Last modified on 22 February 2015, at 07:31

User talk:Gdbf137

Your Latin and Greek additions to the pageEdit

Hello, I've reverted your additions to the page for a second time.

I'm afraid that neither Latin nor Greek has any place on this page, as indeed no language should have a header on that page unless it uses the character .

That aside, Latin mitto and Greek μήνυμα (mínyma) are in no way related to Chinese . Vaguely similar meanings do not necessarily equate to a linguistic relationship.

In light of these two issues, adding these language headings with ===Related terms=== subsections is completely inappropriate. If you can show ways in which Latin and Greek both use the character that meet our Criteria for Inclusion, then Latin and Greek sections could go on that page. Otherwise, I'm afraid that such edits will be reverted.

Cheers, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I see, I'll add the definitions to the latin and greek pages for this pictograph.

Gdbf137 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Your addition to the "Derived characters" section of the pageEdit

Hello, I've reverted your addition to the page. The ===Derived characters=== section is reserved for characters actually derived from the headword character. The modern form of might seem to contain the same graphical elements of the modern character, but as clearly described in the 舌#Etymology section, the character is not actually derived from at all.

-- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Gdbf137 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Read the 舌#Etymology section. It says quite clearly that the character is derived from a pictogram of a forked tongue emerging from a mouth. I.e., this character is not derived as a variation of or composition using the character. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As an addendum, I'd like to explain that derived in Wiktionary headings is generally reserved for etymologically derived -- i.e., one word or character slowly turning into another, or being composed using another, or being borrowed into or from another. While is visually just plus an extra stroke, the histories of the two characters are distinct and unrelated. Meanwhile, both characters are derived from , as is historically and semantically part of how these two other characters were composed. Cheers, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Change to the Cangjie input sequence on the pageEdit

Hello, I've reverted your change to the Cangjie input sequence on the page. As clearly shown at the w:Cangjie_input_method page, the H in Cangjie input strings is represented by the character , and not the character . -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Eirikr: I don't know why you reverted this edit --- the input sequence LBV is correct, and edit is good!
Gdbf137 (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If the entry sequence is LBV, then please change it to match. You'd changed (H) to (L), but you left the ASCII sequence as HBV. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I just checked Microsoft's Changjie IME, and the sequence is HBV. I note that the Unihan database entry for 农 gives the sequence LBV, but 1) this doesn't really make sense, as the L is for a long straight vertical line, as in , which doesn't have, and 2) typing LBV into the Changjie IME just produces an error sound, and no character is output.
So I'm forced to the conclusion that our article is correct in listing HBV, and that Unihan is incorrect in listing LBV. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, that input doesn't work on my Macintosh (OSX Lion). Should there be an OS-specific note? I made the edit to the roman letter button sequence as you permitted before reading your second note.

Hmm, that's very interesting indeed. Unfortunately, it looks like including more than one sequence would require a change to the {{Han char}} template. I'll bring it up on the WT:Beer parlor page to see if any of the technically adept Chinese editors would be willing and able to make this change. Thanks for bringing this up! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism on the pageEdit

I've reverted your addition to the page. This character does not mean "feudal complaint" by any resource I've looked at. Incorrect additions are indistinguishable from vandalism. So far, every edit you've made that I've looked at has been incorrect. Please check with reputable sources before adding or changing entries in Wiktionary. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My edit to definition 2, Feudal --> Feudal comment/assessment/complaint, is based on the implicit significance of the 木 in the Canjie input, and the definition in the Unihan Database at, which defines it as "letter, envelope, feudal".
Gdbf137 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the additional explanation. I don't believe that Cangjie input has any bearing on meanings, as the input method is derived solely based on glyph shapes. As noted in the WP article, the input method “is in fact a simple geometric decomposition.” Moreover, has a basic meaning of tree, and I fail to see any way in which that might lead to meanings of complaint, assessment, or comment, even if the Cangjie input method implied meaning.
I also note that the Unihan database can be misleading in its terseness. The Unihan entry itself lists the definition as “letter, envelope; feudal” -- note especially the semicolon, as this is used to split unrelated meanings. So one set of meanings for this character is "letter, envelope", and the other, separate, meaning is "feudal". This separation means that does not signify "a feudal letter".
I hope that helps clarify things for you. Please feel free to ping me if you have any questions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


Ditto the above comment, only this time for the page. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


Ditto. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The definition on this page is incorrect -- it is not etymologically related to magnus, which does have semantics of size.
Gdbf137 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


Ditto. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


Note that the ===Related terms=== section is reserved for words that are related etymologically. Words that happen to have similar meanings do not go in this section. If the meaning is similar enough, they might go in a ===Synonyms=== section. Dolus is decidedly unrelated to magus, and thus should not go in the ===Related terms=== section. I have reverted your edit. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Legislate, Relegate, Legō, ΛέγωEdit

λέγω (légo) etymology 2 Proto-Indo-European *leǵ- concurs with legō (English appearances of it), but there is some discrepancy as to whether the Ancient Greek definition is to say or to rest.

Gdbf137 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Gdbf137".