Open main menu

Welcome messageEdit

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! (Pls don't forget that Chinese translation need traditional, simplified (with pinyin), in this order). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

To Anatoli T.: Sorry but I am not familiar with that and have to leave the task to others who are willing to complete it.Huhu9001 (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. You may start by adding a Babel table to your user page, so people know what languages you're familiar with.
What I was referring to is, instead of @silo e.g.:
It should look like this (if you know the info):

--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

To Anatoli T.:Thank you for your advice.Huhu9001 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You're still adding just the simplified form. You need to add both. It's a standard requirement.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
To Anatoli T.: Sorry but I have already given my explanation. I am not familiar with Traditional Chinese Characters and have to leave the task to others who are willing to complete it.Huhu9001 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. There are many online dictionaries with both sets of scripts, converters, Pleco dictionary for mobile devices. You're just making someone else fix your edits, which is time-consuming. This is the policy page: Wiktionary:About_Chinese#Translations_into_Chinese_languages.2Fdialects.2Ftopolects. Quote: "The traditional precedes the simplified version if they are different and the transliteration is provided with the simplified version." --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

and Edit

Please see User talk:Kc_kennylau. The different modern-day pronunciations of 茶 and were from different, but related Old Chinese pronunciations. does not derive from . Cantonese is not derived from either; it is from . Wyang (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

to Wyang: Why, with both being /*rlaː/? is thought to be from because 來 is still used in some dialects where occupied in MSM. This conclusion was drawn from The Sino-Tibetan Languages by G. Thurgood and R. LaPolla, page 92.Huhu9001 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
to Wyang: Not mentioning the reconstructions of OCH itself is far from being accurate, only several possible pronunciations are given rather than a single "correct" one. Instead a more reliable clue comes from the rule of vowel shifts /a/ to /u/ in OCH.Huhu9001 (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Reconstructions are reconstructions. I don't think there can be a single "correct" one unless we have a time machine. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
/*rlaː/ generates Middle Chinese /ɖˠa/, which gives cha2. All the developments were regular. However, the tu2 pronunciation of 荼 is from Old Chinese /*l'aː/, and is hence not valid as a word comparandum obeying regular sound changes. The reference in Thurgood is not convincing; compare the passages on 了 and 來 in Schuessler (2007) "ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese" - 來 is evidently not a contraction of 了 + 也, which is what is claimed in Thurgood. The etymologies need to be backed up with references, and when multiple references exist, by consensus amongst them. Wyang (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
to Wyang: ABC did not deny that 了 is from 來, but only 來 is from 了 + 也, which is not a conclusion but a suggestion in Thurgood's book.Huhu9001 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at this in more detail. I was able to find the following references which had analysed the use of 了 in medieval literature and commented on the origin or development of this particle.

吴福祥(1998).重谈“动+了+宾”格式的来源和完成体助词“了”的产生.《中国语文》第6期.452–462页.

 

“了”先在“动+了”格式里虚化为动相补语,然后带上宾语就形成了“动+了+宾”格式,即[动+了]+[宾]>[动+了+宾],最后,”动+了+宾”格式中的动相补语”了”进一步虚化变成完成体助词。

 

沈陽,玄玥(2013).“完結短語”及漢語結果補語的語法化和完成體標記的演變過程.Breaking Down the Barriers, 553–576页.

 

"完結短語”假設是在生成語法理論框架內提出的關於漢語虛化結果補語的理論,認為虛化結果補語在動詞短語內部投射為主要謂語動詞的內部體“完結短語”。依據這個假設理論,可以解釋漢語完成體標記”了”從結果補語到虛化結果補語、最終發展為體標記的語法化過程,並在句法結構上支持動詞後存在兩個不同的“了”。

 

宋新宇(2013).敦煌变文中“了”的语法化考察.《山东大学》.

 

本文运用语法化动因和机制的相关理论,对书中”了“的语法化等级进行了动因和机制的阐释。”了“的语法化等级产生的动因主要包括语法、语义和语用三方面的因素,主要体现在:”动+了“的句型是”了“语法化的基础,”了“的动词语义从表示动作过程的结束到表示状态完成,呈现出的逐渐弱化的趋势体现和促进着”了“语法化等级的发生,而”了“的在”动+了“句式中的高频率使用等因素也是”了“语法化等级产生的动因。”了“语法化等级的发生机制主要体现在弱化和类推:弱化就是”了“呈现出的词义和语音的弱化,类推主要表现在”了“与有界动词到无界动词再到形容词的搭配扩散,在扩散中完成了”了“的语法化过程。

 

梁银峰(2006).”V+了+O”格式来源的再探讨——兼论事态助词”了”的来源.《语言研究集刊》.

