Module talk:zh/data/dial-syn/妻子
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Mar vin kaiser in topic Hokkien and Teochew
Hokkien and Teochew
edit@Justinrleung, RcAlex36, Mar vin kaiser The more I think about it, the more I think we should merge the Hokkien and Teochew entries since Hokkien 某 and Teochew 𡚸 are clearly etymologically related. The question is, how should we do it? The dog2 (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @The dog2: As much as I want to, as far as I know, same etymology is not the only criterion we use. We also look at usage. That's why we haven't merged 曱甴 and 虼蚻. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @The dog2: What @Mar vin kaiser said is quite true. I do think we should have ways of indicating in the module that certain things are etymologically related, but I don't know what the best way to go about it is. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 04:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser: I get what you are saying, and I think it makes sense for loan words that came from the same origin, but entered the respective dialects after they diverged, to use separate characters. However, if the word was already present in the common ancestor of those dialects and then later diverged when the dialects diverged, then it makes sense to use the same characters. But anyway, I brought this up just so we can have a consistent policy. If we merged Teochew 㩼 into Hokkien 濟, and Teochew 灱 into Hokkien 焦, then it doesn't make sense to me that we have a different policy for Hokkien 某 and Teochew 𡚸. The dog2 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @The dog2: I think our policy there, the way I understand it, is that it means that 焦 and 濟 are also used in Teochew for them to be merged. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser: I get what you are saying, and I think it makes sense for loan words that came from the same origin, but entered the respective dialects after they diverged, to use separate characters. However, if the word was already present in the common ancestor of those dialects and then later diverged when the dialects diverged, then it makes sense to use the same characters. But anyway, I brought this up just so we can have a consistent policy. If we merged Teochew 㩼 into Hokkien 濟, and Teochew 灱 into Hokkien 焦, then it doesn't make sense to me that we have a different policy for Hokkien 某 and Teochew 𡚸. The dog2 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @The dog2: What @Mar vin kaiser said is quite true. I do think we should have ways of indicating in the module that certain things are etymologically related, but I don't know what the best way to go about it is. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 04:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)