Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK

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

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for deletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This page is for entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English. For entries in other non-English languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
  • Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”



See also:

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

  • Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
  • Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.

In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV failed” or “RFV passed” (for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

Tagged RFVs

February 2018[edit]


Seems to be the wrong traditional form of 複審. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There're many hits in Google Books.--Zcreator (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zcreator: True. Do you think there are any differences between 復審 and 複審 in terms of meaning? (In Cantonese, they would be pronounced differently.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is the correct form, and 複審 is a wrong form, which must be verified ([1], [2]). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TAKASUGI Shinji: (This is a really late response.) I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on. Guoyu Cidian only has 複審. It seems like both 復審 and 複審 are valid from the google hits, but there might be some differences in meaning. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@廣九直通車 I'm wondering if you're familiar with this term's usage in law, particularly in Taiwan. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: While I'm not the most familiar with Taiwanese law, a search on Chinese Wikisource revealed a number of legal documents using this form:
Article 121, Execution of Penalty in Prisons Act
受刑對於廢止假釋一百十八不予許可假釋處分不服收受處分翌日法務提起復審假釋受刑假釋撤銷不當 [MSC, trad.]
受刑对于废止假释一百十八不予许可假释处分不服收受处分翌日法务提起复审假释受刑假释撤销不当 [MSC, simp.]
Shòuxíng rén duìyú qián tiáo fèizhǐ jiǎshì jí dì yībǎi shíbā tiáo bùyǔ xǔkě jiǎshì zhī chùfēn, rú yǒu bùfú, dé yú shōushòu chùfēn shū zhī yìrì qǐ shí rì nèi xiàng fǎwù bù tíqǐ fùshěn. Jiǎshì chū jiān zhī shòuxíng rén yǐ qí jiǎshì zhī chèxiāo wèi bùdāng zhě, yì tóng. [Pinyin]
(please add an English translation of this example)
Chapter 3 Heading, Protection of Civil Servant Act
復審程序 / 复审程序  ―  fùshěn chéngxù  ―  (please add an English translation of this example)
Enclosed Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 611
原告不服提起復審復審決定駁回提起行政訴訟 [MSC, trad.]
原告不服提起复审复审决定驳回提起行政诉讼 [MSC, simp.]
Yuángào bùfú, tíqǐ fùshěn, zài fùshěn, jūn zāo juédìng bóhuí, suì tíqǐ xíngzhèngsùsòng. [Pinyin]
(please add an English translation of this example)
Regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@廣九直通車: Thanks for the quotes. I looked at the English translations of some of these, and it seems like it refers to "deliberation" (Protection of Civil Servant Act) or "petition" (Execution of Penalty in Prisons Act). Are these the same thing, and how do these correspond to our current definition of "to review a legal case; to retry a case"? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgconlaw I wonder if you'd be able to help here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: what are you asking me? — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgconlaw: The question above about "deliberation" and "petition". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: I'm afraid my Mandarin isn't good enough to help. But for what it's worth, I used Google Translate on the passages quoted above, and they seem to be applying sense 2 of 復審 ("to review a legal case; to retry a case"). I have no idea if this is different from 複審, though. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgconlaw: I should've linked to the English translations.
監獄行刑法 Prison Act, Article 121: Where an inmate disagrees with the decision to cancel parole in the preceding paragraph or a decision to deny parole, he/she may file a petition to the Ministry of Justice within the ten (10) days starting from the next day following the delivery of decision to the inmate.
公務人員保障法 Civil Service Protection Act, Article 25: 公務人員對於服務機關或人事主管機關(以下均簡稱原處分機關)所為之行政處分,認為違法或顯然不當,致損害其權利或利益者,得依本法提起復審。 A civil servant may petition for deliberation pursuant to this Act against an administrative action, taken by the agency he/she serves or the Personnel Management Authority(hereinafter referred to as "the original action agency"), which, he/she thinks unlawful or obviously illegitimate and causes the infringement of his/her rights or interests.
Do these sound like it's the same as "to review a legal case; to retry a case"? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The literal translation provided by Google Translate seems to indicate a request for a legal case to be reviewed. Petition is too broad; that just refers to a request in general. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]


Google News results are exclusively from Falun Gong-related sources (soundofhope, epochtimes, ntdtv). Also probably missing a context label regarding connotation? —Suzukaze-c 08:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Chinese, I've added four quotes at Citations:中共病毒. Two are from Epoch Times-related media. The earliest we have is from 陳泱潮, who does not seem to be affiliated with Falun Gong, and another is from 梁文韜, who isn't known to be affiliated with Falun Gong either. 中共病毒 should be cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

中共肺炎#Chinese, #Japanese[edit]

Ditto. —Suzukaze-c 08:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The terms were coined, likely partly in condemnation of the Chinese Communist Party's cover-up of the epidemic in Wuhan. --Apisite (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If all cites are coming from Falun Gong-related sources as suggested by Suzukaze-c, we probably shouldn't consider them independent sources. We need to look outside of Falun Gong sources. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There's 40,000 to millions of Falun Gong followers out there; that's more than speakers of many languages we document here. If three leftist German newspapers used a term, we wouldn't consider them not independent sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes: Maybe I was mistaken about the extent of association of these media outlets to a single organization. I'm not 100% sure how the organization of Falun Gong practitioners works. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it can be traced back to even earlier sources that use 中共病毒 not to refer to COVID-19, but other viruses that have been associated with China, like H5N1 (I think), as in this article. But again, it comes from Epoch Times. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I put four instances in Japanese at Citations:中共肺炎. One is from Epoch Times, one from Nico Nico and cited to Epoch Times, but one is in Mainichi Shimbun (quoting a Japanese politician), and one on a surfing blog. They don't span more than one year, but they seem to be more or less independent (discounting the two Epoch-sourced quotes). Cnilep (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added another from this past week, so now they span nearly one year (about a week short). It's from 'G-News'; I don't know if that is Falun Gong-related, but the story certainly seems anti-PRC. I've also added "sometimes offensive" to the entry, as the usage is exclusionary and in at least one case has been called "hate speech". Cnilep (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cnilep: are you sure the quotes you added are from durably archived sources? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who publishes the web pages or what their archiving policies are, but they include links. You can check them out if you have any doubt. (The exception is Mainichi Shimbun, which is a national newspaper and is durably archived in libraries and databases.) Cnilep (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cnilep: Sorry, I just saw your reply now. I don't think web pages are generally considered durably archived. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: Um, OK. It's slightly annoying that some editors suggest web pages are not acceptable while other insist that only materials available online are acceptable, but such is the nature of a large group project, I suppose. Cnilep (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Epoch Times is archived in Lexis/Nexis, so that and Mainichi Shimbun make two. I'll look for another. Cnilep (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cnilep: Thanks. I don't think only materials available online are acceptable, just preferred (according to how I am reading WT:ATTEST). I don't think web pages are acceptable unless they are somehow durably archived. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Japan Business Press appears to self-archive (their members page says "more than 30,000 archived articles over the 10 years since the first issue"), but is not in Lexis/Nexis or Proquest. If that's acceptable, it's the third archived (but not easily accessible) attestation. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the durably archived ones currently there are only from 2020, but Epoch Times continues to use the phrase. Cnilep (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cited for 中共肺炎#Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RFV passed for 中共肺炎#Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: omen. Added by an anon IP. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have also rfv-sensed the other definitions added by said IP: essence. Mechanism. Hinge; crux. These are not in any dictionaries I have access to, and are certainly not used in the vernacular. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tooironic: These seem to be from Hanyu Da Cidian. I think "omen" = "征兆,端倪", "essence" = "奥妙;真谛;底细", "mechanism" = "机关,发动机械装置的枢机", and "hinge; crux" = "引申指起决定性作用的事物"? I think the definitions could definitely be refined. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Modified "omen" as "sign; clue" and "mechanism" as "hidden mechanical device that moves other parts of the contraption when touched". These two senses are cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RFV passed for "omen" > "sign; clue" and "mechanism" > "hidden mechanical device that moves other parts of the contraption when touched". The other senses still need verification. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]


"diaper" —Suzukaze-c 19:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Google Books hits, I see a lot of scannos for ダイバー (daibā, diver), ダイバージェンス (daibājensu, divergence), that kind of thing.
Seems like it's probably cromulent, but also rare. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've seen this on a diaper changing station in a bathroom. Searching for the expanded form ダイパーチェンジ "diaper change" turns up a lot of use examples for brand name products. Soap 13:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added two uses of 'diaper cake' (which is apparently a thing, originally from the US and now popular in Japan?) and one of 'diaper pot'. I also labeled it as uncommon and used in compounds. Cnilep (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Chinese, Etymology 2)[edit]

The reading and definition looks suspiciously like a ghost entry inherited from earlier lexicographers. The source seems to be the 《觀象玩占》, an astrology book attributed to Li Chunfeng. A passage from the book reads 辰星…一曰免星 link, where the character could have been a misprint of something including or . The 《古今圖書集成》, quoting from the passage, corrects this character as link to the page. 《集韻》 has an entry 毚兔【辰星別名,或省】 link to page, which in the Jiyun formula seems to say these two characters and were considered variants to each other without specifying the linguistic context or referring to attestable literature. Overall the textual quality of these appearances has been subpar, and the reading, especially the tonal value in modern Mandarin, is not well-supported.