 

上述公式说明“V+O+了”中的“了”是事态助词“了”的直接来源。我们认为“V+O+了”中的“了”并非事态助词的唯一来源 。在$2.2.2中我们已经指出,某些“V+了”中的“了”除了看作动相补语以外,其中有些也可看作事态助词。

 

曹广顺(1987).语气词“了”源流浅说.《中国语文》第2期.

 

近年来,不断有同志撰文介绍,在一些北方方言中,“了2”的语音形式受到“也”的影响,可能是“了也”的合音。因此,不能排出“了2”的形成过程在不同方言区发展不平衡的可能。也就是说,可能直到元代,在部分北方方言中“了2”的使用仍不很自由,其处于句尾时仍须“了也”连用。这种方言差别反映到史料中,造成了宋元两代文献里“了”和“了也”用法的差异。……从“了2”形成的整个历史过程看,“了”字的发展一直是沿着从不自由到自由,从实词到虚词的轨道前进,元代的情况,只是这个历史进程中一个小的曲折。入明以后,“了2”的使用又逐渐回复到南宋的情况,“了也”也重新消失了。

 

刘勋宁(1985).现代汉语句尾“了”的来源.《方言》第2期.128–133页.

 

《祖堂集》里的”了“字依出现位置可分三类,但依语法性质,实际只是两类。这两类句式与今天现代汉语的两种”了“字句是严格对应的,而现代汉语的语气词”了“则来源于近代汉语的C式句。我们采用近代汉语的“了也”并合而成为现代汉语句尾“了2”的说法,不只是因为“了也”的语法位置与今天的“了2”相对应,而且可以很好地说明我们在上一节所揭示的句尾“了”和“也”的平行的音韵关系。

 

The consensus in the literature is that the sentence-final 了 had developed from the perfective marker 了 via either one of the following sequences:

V + O + 了 > V + 了 + O (aspect particle) > V + 了 > sentence-final modal particle
V + O + 了 > V + 了 (aspect particle) > V + 了 + O > sentence-final modal particle

In this process, the last step may have involved the fusion with sentence-final 也 in certain northern Mandarin dialects, resulting in distinct pronunciations of the two particle uses of 了.

This is very far from what you had added in , which says 了 is derived from 來 without any other context given. Before it can be demonstrated by a thorough review of the literature supporting one's hypothesis that 了 is derived from 來, this is an unsubstantiated view which is inconsistent with the consensus on the origin of the modal particle 了 in the literature. Wyang (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Preview of referencesEdit


Arabic personal pronounsEdit

Hi. In {{ar-personal_pronouns}} you wrote: "Furthermore, -ū of the masculine sound plural is assimilated to -ī before ـيَ ‎(-ya) (presumably, -aw of masculine defective -an plurals is similarly assimilated to -ay)." It is difficult to understand without examples. Specifically, these two phrases: -ū of the masculine sound plural, and -aw of masculine defective -an plurals is similarly assimilated to -ay. Someone is asking for clarification at Talk:هم. —Stephen (Talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

To —Stephen: It was copied from w:Arabic_grammar#Personal_pronouns.Huhu9001 (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
You left out a lot of text from w:Arabic grammar#Personal pronouns, leaving {{ar-personal_pronouns}} incomprehensible. For example, in the sentence that you added that begins with "Specifically", you left out the words that precede that, and those words are necessary. Without them, what you added makes no sense at all. Do you know Arabic? If you don't know Arabic, you should just revert your edits to {{ar-personal_pronouns}}. If you know Arabic as well as English, then you should revisit your edits to {{ar-personal_pronouns}} and fix it. —Stephen (Talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
To —Stephen: I believe you need to improve your skill of comprehension before accusing me of anything. However you can just still do what you want to the template. I don't care and won't bother to stop you.Huhu9001 (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

