User talk:Justinrleung

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

Archives[edit]

Few questions about Cantonese[edit]

Hi Justin, in Cantonese, how come you can read things in Mandarin using Cantonese readings but not the other way around? For example Mandarin 我們 (wǒmen, we) can be read in Cantonese as 我們 (ngo5 mun4) and still make sense? However, vernacular Cantonese 我哋 (ngo5 dei6) cannot be read in Mandarin as 我哋 (*wǒdì) without misunderstanding. Also, can Cantonese songs be vernacular? Thanks! – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 06:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos I think this is because Cantonese is used as a language of education for Modern Standard Chinese, and the register restricted to reading and writing is called 書面話书面话 (syu1 min6-2 waa6-2). In everyday speech, 書面話 is rarely used. And yes, there are Cantonese songs that use vernacular Cantonese, although the majority is written in Modern Standard Chinese. Many of Sam Hui's songs use vernacular Cantonese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos: The answer is very simple. We Hong Kong people are taught 我們 (we know written Chinese as well as vernacular Chinese) but the Mainland people are not taught 我哋. --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau Good point! I'd like to add that even though 我哋 is not officially taught in Mainland, 我哋 is known by Cantonese speakers in Mainland (like in Guangzhou). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

阿媽[edit]

When you have some time, kindly add a source for this edit. It's quite possible that there are several divergent transcriptions of a foreign word common in the 19th century, but the modern form is 阿瑪 with different tones. — LlywelynII 00:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: It's from here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Restoring a comment to my talk page that I myself deleted[edit]

is most certainly vandalism, if not harrassment. All the moreso when it contributes nothing substantive and is, in fact, just an editor whining about how wonderful they feel they are and terrible I am on a point they are completely wrong about. They're welcome to move it to a public forum or their own talk page (or here, if you like), but continuously restoring it to my talk page (or having third parties do it for them) is not the way to go. — LlywelynII 22:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Two questions[edit]

Hi Justin, I wonder if you are aware of any people in Hong Kong, who were born there, grew up speaking Cantonese, but don't look "Chinese", maybe like Europeans or Caucasians, also, I wonder if native speakers themselves make grammatical or spelling mistakes when writing or speaking Cantonese? By the way, my first name is actually Justin as well! – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 10:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Awesome Justin (if you don't mind me calling you that)! I do know that there are some non-Chinese born in Hong Kong who grew up speaking Cantonese. I know of at least three "famous" ones: Corinna Chamberlain, Gill Mohindepaul Singh and Vivek Mahbubani.
The answer to the second question should apply to any language. People can make mistakes when speaking. Take a look at Linguistic performance#Errors in linguistic performance. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you may call me Awesome Justin! I quite like that XD!! And please tell me some examples of mistakes in Cantonese, like maybe wrong particles or leaving them out. Maybe mixing up stroke order in characters? – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 06:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A common one might be using the wrong classifier (measure word). Can't think of any more at the moment. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

simplify bolding and linking@Module:zh-usex[edit]

Some examples at are missing characters now... —suzukaze (tc) 01:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Thanks for catching that! Should be fixed for now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"用水和画"[edit]

Hi Justin, I was wondering if the phrase "用水和画" referred to the notion of a watercolor painting? It seems to literally mean "use water + painting" but I'm not totally sure about that. It's the definiton for . Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bumm13: It seems to be a typo. It should say 和面 (from 中华字海). 汉语大字典 is even more explicit: "用水調和麵粉". It would simply mean something along the lines of "to mix flour with water; to knead dough". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

識得[edit]

你好!「識得」都未必肯呀呵? 例如「識得講英文都唔肯講」. 206.180.244.235 22:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

我覺得「識得」從來都唔會解做「肯」㗎囉。 — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A proposal on splitting Monguor into Mangghuer and Mongghul[edit]

Hey, a proposal I've made at Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Splitting_Monguor_into_Mangghuer_and_Mongghul seems to be stuck for a long time now, could you perhaps take a look at it, share your thoughts and vote? Crom daba (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

//NOTE: This message was crossposted to multiple talk pages. Crom daba (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

自在 and 地道[edit]