--Frigoris (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Frigoris: I just got around to reply. Hanyu Da Zidian quotes Shiji for this: 《史記·天官書》:“兔過太白。”司馬貞索隱:“《廣雅》云:‘辰星謂之兔星。’則辰星之別名兔。或作毚也。”張守節正義:“《漢書》云:‘辰星過太白,閒可械劍。’明《廣雅》是也。” — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Shiji passage should be enough for verification. However, it seems that the 欽定四庫全書, 摛藻堂四庫全書薈要, 益雅堂叢書 and 古今逸史 versions of 廣雅 all read "辰星謂之...免星", which is different from what 司馬貞 quotes. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the different versions of Shiji, and it seems like the 欽定四庫全書, 汲古閣毛氏, 古香齋袖珍十種, 北京大學圖書館, 摛藻堂四庫全書薈要, 乾隆御覽四庫全書薈要, 哈佛燕京圖書館 (1), 哈佛燕京圖書館 (2) and 武英殿二十四史 editions all have 免. I wonder why modern editions of Shiji have 兔. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung, thank you very much for the research. If you ask me, I can only say "textual corruption", which is a huge problem with the Shiji in general. I checked the (Semi-)Critical Edition by Gu Jiegang et al. which reads in the passage quoting the lost text of Huangfu Mi, and in the main text. OTOH, the 《廣雅》 passage as quoted in the Shiji CE reads , but the 《廣雅》 was a secondary source considerably later than the Shiji, and its own textual history may just be as bewildering. For example, this passage from the purported Ming-era edition (i.e. same as the 古今逸史 edition you quoted above) clearly reads . I haven't got the time to dig into the critical edition of 《廣雅疏義》, which you can read here. --Frigoris (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]


Rfv-sense: grammatical particle for perfective aspect (in Wu language). The quotation does not seem to match the sense: the translation given there is an imperative sentence. --Frigoris (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Frigoris: 蘇州方言詞典 defines it as “句末助詞,表示變化或新情况,相當于北京話句末助詞‘了’” and lists these examples: “吾吃仔飯~|大家來吧,吃飯~|落雨~|天要好~|再等等,俚馬上來~|吾一走,屋裏嘸不人燒飯~|俚葛閑話好相信,太陽要從西天出來~!”. 上海方言詞典 is a little more vague and defines it as “語氣詞,表時態,用於句子末尾,相當於北京話的‘了’” and lists these examples: “落雨~|好~,𧟰吵~|我明朝就要回屋裏去~|儂再稍爲等一歇,我已經辣着鞋子~,就要好快~”. 上海话大词典 divides it into several definitions:
  • (旧)表示过去叙事情况下的语气:过一歇,伊又出去~|后来我去睏~。
  • (旧)表示事件的现在状态:生病~|钟停~|苹果熟~|三点钟~|天晴~。
  • 与进行体助词“辣辣/辣海”一起,表示现在进行时态:伊辣辣读书~|大楼辣海造~|伊辣来~。
  • 与存继承助词“辣海/辣辣”一起表示现在完成时态:奶妈请辣海~|我家生买辣辣~。
  • 与表示即行的“快”一起用时,表示现在即行时态:水开快~|苹果熟快~。
The only definition that seems to fit "perfective aspect" is the 4th sense in 上海话大词典, but it seems to not be contributing to that meaning without 辣海/辣辣. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Justinrleung: thank you for checking the rfsense. So indeed the quotation was misleading by not matching the definition it appears under. This really can use some cleanup. --Frigoris (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
仔 in 吾吃飯哉 is grammatical particle for perfective aspect. If you want to find 哉 as grammatical particle for perfective aspect, see [3]. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]


Is Central Bai written in Chinese characters, and if so, is this the actual character used for /ɕy³³/? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bai was written in chinese characters in a system called 僰文, using the characters to represent Bai words and written in a Bai syntax. As for the character itself, it appears in 山花碑/词记山花·咏苍洱境碑, which is written in 僰文, in the line:煴煊茶水(口㱔)𪢂呼 (translation into Chinese:热煮茶水相对饮)[4],due to the fact that it is written in a Bai syntax, it would be fair to assume it was probably composed in Bai, therefore be pronounced in Bai --Henry Wonh (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Wonh: Thanks! This looks like good evidence. I'll try to incorporate this into the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked 赵橹's book and it seems like the text is slightly different from the blog post, and it's translated slightly differently as well. Either way, I've incorporated it into the entry, so this should be cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Wonh: Actually, one more question. Is it actually Central Bai we're dealing with, or some other variety of Bai? The poem was written many centuries ago, but I'm not sure how much we actually know about the Bai languages at that time. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Justinrleung: Well, even though the stella was found in Dali city, it southern Bai territory, most sources claim central and southern Bai are mutually intelligible and are essentially dialects of each other, so I wouldn’t think it would pose a big problem, maybe merge the multiple Bai subsections?—-Henry Wonh (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Wonh: If it's in Southern Bai territory, one way we could go about this is to assume that it's Southern Bai, which would mean it's not cited for Central Bai. However, since this was written long ago, I wonder how much the Bai varieties have diverged then. Are there 僰文 texts from elsewhere? Merging Bai varieties is a bigger discussion to be had since it'll affect all other Bai entries we have. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lama Bai [edit]

Southern Bai [edit]

Also in these Bai varieties. Given the cited text above, we need to determine which variety the text belongs to. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@幻光尘Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Added in diff, by the user pinged above.) - -sche (discuss) 16:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense "knit".

Rfv-sense "nit".

Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ニット (nitto, knit) -- See various entries at Kotobank, Weblio. Seems to be a pretty well established loanword. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ニット (nitto, nit) -- Much less common. I do find this listed in my JA ↔ EN medical dictionary alongside alternative form ニト (nito), and also in a scientific jargon glossary with a separate sense of "candela per square meter". Confirming this one in the wild is much more difficult, however. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checking knit#Noun (which I probably should have done beforehand: I actually wasn't aware that knit was usable as a noun, and believed the entry to be a suspicious mess created by equating etymology with definition, "ニット is from English knit and therefore means knit"), I see that it means (1 of 2 definitions) "knitter garment".
I also added a sense "knitwear" to ニット, so I suppose the RFV for this sense is essentially pointless, and I've removed the sense (maintaining that knit as a noun is not an intelligible definition) and the tag from ニット.
Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding ニット (nitto, nit): I found several mentions of a product called ニットピッカー (nit-picker), either on shopping sites (which tend not to be durably archived) or mommy blogs such as this. I wonder if that is just transliteration of a product name originally in English, though. I also found a 2019 translation of Victorian Lady's Guide etc., which uses ruby in a way that suggests readers would not recognize the katakana word.
I associate that style of ruby in film subtitles, where they want to include the (transliterated) non-Japanese word and also a translation. Cnilep (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ニット as “[nit]” is pretty common: [5], although specialists always write it as nit. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-senses: "solution" and "result; outcome". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic Seems like you added these in this diff. Dr. Eye Chinese English Bilingual Dictionary gives "the solution to a problem" as one of the definitions. "Solution" is also given in mdbg (not that this is necessarily right). "Result; outcome" might be mergeable with "place to settle", I think, which seems to be a little bit inaccurate without something like "result" since Guoyu Cidian and Liang'an Cidian define that sense with 歸宿 and 結果/結局. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


# [[seltzer]]

Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added three uses from 2015-2020, as "seltzer", "hard seltzer", and "seltzer water". (added:) Two are from a US-related sources, so probably translating an English original. The third is a Japanese story about the Coca-Cola company. Cnilep (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first one does not particularly convince me since they felt the need to gloss it as "炭酸水", and the webpage of the third one is 90% カタカナ語 near-gibberish.
I note that all uses in Google Scholar seem to refer to foreigners of last name "Seltzer". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, books are also mostly the family name. Uses in recent news, though, are mostly "hard seltzer", which I gather must be an emerging product/business sector. Cnilep (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The entry now contains three independent instances from permanently recorded media, spanning more than five years, plus an additional three on Citations:セルツァー. In my opinion, at least the three in the article, and arguably all six of these, convey the meaning of the term. Cnilep (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. Cnilep (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]


