User talk:Wyang

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

Archives[edit]

  • Archive 1 — 2013/01/18 21:12 (UTC) to 2014/05/24 00:43 (UTC)
  • Archive 2 — 2014/05/25 15:03 (UTC) to 2015/01/25 11:17 (UTC)
  • Archive 3 — 2015/01/23 00:31 (UTC) to 2015/07/10 05:42 (UTC)
  • Archive 4 — 2015/08/15 18:18 (UTC) to 2016/07/18 01:13 (UTC)
  • Archive 5 — 2016/07/18 18:16 (UTC) to 2017/01/13 10:16 (UTC)
  • Archive 6 — 2017/01/16 04:17 (UTC) to 2017/06/27 06:38 (UTC)
  • Archive 7 — 2017/06/25 09:08 (UTC) to 2017/12/22 18:44 (UTC)
  • Archive 8 — 2017/12/24 18:40 (UTC) to

User talk[edit]

差強人意[edit]

I have added a new sense but don't know what's the best context label to describe this usage.--Zcreator (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Made some changes there (hopefully better!). Wyang (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

凡尔丁 aka 凡立丁[edit]

I tried to create these terms (the first word may be found in 现代汉语规范词典) but I can not found the correct English word. The supposed English word valetin seems not exist. Chinese Wiktionary supposes this word is from gaberdine, which is usually translated to 華達呢 (btw I created this term but don't know whether this is from English).--Zcreator (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

凡立丁 looks like a typical Shanghainese loanword, and 凡尔丁 is possibly one too. The source word is obscure; various sources point to valetin, valitin, valitine, but none of them seems to be valid English words (or words in Latin-script European languages in general) as far as I can see. They could be a local Chinese adaptation of some textile technique. With 華達呢, I think it would be pronounced hua2 da2 ni2, not ne. Linking it to gaberdine etymologically sounds unconvincing to me. There is, however, a synonym for it: 軋別丁, which is undoubtedly a Shanghainese loan from gaberdine. Wyang (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I've collected uses of English "valetin" on Citations:valetin. It seems to be only used in Chinese contexts / Chinese translations. DTLHS (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Ask on Zhihu and see if some crazy internet detective can dig something up 🤔 —suzukaze (tc) 04:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinyin entries[edit]

I think we can store pinyin of all words to some modules (like Module:zh/data/àn), which will updated by bot, and automatically generate pinyin entries. Wiktionary:Sandbox is a proof of concept (these modules will eventually replace Module:zh/data/cmn-hom). Also it may also be possible to mass create pinyin entries by bot.

Jyutping entries may also be generated in a similar way, by creating a reverse index of Module:zh/data/yue-pron and Module:zh/data/Jyutping character (PS we should merge these two modules).

By the way, see Wiktionary_talk:About_Chinese#Header_of_non-Chinese_script_entries.--Zcreator (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This would be very handy. I have the previously extracted Mandarin and Cantonese readings for multisyllabic words on Wiktionary, which I can regenerate or share if we decide to go down this path. @Tooironic Any thoughts? Wyang (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I support any feasible automatic generation of pinyin entries. From what I've seen of the database we use at the moment, though, we are often lacking, especially for literary terms. In many cases, Wenlin is much more inclusive. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Module:zh/data/wordlist/big1, Module:zh/data/wordlist/big2[edit]

I have generated a word list with 336972 words from Hanyu Da Cidian. However currently this list have some issues:

  1. It use some characters consider variant in Wiktionary, e.g. 裏 instead of 裡. This should be mass-replaced before using.
  2. It contains a large number of variant forms (e.g. 龜鑑龟鉴 and 龜鑒龟鉴 (guījiàn)).
  3. It does not contain pronunciation data, therefore compounds must be filtered manually for characters with more than one pronunciation.
  4. Also I have added a "big" paramater to Template:zh-new/der but I think the paramater (and even the word list itself) should be renamed. the word list may also contain some errors.

--Zcreator (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator Thanks!! This is very useful. With regard to the issues, #1 has to be replaced manually and individually (AFAICS); #2 may be partially solvable by having a run through of the list to remove the forms currently described as variants on Wiktionary, and keeping the trimmed list at ...big_trimmed (:)). Wyang (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

体育[edit]

Any idea why the definition preview for this simplified entry is not showing up? Strange. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic It's due to the target entry having senses wrapped in {{l|en}}. Fixed now. Wyang (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
网游 has a similar problem; the code for preview doesn't seem to recognize {{zh-short-comp}}. --Dine2016 (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dine2016 It has been fixed. Wyang (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

小学生, 沙门, 谈何容易, 蓬莱[edit]

These entries does not appear in Category:Chinese lemmas.--Zcreator (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator Fixed. Wyang (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Etymology needed[edit]

  1. 璧流離
  2. 牛彔
  3. 庵摩勒
  4. 特勤
  5. 門巴
  6. 林芝
  7. 什麼
  8. 福祿
  9. 柘枝 (http://www.doc88.com/p-2029509925182.html P51 says it is from Persian "chaj"
  10. 黑暗 and 白暗 (most obscure case)

--Zcreator (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

... One by one (till I delve into 黑暗) Wyang (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. 檟如樹
  2. 馬郎
  3. 梭梭
  4. 格納庫
  5. 哲羅魚
  6. 一賜樂業教
  7. 僕歐

--Zcreator (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator alt All done. Wyang (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

displaying non-Mandarin transcriptions when necessary[edit]