Could you fix the non-Mandarin readings for these two entries when you are free? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tooironic: They should be fine, though I have doubts on the definitions for 自在 zìzài. Is it only used as an adverb? There seems to be some missing senses. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I have also made some changes at 自在. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's another one I'll need your help with when you get time: 發行. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • And another: 時髦. Many thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Tooironic: I can't be sure about the pronunciations for the literary sense, so I just removed them except for Cantonese. I also moved the quotation from Houhanshu to the definition line since we don't usually put attestations under the etymology header. Could you check the translation? (I'm not that good with classical Chinese.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    Looks good to me. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And another, when you're free: 口角. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And 清亮. :) ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Tooironic: Done for 口角. As for 清亮, I think the senses are under the wrong Mandarin readings (see Xiandai Hanyu Cidian).
    I have made the relevant changes now. Many thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A Message for you[edit]

新年快樂和平長壽 [MSC, trad.]
新年快乐和平长寿 [MSC, simp.]
Xīnniánkuàilè! Wǒ zhù nín hépíng yǔ chángshòu. [Pinyin]
.

AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 23:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your greeting, Awesome Justin! A happy and blessed new year to you, too!
P.S. 平安又長壽 would probably be better. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

What languages do you hear in your home country?[edit]

Hi Justin,

What examples of different languages have you heard, whether it be tourists or people living in your country? From where I live, Australia, I hear stuff like Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, Italian and many others – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 11:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Where I live in Canada, it's pretty multicultural. Other than English, I've heard or know people who speak Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Gujurati, Arabic, Polish, Persian, Spanish, French (less than you'd expect)... — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Cantonese[edit]

Hello. I didn't only refer to Unihan. I checked at CKC [1] [2] and it says as seen. Perhaps you could suggest more references? --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Octahedron80: This is a standard one, as @Suzukaze-c has pointed out on Talk:唄. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There's also [3] which lists readings from published works, and [4] (which I suspect sometimes follows the Youbian dubian principle and is kind of questionable honestly). —suzukaze (tc) 04:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we need to be cautious when using the latter one since it includes "lazy sound" as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Teochew readings of 哥 and 姐[edit]

Hi Justin,

Do you or @Wyang, Octahedron80 have a resource to find the Teochew readings of and ? Thai has borrowed these from Teochew as โก (goo) and เจ๊ (jée) (dialectal). These words are apparently used to address Chinese shop owners in Thailand. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Atitarev, there are two online resources I know of: 潮州音字典 and Mogher. From experience, I think the first of the two is more reliable. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the links and for adding the Teochew readings! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I use Mogher too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Module:gan-pron[edit]

I'm not sure if you were aware that your last edit to this module seems to have caused module errors in 26 entries. See CAT:E. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thanks for reminding me! It should be all fixed now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the module errors have all gone away (anything else is beyond my expertise). Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

農歷新年問候[edit]

再新年發財一遍!你慶祝咗未呀?即使我咪中國人、我尊重中國文化囉。(我都為壞嘅廣東話道歉!(>人<;)) – AWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 09:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Awesome Justin,多謝嗮喎!我都祝你新年快樂、身體健康,學習語言可以步步高陞!喺我哋加拿大呢頭新年氣氛唔係咁熱鬧,但係總會同屋企人慶祝下嘅。你啲廣東話都唔算太差嘅,只係有啲奇怪啫。你上面嗰句我會噉講嘅:
恭喜發財有冇慶祝新年雖然唔係中國人尊重中國文化!(唔好意思廣東話唔係!(>人<;)) [Cantonese, trad.]
恭喜发财有冇庆祝新年虽然唔系中国人尊重中国文化!(唔好意思广东话唔系!(>人<;)) [Cantonese, simp.]
Zoi3 tung4 nei5 gong2 seng1 gung1 hei2 faat3 coi4! Nei5 jau5 mou5 hing3 zuk1 san1 nin4 aa3? Seoi1 jin4 ngo5 m4 hai6 zung1 gwok3 jan4, ngo5 dou1 hou2 zyun1 zung6 zung1 gwok3 man4 faa3 gaa3! (m4 hou2 ji3 si1, ngo5 di1 gwong2 dung1 waa6-2 gong2 dak1 m4 hai6 gei2 hou2! (>jan4 <;)) [Jyutping]
(please add an English translation of this example)
— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Error in Module:yue-pron[edit]

