Etymology and graphical significanceEdit
What is the etymology and graphical significance of this character? 18.104.22.168 06:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Another Mandarin readingEdit
- Please ask this question in the Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/April. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The reading "lu4" restored to entry. I see that you are the very editor who, without comment, eliminated this reading from the entry -- very bad, please do not do again. 22.214.171.124 23:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Who are you to say? Like Anatoli said, bring this up in the Tea room. If you want this reading added to the entry, bring this up in the Tea room first, where editors may discuss the merits of including this pronunciation.
- FWIW, I'm not finding sources that list lù as a valid reading, so I'm reverting your change back to Anatoli's last edit. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
For what reason are you not seeing the source Zdic DOT net, which was posted again and again, including in your own "Discussion" page? Reverting a correct edit to remove a valid reading that should have already been in this entry (and, in fact, was, until an editor removed it without discussion, then refused to re-add it after being asked), is very wrong, especially in light of the apparent fact that you don't have experience with this language. Thank you for refraining from removing correct readings from Chinese-language entries in the future without actually taking a moment or two to look it up first. 126.96.36.199 23:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm looking right at the zdic.net entry for 綠 right here -- and it doesn't list any lù reading, only the umlauted version.
- What are you looking at? Can you provide a full URL so we can compare notes? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- And again, please be more considerate in your comments. Part of my delay in replying here was because I was researching and composing a reply to your comment on my Talk page, wherein I discuss the fact that numerous online Chinese dictionaries list lǜ but not lù. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You clearly should have researched, before reverting again and again (without any comment the first few times). How could you not find this? It is one of the most reliable dictionaries, and the edit was correct.
188.8.131.52 23:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm really losing patience with your condescending idiocy. The link you provided (http://www.zdic.net/z/21/js/7EFF.htm) is for a different character: that is the entry for 绿, not for this entry, which is 綠. Granted, the former is the simplified form, but simplified forms can often represent more than one traditional character, and thus can include the readings for all of their orthographical antecedents. Consequently, readings for simplified forms are sometimes treated as specific to the simplified forms, and readings for traditional forms are treated as specific to the traditional forms. I don't know you, and you have given me zero reason to trust your judgment. Rather that numerous sources only list the lǜ reading for this specific 綠 character, that's what I'm going with.
- If you'd stop being such a superior jackass for long enough to discuss things, we might be willing to work with you. (Hint: to discuss means to state opinions and also to listen to what others have to say -- not to just proclaim that one is right and ignore anything to the contrary.) As it is, I'm blocking you for being abusive. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Copied over from [[User_talk:Eirikr#Your_revert]] to keep all relevant comments in one place.
Hello, your revert here:
was incorrect -- consulting a reliable online Chinese dictionary such as Zdic DOT net will show the "lu4" reading for this character, which was lacking from the entry. Thank you for checking before reverting in the future. 184.108.40.206 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Numerous other Chinese dictionaries do not include a lù reading. I did check. Even zdic.net doesn't list any lù reading. Please be more courteous before assuming malfeasance on the part of others. And if other editors have asked you to post in the Tea room or other discussion fora, please post there to discuss and establish consensus before (re-)adding controversial content. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The reading "lu4" once again restored to entry. 220.127.116.11 05:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)