Hi Frank. Would it be possible to display Cantonese or Min Nan transcriptions for a link to a Chinese entry when no Mandarin reading is available? E.g. at 見解 it would be useful if in the Synonyms list 睇法 displayed tai2 faat3 in brackets. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic Hi. For the moment the reading has to be input manually, in the first parameter or the |tr= parameter, as there can be many non-Mandarin readings on the entry (e.g. 食飯). The current default display of Mandarin is not really ideal, and I had envisaged something more like a hover-over box similar to the examples in Cantodict. User:Suzukaze-c had an interesting idea of displaying the readings in many varieties through the template, however it could be quite crowded in some cases... Wyang (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with displaying a reading for the most commonly spoken lect, i.e. Mandarin (935 million speakers). It is, after all, only a reference for the user's convenience - for more information, they can visit the corresponding entry. After Mandarin, Cantonese and Min Nan are the most spoken lects with 59 million and 47 million speakers respectively. They are also the most well-known internationally. Why not display both in brackets? It wouldn't take up much room. Other lects can remain in the main entry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic I guess I meant displaying Mandarin by default, without any annotation, as it is misleading in cases like 睇法. Adding a small default M. before the Mandarin reading could be desirable. I think a hover-over box, or even a pop-up box on clicking, would be a much more aesthetic and cleaner (and more professional) format that the current. The Chinese Wikipedia has pop-up boxes for its regional correspondences (e.g. zh:激光) and the Chinese Wiktionary also used to use them, so they should be feasible, but I'm unsure how to write one similar. Also, Wu has 80 million, and Jin 63 million... if Wikipedia is to be believed, so it could be a bit cluttered for articles like 明白, 愛人, etc. when other varieties are extracted. There are many more features of MediaWiki yet unused in our infrastructure; I think things will (slowly) improve as we become bolder in using and incorporating other formats in our display... I also have other ideas for formatting, such as a trad-simp switch on Chinese entries (to display one type only), but they have been unfortunately bound by my ability (and idleness) so far. Wyang (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
If that means removing all Mandarin readings in brackets, I oppose that strongly. That would be terribly unhelpful for the vast majority of users. Also, a pop-up box would not work for touch screen users, which are a large percentage of visitors on Wiktionary. Wu and Jin may have many users as well, but they are much less known Cantonese and Min Nan, not to mention our coverage for these two are miles ahead of the other lects. A simple feature that displays a Cantonese and Min Nan reading where there is no Mandarin one would be helpful and would not take up too much space. I would also support a simplified reference translation in brackets too (clarify: for See also and Derived terms only), much like how we do for Simplified Chinese entries. In 99% of cases it would be entirely accurate, and it is no less problematic than the hanzi box which often displays misleading information anyway. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
(modified after doing a bit of searching) @Tooironic I did not suggest removing all Mandarin readings in brackets... I was the person who added that function in zh-l before, as such a function would certainly be useful to readers. The above was just some thoughts about how to make the system even better. We undoubtedly should display maximal information that is useful to the readers if we can, since we are not restrained by print space, but more information can come with the cost of decreased aesthetics and decreased understandability, especially if the displayed transcriptions are unfamiliar. Currently we do not distinguish zh-l in different environments: inline, in unfolded lists, or in folded lists, so displaying three lect readings +/- glosses by default will be prone to unintended crowding in some cases. Just realised that Wikipedia actually uses hover-over/pop-up boxes for inline reference previewing: w:User:Yair rand/ReferenceTooltips. I think this is definitely something we should look into for displaying our dialectal readings, definitions, etc., of course if also giving the freedom to disable and switch to another format. The mobile display, using popup windows, can also achieve a similar delivery of content preview: see mw:Mobile design/Reference reveal. Wyang (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Vietnamese cleanup[edit]

Hey. Can you please cast your expert eye over these entries at the RFC page. Have they been fixed? If so, we can remove them from RFC. --Pas un coiffeur (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

All done, I believe. Wyang (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

伢子[edit]

Hi Frank. Any idea why, in the hanzi box, 伢 displays the misspelling "child (collequial)"? I don't see this definition at the entry . ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic Well-spotted. The glosses for characters are stored at Module:zh/data/glosses, now corrected. Wyang (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Min Dong Terms to be checked[edit]

I created this, because why not. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but I probably won't be able to check many of these though. Min Dong compounds can be quite unpredictable sometimes. Wyang (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thesaurus:死亡[edit]

Hi Frank. How should I format the registers (literary, euphemistic, etc.) here? ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic Hi Carl, you can now use a semicolon to separate them: 離世;euphemistic. Please see the page Thesaurus:死亡. Wyang (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Etym of 나라[edit]

Curious if you have any insight into the derivation.

Is this related to 나다 (nada)? If so, there are intriguing sense-development parallels to English nation (as well as interest-piquing phonetic parallels...).

Older form *narak would suggest either that this is not related to 나다 (nada), or that the -rak ending is a different element, or perhaps even that the -k ending is some kind of suffix.