Rfv-sense: "pornography". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung: -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huhu9001: Hmm, anything durably archived? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: Google "公然发车". -- Huhu9001 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be used in other contexts, with a wider meaning of "lewd content"? Like 開車 and 車速, etc. But I'm not sure if we can find durably archived quotes for this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1 citation found (Citations:車圖). -- 07:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very common internet slang used primarily to avoid censorship but then became a popular neologism replacing its more "vulgur" synonyms. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 04:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@H2NCH2COOH: Please leave the RFV tag there until 3 citations are given per WT:ATTEST. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me this is so common in both mainland and Taiwan that it meets the criterion one and needs no further validation. Just search any lewd term with 車/车 and you will understand that it is a waste of time to do step 2. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 08:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you really need any citation, here are some: [6] [7] [8]. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 08:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@H2NCH2COOH: The clear widespread use clause is hard to interpret, and in this case, where it's still considered neologistic, it would be best to be verified through the second step. The links you provide are neither durably archived nor uses (rather than mentions). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[9]——落花有意12138 (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]


RfV for Japanese entry: alternative spelling of セイタン. -- 04:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The JA WP article mentions this spelling in the 語源 (gogen, Etymology) section at w:ja:グルテンミート#語源, but I have not been able to confirm this in the wild (or at any rate, not online). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]


Rfv-sense: "war chariot". This seems to stem from a misunderstanding of Guoyu Cidian, which defines it as "打退敵人攻城的戰車". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also Rfv-sense: "to repulse an enemy". Tagged by @Geographyinitiative when adding the sense to the entry. Pleco is mentioned in their edit summary. I'm not sure what the reason for RFV is. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see both meanings here: 打退敵人攻城的戰車。指拒敵取勝。 [10] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geographyinitiative: If you're saying "war chariot" = 打退敵人攻城的戰車, then it seems to be a misunderstanding. It should be read as 打退 [敵人攻城的戰車]. It doesn't make sense that a noun sense is placed with a verb sense in one definition. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough to provide any further assistance here. Please edit the entry according to the evidence and Wiktionary policy. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed for the noun sense. Quotes are needed for the verb sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: "to free oneself; to extricate oneself; to relieve". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. The sense was added by himself in this diff. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to correspond to "解脫;排除" in Hanyu Da Cidian and "放開,解脫" in 五南國語活用辭典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: "order". Tagged by @Frigoris but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sense "chapter" may come from "rule" or "order, arrangement", but I can't find "order, arrangement" at the first 500 of zhwikisource. Any evidence before Han dynasty? EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found: "《孔子家语·曲礼子贡问》:“孔子曰:‘季氏之妇可谓知礼矣,爱而无私,上下有章。’”", "交章论列" EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EdwardAlexanderCrowley, it seems the gloss "order" in the Definitions on that page refers to the usage as in 雜亂無章. Although the 孔子家語 almost certainly belongs to the pseudepigrapha, we can use other examples to illustrate the sense. --Frigoris (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say 章≠rule in 雜亂無章. w:zh:孔子家语 says "1973年河北定州八角廊出土了汉墓竹简中有《儒家者言》,内容与《家语》相近。", you know, many ancient books suffers slanders. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the RFV about the definition item "order"? In particular what order means here, since the word can mean quite different things in English. Currently the sense 3 refers to "rules", which the usex suggests reference to the formal regulations, constitutions, charters, etc. It seems to me that whoever first put the definition "order" here refers to the more abstract and possibly more informal sense of "the quality of being organized", which I think matches the usex I just added (雜亂無章).
The 孔子家語 can match as many Han-era epigraphical texts as it may and is still considered pseudepigraphy, not because the text is "fake", but because the authorship very likely doesn't match how it has been claimed to be in the literary tradition. In fact there's little agreement about the true "authorship" if it has one. The text includes many passages that are paralleled in other classical works. If we can find them, it's preferable to use those more certain texts than the secondary literature. --Frigoris (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Frigoris Let's read 送孟東野序, which is the origin of 雜亂無章. “其为言也,乱杂而无章” means 不講文法(no clear sense/logic of literature), do you agree? EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Frigoris, Crowley666 Yes this sense should refer to being orderly, not to rules or distinctions, as this is how other dictionaries describe it (eg. as 條理); Kroll's Student's Dictionary writes "clearly and properly displayed, well-ordered". Other dictionaries all seem to reference 雜亂無章, but I think it is reasonable to say 章 has extended beyond "rule" here, for example Hanyu Da Cidian gives 無章 as 没有次序.
In some words, 章 seems close to meaning order, tied together with the sense "composition; structure". For example 章法 relates to the organization/arrangement of text, and 成章 relates to a text being well-presented/composed.
Also, here's a line from Chinese characters on Wikipedia: 'Some believe that the name [章草], based on 章 meaning "orderly", arose because the script was a more orderly form of cursive'. It cites Qiu Xigui Chinese writing (文字學概要). Indeed that says '[章] means "orderliness, regulation"' (「章」字有條理,法則等意義) towards the end of section 5.4. Actually the author goes further than Wikipedia suggests, saying that most people agree this explanation is likely correct, in which case 章草 would serve as another example of the sense "orderly". ChromeGames (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: "to adjust; to revise". Tagged by @Geographyinitiative but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

相似詞 調動、調整 釋義 安排配置。 [11] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are very loose synonyms; RFV failed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: "written language". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sense seems to be added by @Zcreator alt (who I don't think is active anymore) in this diff. It may correspond to "指書面語;詩文的句子。" in Hanyu Da Cidian, though the definition would need some rewording if it is so. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: "health" and "self; itself". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "health" sense is probably mergeable with the "body" sense. As for "self", 重編國語辭典修訂本 defines it as 本身、自己 and cites 《儒林外史·第九回》:「疑惑一番,不必管他,落得身子乾淨,且下鄉去照舊看書。」 — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: "evil look of deep-set eyes". Tagged by @Geographyinitiative but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

目光深視的樣子。[12] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that my original feeling was that the 'evil' part did not seem to be part of the definition. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RcAlex36, Geographyinitiative: I think this definition is based on some dictionaries:
  • Guangyun (戸圭切): 目深惡視
  • Yupian: 目深惡皃
  • Jiyun (玄圭切): 目惡視
Dictionaries like 王力古漢語字典 and 教育部異體字字典 seem to subsume it under the same sense as in huī/suī, but 漢語大字典 gives it a separate pronunciation xié. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: in advance; beforehand. Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. This sense is common and is found in Pleco. Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian seem to treat it as a verb, though. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]


Rfv-sense: electric shork (the lemma is attested though). -- 14:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@沈澄心: It seems to come from CC-CEDICT, which defines it as "electric shock, electroshock". Guoyu Cidian defines it as "電力系統突然發生變動,導致電壓、頻率不穩,稱為「電震」。", which doesn't seem to match our current definition. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@沈澄心: It also appears in many dictionaries here. Also used in 電震治療 "electric shock treatment" (which seems to have some hits) in this glossary. Perhaps this would help us find some quotes? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. @沈澄心, please check the quotes on Citations:電震. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]


# [[Simplified Chinese]] character(s); [[Simplified Chinese]]

Entry presumably written because of the lede of the ja.wp article.

One usage found, from Google Books and Scholar searches for 〜と 〜を 〜は: 「通用規範漢字表」 について.

Suzukaze-c (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From my limited searching, this spelling only seems to be used in Japanese works that quote Chinese texts.
Since this kind of usage does indeed happen, and since Japanese readers would indeed read this string with the expected Japanese pronunciation, I think it merits a Japanese entry. However, such an entry definitely needs to be clear about context and usage -- in Japanese writing, the term 簡体字 (kantaiji) is much more commonly used to mean "Simplified Chinese".
FWIW, I find more than one hit at Google Books: google books:"規範字" "は" nets me 223 ostensible hits, collapsing to 80 when paging through. Many of these have no preview and the relevant string is not apparent in the snippets shown, but there are enough that do show the string in context to meet CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that they are referring to China's "規範字", and not to generic "規範" + "字"? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For some of the hits, possibly. I only scanned the results briefly. I do note that many of them explicitly mention 中国の, or 台湾, or use phrasing like 「簡体字」または「規範字」, etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@H2NCH2COOHFish bowl (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
規範字 is mentioned in: 中国の常用漢字表『通用規範漢字表』が公開 計8105字に増加in a document title 『規範字と繁体字、異体字の対照表』; This paper by 辻田正雄; This design and printing glossary, etc.. Plus, 規範字 can hardly be understood separately as "規範" + "字", because this term is used only used in mainland China due to differences in terminologies. In Taiwan, it is called 正體字正体字 (zhèngtǐzì) or 國字標準字體国字标准字体 instead; in Japan, its counterpart is 常用漢字字体 (in-table) and 印刷標準字体 (chiefly off-table); no such mandatory standard exists in Hong Kong. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 02:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