烏合之眾Edit

Do you have anything to say about the matter itself, rather than a nasty comment? Wyang (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Huhu9001, edit warring doesn't help. Here's loads of evidence that supports Wyang's edits:

《教育部重編國語辭典修訂本》烏合
 

倉卒集合,似烏鴉的聚合,無嚴整紀律。《後漢書.卷二一.邳彤傳》:「驅集烏合之眾,遂震燕、趙之地。」《紅樓夢.第七八回》:「誰知次年便有黃巾、赤眉一干流賊餘黨,復又烏合,搶掠山左一帶。」

 
《教育部重編國語辭典修訂本》烏合之眾
 

比喻暫時湊合,無組織、無紀律的一群人。《梁書.卷三九.羊侃傳》:「景進不得前,退失巢窟,烏合之眾,自然瓦解。」《文明小史.第三回》:「這綠營的兵固然沒用,然而出來彈壓這般童生。與一班烏合之眾,尚覺綽綽有餘。」也作「烏合之卒」。

 
《中華語文大辭典》烏合之眾
 

像烏鴉一樣聚在一起的無組織、無紀律的一群人。(例)這幫烏合之眾真不堪一擊。

 
《漢語大詞典》烏合
 

❶形容人群没有严密组织而临时凑合,如群乌暂时聚合。《晋书·慕容廆载记》:“廆曰:‘彼信崔毖虚説,邀一時之利,烏合而來耳。’”《资治通鉴·晋元帝太兴二年》引此文,胡三省注曰:“飛烏見食,羣集而聚啄之,人或驚之,則四散飛去;故兵以利合無所統一者,謂之烏合。“《三国演义》第十七回:“術兵雖衆,皆烏合之師,素不親信。“清采蘅子《虫鸣漫录》卷一:“﹝謝嗣鳳﹞散家財,結同教,招亡命,烏合數千人,揭竿而起。“ ❷指暂时凑合的一群人。清侯方域《上三省督府剿抚议》:“不若移一旅之師……隨宜撲翦,聯樓結寨,漸次燒除,兔窟既破,烏合焉棲?”参见“烏合之衆”。

 
《漢語大詞典》烏合之衆
 

形容一时聚集,无组织纪律的一群人。《东观汉记·公孙述传》:“今東帝無尺土之柄,驅烏合之衆,跨馬陷敵,所向輒平。“《周书·贺拔岳传》:“岳報曰:‘王家跨據三方,士馬殷盛,高歡烏合之衆,豈能爲敵?’“宋李纲《乞差发军马札子》:”惟是軍馬單弱,不足爲一路防守之具,自非朝廷應副,則新招烏合之衆,何足倚仗?“李大钊《大哀篇》:「彼等見夫共和國有所謂政黨者矣,于是集烏合之衆,各竪一幟。“

 
《现代汉语词典》乌合之众
 

指无组织无纪律的一群人(乌合:像乌鸦那样聚集)。

 
《辞海》乌合之众
 

谓无组织、无纪律,如乌鸦般仓卒聚合的群众。《宋史·杨时传》:“今诸路乌合之众,臣谓当立统帅,一号令,示纪律,而后士卒始用命。”

 
《万条成语词典》乌合之众
 

﹝贬﹞乌合:像乌鸦一样暂时集合。指像乌鸦一样随聚随散、无组织无纪律的人群。(例)这群~,人数虽多,实际上不堪一击。(近)瓦合之卒、一盘散沙。(连用)乌合之众,不堪一击。

 
《朗文中文新詞典修訂版》烏合之眾
 

向烏鴉一樣胡亂聚集,比喻既無組織又無紀律的人羣:「我們不是烏合之眾,而是有組織有紀律的軍隊。」

 

Please provide evidence for your edits. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