At the article, I'm getting a "Lua error in Module:yue-pron at line 115: Incorrect Jyutping format. Please check!" error message. Could you check this out? Thanks! Bumm13 (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bumm13, it should be fixed now. I made a silly mistake. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Non standard Chinese romanization entries[edit]

Any idea how to enter something like jiak ba buay? Is this considered English or Chinese?--Prisencolin (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Prisencolin: I wouldn't enter this as Chinese. If it's attested in English (WT:ATTEST), it could have a chance of being included as English. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

不回答這個問題[edit]

依你的意見,你相信是生命的最好的部分什麼?對我來說,我會說直到我死,成為富有和成功將是理想的。你呢?(請不要糾正我的語法錯誤)AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 07:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: hmm... am I supposed to answer, since you said 不回答這個問題? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
我對你使用逆向心理學。請回答。AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 07:34,一刻 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos: 哈哈……我覺得認識耶穌基督是我生命中最美好、最重要的一部分,我知道我活着的每一天都是神所賜的福分,就已經很足夠了。正如你所說,人是會死的,所以如果今生只追求地上的財富,死後什麼都沒有了,倒不如現在帶着永恆的盼望活出豐盛的人生。希望這個答覆能夠滿足你的好奇心啦!
P.S. Here's what you wanted to say: 依你的意見,你相信生命最好的一部分是什麼?對我來說,我會說直到我死(那一刻),富有和成功是我的理想。你呢? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
很高興知道你是基督徒。但我是不可知論者,因此,不相信神話或迷信。我沒有任何形式的靈魂。AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 08:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos: 我也不相信神話,也不是迷信,而是信靠一位勝過死亡的真神,因為祂就是真理(約十四6)。 (That's short for John 14:6 in Chinese. Isn't that neat?) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
According to Chinese Wikipedia: 「科學活動所得的知識是條件明確的(不能模棱兩可或隨意解讀),能經得起檢驗的,而且不能與任何適用範圍內的已知事實產生矛盾。」如果我想知道基督教存在,我需要把它考驗。但在路加福音 4:12,它說「不可試探主—你的上帝。」我相信理由和證據;我也是逻辑的人。AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 09:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
忘掉它。我這裡浪費了我的生命。AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 09:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos At least you practised your Chinese (if that's more important for you). I hope it didn't waste too much of your time, but I think this is quite important (as I've said earlier). Anyway, good discussion. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

re:Module:nan-pron[edit]

The problem I want to fix is converting "o͘" of POJ to "oo" of TL.--Yoxem (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yoxem, ok, thanks! It should be fixed now. Tell me if there's any other problem. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

我的信息圖表[edit]

你好賈斯汀!我做了信息圖表(用英語 )關於我自己。你想想什麼? — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 01:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos 我覺得蠻有趣的!(其實我叫路明的哦) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Good ta' know! (but what do you mean by 路明; sorry, but I don't understand) — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 01:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos That's my Chinese name :) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Nice! I'm planning to make another version with more facts about myself. Anything you want to know more? — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 01:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos Nothing much, really... whatever you want to tell people. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Furigana in non-JA entries[edit]

