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)

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 [1], 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 [2] "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. -- 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. -- 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 [3] 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": [4]. Here is an example that does not meet my criteria for using "standard in Mainland" and "standard in Taiwan", but previously would have: [5]. 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)