He was on an editing spree today. I didn't think much of it but this edit ([13]) looked weird to me. Could somebody maybe check this edit (and maybe some others) to make sure, this user isn't vandalizing? --Fytcha (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fytcha: This is probably not the right venue for this, but thanks for reporting this. I think maybe WT:TR would be a better place to discuss this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's User:Fumiko Take. meh. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, apparently she's working through some kind of medical reference and hitting a lot of anatomy terms in Japanese. And, unfortunately, making a bit of a hash of it, as at 鎖骨 or 鎖骨下筋.
She's wrong often enough, and she's bull-headed enough, that I'd be tempted to block her to spare us the work of vetting and cleaning up after her -- but she jumps around IP addresses so much that I don't think this would be at all effective. <sigh.../> ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(pinging IP address master @Chuck EntzSuzukaze-c (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Suzukaze-c: I don't know if I can contribute much: although I did save some data when they were blocked and there was a reason to run checkuser on them, this IP range has no connection to anything in that data and I have no grounds for using the checkuser tool now to compare browser data- no one is blocked, and no one is using their anonymity to get away with anything.
The abuse filters we used to stop the Sky UK, Thai and Pays de Loire IPs won't work very well here, because there are lots of entries with both Vietnamese and Japanese sections, so there would be lots of collateral damage- we would be blocking Vietnamese IPs from editing their own language. It would require a more sophisticated regex to verify which language section they were editing, and I'm not exactly a regex master. Coming up with a list of IP ranges to trigger the regex checks is another challenge (fetching wikitext is very expensive as abuse filter operations go, so I don't want to do it for every single IP edit). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Sense: tire, languor

Although 深度, 進度, 震度, 心土, 伸度 and Sindh can all be read しんど, I'm not aware of this sense of the word. I wonder if the person who added it (an IP address apparently at Peking University) confused it with しんどい (maybe しんどさ)? Speaking of which, the same IP address edited the latter page one minute after they created this one, suggesting that しんどい comes from しんど. I don't think that is the case, either. Am I mistaken? Cnilep (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Kotobank, which lists this specific sense. My local copy of Daijirin also notes that adjective しんどい (shindoi) comes from しんど (shindo), which the KDJ explains is in turn apparently a shift from 心労 (shinrō). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the entry in KDJ only after I had posted this. I've never seen the word used (as far as I can recall), though. So to my question, "Am I mistaken?" apparently the answer is "yes". It's not the first time, and probably won't be the last. Cnilep (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Contemporary senses of Etymology 1, あじきない (contra Etymology 2, あじけない, with the same kanji and essentially the same meaning)

I added three quotations before I stopped to think that, based on the writing system, there may no reasonable way to argue whether these are the first or second Etymology.

@Poketalker, Suzukaze-c, Do you have ideas about how this should be handled?

Cnilep (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://furigana.info/w/味気 :) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Thinking more specifically about the challenge that Cnilep brings up about identifying etym and sense, I see that the KDJ entry specifically indicates that the あじけない (ajikenai) reading correlates to sense ③ for the あじきない (ajikinai) reading. So presumably any quote that looks more clearly to be senses ① or ② for あじきない (ajikinai) thus cannot fit for あじけない (ajikenai), ruling out that reading. Likewise, the DDJS entry ties sense ① for あじきない (ajikinai) with あじけない (ajikenai), while the other senses for あじきない (ajikinai) appear to be specific to that reading. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021[edit]


Rfv-sense: "dwelling". Tagged by @Tooironic. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung, Tooironic: This sense ("dwelling" = "house" but more formal) exist in Japanese and Korean and also CC-CEDICT (along with "somebody else's house"). I have just created a Japanese and Korean (hanja) entry. I couldn't find anything solid to confirm this sense in Chinese but this search may give interesting matches. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Anatoli! It may be a matter of translation. Probably, "household" and "dwelling" can be combined. In Chinese the sense is just 住户. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tooironic: Thanks, Carl! If the sense "dwelling" is invalid, do you want to remove it? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what about the RfV process? ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tooironic: Ah, OK, if you just want it to take its course. Since you added, I thought you might want to cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed eventually. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Attested in 现代汉语词典. Also, "東南形勝,三吳都會,錢塘自古繁華。煙柳畫橋,風簾翠幕,參差十萬人家。" by 柳永, etc.. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 03:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@H2NCH2COOH: Thanks for the quote. We'd need two more for this to pass RFV. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@H2NCH2COOH: Also, I wanted to clarify which sense in 现代汉语词典 are you translating as "dwelling"? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: 住户. The example given in the dictionary is "这个村子有百十户~". And also, "遠上寒山石徑斜,白雲深處有人家" by 杜牧, "高秋水村路,隔㟁見人家" by 李中, "三藏道:「悟空,前面人家,可以借宿,明早再行。」" and "只奔山南坡下,忽見山凹之間有一座草舍人家。" in 西遊記, etc. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 08:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@H2NCH2COOH: 现代汉语词典 defines 住户 as 定居在某处的家庭或有单独户口的人 - isn't this referring to the occupants of a house rather than the dwelling place itself? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is a bad explanation then. See https://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=135766&q=1&word=%E4%BA%BA%E5%AE%B6#order1 for definition explicitly mentioning the house itself. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 08:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

アイフォン, アイホン, アイフォーン[edit]

"iPhone". WT:BRAND or something


Suzukaze-c (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failedFish bowl (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't archive this because it does look cited perusing through Google Books & Search (at least for the first one). I also think that this would be better for RFD anyways, as it may pass WT:BRAND. AG202 (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021[edit]


Rfv-senses 17-21: "thing; to exploit, to accept; currency; tomb" (moved to the end of the entry for now)

These senses were all added in one edit along with many other senses that I can account for. However I'm having trouble verifying these couple of senses. Any ideas where they come from or where they are used? Perhaps as alternative forms?

Speaking of alternative forms, the page currently has a lot of them. But I'm reluctant to call 采 an alternative form of other characters like and , because they seem like they might be alternative forms of each other rather than having one character be the main character (although certainly one is more specialized). Perhaps there's a better way to organize things? ChromeGames (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChromeGames: These senses seem to be in Hanyu Da Cidian (at least).
  • thing = 事 (Shujing)
  • to exploit; to gain = 取得,获取 (?) (Hanshu, etc.)
  • to accept = 采纳,采用 (?) (Sanguozhi, etc.)
  • currency = 币帛 (Shiji)
  • tomb = 坟墓 (Fangyan) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: Thanks for confirming their presence, I wonder if I have a different edition/version of Hanyu Da Cidian though since I don't see all of those definitions that you mention? Although I do find:
  • to exploit; to gain = 摘取 (?)
  • to accept = 采纳,采用
ChromeGames (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChromeGames: Sorry, my mistake. I meant Hanyu Da Zidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: Gotcha, I should definitely try to get my hands on that one. Thanks, ChromeGames (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: poor person; person of humble origin. Tagged by @Tooironic, but not listed here. Sense added by @Mar vin kaiser. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic, Justinrleung: Yeah, so most likely I got it from Pleco, and it's still there. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tooironic, Mar vin kaiser: Hanyu Da Cidian has a noun sense, but it's not quite the same: 稱窮苦的讀書人。《二刻拍案驚奇》卷十一:“寒酸忽地上金堦,立看許多滲瀨。”淸朱錫《幽夢續影》:“王寅叔云,黃白是市井家物,風月是寒酸家物。” — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tooironic: I've added two quotes on the entry and tweaked the sense to follow Hanyu Da Cidian. Please check them out and add translations if you'd like. I didn't add the 幽夢續影 quote because I'm not quite sure if it's actually this sense. (It seems to be a commentary on 文人富貴,起居便帶市井;富貴能詩,吐屬便帶寒酸, where this 寒酸 doesn't seem to be referring to 窮苦的讀書人?) Since this is an archaic sense, I think this can be considered cited anyway. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Doesn't seem to be a household name or have attributive use like "Greenpeace types" in English. General Vicinity (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Greenpeace sense) General Vicinity (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it is a household name, but it is used to refer to the group as such, especially when they protest against Japanese whaling. I've added three quotations. Two refer to "the environmental group Greenpeace" (but then, so does the New York Times), and the other is in a book about environmental action, so some further discussion may be warranted. Cnilep (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we accept quotes like "X, an organization that Y's, did Z" it opens the door to an awful lot of companies etc. I don't think it shows they have "entered the lexicon" and Wiktionary's current stance seems much more restrictive (no entry for Walmart for example). General Vicinity (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding (possibly incorrect?) of Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Company_names is that we don't create entries for non-lexical company names. However, if we already have an entry that happens to match a company name, I don't know that this means we shouldn't include information about that company name as a lexical item (and not an encyclopedia article).
For Walmart, we only have one thing that matches that grapheme -- the company name. Since there is no lexical item other than a company name that matches that grapheme, we don't have an entry.
For グリーンピース (gurīnpīsu), we have two things that match that grapheme -- "green peas", and "Greenpeace". Since there is a lexical item other than a company name that matches that grapheme, we do have an entry. And since we have an entry anyway, it strikes me as perversely unhelpful to not include the name as well as the common noun.
That's my two bits, at any rate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]