I'm curious: why add furigana here? Furigana are only useful in a JA context. Including them in a ZH→EN entry seems mistaken. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I don't know if it's especially useful in a ZH→EN context, but I don't see what's wrong with it. We also have {{ja-r}} in {{wasei kango}} and {{CJKV}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As far as what's wrong with furigana, my concern is that it's potentially confusing in non-JA contexts. For users unfamiliar with Japanese writing customs, the furigana are wholly superfluous; they add nothing useful. Such users might even mistakenly view the furigana as part of the term's spelling. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Eirikr: Ah, I see what you mean. I've been changing them up to {{ja-r}} all this time. I guess we'll have to go back and remove the furigana that I've been adding. Do you think we'll have to remove furigana from {{wasei kango}} and {{CJKV}} then? Pinging @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Hongthay to see what they think. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    I don't really care. —suzukaze (tc) 01:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    I see absolutely no problem in using furigana when Japanese terms are used, including non-Japanese entries. The argument is the same as using stresses on eg Russian terms or Arabic vocalisation. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Anatoli, except stresses are meaningful to English readers (our target audience), and Arabic vocalisation is actually part of the term, and could be considered an alternative spelling. Furigana are not part of the term, are not part of the spelling, and have no meaning to readers without Japanese knowledge.
    (FWIW, I'm looking at this purely from a usability standpoint.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Arabic and Hebrew vowel points only have meanings to learners and speakers, they are not part of the terms. The same is with stress marks. So, اَلْيَابَان (al-yābān) is not the Arabic spelling, اليابان is. By the same logic, readers may get confused that you need to write a stress mark in Япо́ния (Japónija). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Arabic and Hebrew vowels are not part of the lemma spellings, but they are definitely part of the terms. Our own Arabic entries seem to indicate vowels in the term renderings within the body of the page. كتاب in the lemmatized URL spelling is shown in the page headword as كِتَاب (kitāb) with the vowels marked. However, no JA dictionary anywhere treats furigana as part of the headwords.
    Even then, that's still within the context of the entries in the respective languages. Outside of AR entries, it may make sense to omit the vowel marks. Outside of JA entries, I strongly believe that furigana (in addition to romaji) add negligible value for JA-aware readers, and add negative value for non-JA-aware readers. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'm of a similar opinion to Anatoli. Japanese learners are often more familiar with kana than they are with kanji, and furigana is a good tool to translate something (kanji) the reader is unfamiliar with into something more familiar, and the romaji is to check that one's knowledge of kana is solid and / or for people who do not know kana. Since the romaji can be automatically generated from kana, there is a benefit of yielding double outputs with a single transcription input, plus it is more aesthetic than romaji alone. Of course, I don't edit Japanese much and I'm happy if others decide romaji alone is sufficient and preferred. Wyang (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, I also think that kana should be mandatory in translations of kanji terms. Users will be exposed to both and kana is often an alternative spelling of the kanji term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • In *JA* entries, I generally agree with both Wyang's and Anatoli's comments here. In *non-JA* entries, I strongly disagree: we cannot assume that readers are Japanese learners, or even potential Japanese learners, and thus the furigana are superfluous visual noise. Non-JA entries are the wrong context for this kind of metadata. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Prefer the |tr= method, at most. Simpler. Kana already at Ja section. Hongthay (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

About the pronounciation of POJ "j" in accents[edit]

關於 module:nan-pron(2017/3/16 0:18 UTC+8 修正) 根據w:zh:洪惟仁的論文閩南語入字頭(日母)的音變潮流 pp.4-5,白話字的 j 在泉州、漳州以及台灣部份地區都有變化。連台灣教育部的辭典也記載此種分佈 eg.http://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/cuankho.jsp?no=0853 。考量辭典所呈現的方言差,應該盡量描繪當地方言特色,所以參考該論文,把念 /l/ 、/z/以及把「ji.*」 (這裡以 regexp 表示) 唸成 gi.* 的區域明示出來,標注子音的方言差。 -- Yoxem (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yoxem 我當然明白這種方言差啦,可是我們經常編輯閩南語的老早已經決定不會用 POJ 的 j 來代表廈門、泉州、台北等的 [l] 和台中的 [ɡ],而是跟《臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典》一樣,用 j 代表 [d͡z ~ d͡ʑ ~ z ~ ʑ],l 代表 [l],g 代表 [ɡ]。 — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yoxem 至於 [d͡z ~ d͡ʑ][z ~ ʑ] 的分別,應該可以根據洪惟仁的論文稍微改一改,不用加那麼多的code。— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
了解,原來你們是用這種像台羅特色的標音方法。雖然以前廈門話寫的白話字聖經,廈門人還是會把書上的 jī 念成 lī 吧。不過 /dz/ 和 /z/ 的區分倒是可以用 j_as_z_locations = {"Kaohsiung",.....} 來區分(可參考該論文的地圖,仍區分 dz 和 z 的音位變體)。
且說 lua 應該沒有類似 if A in one_array then... 這樣的語法,可能還是需要用 for item in loc_array do if location = item 這樣的語法來寫。--Yoxem (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yoxem 也不算是台羅特色的標音方法啦,Tw-Ch台文中文辭典雖然用白話字,卻有時會用 l 啊。現在廈門市區(以思明區為準)基本上 j 併入 l 了,所以我們沒有必要用 j 來代表今音 [l]。還有,看來你的code有error,我已經把它改了。— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
另外,漳州雖然大部分地區都是用 [z],但是我們主要根據的《閩南方言大字典》,裏面的漳州音應該是以薌城區為準,所以根據洪惟仁還是用 [d͡z] 的。— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
那我把 Zhangzhou 移除自 j_as_z_locations 集合了,順便修正下 bug,試試看有無問題吧。--Yoxem (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yoxem 現在是沒有bug,可是跟我剛才改的又什麼差別呢?現在的code更長,有需要嗎? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
把高雄市區旁邊的鳳山(高雄市中心無採集方言,鄰近的小港的 g 是少數,故取這一個鄰近市中心的方言點)使用的的 z 音位變體加進去(會吐出IPA的方言,建議用該地的現存發音)。--Yoxem (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yoxem 可是一直來的做法就是我改的方法,是因為那個 table 應該是 POJ 對應 IPA,而 z 不是 POJ,所以不應該在那個 table 裏面。你可以參考一下 eⁿ 和 eng 的方言差是怎麼處理的。— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Formatting question[edit]

