything under |h=. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe "ha"/"hk" for Meixian, "ha-s"/"hk-s" for Sixian, and "ha-h"/"hk-h" for Hailu Hakka (if the Sixian dialect gets to be represented using the plain "ha"/"hk" parameter, then "ha-m"/"hk-m" could be used for Meixian);
as for the Wuhua, Dabu, and Xingning dialects, I'm not sure. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I forgot: my reason for my renaming the parameter for Hakka to "ha"/"hk" is on account of giving Huizhou Chinese either the parameter "hu" or "hz". --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Lo Ximiendo: I don't think we need to change |h= to a different name since |hu= or |hz= wouldn't conflict with it anyway. If we are splitting |h= into two parameters, I think |h= should be for Meixian since that's usually considered the prestige dialect. I'm tempted to lump all the Taiwanese dialects into one |h-tw= and then specify dialects like it's done with |mn=, but that might mean we want to change all PFS into the MoE system. @Suzukaze-c, Dokurrat, KevinUp, do you have any opinions on this? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the current system is generally too restrictive; I have tentatively created User:Suzukaze-c/sandbox/zh#t:zh-pron_c based on thoughts that I've had for a while. —Suzukaze-c 02:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: I does seem like that system would be more flexible, but it would take away from the simplicity of the current version (everything under one template). Also, is parsing parameter names like h:ml,tw possible? The layout of t:zh-pron a is potentially problematic - stacking vertically would probably be better. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The current version is simple, but perhaps it is too simple; I don't think that continuously creating codes like mn-t and c-t is feasible... I've thought for a long time that combining h=pfs and h=gd is also very ugly.
I haven't tested if the parameter names can be parsed.
Consideration of a vertical design is absolutely possible. "t:zh-pron a" came first and was linked to "t:zh-pron c" later on. I also thought of the possibility of creating another template that somehow wraps around everything in "t:zh-pron c", in order to create an appearance similar to the current version of {{zh-pron}}. —Suzukaze-c 02:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


May I ask you? Should it be labeled as "dialectal Mandarin" or "colloquial Mandarin"? Dokurrat (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: I'm not quite sure since I don't know this word. I'll defer this to your judgment since you're more familiar with Mandarin. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Actually, as for this case, I think being a dialectal Mandarin speaker doesn't really help; to me, colloquiality and dialectality are sometimes hard to differentiate. I think I'm not alone; some words labelled "dialectal" in 現代漢語詞典 (e.g. 敢情) are labelled "colloquial" in 現代漢語規範詞典. Dokurrat (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: I think I would use "colloquial" if it's generally understood by most people when you're speaking in Putonghua, and it's "dialectal" or "regional" if it's understood only by people in a particular lect or region. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Yes, and that's the problem - I don't think I really know if 掉環兒 is understood universally or dialectally. Dokurrat (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This may be a personal experience, but on the other hand, I'm a dialectal Mandarin speaker and I don't understand sense "to dillydally" and "to pester" of 蘑菇 before I learned these two senses as a linguistical hobbyist. Yet these two sense are seen in 現代漢語詞典 and 現代漢語規範詞典, without any label. So, to me, the labelling are more tricky. I think I'm not alone because I remember when I watch the plot 紫薇被蓉嬤嬤關進小黑屋兒 of 還珠格格II on, there are quite some 彈幕 asking what does 蘑菇 as in 娘娘沒有時間在這兒跟你蘑菇! mean. Dokurrat (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC) (modified)
@Dokurrat: Well, so far, I can only find 掉環兒 in 哈爾濱方言詞典, so perhaps it's dialectal (or even Northeastern Mandarin). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: As for 掉環兒, I'm okay with either colloquial Mandarin or dialectal Mandarin label. Please edit as you see necessarily. Dokurrat (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC) (modified)
And I don't speak Northeastern Mandarin. Dokurrat (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC) (modified)
@Dokurrat: Ok, I've changed it to dialectal Mandarin for now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


May I ask where did you see 搌 and 趝? Dokurrat (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Both are from 四川方言词典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Merci! Dokurrat (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Tone sandhi as written in Bopomofo[edit]

@Wyang, Dokurrat, KevinUp, Tooironic Hello! I would like to point out that the tone sandhi that produces 'qíngbùzìjīn [Phonetic: qíngbúzìjīn]' in the pronunciation box for 情不自禁 should also produce 'ㄑㄧㄥˊ ㄅㄨˋ ㄗˋ ㄐㄧㄣ' [Phonetic: ㄑㄧㄥˊ ㄅㄨˊ ㄗˋ ㄐㄧㄣ]' for Bopomofo. Jianbian Guoyu Cidian does this:'ㄑㄧㄥˊ ㄅㄨˋ ㄗˋ ㄐㄧㄣ (變)ㄑㄧㄥˊ ㄅㄨˊ ㄗˋ ㄐㄧㄣ' (from:[8]) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: That's probably a good idea, but it's not that easily done. I've put on the list of tasks. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Etymology section for 絕屄[edit]