# [[busbar]]Fish bowl (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The hits at google:"ブス" "電源" suggest that this is a domain-specific jargon term, shortening of ブスバー (busubā), in turn apparently an alternative for バスバー (basubā). If we have any appropriate labels or categories for "spelling pronunciation" to describe the shift from /a/ in バス (basu) to /u/ in ブス (busu), that would apply here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022[edit]


Japanese. Rfv-senses: Alternative form of ては (Etymology 3); and short for ではないか (Etymology 4)

Of Etymology 3, Eirikr says, “How so? Examples? Unclear that this etym even warrants inclusion.” and “Etym 3 is just a usage of the particle combo in Etym 1, whereas ては would presumably be from って (tte) + (wa)”. [Etymology 1 is ‘Compound of で and は’, ‘at, in’.]

It is similarly not clear to me that this is a separate lexical item.

Of Etymology 4, Eirikr says, “Etym 4 is not a verb, but a different use of the particle combo in Etym 1, eliding the negative coupula ない (nai) and question particle (ka).”

Note that I changed the POS from verb-form to particle. Even so, I do not think that this is a lexical item as such. It is just a use of the Etymology 1 sense.

(Note, too, that I tried to rectify a separate issue noted by Eirikr: “No appropriate sense to cover the では in それでは, so the Etym 2 section is effectively broken (user goes to それでは, gets no explanation)”. That is not related to this RfV, but others might want to see if you disagree with what I did.)

@Eirikr, Fish bowl, Nardog, 荒巻モロゾフ, Shen233

Cnilep (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology 3 seems to be the verb conjugation, as in 噛んではいた.
As for Etymology 4: I considered ではないか to be formed from である, and では to be a shortening (or ellipsis?) of that, hence "verb form". —Fish bowl (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, etym 3 and 4 looks redundant to me. Shen233 (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke to some people I regard as experts, people who teach and/or write about Japanese grammar. We agree that forms such as 嚙んではいない consist of Verb + + いる. No one I asked thought that ては / では in this construction is a suffix. Cnilep (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@荒巻モロゾフFish bowl (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, is that what etym 3 was supposed to be about! Completely unclear as currently written.
But ya, that is simply the conjunctive ~て・~で form of a verb + particle (wa). You could also have particle (mo), or (ya), or (to), or no particle at all. This is not a lexical item. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it points to ては, which is itself fairly straightforward... —Fish bowl (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for etym 4, being a very new usage, so it's not in common dictionaries, and at least not a verb since it's not a conjugated word. The word which has been elided can be not only ないか, but also polite forms ないですか and ありませんか, honorific form ございませんか and etc. If there were an improvement, it might be to explain it as "negative copula + か".
Etym 3 occurs when the verb root is ended in nasal (-g-, -n-, -m-). で in etym 3 is originated from classical verb (tsu), while で in etym 1 is from particle にて (nite), so they are different things.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@荒巻モロゾフ: But those are not lexical items. Those are grammatical constructions. The ~て or ~で is part of the verb (adjective, etc.) conjugation, while は, as well as ない, ございません, or what have you are separate lexical items. Similarly, whether one of those items is elided is a matter of grammar and/or usage, not a part of the lexicon.
As such they are likely to be found in grammars, and not in dictionaries. See for example Nihongo Bunkei Jiten (1998):
[N/Na では]
(“ては. noun では, adj-くては, verb-ては. Combination of the te-form of the predicate with ‘wa’.”)
Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed Cnilep (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that it exists is not really disputed. The appropriate treatment IMO would be RFD or RFC. では and ては (verb suffix) should be kept or deleted together as a set. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's delete. The verb suffix portion is only the (te) or (de), exclusive of the (wa), which is clearly the particle and not part of the suffix. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ては・では (verb suffix); or else move its content to ;
keep では (ではないか). —Fish bowl (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Japanese. Rfv-sense: In Man'yōshū I, 2, the first verse 山常庭 (Yamato ni wa) proves the historical use of the Man'yōgana 庭 used phonographically to represent the particle には (ni wa) introducing the place where an action is done. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 08:49, 14 February 2022‎.

User:Poketalker added two rfv-sense requests on 26 February 2017.
  1. (historical) place where something is done
  2. (regional) at the entrance of a house, a dirt floor
Per's comment, the first of these seems to be ateji for the particles には. If that is the case, that would make it archaic (and perhaps uncommon, or obsolete) rather than historical. It would also be a postposition or particle rather than a noun. Cnilep (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the current sense 2 ("place where something is done"), if we view this as as man'yōgana, this is arguably not entry-worthy, as that is a spelling convention and not a lexical item -- as the anon correctly notes, this is simply locative particle (ni) + topic / contrastive particle (wa). And as @Cnilep notes, this is a particle combination, not a noun. Moreover, this usage Old Japanese, not Japanese.
That said, there is a noun (niwa) with the sense of "place where something is done". The lack of any usex obscured this. My local copy of Daijirin gives examples like 「学びの―」「裁きの―」, where the preceding genitive (no) means that, grammatically, this niwa must be a noun. The entry also includes a quote from the Nihon Shoki: 「すなわち霊畤(マツリノニワ)を鳥見の山の中に立てて/日本書紀(神武訓)」 (clearly showing use in a compound noun), and one from the Man'yōshū: 「武庫の海の―良くあらし漁(イサリ)する/万葉 3609」 (here coming again after a (no), marking this as a noun).
I am not sure if the noun sense for "place where something is done" is still current, however -- the quotes are OJP and not JA.
  • The current sense 3 ("at the entrance of a house, a dirt floor") is included in Daijirin as well, with a quote from a 浄瑠璃 (jōruri, street theater, storytelling with musical accompaniment, ballad or chant) play dating to 1720: 「そろばん追取―へくわらりと投げ捨たり/浄瑠璃・天の網島(中)」.
Again, I'm unsure if this sense is still in current use, and if it is regional (as currently labeled), I don't know what regions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I put three citations of 'place where something is done' on Citations:庭. I also removed 'historical' from the sense, as these are contemporary. Cnilep (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No offense directed at you personally. But I am really frustrated at seeing inline citations being removed. I use dictionaries to find "how" and "when" a word and sense have been in use. It supports the given sense as well as etymology. I am most interested in the older citations, but any are better than none. Without any supporting citations, why should I believe any of the definitions given?
While I was not involved in this entry, I have spent many pain staking hours searching and adding citations to find them gone several years later. When there are dozens or even hundreds of citations, moving some to the citation page may make sense, while prioritizing older and relevant citations. But very few entries in this entire project have that many citations. Most entries and senses are missing them completely, which really hurts this dictionary. Bendono (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed for sense "place where something is done". No citations yet for "dirt floor", but it is in other dictionaries. Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]




# [[fructus]]
# {{lb|ja|archaic}} An increase in fruit
# {{lb|ja|economy}} An increase in revenue


# {{lb|ja|archaic}} to increase fruit yield
# {{lb|ja|economy}} to increase revenue

Fish bowl (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nihon Kokugo Daijisen includes a headword “孳息・滋息”, which it glosses as “生まれふえること。” (“an increase in births”). The dictionary gives one example from Nihon gaishi (1827) written as 滋息, and one use in Shokubutsu shōgaku (Matsumura and Itō 1881) written 孳息. The Matsumura and Itō quote as given in NKD is:
shokubutsu wa seikatsu no karakuri arite dōbutsu no gotoku inshoku shi chōiku shi jisoku su
the mechanism of plant life is much as animals, eating and drinking, raising the next generation, bearing offspring
It seems obscure to me. Cnilep (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]


