User talk:Wpi

Please put new messages at the bottom

Archives

• /Archive 1 (2022-2024)

Yilan Creole terms borrowed from Japanese

Hi, I noticed that the category got deleted since it was empty. It is very weird to list EVERY borrowed word as a derivation. Since you were doing Yilan Creole few months ago, would you kindly explain the logic? Thanks Chihunglu83 (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chihunglu83: Simply put, since Yilan Creole is Japanese-creole with zero contact after its formation, they can't be borrowed. Instead it's "inherited" from Japanese. I'm not entirely sure if {{inh}} or {{der}} should be used but it seems the latter is more common (with only a few languages where the former is used), and the answer I got after asking on Discord is also the latter. – wpi (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wpi Ok, I see your point and I saw your Discord question. The issue is, with this kind of logic (that is, we don't use {{bor+}} at all in creole etymology because it is all inherited), we can't separate lemmas such as kosi (borrowed and then clipped, in my opinion → {{der+}} ) and other borrowrings (if any), because it would be dumped into the same category. I checked some lemmas in Haitian Creole (a French-based Creole), they also use {{bor+}}/ {{bor}} to deal with this. Not sure if just only me, but I find it a bit counterintuitive to have just derivations without a borrowed category. Chihunglu83 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chihunglu83: I see why you think those should be separated, but IMO they all still fit under our existing definition of derived. I wonder if there is a better way to denote them.

Anyhow, the practice seems to be rather inconsistent, even within a language itself - I looked at several other creoles, including Tok Pisin, Nigerian Pidgin, and Louisianna Creole. Tok Pisin has 1k+ lemmas in derived from English, with ~200 "inherited" and 40 "borrowed" (which implies that around 1k entries use {{der}}); similar proportions for Nigerian Pidgin; for Lousianna Creole, almost all of derived from French lemmas are also in the "inherited" category.

Feel free to open a discussion (on BP or elsewhere) regarding which template is more appropriate for creoles. – wpi (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

thanks for moving the category stuff from WT:RFDO

I used some scripts to move everything in WT:RFM that had the word "Category" in the subject to WT:CLTR. There are still a few category-related items hiding in WT:RFM, though, either because they use "categories" or "CAT:" or something else, or just because they don't have any obvious indication in the subject that they're category-related. Benwing2 (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Can a linguistical comparison based on phonetic patterns be allowed?

My edition did not say 眼 is a cognate with that Khmer and Sanskrit word. I just made a comparison and it isn't valid, is it ? The source is my research. Yang Deming (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yang Deming: There are a couple of issues with your edit: (a) a comparison with Proto-Mon-Khmer *()ŋaaj is perhaps admissible, given that it appears to be compatatible with Old Chinese 眼 (*[ŋ]ˤ<r>ə[n]ʔ) and Old Chinese 眼 (*ŋˤə[n]ʔ), but the comparison with Sanskrit is not warranted given the discrepancies in the number of syllables and Sanskrit word being formed from a root (and note that Chinese rarely borrows from Sanskrit except Buddhism terms); (b) it contradicts with the already given (and sourced) etymology linking Old Chinese 眼 (*[ŋ]ˤ<r>ə[n]ʔ) to the earlier Old Chinese 眼 (*ŋˤə[n]ʔ); (c) the formatting is wrong, with a wrong template ({{inh}}) and wrong language code vi used in the link to PMK and the lack of template when linking to Sanskrit.

Please read WT:EL and WT:ETYM. wpi (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

識文

Hi, 我可唔可以答你呀？我哋加拿大，好多人都話自己唔識文或者唔識話，加拿大係英文地方，「唔識文」代表唔識英文。2607:FA49:B505:B600:3D7B:D5BB:2696:F762 17:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Seeking for help to change

You reverted my contribution at 連 / 连 .

@Justinrleung also did this. But actually I make a big change on this entry because I consider that this entry has too many suspicious defintion. They are never found in many digital dictionaries. . Some of them may be used in Classical Chinese.

I have tried to request consensus , such as WT:RFVCJK, but no one answers me. Please help to improve that entry. HerrGutmannsWiki (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)