Is 肅清 formatted correctly?--Prisencolin (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Prisencolin It looks quite off:
  • Definition lines should be using numbered lists (#) instead of unordered lists (*).
  • There should never be translations in non-English entries. (Why would there even be Chinese translations under Chinese? You're basically saying 肅清 = 肅清, which is pretty obvious.)
  • The specific purge should be a proper noun.
  • You need to put the part of speech in {{zh-pron}}.
Look at my edit to see what I mean. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

我必須離職維基詞典[edit]

你好,路明!我已經編輯維基詞典近一年了。但是,我還有其他的事情要做,並決定離職。因為你是我的朋友,我可以寫這個信息而不被騷擾。告別,這對我而言是一次很好的經驗。AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 22:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos, for real? I'm gonna be missing you. (Or is this just an April Fool's joke?) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
是的,這是愚人節的笑話。你怎麼猜了?哦,我的上帝!笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑……AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 05:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Awesomemeeos, 哈哈,可能我太了解你了! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

點算好[edit]

It's included as one word in [5] and [6], but I also agree with your analysis. —suzukaze (tc) 05:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: I guess it could be a phrase, but it seems kinda SOP. @Wyang, Kc kennylau, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Justinrleung, could you demonstrate that it is SOP? --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: 點算 (what should one do) + (to be good; settled). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no comments then. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

復活節快到了![edit]

路明,我只想先祝福你,快乐的复活节。我希望你有好休息又好開心!AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos 我也祝你復活節快樂!耶穌的復活讓我有永生的盼望 :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

and [edit]

Could you look at these? It seems different sources call them variants of each other. —suzukaze (tc) 05:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: It seems like 玨 is the standard in Taiwan (Guoyu Cidian, Cross Straits, Dictionary of Variant Characters) and 珏 is the standard in mainland China (Cross Straits, Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, Ziyuan). Interestingly, Hanyu Da Zidian considers 玨 to be the main form (but that might be because it considers traditional forms “standard”). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Just thought you might want to look at this article since it's only used in Cantonese and has kind of non-standard readings. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bumm13: It's not just used in Cantonese. Suzukaze-c has already dealt with it mostly. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

𨂿 uaiⁿ[edit]

"Lua error in Module:nan-pron at line 761: Cannot recognise uaiⁿ." —suzukaze (tc) 03:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Darn, thank you. —suzukaze (tc) 03:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: No worries! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 女真[edit]