Very interested in any light you could shed on this. TIA! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr Don't recall seeing the proposed derivation of *narak < *na- (“to be born; to come out”) mentioned or discussed previously - and it does appear to have yet to be proposed in the literature - however the proposal and the mention of the English nation are both intriguing ideas. If *narak is indeed related to *na-, the relationship must have been rather ancient, for that it is typically not parsed as so, and that the -rak is obscure and does not seem related to a suffix which could visibly explain the *na- (“to be born; to come out”) ~ *narak relationship, except perhaps as a proposed old locative (see below). -rak (~ -rang) is usually a frequentative adverbial suffix attached to verbs or adjectives (e.g. 들락날락 going in and out frequently), and is highly prolific in Korean ideophones.
The usual derivation of Middle Korean *nalah in the literature is *na (“soil; earth; land”) + *lah (unclear element), where the *na (“soil; earth; land”) is considered cognate with Tungusic na (Manchu ᠨᠠ (na, land)), as in 李基文 (國語語彙史研究, 1991, 67–69), 徐廷範 (國語語源辭典, 2000), 姜吉云 (比較言語學的 語源辭典, 2010), Robbeets (Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic?, 2005, 405), Starling *nālV (“earth; land”), Francis-Ratte (Proto-Korean-Japanese [], 2016, 303). Francis-Ratte proposed that the *-lah/-lak/-loh/-lh was an old Korean locative, which possibly also left trace in MK hanolh (“heaven < great-place”). Robbeets suggested that *-ra in Japanese and Korean was a noun suffix (2005, 82–83), while the -h was an MK place suffix. It's interesting how early Japanese sources also attested to a -ku form, which seemed to have fallen out of favour (owing to homophony with 奈落?). Philip Baldi in Relationships of Japanese and Korean (1990):
[] the word for ‘nation’ is MK na·lah, so that it is appropriate to transcribe the hyangka citation as NAL[A-]ak. It has been noted that the Japanese place-name Nara was written not only in phonograms that clearly indicated the usual pronunciation of the name but also with the character ‘joy’ carrying the Sino-Japanese reading raku (as in Man’yō-shū 80 and Nihon-Shoki 95), so that a variant Naraku may have existed for this place-name, long suspected of being a borrowing from the Korean word.
Besides this, other theories include: (1) Beckwith (Koguryo: The Language of Japan’s Continental Relatives, 2007)'s hypothesis of OK narak < Ancient Northeastern Chinese *nraŋ ~ nrak < Old Chinese , inspired by the toponym 平壤 and discussed in the section “Neutralization of Velar Coda Distinctions” (pp. 102–105), citing the J. form 奈 as supporting evidence; (2) 梁柱東 (增訂 古歌研究, 1965, 340)'s derivation from (nay, 川) << 나리 (nali); (3) 許永鎬 (樂浪語義考(二), 1946)'s derivation from *na- (“sun”) + *ta(ng) (“earth”, modern ttang); (4) 李南德 (韓國語語源研究(III), 1998, 453)'s unusual 圓形語系說; and (5) 東言考略's folk etymology of < 羅羅 (~ 新羅). Wyang (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you again for a very interesting deep dive.  :) Many points to touch upon.
  • OJP phonetic spellings for the place name
The EN WP article on the city in Japan lists many ancient kanji spellings. Grouping these by the readings, we have:
/nara/: 名良, 奈良, 奈羅, 那良, 那羅, 楢, 儺羅
/naraku/: 那楽, 寧楽
⟨naraki2 → */narakwi/: 平城 (the -kwi ending could hint at the same -u-wi vowel shift in (kamu + i → *kamwi → kami), theorized as evolving through fusion with an emphatic nominal particle "i")
⟨no2ra⟩ → */nora/: 乃羅
⟨no2raku⟩ → */noraku/: 乃楽
Ambiguous: 常 (man'yōgana for ⟨to2/to/), 諾良 (expected reading of nakura), 諾楽 (expected reading of nakuraku), 寧 (man'yōgana for na)
The evidence for a final /k/ consonant of some form appears to be backed up by ancient Japanese spellings.
  • Homophony
The place name has a pitch accent pattern of 1, i.e. [náꜜrà] with a mid-word downstep. The imported Buddhist term for some version of hell has a pitch accent pattern of 0, i.e. [nàrákú] with no downstep. The persistence of homophonic overlap among various terms in Japanese, where pitch accent is the only audible difference, suggests that pitch accent should be (have been?) enough for these two terms to likewise remain distinct. That said, the association with hell would indeed seem to be inauspicious, possibly providing motivation for further differentiation.
  • Beckwith's theory of an ancient borrowing from Chinese
I haven't run into any suggestion that this OCH term ended in /k/, with reconstructions instead pointing to final /ŋ/. I'm also not familiar with any phonological mechanism that would devoice final /ŋ/ to /k/. The use of in Korean to spell the yang in Pyeongyang would also suggest a final /ŋ/ rather than /k/.
Moreover, Japanese very stubbornly maintains most coda consonants, as observable in tons of Middle Chinese borrowings. The exception for velars is quite regular, where the velar nasal coda consonant /ŋ/ disappears in Japanese as in Goguryeo, seen in Japanese (sei) from MCH /ʃˠæŋ/, or Japanese () from MCH /ɦuŋ/. But this doesn't apply to the velar stop /k/, as in Japanese (heki, ancient peki) from MCH /pek̚/, or Japanese (aku) from MCH /ʔɑk̚/.
Beckwith's argument regarding a supposed Northeastern Old Chinese dialect form is unconvincing; we have only the Old Goguryeo, which could just as well be evidence for a /k/ suffix arising internally within Goguryeo. From his writings, we have no actual evidence of Northeastern Old Chinese -- only an inference, which can also be explained by other means.
  • Beckwith's theory strikes me as a stretch -- but I'm aware that this is based on my own limited knowledge. What is your view of Beckwith's theory?
  • The -rak ending
The -rak ending seen even in the above older spellings for Nara might also appear in the Japanese name for the kingdom of Silla, found as Shiraki, even with the 新羅 spelling, which would have an expected Japanese reading of Shinra. Ancient man'yōgana spellings include 新羅奇 and 志羅紀, phonetically indicating ⟨siraki2 → */sirakwi/ and pointing to an earlier raku ending.
That said, none of the ancient phonetic renderings listed at w:Silla include any /k/ element at all, and the second consonant varies somewhat between /r/, /y/, and /n/, perhaps suggesting that the suffix in question is -k.
  • If OK narak represents nara- + suffix -k, is it possible that the variance in Japanese forms might not be due to Beckwith's vanishing velars (described above as unlikely), and instead point to borrowings of the OK suffixed form narak, and the unsuffixed form nara?
  • The proposed connection between the OK na element and Tungusic na meaning "land"
There is Japanese , (ni) as an ancient term referring to soil, dirt. There is also Navajo niʼ also referring to earth, ground, from reconstructed Proto-Athabaskan *nʸənˀ, and with the Dine-Yeniseian hypothesis, the ancestors of Athabaskan speakers would have migrated through northern Asia on the way to North America. Wildly speculative, but interesting.  :)
Speculation aside, there is only one na element surviving in Japanese sources I've encountered that means soil, dirt; earth, ground, and that's in the OJP term nawi, apparently meaning earth, ground but only used in reference to earthquake, and theorized to be a compound of na ("earth") + wi ("being in a place", stem of verb 居る wiru). But 1) there's no other term using this na element that I'm aware of, and 2) the semantics are very strange. I suspect that this may be a borrowing in toto from some other language, and not a native-Japanese compound.
  • Robbeets' theories about Japanese ending -ra
While clearly a nominalizing suffix in OJP, this element never appears as rak-. As shown above, the Japanese placename demonstrates clear evidence of a -k- ending element, making the native -ra nominalizing suffix an unlikely etymon. I sincerely hope that Robbeets is not instead suggesting that OJP nara was combined in Japanese with the OK placename suffix -k.
I know that's a lot, I hope it's not too much.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you for the great insights above, @Eirikr. Some thoughts:

  • Both of the 乃 forms are attested in Nihon Shoki, 乃羅 (1, 葬皇后於乃羅山) and 乃樂 (3, 戮鮪臣於乃樂山 / 後移都于乃樂 / 庚寅、初向乃樂), but the relevant occurrences do not appear to have been kana-annotated in the book. Majtczak's list of man’yōgana Kanji readings indicates that can also be read as /na/, in addition to ⟨no2; maybe this would allow us to reconcile the forms containing with the majority. The forms with are also relatively easy to explain. is a bit of an outlier. JA Wikipedia 奈良#表記 mentions that the spelling was attested in the Man’yōshū, and I was able to locate it in poem #3236: 空見津 倭國 青丹吉 常山越而(そらみつ やまとのくに あをによし ならやまこえて). Very puzzling, still.
  • I was somewhat reserved about the possibility of 奈落 having an influence on 奈良 ― as a Buddhist term transcribed from Sanskrit, the form 奈落 is strangely almost Japanese-specific, only infrequently attested in historical Chinese texts (transcription variants: 捺落迦 那落 那落迦 那羅柯 捺落). Additionally, it is made less convincing as the time of this borrowing likely postdates, or insufficiently predates, the pattern where the form /nara/ predominates over the /-ku/ form, as already seen in the Man’yōshū.
  • Beckwith's theory that the ancient Northeastern Chinese showed /-ŋ/ ~ /-k/ confusion is certainly novel to me. The derivation of *narak from looks far-fetched, and there is no reconstruction that would support an /*nr-/ initial for , the cited Sagart (1999) only discussing OC . does appear more frequently than anticipated from Sino-Korean in Goguryeo proper names (國壤王, 故國壤王, 西壤王, 中壤王, 東壤王, 好壤王), but I think these should be read with a hun (JP kun) reading /*na(ŋ)/, similar to Beckwith's postulate that the toponym 平壤 (literally flat land) had represented a native /*piarna/ (Empires of the Silk Road, 2009, 104). The in Goguryeo names is often variantly written as .
  • Generally speaking, a historical coda /-ŋ/ lenition in dialectal Chinese is not implausible: there have been previous studies showing that the Tang–Five Dynasties-era Northwestern Chinese had extensive loss and weakening of coda consonants, /-ŋ/ in particular (羅常培, 唐五代西北方音, 1933); Maspero (Le dialecte de Tch’ang-Ngan sous les T’ang, 1920, 47) examined external evidence and opined that the /-ŋ/ in the 7th–9th-century Chang'an dialect was actually a nasal fricative (/ɣ̃/). The ancient East Coast dialect of Old Chinese did have certain sound changes that set it apart from the rest (Baxter and Sagart, Old Chinese: a new reconstruction, 2014, 319–320), for example /*-r/ > /*-j/, but theories about a similar nasal coda process in ancient Eastern or Northeastern Chinese are absent apart from Beckwith's AFAIK.
    • There is certainly a possibility for a peripheral dialect in contact with non-natives to develop peculiar sound changes (cf. the intriguing change of /-t/ > /-l/ in Sino-Korean), and I am also reminded of the few examples of man'yōgana showing velar stop-nasal correspondences: ⟨tagi1, ⟨aga⟩, ⟨maga⟩, ⟨magu⟩, ⟨saga⟩, ⟨sagu⟩. And, as another mechanism, Sagart (1991, “Chinese tones from Austronesian final consonants”, and subsequent publications) believes that Old Chinese word-final nasal-glottal clusters developed from an old series of voiced stop endings: /*-mʔ, -nʔ, -ŋʔ/ < /**-b, -d, -ɡ/, which would make /*naŋʔ/ go back to an earlier /**naɡ/. At any rate, while theoretically not improbable, the evidence presented in his Koguryo (2007, 102–105) and “The Sino-Tibetan problem” (2002, 145–146), for either this particular etymology or the proposed phenomenon in archaic Northeastern Chinese at large, is still rather insufficient.
  • Francis-Ratte (2016) cites the MK form Sillah (실랗?, “Silla”), and proposes that it could be another example of the *-lah/-lak/-loh/-lh old Korean locative (that also gave rise to *nalak). I cannot yet verify the form (cf. 劉昌惇, 李朝語辭典, 1968, 499), however, if attested, this form could be an example of a word with the OK place suffix *-k, surfacing as final -k, -h or final aspiration in MK, e.g. in (kyeth, side), (nyekh, side; vicinity), (kech, front; side), (alph, front), (twūyh, back), (wuh, above), (mith, below), (anh, inside), 바ᇧ (pask, outside), (path, field), ᄯᅡᇂ (stah, ground), 바다ㅎ (patah, sea), etc. (Robbeets, 2005; Francis-Ratte, 2016, 308). The Japanese comparanda are OJ -ko, in ここ (koko, this place), そこ (soko, that place) (Francis-Ratte, 2016, 308), and the schwa-loss variant -ka, in umika “oceanside”, すみか (sumika, dwelling), ありか (arika, place where one is) (Robbeets, 2005, 85; Francis-Ratte, 2016, 308). So yes, it is possible the *-k was a suffix. :) Robbeets also discussed nawi, listing nae, suna (plain-earth) as other reflexes of the *na- (97).

(Congratulations you have reached the end :)) Wyang (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Zcreator[edit]

Please move the right to the current account as I forgot the old account's password. You can see here to prove it's my former account.--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, see the Etymology needed section above.--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, the gloss 1 of 千里馬 is displayed incorrectly.--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zcreator alt Welcome back! You may wish to ask on Wiktionary:Changing username to usurp your old account, but I've given your alternative account autopatrol rights for now. Please make sure you wikify the entries as you create them: link to the main words in the glosses, enclose explanatory definitions in {{n-g}} (e.g. 開題是一個國家 ≠ 'The name of an ancient state is a country'), and add {{lb|zh|literary}} to any sense not used in the modern language. That way we can focus our efforts (精力) on other things. 千里馬 fixed. I will take a look at those etyms whenever I have time. Wyang (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

display of synonyms[edit]

Excellent work on the synonyms display change. Would there be a way to make it collapsible like the Derived terms? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic Thanks, I made it auto-collapse when there are >10 items, and also collapsible like {{zh-der}} with |fold=1. Wyang (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Perfect! ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

血液透析[edit]

Any idea what happened here? "Lua error in Module:cmn-pron at line 321: Zhuyin conversion unsuccessful: "xie液3". Are you using a valid Pinyin syllable? Is the text using a breve letter instead of a caron one?". ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Fixed. Not all combinations of the pronunciations of 血 and 液 should be used here, so we need to specify them manually. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