Japanese. Rfv-sense: person who is infected by (novel) coronavirus

I found one use of this in 2020 (see Citations:コロナ), but haven't been able to find others. It is difficult to search for, as most written sources that would include it would also include terms such as 新型コロナウイルス感染症 etc. I've searched several Japanese newspapers and only found that one. I've searched the web, but gave up after being inundated by mention of the pandemic generally. Cnilep (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and the one from 2020 is no longer available. Cnilep (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find some online. Whether they are good for WT:ATTEST is doubtful, but at least a 自治体 is "better" than some Internet rando.
https://www.nippon.com/ja/japan-topics/c030119/ 今だったら絶対みんなに『あいつコロナだ』と言われただろうね。
https://www.sankeibiz.jp/econome/news/200402/ecb2004021601008-n1.htm 「『おまえコロナやろ』と言われるから、行かない」
https://www.town.kotohira.kagawa.jp/uploaded/life/6736_8499_misc.pdf あいつコロナだ(事実無根のうわさ) おい、「コロナ」(悪意のある愛称)
https://www.city.kitakyushu.lg.jp/page/dayori/200701/pdf/files/200701_page01.pdf 咳をしている、あの人コロナかも?
https://www.city.nishiwaki.lg.jp/material/files/group/5/reiwa2nenn6gatu.pdf 咳をしている あの人、コロナ?
https://www.tmd.ac.jp/med/psyc/topics/covid-19/henken.pdf 咳をしているあの人コロナかも
https://es.higo.ed.jp/nanataki-c/wysiwyg/file/download/20/2333 教室で「あの人、コロナじゃない?」などと言っている人
http://www.furanoryokuho.hokkaido-c.ed.jp/shiryou/mado/%90%B6%93k%8Ew%93%B1%95%94%95%D6%82%E8/_%90%B6%93k%8Ew%93%B1%95%94%95%D6%82%E8R2%94N%93x%91%E61%8D%86.pdf 「あいつコロナなんじゃない?」
Fish bowl (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[BTW, One News is a regional broadcast television news program rather than "some Internet rando", but they apparently don't durably archive the content they upload to the web. Cnilep (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)][reply]
Just noticed that the definition has "Internet slang" in it. The quotes suggest that this label is too specific, or that this usage has escaped the Internet. This should be amended. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
http://hdl.handle.net/10723/00004148 弱者に降りかかるCOVID-19(聴き手:野口 久美子、鄭 栄桓) 近所の人が「あの人はコロナだ」って
http://doi.org/10.14988/00028307 特措法・感染症法の改正 : 罰則の検討を中心にして 路上で、「俺はコロナだ」などと言って、他人に息を吹きかけた事件
Fish bowl (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I parse all these attestations as referring to the novel coronavirus (disease), or at best the state of being infected with it, much like the famous "僕はうなぎだ". Notice they're all preceded by a topic of a person. Defining it as a person with the virus would be akin to defining うなぎ as "a person who eats eel". Nardog (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog: Yeah I can see that interpretation. Then what do you think of the definition "infected person" itself? Does it exist? Should it be removed? —Fish bowl (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should, that's what I was implying. At least I don't see it's supported by any of the citations above or in Citations:コロナ so far. The "小" in "コロナ小" is clearly the suffix standing for "小学校", so it better translates as "Corona Elementary". Nardog (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Japanese. (dialect) imperative of する

Added by User:0.02s, who included the label dialect and asked "what dialect?"

Nihon Hōgen Daijiten includes したれば (alternate form of したら, which in turn is a Tohoku conjunction meaning そうすると, それなら (if that is the case)), as well as したれる (form of the verb 湿(しと) (shitoru, be damp)) and ごしたれる (form of the Tohoku/Hokuriku verb ごしむく (goshimuku, die)). Nihon Kokugo Daijiten includes したれ‐ど and したれ‐ども, which it derives respectively as する +‎ たり +‎ and する +‎ たり +‎ ども (both roughly “doing in spite of”, if I understand correctly), but doesn't mark them as dialect. Both Digital Daijisen and Shin Wa-Ei Chūjiten have してやる, variously glossed as “do for (someone)”, “trick (someone)”, or “do as one pleases”. I can't find したれ as such, though, and don't know whether it might be a form of Tohoku したら or some other (regional? class?) variant of してやる (or maybe just して?). Cnilep (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see a hit over at Nihon Jiten. Their entry for したれ (shitare) indicates that this is 阿波弁 (Awa-ben), the dialect used in Tokushima prefecture on Shikoku. Apparently it's a contraction of してやれ (shite yare). There's also a separate entry for the Kansai dialect phrase どないかしたれや (donai ka shitare ya, loosely, something like “just do whatever already”), where this したれ (shitare) appears to be again a contraction of してやれ (shite yare).
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, should it be したれ, or したる? The current Digital Daijisen in Kotobank has 為て遣ったり but (oddly) not 為て遣る. (It does, however, gloss 為て遣ったり as 「してやる」 + 「たり」.) I can't tell if this is some kind of defective paradigm, or just "dialect" enough that the editors neglect it a bit. Cnilep (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]




# [https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Phowa phowa]

nothing in google scholar/books —Fish bowl (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]



# [[phowa]]

04:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  • FWIW, just in preliminary poking, I found that the JA WP has a hint of this at ja:w:ポア, a disambig page -- but the mentioned article about this particular aspect of Tibetan Buddhism, at ja:w:ポア (チベット仏教), is a redlink.
There's some background material about this subject in English at w:Phowa. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 10:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if these entries are about w:ja:ポア (オウム真理教), that should be made very clear, and the "Tibetan Buddhism" tag now currently on ポワ should be removed pending cites about Tibetan Buddhism. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Japanese. Is this form with the middle dot used? —Fish bowl (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish bowl: Looks like it is -- not tons, but enough for CFI.
Amusingly, many of the hits on the wider web are related to a company called "Fish Bowl Index". :D
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm I thought I had checked Google Books. RFV passed (withdrawn). Never mind. —Fish bowl (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Rfv-sense: "(Cantonese) edible aquatic plants". RcAlex36 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Vc06697, who added the sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sense is rare in modern Cantonese in 21st century, cuz most adopts the "fruit" meaning from Mandarin. In proper Cantonese (or, rather, "oldschool" to people nowadays), 生果 and 水果 are two different terms. 生果 refers to fruits growing out of trees or on soil, like oranges, while 水果 refers to "fruits" that grows on water, like lotus rhizomes (蓮藕). For reference you can also check the Cantonese version of the page, which quotes a 1963 book titled "粵菜存真" (roughly means "preserving real Cantonese cuisine")written by 許衡. In the quote, 3 types of 生果 and 3 types of 水果 are mentioned respectively in contrast.
Therefore, it's definitely a Cantonese thing. I'm not sure if one should add "dated" or "archaic" or "obsolete" after "Cantonese". Vc06697 (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vc06697: I think it's unclear whether this is the common meaning of the term in Cantonese at the time or whether this is a particular "one-off" usage specific to the 三十二圍碟 (which would mean it probably shouldn't be here in the entry). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be a one-off usage. More likely it's a cuisine-specific term. This was in Cantonese, possibly late-19th-century at least. In Ming Dynasty, a book titled "汝南圃史" also mentions "水果", yet it's meaning seems to be different both to the modern meaning and to the Cantonese one as well.
I think we can also look at the example sentence and note usage from the French version page as reference. It uses "西瓜係生果,馬蹄先係水果。" as the example. This implies that aquatic plants like 馬蹄 cannot be referred to as a 生果. Vc06697 (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vc06697: The French Wiktionary entry seems awfully prescriptive to me. The example is not a quote from any source from the 19th century (or even early 20th century), so I don't think we should take it seriously. (It in fact seems like an attempt to de-Mandarinize Cantonese, which seems like a prescriptive move.) If there isn't any proof of usage outside of 粵菜存真 (is it even written in Cantonese?), then I don't think there's any other evidence that can tell us whether it's cuisine-specific, Cantonese-specific, or one-off. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 水果=fruit is not really a Mandarin-only thing either. When it comes to dialects and subdialects today, there are many non-Mandarin speaks that only has 水果=fruit, as shown in the dialectal synonyms table below the definitions.
Unfortunately, this "粵菜存真" seems very hard to come by, even in pdf form. Libraries around where I live also don't have this book, so for now we can't really be sure about the way it's written. However, almost every source I've found on the web - articles and videos - indicates that these 四水果, 四生果 terms are a part of the Cantonese variant of the Manchu–Han Imperial Feast/滿漢全席. Other than these two terms, there are also terms like 四京果, 四糖果, 四看果. In 四京果, there are 奶提子 (probably grapes) and 荔枝乾 (dried lychee). Yet, grapes and lychees all grow on trees.
Among all the sites, this one below may be the only one that is worth a look, cuz it's made by a Fat-shan television channel (FSTV) based in the PRC.
I do have the "實用廣州話分類詞典", but it only defines 生果 as "水果的總稱。水果一般生食,故稱". 水果 is not an established term in the book.
Finally, I stumbled upon 本草綱目. Surprisingly, it may answer our question. Under the 果 section are several subsections. There are no 生果類 subsection, but there is a 水果類 subsection, which mostly mentions aquatic plants. Among these includes lotus rhizomes, lin kok(菱角) and 烏芋(=馬蹄), which are three out of the four 水果 mentioned in 粵菜存真. The rest of the subsection are fruits that belong to none of the other subsections (placed there for convenience), and fruits that are poisonous.
If we take 本草綱目 as a credible source, then "水果=edible aquatic plants" is not a "Cantonese term". Rather, it's written Classical Chinese from Ming Dynasty. That may also mean 粵菜存真 was using a very old term. So maybe we should change it from (Cantonese) to either (classical), (dated), or (obsolete)? Vc06697 (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vc06697: Sorry for the late reply. I completely agree that 水果=fruit is not a Mandarin-only thing but some Cantonese purists seem to be making it out to be like that (and the websites that talk about it like to frame it this way because it is seen as a way to somehow make Cantonese unique... and I suspect the show is either taking their information from these websites and/or a propagator of this kind of view). And thanks for finding the 本草綱目 passage. I would say this points to this being an archaic sense, where it refers to some edible part of a plant that grows in water. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited for a modified "(archaic) edible part of an aquatic plant". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]