So what's the difference between Ruzhen and Nuzhen exactly?--Prisencolin (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Prisencolin I'm not sure what you're asking. All the sources I looked at, other than Chinese Wikipedia, say it's pronounced as Nǚzhēn. Chinese Wikipedia doesn't have a source for the pronunciation, so it may be unreliable. @Wyang, Tooironic, Atitarev, any idea if Rǔzhēn is a valid alternative pronunciation? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I have trouble verifying this pronunciation, but Ru3 zhen1 is definitely what you would expect that would correspond to a j- in other languages (Jurchen etc.). Wyang (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't find Rǔzhēn. BTW, Pleco gives the definition as "Nüzhen (Nuchen)...". 女 has the reading rǔ when it's used as 汝. I couldn't find 汝真 either.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang, Atitarev, this article seems to support Rǔzhēn. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Great find, although unfortunately it doesn't seem to be citable. These articles look like they may be helpful in corroborating the pronunciation, especially the first one which lists some authors with similar views. Wyang (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Good job. I won't mind if Rǔzhēn is added. A note that this can't be confirmed with certainty would be helpful. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

流星[edit]

What is 疤瘌流星的? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tooironic: See Guoyu Cidian. I'm not sure if we should have that 的. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps not. It doesn't seem to be attested anywhere else. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
It's dialectal. Hanyu Da Cidian also has it (without 的) and cites the same passage. I'm not sure if we can find any more attestation. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Here![edit]

Hanyu Da Cidian listed 陽夏 under 舉下切 (jiǎ). The dict says it is a 古縣名。

I also found 夏 in 洪武正韻牋 (Ytenx.org "夏") and I see 陽夏 mentioned there, but I don't know how to read a rhime book so I'm not sure if 夏 is listed under 賈 small-rhime.

😁 Dokurrat (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, You reverted b4 I sent this 😂 Then just ignore this. Dokurrat (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: I should have checked before reverting. I've changed up the definitions. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

燒賣[edit]

Hello here, it's me, Johnny Shiz. Do you happen to know the etymology behind 烧卖/燒賣? Cause "/" means "fried" and "/" means "sell", which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I also heard that there is another form called 烧麦/燒麥 (/ means wheat, which makes more sense), but the page says it's the incorrect form. Help me. Also do you visit the etymology scriptorium frequently? Cause I really should be posting these questions in there, but I figured you would have a higher chance of seeing this here.Johnny Shiz (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: welcome back! Chinese Wikipedia has several theories on the name, but there doesn't seem to be a reliable source to back them up. I've added a request at 燒賣 using {{rfe}}. 燒麥 is not incorrect, but a less common alternative form (and it doesn't make sense with respect to the Cantonese pronunciation). I have WT:ES on my watchlist, so feel free to ask questions there. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Chinese dictionary[edit]

Just curious, what Chinese dictionary do you use? I use Xinhua Zidian (Chinese to English), Xiandai Zidian, and Xiandai Cidian. Johnny Shiz (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: There are lots that I use for single characters and Mandarin, but the main ones are:
Hope this helps! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Why does Etymology 1 have Mandarin pronunciation? Its only definitions are Cantonese only. Johnny Shiz (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: They are Mandarin pronunciations inferred from the Cantonese. I think it's ok to keep them for single character entries. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

𥄲[edit]

Do you happen to know the pronunciation of this character in dialects, particularly Cantonese and Min Nan? BTW, I created this page.Johnny Shiz (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: It's highly unlikely to have dialectal pronunciations for such rare characters. They could probably be predicted from the fanqie (彌耶切; probably me4 in Cantonese, but don't put this in the entry), but I don't think there's any actual source that would have the pronunciations. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to ask something[edit]

How much does this link describe Richard Sears's etymology site? Johnny Shiz (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz Some of Richard Sears's website is ok, but some of it is not reliable. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

𠚪[edit]

A definition section says this character's definition is equivalent to . However, this has 6 pronunciations (bāo, , zōng, cōng, cóng, and zòng). None of the pronunciations were assigned with specific senses. However, 從 only has cóng, zòng, cōng, and zōng. They are assigned with specific definitions and split into 5 different "pronunciations". I have a few questions.

1) Are all senses of 𠚪 equivalent to 從? Or do some of them, particularily bāo and bō, mean something else?
2) If Q1 is "no", do all of the pronunciations of 𠚪 have identical definitions?
3) Is 𠚪 a variant, obsolete, or archaic form of 從?
4) Are 𠚪 and (simplified version of 從) graphically related?
5) Does 從 have (a) "pronunciation(s)" pronounced bāo and/or bō?