硇砂[edit]

It seems a loanword but I don't know what the original word is.--Zcreator alt (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator alt It's نشادر (nošâdor). I added it to the entry. Wyang (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Gloss at [edit]

Hi Frank, do you know what's wrong with the gloss extraction there? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Yeah, it extracted everything from the second param onwards. Fixed. Wyang (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

柳安[edit]

Can you find the original word? The Hanyu Da Cidian and Cihai seems to contradict and the English term does not have an etymology either.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, check 扁桃 and 偏桃.--Zcreator alt (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Also the etymology of 西藏 is incomplete.--Zcreator alt (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@Zcreator alt Sorry it took a while. All done. Wyang (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Etymology for [edit]

Hi Frank, I have two questions regarding the etymology for :

  • Do you know why Baxter (1992) suggests that it had originally had a velar initial, but changed to a /t/ in his reconstruction with Sagart?
  • Should y in Proto-Kuki-Chin *tuy be changed to j?

— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Hi Justin. The first one is discussed in Sagart (1999)'s The Roots of Old Chinese, pp. 157–158 (let me know if you need a copy). I haven't added any PKC content, so don't really have a strong opinion on the second. It may be good to keep it consistent with PST. Wyang (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added some info from Sagart (1999) to the entry and changed the PKC y to a j. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

EWDC #5[edit]

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 00:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

bug with synonyms display[edit]

Hi Frank. The automatic synonyms header is displaying as "Derived terms" e.g. at 死亡. Could you help? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic Oops... Fixed. Wyang (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. One more thing: how can I get antonyms to display in the entry? E.g. at 了解 which has a few antonyms listed. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic This will require some new templates. Please see my changes to 了解 and Thesaurus:了解. Wyang (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks, I will follow that in the future. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

不懂[edit]

Hi Frank. When you get time could you help me look at the synonyms/antonyms display here? Still seems off. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic This is confusing... when syn is ant and ant is syn lol. I added a |name= parameter to the templates for these cases, and it should be better now. Maybe we should collapse these boxes by default? (I think we should look into alternative modes of formatting/display for syn/ant, preferably under the defs, collapsed by default, like [quotations].) Wyang (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Why not just have Thesaurus:了解 and Thesaurus:不懂? —suzukaze (tc) 03:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't that double the amount of work required? It would be best if we could house all the relevant terms at one main entry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

MK for "water"[edit]

(I'll reply later to the thread above about nara / narak.  :) )

I just ran across the Academia.edu site, and have been reading some of Vovin's presentations there. In this one in particular (sign-up might be required), he seems to be saying that MK and OK for water was (meul), whereas our entry lists this as deriving from (mil, water), from earlier Proto-Korean *mɨ́r.

Is our entry wrong? Or is he barking up the wrong tree?

I've found his analyses of OJP occasionally off base, as in Out of Southern China, wherein he makes an interesting case for some JA cognates with proto-Tai-Kadai. Some of his OJP parsing misses the mark (he seems to mis-analyze a suffixing 連用形 as instead a prefix for the following verb), but other pieces seem potentially on-target. I know he's published quite a bit, and I'm finally getting around to reading his stuff. Trying to figure out what to make of it.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Shh... Yeah it should be 믈. I loved the disclaimers in his Out of Southern China. The actual comparisons he gave are unconvincing though, especially towards the end. But it is an interesting read, as long as one takes it with a grain of salt. Wyang (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I finally realized you had a link there in the Shh.  :) So the barred-i is supposed to be ㅡ, not ㅣ? Where the heck did that convention come from? Oofda. I really wish folks could settle on a clear and consistent transcription system. <...sigh.../> Thanks for clarifying! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

East sea and Dokdo[edit]

Hello,I'm Jun hyeok Lee.And my ID is Sbc212. The Sea of Japan is not true,and the the Korean East sea is true! On a basis of Dokdo is korean area. The The King Sejong's Recorders 50th page 3rd line has the contents of Dokdo is Korean area. And The Chronicles of the Three States,History of the Three Kingdoms,Donggukyeojiseungnam etc. But it's Korean data.But 1894years Japanese New South Korean national map has dokdo in Korea. And 1880years Japanese Officer map doesn't have Dokdo. So the Korean East sea is true and Sea of Japan is false. Please lift my account and delete the Relevant of Sea of Japan. Please!I want to tell the true contents Sbc212 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sbc212: We have no interest in those here on Wiktionary. The common English name is "the Sea of Japan". You can go to Wikipedia to argue further. Wyang (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The Sea of Japan is not real English name! And the Korean East Sea is real name! The reason is lots of! It’s a Japanese ambition! Please!I want to tell the true contents!Please think about it ,and find it please! Please it’s my hope.

@Sbc212 The burden of proof is on you. A simple Google search shows close to 2 million results, so you can't say it's not a "real" English name. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

ជន[edit]

Look at ជន. The second km-noun cannot override with cɔɔn. Please have a solution in this case. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Octahedron80 We can use |phon=ជន like in Thai: diff. Wyang (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I forgot the phon parameter already. :P --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

ច័ក[edit]

Why ច័ក become caʔ? It is not equivalent to cak. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Octahedron80 Please see:
Wyang (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of [edit]

Hi Frank. Could you check the recently added etymology of ? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Hi Justin. It looks good to me. It's discussed in 二十世纪的近代汉语研究 (pp. 317–318); an excerpt is here. Wyang (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I've fixed the etymology based on 二十世纪的近代汉语研究. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung Very well done! Thanks. Wyang (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
😄 — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

ប្លា[edit]

I cannot respell ប្លា to get /plaː/, it result in /pʰlaː/ which is incorrect. Please help. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