Japanese. Rfv-sense: (modern fiction, women's speech) I; me (used by haughty women of the highest classes of society)

The entry was previously tagged for cleanup as "Very confusing entry, requires clarification and formatting; expansion also needed". I've done my best to clean it up, but I don't know why there are two senses both glossed, essentially, as "I". (The other is: "(archaic, women's speech, humble) I; me".) I guess that if the word is used in contemporary fiction with a different connotation, this might make sense, but I haven't seen such use myself. I should note, though, that Japanese sources say the the pronoun came to be associated with samurai women in early Modern Japanese, so that may be a clue. Cnilep (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread use: see w:ja:日本語の一人称代名詞#妾(わらわ) (as already written in the entry as a comment), as well as the list of fictional characters using this pronoun at https://dic.pixiv.net/a/わらわ#h2_1 well exceeding 3 independent works. —Fish bowl (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article on pronouns includes commentary, but no usage examples. If the usage is easy to find, then could you please add some? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also w:ja:わらわ, which mentions humble usage, but says nothing about haughtiness... ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 10:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not immediately due to a lack of direct access to these works, and I still think it is widespread use. —Fish bowl (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]



# [[goldbrick]]

@KwékwlosFish bowl (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


WT:BRAND. Note that the trademark isn't mentioned on Alexa. Binarystep (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failedFish bowl (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Rfv-sense: Alternative form of 戁 (nǎn). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022[edit]


Chinese. Rfv-sense: Short for 馬來西亞華人. Sense added and tagged by @NameName233. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some non-durably-archived usages:


Chinese. Simplified form of 𬠰. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The simplified form of 𬠰 is because 𦥯 always becomes 𰃮 in simplified Chinese.
I was not making things up. I was simply following 简化字总表. -- 06:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
類推簡化字 need to be attested. None of these are found exactly in 简化字总表. Pinging @H2NCH2COOH for opinion on these. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They don't require independent verrification. 简化字总表 states that any trad.-simp. pair in Table 2 is generally applicable to other characters, even if it isn't listed in Table 3. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 04:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@H2NCH2COOH Okay, so they are acceptable as 類推簡化字. However, I do think they need to be attested per WT:ATTEST for the purposes of Wiktionary. I'm wondering if other Chinese editors have any opinion on this (Notifying Atitarev, Tooironic, Fish bowl, Mar vin kaiser, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Michael Ly): — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with clinging to attestation in Chinese is that there are tons of variants (not just simplified Chinese, but also ancient ones), and it is simply impossible to do in practice. And since simplified Chinese is a relatively new and "artificial" thing, it is hard to find cases where the simplified forms of these rare characters being used. However, the Table 2 did tell us how they should theoretically be simplified when used (since the writing system is "artificial"). This rule has been generally applied to rare characters in classical Chinese publications, and there should not be any exception in these cases when they appear (unless you are talking about the guideline of the latest standard, which recommends traditional forms if outside 通用规范汉字表: but that would probably be even more dreadful to deal with). --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 20:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do think there is something questionable. Not about the simplification rule, but the existence of the supposed "traditional" forms in Chinese -- are they really used in ancient texts? Or are they just made up for names? --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 21:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
𨍶 and 𦦗 are presented in Kangxi Dictionary and some others, so I believe they are actually used in ancient text and their simplified form can be derived accordingly. 𠙦 seems like a variant form of so they both can possibly be treated as variants. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 15:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: honestly a lot of the weirder chinese characters don't meet CFI anyway (like {{zh-historical-dict}}, which literally says citations probably don't exist). —Fish bowl (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fish bowl: True, but it should at least be verifiable by the same way as {{zh-historical-dict}} entries, i.e. listed in a published source as a variant/simplified form. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Simplified form of 𨍶. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The simplified form of 𨍶 is because 𤇾 and always become 𫇦 and respectively in simplified Chinese. -- 06:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Simplified form of 𦦗. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The simplified form of 𦦗 is because 𦥯 always becomes 𰃮 in simplified Chinese. -- 06:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Simplified form of 𣞁. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The simplified form of 𣞁 is because 𤇾 always becomes 𫇦 in simplified Chinese. -- 06:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although neither are presented in mainstream dictionaries, it follows the simplification rule, and Unihan has 㮠 as the simp. form of 𣞁. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 15:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Simplified form of 𠙦. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The simplified form of 𠙦 is because 𤇾 always becomes 𫇦 in simplified Chinese. -- 06:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Rfv-sense: “shit”. -- 12:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @恨国党非蠢即坏 who added the sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also compare zh:奧力給. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't think these are durably archived, though. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole entry may not have any durably archived sources either. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@恨国党非蠢即坏: I've added some durably archived examples in Citations:奧利給 for the interjection sense. For the "poop" sense, I think maybe we can let these examples be used towards attestation if we invoke the second bullet point under WT:ATTEST. @沈澄心, RcAlex36, thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more carefully at the links above, it seems to be a very recent sense, meaning that it can at most be kept as a hot sense. The lack of durably archived material for this makes me think that it's not a good idea to keep even as a hot sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. @沈澄心 is the "shit" sense still current? RcAlex36 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RcAlex36: 【野外求生】野人吃福寿螺!竟然连奥利给一起吃?_哔哩哔哩_bilibili (2022-06-21 12:51:22) However I don't think there're enough durably archived quotations for this sense. 15:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. “Republic of Korea”. Not found in CNKI and Google Books. -- 13:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@沈澄心: I found one usage in a book, but it seems really unclear what it means. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
斯密达=思密達? —Fish bowl (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fish bowl: Yes, I think so. If I were to force some meaning into it, it'd be "The whole universe belongs to the Republic of Coldrea seumnida". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Rfv-sense: "creased; wrinkled" (adjective). Tagged by @Tooironic — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. @Tooironic, please take a look at Citations:皺褶 and add some translations if you can. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Japanese. Rfv-sense: Readings Tomoko and Mariko (given names). The other readings are relatively widespread. The page was created by an IP user in 2018 with seven different readings. Cnilep (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not just any IP. It looks like Shāntián Tàiláng before they created their account- high-volume, no sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Rfv-sense: “to fight”. Pinging @Dokurrat: I've had some trouble finding this sense. ChromeGames (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internet slang. “周立波不再在网上公开撕唐爽,也几乎没有再说过白眼狼之类的狠话;而唐爽呢,也已经很少更新微博,偶尔更新,也与撕周立波无关。” [14]. Likely a merger of 撕逼 and 手撕. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChromeGames, 恨国党非蠢即坏: Thanks. I've added a few quotes to Citations:撕. It also seems to be commonly used in this sense in 互撕. Do you think we should make the definition a little clearer and add something like "to attack" as well? I think it could be some colloquial word that originates in northern China (cf. 撕巴 in Northeastern Mandarin). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think 撕 is derogatory, something more like mudslinging, never a "heroic fight". 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]




# [[beluga whale]]; [[white whale]] {{gl|''[[Delphinapterus leucas]]''}}

In Daijisen, the only meaning given for はくげい is as the translated title of Moby Dick.