算術 and 算數Edit

I have reverted your changes to these entries as homophones (in Mandarin) are already listed in the pronunciation box. Please refrain from such edits in the future. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

changes to 凝華 and othersEdit

Hi there. Please note that we haven't used that formatting across 1,000s of Chinese 词 entries for synonyms and antonyms. Instead, we have kept that data and the definitions separate to each other. This still allows us to specify which sense is being referred to. Please help us maintain consistency. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: This vote technically allows both formatting styles to coexist. 凝華 isn't really a case where the "new" formatting is improving anything, but with many entries, it seems to be a better choice to avoid repeating glosses. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing that vote my attention. I wasn't aware of it. If I had known about it I would have voted against it, but it seems like the majority of the community support it anyway. Mixing the definitions space with synonyms and antonyms information looks bad and makes it harder for users to find definitions, quotations and usage examples. It also suppresses important information like pinyin and qualifiers. It's true we have to manually add a sense gloss, but that's a very small task that takes only a couple of seconds to complete. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: If you really want to change it back, at least use {{sense}}. Do not leave Syns/Ants with unclarified senses there. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there a rule that a sense tag is required even if there is only one definition, or if the syn/ant refers to all senses listed? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Because you don't know whether some neological sense will be add in the future. Also you failed to distinguish the physical sense and the psychological sense in 升華. I hope you read an entry carefully before editing it. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. But why revert? You could have just added one word to the sense tag. Now we've lost the pinyin information that was there originally. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I don't know why pinyin is necessary there. Those who want the pinyin of 凝華 can just go to that entry. But if you really want it, {{ant|zh|{{zh-l|凝華}}}} -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, separating the syn/ant information from the definitions allows us to include pinyin and qualifiers which is useful to users. And we are, after all, a dictionary first and foremost and not a thesaurus. So why put them together? What benefit does that provide? In the thousands of Chinese entries - plus tens of thousands of English entries - we use the original formatting. Why not maintain consistency? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I simply don't see why this makes Wiktionary "less like a dictionary". -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
OK. I understand. Thank you for your effort. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Also if you are referring to traditional dictionaries, I would like to say that traditional dictionaries, when providing "see also" (including Syms/Ants) information, usually only give a bare entry name for readers to look up. They put pinyin or any other things in the main entries rather than give them beside the "see also" information. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
As we often say, we are not a paper dictionary, so we don't have to worry about too much information on the page. The pinyin information does not require additional input by editors - it displays automatically - so I don't see what the benefit would be of turning that feature off. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

False accusation and unfair block from User:WyangEdit

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Huhu9001 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Admin User:Wyang accused me of "Adding copious amount of incorrect translations and other content": No evidence given. In fact I almost merely copy from Japanese dictionaries recently.

If possible, I would like to call for the removal of this user from administrators for his constant abusing of power. Having him remaining in his place is quite harmful to Wiktionary. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what this is all about: on the one hand, I see corrections by others on only two of your edits this month, which doesn't look like what I would expect from a repeat egregiously bad editor. On the other hand, I see corrections by others on only two of your edits this month, which doesn't begin to justify your angry outburst on Wyang's talk page.
As for "I almost merely copy from Japanese dictionaries recently": Wyang isn't commenting on your Japanese, but on your English. Unless you're copying word-for-word, which would be copyright violation and/or plagiarism, the phrasing of your definitions is your work- and your responsibility. The phrasing of that sentence doesn't show the best command of English, so that may be the kind of thing he was referring to. I don't have time right now to go through your edits to see if Wyang has a point regarding content (if it's even the kind of thing I'm qualified to judge), but as far as his characterization of your attitude, I have to agree with him. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Because this admin has harassed me before in 彈頭 and as far as I see he has been always ill-attituded towards who dissents him. In fact I have tried my best to avoid him for quite a period of time as I hate to engage in a conflict with such an admin, but still he and the trouble came for me, which was the thing that really frustrated me. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: More. I am interested in neither the bureaucratic things of Wiktionary, nor Wyrang himself, but I did observe him once playing some tricks like blocking himself in order to earn sympathy of the community (chiefly other admins I guess) and to get rid of the then accusation of abusing admin rights over some other users. I don't know what you think of it but I would take this as hypocritic performance and it would be quite a dismay to think about having to endure such a person, who I must admit is quite good at reinforcing his own position and power by this kind of performance, when participating in Wiktionary in the foreseeable future. This is another reason of my angry outburst. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Please see User:Wyang. Would you mind me asking what is the story behind this admin? His behaviour just seems irrational. Also, don't you think it is a bit questionable to install such a user as an admin? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

In case it changes, the user page above reads:

Please remove all of my rights.
烏煙瘴氣. This site will always be a kludge. Let it 自生自滅.

-- Huhu9001 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me. Can anyone tell me what's the story behind User:Wyang?Edit

-- Huhu9001 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Rights removed as he requested. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Huhu9001".