May I ask? Do you think it would be benifitial or redudant to write an etymology section like this (please ingore unrelated things there) for entry 絕屄? Dokurrat (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I decide to put this in the entry, thinking it may be helpful. But thank you anyway XD. Dokurrat (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Sorry for the late reply. I think that etymology looks ok :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Chinese Etymology[edit]

What happened to Richard Sears's webpage? I can't seem to find it with Bing; did it get removed or something? Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

For me, [9] redirects to [10]. I was able to find it by searching for "richard sears chinese" on Google. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


One of the definitions of "" is "" and I just can't quite parse what that means. Thanks for your assistance! Bumm13 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bumm13: I'm not sure either, but my best bet is that it's referring to 堇菜, i.e. plants in the family Violaceae. This is a rare character, so it'd be hard to make sure. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

𤇾 and 𫇦 confuse me[edit]

I noticed these from your post on RFV/NE. Both characters are listed as "Only used in personal names", chiefly of Taiwan, though the former is pronounced "ying2" and the latter "meng2". This is the only sense for 𫇦, but 𤇾 can apparently be ancient forms of and . Furthermore, your RFV actually contradicts what the entries themselves state; you have went on to note that "I'm pretty sure it's only used as a component of a character." Is there anything incorrect or dubious regarding the existing entries? All of them seem to be amply sourced with external links and references. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: The entries have changed significantly from when I RFVed them, which is why the RFV "contradicts" the entries. I'll re-evaluate the entries and put an update at RFV/NE. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


@Justinrleung I'm relying on you, a sysop in en.wiktionary, because I'm currently being victim of an abuse in en.wikipedia. My IP range was blocked by a sysop names "Ohnoitsjamie". What I did was to revert a user's edits back to some time ago because currently there's a new consensus about such edits. The edits were about Italian phonetic transcriptions containing the sound "ɱ". In the past it was transcribed by "m" for simplicity, but now it was consensually decided to transcribe it just as it is, not to talk about the fact that the Help:IPA page about Italian now has such a sound listed. He blocked me because I was correcting a phonetic transcriptions he knows absolutely nothing about, and blocked my full range when I reverted his edits. I can't even make an appeal for this block because I'm prevented to edit my own talk page! Please, do something to help me, even just a suggestion about what I can do now. It's absurd but it's real, and it's Wikipedia (alas!)... 21:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@ I'm not sure how I can help you, but another user has reported Ohnoitsjamie for edit warring. Let's see how that turns out. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy Chinese New Year![edit]

農曆新年快樂! Happy Chinese New Year to you! May we all have an abundant and prosperous year ahead!

Shall we create an entry in Category:Chinese phrasebook that is equivalent to "happy Chinese New Year"? The term 春節快樂春节快乐 (chūnjié kuàilè) appears to be used mainly in mainland China, while overseas Chinese may prefer 農曆新年快樂农历新年快乐 (nónglì xīnnián kuàilè). What do you think? KevinUp (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@KevinUp: It might be good to include these. In Hong Kong (and maybe in Taiwan), we usually say 新年快樂新年快乐 (xīnnián kuàilè) in Chinese New Year. There's also 新年好 (xīnniánhǎo) or 春節好春节好. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I've created the two entries. In most Chinese communities, 新年快樂新年快乐 (xīnnián kuàilè) is understood to refer to the Chinese New Year (rather than 1st of January, although it may also be used on that day), so I think we need usage notes for that entry. I've never heard 農曆新年快樂 (nung4 lik6 san1 nin4 faai3 lok6) in Cantonese, so I didn't add it to the entry. By the way, did you know that Sydney decided to rename the Chinese New Year festival to the "more inclusive" Lunar New Year? [11] [12] KevinUp (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: Thanks! 農曆新年快樂 can be used in Cantonese, too, so I've added it to the entry. I've never really liked the name "Lunar New Year" because the Chinese calendar is not the only lunar calendar (so it'd be too inclusive) and it's not exactly a lunar calendar (it's lunisolar). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome! 😄 Here's to a great year ahead. 🍻 KevinUp (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