PS There are many words with ប្ល that read /pl/ and few /bl/. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Octahedron80 It should in fact be /pʰlaː/ (there are audios on this site). Theoretically, /bl/ is not possible in Standard Khmer, as /b/ at the start of an initial cluster is automatically devoiced to /p/ (rule 3, pp. 27), and the /p/ becomes aspirated when it is followed by /l/ (rule 4), to yield /pʰl/. /bl/ is only found in dialects and maybe loans. Wyang (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Did you check this? [1] I wonder why it uses pl instead of pʰl. Also, we can search SEALang [2] with pl.* in IPA. The result includes ប្ល. But pʰl.* returns nothing.--Octahedron80 (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Yes, Headley's dictionaries consistently write the cluster /pʰl/ as /pl/, although the /p/ is aspirated. There are no words with /pʰl/ in their IPA on Sealang, as far as I can see. Wyang (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
About /bl/, I see them at ប្លុក on tovnah and bl.* at sealang either. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. But if you click on the Headley entry, you can see that it is also plok. The Modern Khmer-English Dictionary doesn't have this word at all, only includes the native homograph pronounced /plok/. This and បាឡាត់ (baalat) were the only words I found on Sealang that could have /bl/ in the Standard language, although I don't find the distinction between /bl/ and /pl/ very convincing: cases including /bl/ are too rare, and in the two examples, the first appears to be a pronunciation imitating the original French pronunciation, and the second is an abbreviated reading. Wyang (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:ltc-l not quite working at 嘲笑#Japanese[edit]

Hello Frank, I was hoping you could have a look and fix whatever's broken in the MC reading lookup feature of Template:ltc-l, as currently viewable at 嘲笑#Japanese. It's pulling the reading for , but not . I now see this:

(MC ʈˠau)

TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr Weird as it seems, 笑 was written as 𥬇 in Guangyun, explaining the absence of 笑. I have moved the reading there. (𥬇) Wyang (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Zayton / زيتون[edit]

Is this word a phono-semantic matching?--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The Arabic word does seem to be, although the connection with “olives” is not entirely clear (Kauz, Aspects of the Maritime Silk Road). Wyang (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk page protection[edit]

Hey Wyang. Do you have a reason for protecting your talk page? In general, I think that anons should be able to contact admins freely. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: This. Wyang (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
What on earth is the objective of that weirdo at this point? I am legitimately baffled. —suzukaze (tc) 02:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
It’s a “catch me” game for him. Apparently he’s enjoying it. I’ve protected my talk page for the same reason - diff. @Chuck Entz: I think we could use a mass revert tool similar to the “nuke” admin tool. Was a range block applied? —Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
My read on this is that he's trying to push our buttons and see if he can goad us into doing stupid things so he can feel superior. The best way to deal with him is to quietly revert his edits, revdel the talk-page melodrama, give the IP he's using a relatively short-term block, and ignore him.
Range-blocks are rarely a good idea because they also block non-related anonymous contributors. In this case, they're pointless because he knows how to use proxies (if I suspect they're anonymous proxies, I may do a long-term block, though I may have to rethink that). Also, just ignore the lists- I would expect him to be throwing in lots of unrelated IPs and accounts to waste our time and to try to trick us into blocking innocent third parties.
As for mass reverts: I don't know any way to do that, but just opening all his current edits in separate tabs and reverting them assembly-line style comes pretty close. I would check the edit histories, though, to be safe in case there's more than one IP involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: I was talking about Special:Nuke, just in case - it allows to mass delete page creations by pesky editors. Opening individual edits will still require quite a few clicks and time. If a rogue editor is identified as hostile, then his/her edits should be reverted wholesale before they are overwritten with subsequent edits. It works quite discouragingly too, the vandals quickly will realise they hardly waste anybody else's time but theirs! I know we don't have such a tool ready but maybe we should request it? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I think this is what we should do at this point. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान)

Category:Han characters needing common meanings[edit]

Is it the time that this category to be cleared?--Zcreator alt (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm running that now: Special:Contributions/Wyangbot. Wyang (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it should be removed from entries that don't have {{rfdef|zh}}, like 𫠡. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
They are tracked in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:tracking/zh-han/translingual-only_character. The translingual section is not suitable for new definitions - they should be added to appropriate languae section.--Zcreator alt (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Zcreator alt: Ah ok, thanks! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The category is now emptied by we should modify Template:rfdef to show a error message when using the parameter.--Zcreator alt (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Han isn't a normal language code so if we remove it it should not work properly anyway. —suzukaze (tc) 04:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted now. Wyang (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

雪茄[edit]

Please check the etymology. Wikipedia says “雪茄”这中文译名为徐志摩所译,音译之余,也取其灰白如雪,因以为名。 But it seems the term is coined much earlier.--Zcreator alt (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator alt Yes check.svg Done. Wyang (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of kembali[edit]

How are kembali and balik related, as suggested by your edit on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kembali? Were "k" and "bali" once meaningful morphemes (bound or unbound)? (I'm not questioning your sources/edit, but I am really interested in their relationship and etymologies) —This unsigned comment was added by Chieuleheng (talkcontribs) at 04:35, 14 March 2018‎.

@Chieuleheng Hello, please see Note #14 of Blust's Notes on Proto-Malayo-Polynesian Phratry Dualism (1980), pp. 243. Wyang (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Huế dialect phonology[edit]

Do you have any paper on the uôi, ươi, iêp, yêu in Central Vietnamese (particularly the Huế dialct). Are they still fully pronounced or reduced into ui, ưi, ip, iu as in Southern Vietnamese? PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@PhanAnh123
Thompson's A Vietnamese Reference Grammar (1987), pp. 82–84 briefly discussed the Huế dialect's phonology. According to him, ‹uôi›, ‹ươi› and ‹yêu› are pronounced the same as ‹ui›, ‹ưi› and ‹iu›. ‹iêp› is more reduced (“/iip/”) than ‹iêt›, ‹iêc›, but it is still not equivalent to ‹ip›.
Nguyen Dinh-Hoa's Vietnamese-English Dictionary (1966, red-covered) has a “Northern-Central-Southern” three-dialect phonology comparison, and its values agree with Thompson's. Images for reduced ‹uôi›, ‹ươi› and ‹yêu›. ‹iêp› is /iəp/, same as Hanoi.
By the way, final tables for different dialects can be found in Tiếng Sài Gòn: Vận mẫu phương ngữ Quảng Nam and Vận mẫu phương ngữ Nghệ Tĩnh. Wyang (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

A Vietnamese word[edit]

In southern Vietnamese there's a dialectal term pronounced as [ju], with the meaning "to hide", while seems to be related to giấu, I couldn't decide how it should be spelled (should it be "dú" or "giú"?), and there's not much on the webs about this word too. Is it related to giú/ which means "to make fruits ripe"? Do you get any idea? PhanAnh123 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@PhanAnh123 This is an interesting case. Vietnamese dialect dictionaries seem to have differing opinions:

  • Nguyễn Như Ý (1999), Từ điển đối chiếu từ địa phương, pp. 166 and pp. 217:
(T(rung).) đgt. Giấu. Hấn dú ở mô mà nỏ tìm thấy. (Hắn giấu ở đâu mà không tìm thấy.)
dú giếm (T.) đgt. Giấu giếm. Có dú giếm ngài ta cụng biết. (Có giấu giếm người ta cũng biết.)
giú (N(am).) đgt. Rấm trái cây cho chín. Chuối non giú ép chát ngầm, Trai tơ đòi vợ khóc thầm thâu đêm. (cd.)