@TinyCoursesFish bowl (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most dictionaries list this as the translation of Melville's novel, but not all leave it at that. Luminous Ei-Wa gives 白鯨(しろくじら) (shirokujira) as simply "white whale". A version of Digital Daijisen archived in Japan Knowledge has しろくじら (not はくげい) as (1) white-colored whale, (2) baleen from a grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and (3) synonym of シロイルカ (Delphinapterus leucas). That said, I haven't found any use of the word referring to something other than Moby Dick. Cnilep (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]


Japanese. Re-listing from April 2021, as several other items in that thread passed attestation. Cnilep (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

# [[mine]]

Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not common (except in reference to Minecraft or the like), but I found three quotations in various books. Also, the German proper noun Main is more common, so I added a separate etymology. Cnilep (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The マイン社 of 『ユートロニカのこちら側』 doesn't seem to be related to mining: google:"ユートロニカのこちら側" "マイン社"アガスティアリゾート―マイン社が運営するサンフランシスコ沖合の特別提携地区 情報銀行を経営しているマイン社Fish bowl (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know very little Japanese, but the fact that the Japanese place names in the 1929 and 1957 quotes correspond syllable-by-syllable with the original English names makes me nervous. How do we know that they aren't just transliterating the entire place names as monolithic blocks of foreign text? Why do we assume that the "マイン" in "ブロークン ヒル マイン", is a Japanese word for "mine" but not that "ブロークン" is a Japanese word for "broken" or "ヒル" is a Japanese word for "hill"? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz I'm not terribly enthusiastic about these quotes either but it's also been marked as {{lb|ja|only in compounds}}. —Fish bowl (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Rfv-sense: (~山) Braemar Hill (a hill in North Point district, Hong Kong, China). Is this ever used on its own without 山? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. -- 04:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezhnev, Fish bowl — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was on the requested entries list but I really don't care enough to put any more effort into it. —Fish bowl (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fish bowl: Other than the link put under etymology 2, what other sources did you reference? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[15] (also in an HTML comment in the entry itself) [16]Fish bowl (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


RFV-sense: "China". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Rfv-sense: "handcuffs". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be taken from CC-CEDICT. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]



# {{given name|ja|male|sort=ずいざん}}

Sounds more like a 法号 or something, and indeed it was apparently it was only used by Takechi Zuizan (Hanpeita) as a 号. —Fish bowl (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, also listed in ENAMDICT as a surname with the reading Zuiyama: http://nihongo.monash.edu/cgi-bin/wwwjdic?2MUJ瑞山
Dunno how prevalent this is, though. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. "Opossum". Nosog (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Tooironic who created the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember why I created this. It may be a mistake. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. "Opossum". Nosog (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Tooironic who created the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember why I created this. It may be a mistake. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Specifically the Mandarin pronunciation, because it doesn't seem to match what I can find. Theknightwho (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kangxi Dictionary says:
  • :【廣韻】莫迥切【集韻】母迥切,𠀤音。嫇奵,自持也。一曰面平貌。
  • :【廣韻】【集韻】𠀤都挺切,音。嫇奵,自持貌。
So technically speaking, it should be míngdǐng.
Side note: To those that have not heard of it, I highly recommend zi.tools for this kind of problem to Chinese-reading people. It has basically everything you need about a character in one page.--ItMarki (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho This is not the venue for verifying pronunciation. Are you also doubting the existence of the word? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ItMarki, Theknightwho: I don't think it's a good idea to just take the Kangxi dictionary at face value. The fanqie for 嫇 is pointing to a third tone reading, and Hanyu Da Zidian and 教育部異體字字典 agree, saying that 嫇 is read as mǐng in this word. That said, 五南國語活用辭典 does have míngdǐng as the reading, so it could be included as a variant. The current pronunciations seem to be wrong. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Mandarin pronunciation. Theknightwho (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: This is not the right venue for verifying pronunciation. Are you doubting the existence of this word as well? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @LlywelynII who made the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. No results in Duxiu and Google Books. -- 15:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Mandarin pronunciation of get到. -- 16:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Japanese. {{ja-see|一撃死}} ("killing one’s opponent with a single blow"). —Fish bowl (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese. Rfv-sense: shiitake (outside of the term 椎茸). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.


# [[ghostly]] [[ripple]]
# {{lb|ja|fiction}} A type of supernatural ability from the anime and manga series [[wikipedia:JoJo's_Bizarre_Adventure|JoJo's Bizarre Adventure]], more commonly refered to as a 'stand'.
Sense one does not exist. Sense two WT:FICTION.
Fish bowl (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This, that and the other (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion moved from WT:RFVCJK.
# {{lb|ja|fiction}} A type of supernatural ability from the anime and manga series [[wikipedia:JoJo's_Bizarre_Adventure|JoJo's Bizarre Adventure]], named for the fact that they appear to 'stand' next to their user.
Fish bowl (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only used in that one manga universe, then this fails WT:FICTION. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Try WT:RFVN. --學者三 (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Vietnamese. chữ Hán form of mãi xuân. Theknightwho (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Mandarin. Initially created as the pinyin of 𠵧, but 漢語大字典 gives zhēn. Now reads A syllable only realized when the syllable zhěn is followed by another third-tone syllable. Theknightwho (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: This again seems to be from ctext.org. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=𠵧Fish bowl (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll email Ken Lunde, as this looks to be a Unicode error. Theknightwho (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Mandarin. Supposedly the pinyin of , but 漢語大字典 gives and pài. Looks to be an old Unicode error that was rectified ages ago, going by zi.tools.

Any other characters with this reading? Theknightwho (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: has this reading. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV resolved. Theknightwho (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Mandarin. Supposedly the pinyin of 𧞪, but 漢語大字典 gives and liè. Theknightwho (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: This reading is given for in 教育部異體字字典. It also appears in 现代北京口语词典 (咧光, 咧咧光光). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV resolved. Theknightwho (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]




Mandarin. Supposedly the pinyin of , but 漢語大字典 gives zuì, cuì, and . Theknightwho (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Mandarin. Supposedly the pinyin of , but 漢語大字典 gives míng. Theknightwho (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: I think you meant . — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes. Copy and paste error from the previous post. Theknightwho (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Mandarin. Supposedly the pinyin of 𨈖, but 漢語大字典 gives zhèn. Theknightwho (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Octahedron80 who made the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I imported data from Unihan that was from the first edition of HYDZD (volume 6, page 3808, character 5). Your image is clearly not from the same book. But (1) the later editions might fix error found in the first edition, or (2) Unihan might have error at first. I cannot say what is right. It just needs more evidences and we can make a note at 𨈖. --Octahedron80 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Octahedron80: Thanks. @Theknightwho, I think it can be kept as an alternative pronunciation for 𨈖. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - Unicode have a pretty disastrous record pronunciation-wise, and this would be the only occurrence of the syllable "din" in existence. I'm leaning towards needing proof that it exists, rather than proof that it doesn't.
I've spotted that 全字庫 gives the reading dìng, which seems much more likely. Theknightwho (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho: It's not a Unihan mistake, but taken from the first edition of 漢語大字典, as Octahedron80 has said. I've checked my copy of the first edition of 漢語大字典 to verify this. It is presumably based on the 當禁切 fanqie given in 《改併四聲篇海·身部》引《俗字背篇》. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it doesn't seem to be a mistake on the part of the first edition of 漢語大字典 because it appears again in the 中古音字表 index (p. 5247) in the first edition of 漢語大字典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see - I had interpreted that to mean it was taken from Unihan on the knowledge that Unicode used the first edition of 漢語大字典 as their source (which still left the possibility that it was a Unicode mistake, as Octahedron80 also said). If it's actually in the 1st ed. of 漢語大字典, that's a different matter.
Now that you mention it, the 2nd ed. 漢語大字典 entry linked above also quotes the same fanqie, which is then followed by a source for zhèn. It's not clear why only one reading is given in pinyin. Theknightwho (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho: I think they only give one pronunciation unless there are differences in meaning. They probably went with zhèn in the second edition because of the new piece of data and because it's a more direct pronunciation gloss; this pronunciation is possibly reconcilable with 當禁切, but the historical phonology is beyond what I know. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Mandarin. Supposedly the pinyin of (etymology 3), but 漢語大字典 gives děi. Theknightwho (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: 现代北京口语词典 has some dēi words, like 𠯪 (in 𠯪𠯪) and 㧹. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho: I think the scan of 漢語大字典 you have above has some issues. If you look at this version, you'll see that 嘚 has a dēi reading, and this is also confirmed in 现代汉语词典 (7th edition). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - this came from the other scan we discussed. Theknightwho (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV resolved. Theknightwho (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Mandarin. Initially created as the pinyin of (biān), but 漢語大字典 gives biān and diǎn. Now reads A syllable only realized when the syllable diǎn is followed by another third-tone syllable. Theknightwho (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theknightwho: 现代北京口语词典 has some words with 點 that have dián (e.g. 點補 diánba, diánbu, diánbo; 點染 diánran) because the second syllable is 3rd tone but became neutral tone. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, @Theknightwho, the second reading in 漢語大字典 is diān, not diǎn. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The crappy copy is the culprit yet again. Theknightwho (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022[edit]


Chinese. Rfv-sense: "(archaic) to cultivate one's moral character and engage in introspection". Added by @Tooironic. RcAlex36 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very similar to the sense of this term as used in Japanese, FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]