Would you mind checking the non-Mandarin 'lects here when you are free? Thanks and Happy New Chinese Year! ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and happy Chinese New Year to you too! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! One more random thing. I've been doing some food-related edits recently and I'm trying to improve our accuracy in translations wherever possible. For example, 海帶海草. We currently have senses for "almond" at 杏仁, 扁桃 and 巴旦木. Would you happen to know if they all refer to the same species of nut? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: As for "almond", they are all used to refer the same species. Dokurrat (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I see. I looked around online and asked friends and it seems they are different in size, shape and colour at least. I need to think more on this first though. Thanks for the changes you've made so far. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic, Dokurrat: They indeed refer to the same species, but I think they refer to different parts of the plant. What I gather is 杏仁 = 扁桃仁 (nut) and 扁桃 = 巴旦杏 (plant and fruit). I'm not sure if 扁桃 and 巴旦杏 are usually used for the nut. 巴旦木 should also be used for the nut, but I cannot confirm yet. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The entries have been updated by Justin, but I'm not sure whether 扁桃 (biǎntáo) and 蟠桃 (pántáo)) (flat peach/w:Saturn Peach) is the same thing. Seems to be a sum of parts - (biǎn, “flat”) + (táo, “peach”), but this was added by Wyang.
Also, 杏仁 (xìngrén) can refer to either almond (南杏/甜杏仁) or apricot kernel (北杏/苦杏仁 (kǔxìngrén)). Can someone verify this?
There's also (1) 杏仁茶 (xìngrénchá) which appears to be a ground mixture of both (not made from pure almonds), (2) 杏仁奶 (xìngrénnǎi), which is almond milk and (3) 杏仁豆腐 (xìngrén dòufu), which is a jelly-like dessert made from apricot kernel.
On an unrelated note, Japanese 杏仁 is apricot kernel while Japanese 扁桃 is the tonsil. KevinUp (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: 扁桃 = 蟠桃 per Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian. AFAIK both 南杏 and 北杏 are different kinds of apricot kernel, not almonds. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi. Do you happen to know any searchable corpus of Qing dynasty or 20th-century Chinese texts? Specifically, I'd like to know if this term appeared before 1956. --Dine2016 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dine2016: I'm not sure if there's anything specific to the Qing dynasty or 20th-century. You could probably check the Chinese Text Project or Chinese Wikisource. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please create an entry for me.[edit]

𡳾. Normally, I'd make this myself, but I'm now slightly paranoid of messing something up. Since you know how to properly create entries of CJKV characters, please do it for me. Johnny Shiz (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits?[edit]

Specifically, this one? Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The category names with "CJKV" are the main categories. We should not be categorizing to redirects. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I moved them to CJKV, but then moved them back upon realizing that the pages within the categories don't get moved. Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: That's not how it works. The servers need to update, which could a long time. If you put them back in the categories with "Chinese", they'll stay there and not get moved to "CJKV". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Got it. Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't sure...[edit]

It seems that per Google results, 龍利魚 is more common than 龍脷魚. But the entry 脷 is the main entry (and as for now, the only entry, although 利 is listed as a variant there). So I'm not sure if I should do it case by case and make 龍利魚 the main entry, or following entry 脷 to make 龍脷魚 the main entry for consistancy. Since this word is obviously originally a Cantonese word and its Mandarin usage is a borrowing, I think it's better to ask a Cantonese speaker like you. Hope you don't find me annoying. CC: @Suzukaze-c, Tooironic. Dokurrat (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: I'd say we should make 龍脷 / 龍脷魚 the main entry for consistency. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

舌#Etymology 2[edit]

Hi. Currently 𠯑 is a main entry and 舌#Etymology 2 is a soft-redirect to it. However, Guangyun enters the character as . This means that the Middle Chinese pronunciation does not appear on 𠯑, and is buried under the {{zh-see}} on . I wonder what should be done in cases like this? Is it ok to turn 舌#Etymology 2 into a full entry defined as {{zh-alt-form|𠯑}} to expose the Middle Chinese pronunciation? --Dine2016 (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

May I butt in? Just because 水 is written as 氵 or 氺 when used as a radial doesn't mean we should relocate the main entry as either of the later two. Okay, I know that 水 is heavily attested, no to mention it is still seen in compound glyphs like 冰 and 汆, yet probably no-one has seen 𠯑 in their daily life (unless they are language geeks), so things are not really the same. But I support keep 𠯑 as the main entry. 廣韻 did use 舌 as main entry for the sense we're talking about, but it's just a matter of written forms (glyphs), right? We're justified to use 𠯑 as the main entry. Dokurrat (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dine2016, Dokurrat: We could just move the Guangyun reading for 𠯑 from the data module for 舌 to a new one for 𠯑. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Where should the entry be located? Also the entry currently does not have an etymology, but Wikipedia may suggest something.--2001:DA8:201:3512:F8A6:D268:BD85:EA8E 01:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@2001:DA8:201:3512:F8A6:D268:BD85:EA8E: I think in the modern context is probably the more common form. I'm not quite sure because different dictionaries take different approaches. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Romanization in Hong Kong[edit]

Hi Justin. I have a question. What system of Romanization is used in Hong Kong? Surprisingly, I can't seem to find an answer to this on Wikipedia. If I search for 梁文道 on Wikipedia, I get his Romanized name as Leung Man-tao. However, according to Wiktionary, is transcribed as:

Wade–Giles: liang2
Jyutping: loeng4
Yale: lèuhng
Wade–Giles: wên2
Jyutping: man4, man4
Yale: màhn, màhn
Wade–Giles: tao4
Jyutping: dou6, dou3
Yale: douh, dou

But none of these resemble "Leung Man-tao" exactly. Is there some other system being used? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Good question. The system used for names is not systematic, but Wikipedia does have an article on this type of romanization: Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation. Example of how it's unsystematic: my surname Leung can also be spelt Leong (which is how a few of my relatives who should have the same surname as me got their romanization). The actual systematic romanization systems used for Cantonese were developed relatively recently and have not really been adopted on a wide scale compared to the old romanization. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Oh I see. The reason I ask is a friend of mine is writing a story set in the 1800s with a character from Guangzhou. We have a name in hanzi but I have no idea what system of Romanziation I should use to transcribe it with. Any ideas? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I think using something similar to Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation would probably be a good idea. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: You might also be interested in taking a look at this dictionary from the 1800s. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
"梁文道"... That's your real name in Chinese, right? Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: Nope. See my Wikipedia user page. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi Justin. When you get a spare moment could you check the Min Nan synonym listed here? Does it refer to one or both senses? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Minnan Fangyan Da Cidian gives 存放;寄存 as the definition, so I think probably the "deposit, leave with someone" sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


I think |m=huí niángjiā,tl=y should be fine; 現代漢語詞典 gives both niángjiā and niángjia for 娘家. Your opinion? Dokurrat (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Ah, I misread it. Thanks for catching that. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
😉. Dokurrat (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


Would you like to check this edit? Dokurrat (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Thanks for catching this as well. I've added a note to clarify what man4-2 is referring to. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
😉. Dokurrat (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


The Cantonese pronunciation there seems odd to me. Would you like to have a look at it? Dokurrat (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Yup, fixed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Merci! Dokurrat (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


I found a Bible verse that is identical to this Chinese phrase, and I tried to add it to that page. I believe that drawing a connection between two identical phrases from such disparate sources is worthwhile. However, I don't know if the edit I have made meets community standards, and I would like your opinion about it if possible. Thanks for your time. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Thanks for bringing this to my attention! It does look a bit off, but I'm not sure if there's a better way to include that. Maybe it could go in the etymology? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I can't imagine how to do it correctly in the etymology section. I feel like I have seen an etymology section like that, but I don't remember where or what exactly it was like. I can't imagine how to make the correct change. The CUV of the verse is: '相近的鄰舍、強如遠方的弟兄'。 If the current form of the page is too weird looking, then I will revert my edit. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
My ideas: diff; diff. —Suzukaze-c 01:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

and [edit]

(zhè) mentions these two words as alternative forms, but I don't know how to handle the etymology of these two entries.-- 14:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi. Would you mind checking the Min Nan here when you get a chance? ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Yes check.svg Done — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: No problem :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's another two for when you have time: 眩著 and 臭重. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


What is the glyph origin for ? Johnny Shiz (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Does it have anything to do with money? Because a lot of characters with the radical have to do with money: , , , etc. Johnny Shiz (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverts on 哈囉 and 哈佬[edit]

What is the meaning of these reverts? Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: I don’t see how they’re phonosemantic matching. Neither of them has any connection to “hello” on a semantic level. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I was a bit confused with the definition of "phono-semantic matching". Got it now. It wasn't all my fault though; I saw a nearly identical message on 幽默. 幽默 has two definitions: quiet and tranquil, or humor. The latter of those is a phono-semantic match, since the pinyin (yōumò) resembles the pronunciation of "humor". But how does the supposed "match" add up? In other words, how does "humor" relate to "quiet and tranquil"? If such a "match" is indeed nonexistent, should I alter the etymology of 幽默 too? Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: 幽默 is a different case. It’s adapting an existing word to a foreign word, so that also counts as phono-semantic. 哈, 囉 and 佬 really don’t have meaning in the words 哈囉 and 哈佬, but in 幽默, the characters do mean something while also matching in sound. If you don’t entirely understand something, I would advise you to ask at WT:TR, WT:BP or WT:ES (whichever one is applicable), or ping me before going ahead with your edits. If you continue to make questionable edits, I don’t know how long you’ll last until you get blocked. I know you’re trying and I’ve seen a lot of improvement, but you still have plenty to learn. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I've already been blocked once. I'll try not to make edits unless I know with ample precision what I am doing. Indeed, if you take a peek at my contributions page, you'll see that I'm now adding entries to Wikipedia:Requested entries/Chinese more often than just creating them outright. I now ping you on entry talk pages to gain approval of edits before making them myself. Hopefully that'll reduce the "questionability" of my edits, I presume. Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)