I also put 𠚪 under zh-forms for 從 under "alt. forms". But I am confused. Please help me! Johnny Shiz (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: I've fixed the entry. In addition to being an ancient form of 從, it may also be an ancient form of (according to 字彙補 and Kangxi). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Just saying (chinese)[edit]

I notice a lot that many characters have two or more traditional forms, sometimes even in the same sense, like 里,台,复,真,etc. Johnny Shiz (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: Yup, that happens. Is there anything wrong with that? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I also notice that after the simplification, very few of these remained. Do you know any examples? Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz Not quite sure what you mean. If I understand you correctly, there are more than one traditional form for each simplified form because simplification is not just simplification of individual characters but a standardization of variants. 里 replaced 裡/裏 (as well as being used for its original use); 台 replaced 臺/台, 檯/枱/台 and 颱 (as well as being used for its original use). The only instance I'm aware of where simplified Chinese has two forms for one traditional form is 著/着, depending on the standard. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Is this related to the character with three 力 in any way besides pronunciation? Johnny Shiz (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: I don't see any connection between 刕 and 劦 except its shape. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Why do you keep reverting my edits? Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: Because they're not right. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, go back and look at an older revision and see who's right. Johnny Shiz (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: I'm not getting what you're getting at. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Go back to an earlier revision of this, and see if it says that its a variant of . Johnny Shiz (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: Earlier revisions are earlier because they've been changed- more often than not because they weren't as good as what replaced them, or because they were just wrong. Earlier revisions aren't lost ancient wisdom, they're just earlier revisions. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of [edit]

This is an old version of the page for 壽. It was revised because the etymology couldn't be sourced. Can you please try to see if you can find a source for the 1st one? Johnny Shiz (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: The old etymology doesn't make much sense; the new etymology makes more sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

𠷎[edit]

Can you please attempt to search for the glyph origin for this character? Johnny Shiz (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

follow-up[edit]

I still kinda don't understand. How can this be a variant of if it were made much earlier than 草? (skepticism) I think it is an ancient or obsolete form. Johnny Shiz (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it should probably be an ancient form. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

what is this lol[edit]

𠀗𠀖𠀫𠀪 Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Also can you Google Translate what "khệnh khạng" means in English? I'm in China now, and Google is blocked there. Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Haha... I don't speak Vietnamese, so I can't be sure what khệnh khạng means. This dictionary says it means slowly. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my question yet. What is this? Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

This [bopomofo]] is from the simplified version of , . But Bopomofo is mainly used in Taiwan, and traditional characters are mainly used in Taiwan. (as well as HK, and Macau). But 儿 has other senses. My questions are this:

1) Is ㄦ derived from 儿 as a simplified character, or 儿 from another sense?
2) If it is derived from 儿 as another sense, then which sense?
3) If it is derived from 儿 as a simplified character, then why do you think that Taiwan would even venture into the realm of simplification? Simplified characters are banned in Taiwan government documents.

Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: Bopomofo was introduced in the 1910s, when China was still the ROC, when simplified characters were not really a huge concern. In fact, the Nationalist party started the discussion on simplified characters in the 1930s. It is quite possible that it is taken directly from 儿, which was probably already a common variant of 兒 at that time. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

On this page, it says that it was derived from which was an ancient form of . But ㄗ represents "z" in Bopomofo, and 卩 and 節 are pronounced "jié". The page addresses this, saying that they were formerly pronounced zié, but that seems extremely unlikely to me. Is that true? If not, please edit the page and see if you can find out why "j" becomes "z" here. Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: Bopomofo was first used to represent the sounds of Old National Pronunciation, where 節 was pronounced as ㄗㄧㄝ (zie, entering tone). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

This bopomofo has 𠫓 as its basis. On the Wikipedia page, it says the origin of 𠫓 is a pictogram of an upside-down baby (). On the Wiktionary page of ㄊ, it says that 𠫓 is an ancient variant of . 𠫓 doesn't have an article yet, and I want to create one, however I don't know which sense to use. I think it's possible for both senses to be correct. What do you think? Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: Please take a look at w:Talk:Bopomofo#Etymology of ㄊ. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Did this character exist before the simplification? Cause its traditional form, 's glyph origin lists 号 as a phonetic and as a semantic. Is the glyph origin correct? If it is, then I need to know what 号 meant before the simplification. If it isn't, then I need to know the correct glyph origin. Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