  • Bùi Minh Đức (2004), Từ điển tiếng Huế, pp. 286 and pp. 394:
 dấu, che, cất (Dú tiền trong bao gạo. Dú dú đút đút như tụi ăn trộm).
dú đút (giấu đút) che dấu (Anh có vợ rồi nên dú đút cô vợ hầu chỗ khác. Dú dú đút đút).
dú diếm dấu diếm.
[]
giú dấu (Giú vợ).
giú quá kỹ dấu đồ kỹ quá nên quên mất chỗ cất, tìm không ra (Giú quá kỹ miếng bánh khi thúi mới biết).

  • Huỳnh Công Tín (2007), Từ điển từ ngữ Nam Bộ, pp. 565:
giú /zuː⁵/, [jʊʷ⁵] (vt) rấm, ủ trái cây cho chín. Ba cái chuối già này chỉ cần giú hai ngày là chín rục hết thôi.
giú ép /zuː⁵ ɛːp⁵/, [jʊʷ⁵ ɛːp⁵] [01] (vt) ủ trái cây non chưa già để có trái chín sớm bán. Chuối non giú ép chát ngầm. Trai tơ đòi vợ khóc thầm thâu đêm. (cd)
giú khí đá /zuː⁵ xiː⁵ daː⁵/, [jʊʷ⁵ xiʲ⁵ daː⁵] [101] (vn) ủ trái cây bằng đất đèn cho mau chín. Thường mấy trái cây non, bọn buôn nó hay giú khí đá cho mau chín, nên ăn mấy trái cây ấy có ra gì đâu.

giú: Giấu. Che giấu. Đứa mô giú quyển sách của em X thì đưa ra. Cái chuyện động trời như rứa tại răng mi giú cho hắn?

giú (+N) đgt. 1. Nh chú, rấm (B): Bỏ chuối trong lu gạo mà giú cho mau chín. 2. dấu: Cụ mi thi đậu thì phải đãi anh em một bữa, cha răng mà giú kỹ rứa?


It's basically a hotchpotch of forms and orthographies. Amongst the above, Bùi (2004)'s inclusion of both and giú is puzzling. It is most likely an oversight, considering the use of non-orthographical forms such as dấu, dấu diếm, but there is a slim chance that it was intentional.
I think the two senses above are related, and are related to giấu, as well as a further Central Vietnamese form chú (same as sense #2 below). Giú is the etymological (and hence orthographical) form for the dialectal words, and should have two senses:
  1. (Central Vietnam, Southern Vietnam) to hide; to cover; to conceal
  2. (Central Vietnam, Southern Vietnam, specifically) to cover fruits to make them ripe artificially
The giú form is archaic, and the ‹âu› – ‹u› variation of Standard vs. (originally regional) Central Vietnamese parallels that in trâutru (buffalo), trầutrù (betel), sâusu (deep), bầu (gourd), gấugụ (bear), etc.
The reconstructed Proto-Vietic form is conceivably *p-cuːʔ; Mường has chủ (to hide), and Rục cuː3 (“to cover seeds”, Ferlus), pacoːh3 (?, “to hide; to conceal”, Russian field rec.). Wyang (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your research! PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

km-usex[edit]

What's wrong at ប្រេង when using km-x two times? I think it is about unpaired tags. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Octahedron80 The zero-width space messed it up. I will make the template spit out an error when the char is present. Wyang (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Wjcd subpages[edit]

Assuming you have no use for any of these, would you mind deleting them all? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Sure, all deleted. Wyang (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

variant pronunciations of 紮[edit]

Hi Frank. Could you help me check if the variant pronunciations of 紮 are handled correctly at the entries 紮腳, 捆扎 and 紮住? Not sure when we should display zā. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I've taken a look at these entries and made the necessary changes. I've also made clearer for when zā, zhā and zhá should be used. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Justin! ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

บ้านเมือง[edit]

Is the translit for Matthew 23:38 supposed to look like

duu tə̀ət · ‘’‘’ bâan-mʉʉang kɔ̌ɔng jâo jà tùuk lá-tíng hâi rók-ráang gɛ̀ɛ jâo ‘

? —suzukaze (tc) 04:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@suzukaze-c Fixed. Wyang (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

th-pron[edit]

I just noticed that homophones in th-pron is missing. Please bring them back. See กัน. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Octahedron80 My bad, Fixed. Wyang (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Will {{lo-pron}} be next on our agenda? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, I don't have a lot of resources on Lao pronunciations though at this stage. Wyang (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I wonder what Octahedron80 has to say about the potential for the template. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
If this gets started, I'll take part in it, إِنْ شَاءَ ٱللَٰه (ʾin šāʾa llāh) :). There are less resources but Lao spelling is simpler than Thai, Khmer and Burmese, much more phonetic. We will still need respellings in some cases as well and a way to identify syllable boundaries (-) and consonant clusters, cf Thai . The current automated transliteration module makes much less mistakes even without these measures, if these are introduced and with some fixes, it may get nearly perfect, IMO but I am not sure if there are too many irregularities in terms of tones in Lao. We can use only terms available in Sealang to be safe, which gives IPA with tones. Unfortunately, there are no respellings in the Internet, so there will be some learning curve and initial struggle. Potential problems may be caused by words spelled the Thai way (=traditional, not phonetically). Modern Lao is like simplified Thai, really, many rules are similar, including the tone rules (what's the Lao equivalent of Thai (hɔ̌ɔ) to convert to high class?), and less exceptions, less complex clusters. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

ctext[edit]