(Links added for the quotes) Wikipedia: "From 𠃉, archaic variant of yǐ or yà (乚 is yǐn according to other sources)" Wiktionary: "Derived from 𠃑, an ancient form of (Mandarin: yǐn)" Just curious, is 乚 somehow related to 隱? Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[7][edit]

How do I get it to say "..which is in turn a variant form of..."? Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: If you redirect (with {{zh-see|(something)|s}}) to a page with {{zh-see|(something else)|v}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[8][edit]

What are THESE used for? Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: Just read the file and you'll know. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

𠄑𠄍[edit]

What does 𠄑𠄍 mean? Go check on zdic and help me translate the entry. If that fails, try somewhere else. You know Chinese better than me. Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

and [edit]

They're variants of each other. How legit. Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

𠂹[edit]

二叠字 like , 三叠字 like , even 四叠字 like , but 五叠字 like 𠂹? Whoa. Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a variant of . Johnny Shiz (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

𠼢[edit]

Look at etymology 3 Johnny Shiz (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC) (PS have you read my other posts here?)

Poor Justin, getting the talk page spammed.[edit]

Here's one more. Wyang (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang Haha...
@Johnny Shiz you've gotta learn to be a tiny bit more considerate of others. I can't be up all night answering your questions. I know you're really curious, but you need to control yourself a bit. It's quite rude of you to have removed Wyang's post here; you can't just remove other people's comments that may be pointing out your faults. It's okay to make mistakes and you don't need to hide it, but you've gotta learn from them. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung I was removing spam. Isn't that good? Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: I don't think Wyang was spamming compared to what you're doing, if you know what I mean. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Sorry, I didn't know that you'd be triggered by removing that post, just trying to make good faith edits here. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: I'm sorry if I have assumed anything. I wasn't that irritated that you removed the post, but more concerned about the flood of questions, which is honestly quite overwhelming. I assume the questions are asked in good faith. I'm not pushing you away from asking questions, but there are better ways to do so. I'm not the only editor here. The questions should be asked at their appropriate places, e.g. WT:TR and WT:ES. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
An important rule of wiki etiquette: don't mess with other people's comments on talk pages, especially if you don't know the context- Wyang is a veteran editor, and was making a joke. Also, remember that everyone here is a volunteer, doing this in their spare time. A few questions are welcome. A lot of questions take too much time away from doing other things. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps I shouldn't be making jokes... Wyang (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(yes, again)[edit]

This is not listed as a variant of in the 教育部异体字字典. http://dict2.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QzAwODkx Johnny Shiz (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC) Update: Same with .

@Johnny Shiz: We don't have to follow that particular dictionary, though it is a great resource. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/111.35.15.108[edit]

I think this user is making strange edits, especially to Module:zh-see. Could you check them? (especially because it seems to be the same person who was reverted at multiple times...) —suzukaze (tc) 01:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the zh-see edits and everything that used them. There's no explanation of what an "appendix word" is, and how it's different from a variant. It's completely irresponsible to add things to entries that no one will be able to understand, and without consulting the community about it. I can't read the character variant dictionary that they linked to, so I don't know if it has an appendix. Even if there is, a variant is a variant regardless of where it's listed. My guess is a well-meaning but wrong-headed "bright idea" by someone whose level of English comprehension isn't high enough to understand what Wiktionary is doing rather than merely being able to reverse-engineer it.
I don't know Chinese well enough to tell whether their other edits have any merit or even whether there may be something to their ideas, if introduced properly- but that part was obviously wrong, so I reverted it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, Suzukaze-c Their zh-see edits are definitely wrong. This user is holding the MoE Dictionary of Variants like a Bible. The dictionary does have an appendix, but they're just more variants, but probably identified with less certainty. We have no need to mirror that dictionary. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear. I think they've been editing under other IP addresses too. Some of these also geolocate to Shandong as well. —suzukaze (tc) 05:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)