Is is just me or is ctext.org now blocked in the PRC? ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic Indeed it seems to be: “This URL appears to be blocked in China”. I'm not sure about the reason though, seems strange for a site like ctext. Wyang (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed! How sad. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Are there any other sites that allow for the searching of words in a guwen database? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic Not to my knowledge, unfortunately. You can try climb over the wall instead ... Wyang (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
OK no worries. Cheers! ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: 搜韻 (mostly poetry) and Kanseki Repository are good resources for guwen. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks Justin! ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: No problem :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm in Wuhan and typically ctext.org doesn't load for the first time but does after a few refreshes. ctext.cn works, though --Dine2016 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I can use ctext.cn from now on. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
...which now redirects to ctext.org which opens no problem. Looks like going through ctext.cn first circumvents the ban. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

EWDC #6[edit]

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

Equinox 21:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

孿生[edit]

Hi Frank, is the lüánshēng reading correct here? Just wanted to confirm. I've never heard lüán before. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic It is very weird in the Mainland, but it is an alternative reading in Taiwan: 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本. Wyang (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I see, thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

WTO, Cookie etc.[edit]

  1. Should we have a translingual section in WTO and cookie? e.g. Danish and Swedish seems using the initialism WTO directly.
  2. Should we add Chinese citations to the English entries of WTO?
  3. Should we add a English entry in Cookie mentioning it is mainly used in Chinese context? like this.

--Zcreator alt (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator alt: Good question! I’m all ears. We need a language policy on this sort of things. I believe in votes, though. We need to do some work on it. -- Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
2, 3: Yes. Cookie is not mainly used in a Chinese context; it is mainly used by non-native speakers who are unfamiliar with English capitalisation rules. There is way too little non-native English information (sense, pronunciation) here on Wiktionary. Wyang (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Template_talk:zh-pron#Shaozhou_Tuhua[edit]

What's your opinion?--Zcreator alt (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know enough to comment on this. I just ordered a Nüshu dictionary and will need to research a bit more, but tentatively I think merger in a model similar to Dungan is reasonable. Wyang (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

strange edits[edit]

Hi Frank. Are these edits legit? They look a little dodgy to me. 車房 西京 汴京 中京 南京 北京 鞦韆 ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes :( —Suzukaze-c 01:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Furigana[edit]

Heya, I saw your recent update to the ZH etym at 大津, and was surprised to see you adding furigana. I've long been concerned that furigana could be confusing in any non-Japanese entry. For readers unfamiliar with furigana, these appear to be additional parts of the glyphs. (I've done informal surveys among acquaintances.) My own sense from a usability perspective is that we should not be using furigana except in Japanese entries. Do you have strong feelings about proactively using furigana in non-Japanese entries? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I remember we've agreed upon not using furigana in non-Japanese entries before, but I think Wyang (and I as well) think it's not that confusing in Chinese entries since it is quite obvious which parts are kanji if you know Chinese characters. It's currently still used in many etymologies and definitely in {{CJKV}} used under the descendants section. I also like the fact that it's autogenerating the romanization, which would minimize that error. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Autogenerating romanization is a plus. I also get your point about Chinese readers being less confused about glyphs.
However, for Chinese learners, introducing confusion about glyph shapes still strikes me as a usability issue, and kana are not anything either Chinese readers or English readers are likely to understand, much less so outside of Japanese contexts. It leaves me uneasy. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I’m also of the opinion that it’s not that confusing to Chinese readers or learners, since they are already familiar with the Chinese characters, and in cases like 大津 the Chinese characters are the same as the Japanese, and furigana acts as a guide for the pronunciation, much like in Chinese-language Japanese textbooks. A lot of Chinese speakers have an active or at least passive knowledge of some Japanese; I would suspect that Japanese is the most popular second language after English, in Mainland China, Taiwan, etc., so furigana is not really that foreign and confusing to someone who knows Chinese. I also think that it should be the default link format for Japanese texts in Japanese entries, especially in etymologies, where the links tend to be furigana-less currently. Wyang (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You accidentally broke {{affix|lang1=LANG}} (again)[edit]

Please be careful updating the Module:etymology code ... you introduced an extra parameter in format_borrowing without fixing all the callers, which reintroduced a bug that I just fixed a few days before (see спекулировать (spekulirovatʹ) for an example). Also, the documentation you added to {{learned borrowing}} and {{orthographic borrowing}} mentions the |nocap= parameter without mentioning the much more important |notext= parameter, which doesn't exist in {{borrowing}} because it's the default. Note that the {{orthographic borrowing}} template you introduced is incompatible in this respect with {{borrowing}}. (I'm personally of the opinion that |notext= should be the default for all of these templates, and you should need to specify |withtext= to get the extra text.) Benwing2 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I fixed this. Benwing2 (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think the template {{affix}} should be used like this though; it is too disorderly. It should just be {{bor|ru|de|spekulieren}} + {{affix|ru|-овать}}. The element 1 can come from language 1, element 2 from itself, element 3 from language 2, suffix 1 from ... all types of weirdness. By the way, the text on the template output is discussed at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/April#Removing text on learned borrowing and doublet. I don't think the text should be removed either, at least on {{orthographic borrowing}}. 'Orthograhpic' should almost always be displayed on pages that call the template: 'borrowing' on Wiktionary refers to phonetic borrowing by default, and a reader who reads that Chinese 取消 (qǔxiāo) is borrowed from Japanese torikesu is likely to have a 黑人問號臉 than be enlightened. Wyang (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Aucklandia[edit]

[This search for 'aucklandiae'] consists almost entirely of Chinese entries. "Radix aucklandiae" is a name of something used in traditional herbal medicine, which I have assumed is Aucklandia lappa, which is now taxonomically Saussurea costus.

Do you have a source that indicates the taxonomic name (preferably current) of the plant "radix aucklandiae" derives from?

I'd like to have entries for all the names of such ingredients that are attestable in Engish as well as for the the taxon names of the source plants. Is there a reasonably good English-language source that has the Latin names of Chinese herbal medicines and the taxonomic names of the plants (or other organisms) from which the medical ingredients are derived. DCDuring (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, I would like to make sure that there is agreement on the proper links for the various Hyponyms and Derived terms in Chinese entries. Should the link be from the Chinese entry to the Latin ingredient name, directly to the taxonomic name, or both? I'd be willing to make it both. DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)