Do we have entries for these? A famous example would be 小和尚念經一有口無心. The dog2 (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: Yup. See CAT:Chinese xiehouyu. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Page redirects at the Chinese WiktionaryEdit


Do you know how redirects at zh.wiktionary works? It seems impossible to arrive at zh:東京 to remove the redirect, the page will take you to东京. Some entries entries seemed to be "permanently" centralised on simplified characters. But on zh:中國 and zh:中国, which now work just like ours. Also calling @Suzukaze-c. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Chinese Wiktionary has automatic traditional-to-simplified/simplified-to-traditional conversion. This is really confusing (and honestly should be turned off if you ask me). I think you could probably try moving the page to 東京? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that worked! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop tone sandhi in TeochewEdit

Hey there, I just added a Teochew proverb 六月大菜——假有心. From what I'm hearing, I think the 月 is not supposed to have tone sandhi. Is there a way to stop it in the module just like you can for Hokkien? See this video for the pronunciation of that proverb. The dog2 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: Not yet. That'll have to be fixed. Meanwhile, you could put {{attn|nan|Teochew: no tone sandhi on 月}} somewhere in the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


Could you please help me check if these are the right characters? The pronunciation and first character are correct, but I'm not absolutely sure about the second character. The dog2 (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: 塊 is one way it's written. I think it's the way that makes the most sense to me (comparing how 塊 is used in Teochew and Min Dong), and it's used by 台日大辭典. Taiwan's MoE recommends 地, and 周長楫 and other scholars in Fujian seem to use 帶. @Mar vin kaiser, what do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to follow what the scholars use. I would personally follow what the scholars in Fujian use since that's where the language originated from, but I've noticed that Wiktionary generally follows the Taiwanese MoE. I'm fine with either so you pick. The dog2 (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not sure this applies in Taiwan and mainland China, but in Singapore, the term has a negative connotation. If it doesn't in Taiwan and mainland China, maybe we should reflect the difference. The dog2 (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: There are two meanings in Taiwan, Xiamen and Quanzhou (according to the relevant sources): (1) 占地方 and (2) 礙事、礙手礙腳. We seem to be missing the second definition. Both have negative connotations from what I can tell. "Take up space" in English usually has a negative connotation. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: For me, 塊 seems better, as the meaning of the character corresponds in a way how it is used, and the pronunciation, and too many pronunciations placed in 帶 already. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Someone please combine 鎮塊 and 鎮帶. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Justinrleung: Yeah, I've heard the second definition being used in Singapore too. The dog2 (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Regional variations in Malaysian HokkienEdit

How should we treat this? I recently created the entries for 阿明, 阿成, 阿蓮 and 阿花, which are slang terms that are used in Singapore and Johor, but I have not found them in the Penang Hokkien dictionary, so there's a chance that they are not used in Penang. The dog2 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: I guess we could say "Singaporean and Southern Malaysian Hokkien" or something like that. We could also be less specific and say "Singaporean and Malaysian Hokkien". I'd prefer the second way so that it's less specific since we don't know if Penang uses it or not. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, I guess we can keep the status quo then. The dog2 (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Um, last time I checked, Penang Hokkien is not the same as Southern Malaysian Hokkien. There are at least two different type of Hokkien used in Malaysia, a "northern" and "southern" variety. I think it is bad idea to use "Malaysia Hokkien" for words not found in Penang Hokkien. I prefer "Singapore and Southern Malaysian Hokkien" for slang terms that are used in Singapore and Johor, but not found in Penang Hokkien, because Malaysia Hokkien has at least two varieties, Northern Malaysian Hokkien (Penang Hokkien) and Southern Malaysian Hokkien. User talk:iambluemon 09:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Iambluemon: Yes, we're aware of the existence of dialectal differences within Malaysia, and yes, they can broadly be divided into north and south (at least in peninsular Malaysia). However, I don't think we need to be overspecific unless we're really sure that it's not used in Penang. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
So Malaysia Hokkien can be used, even if it is not recorded in Penang Hokkien Dictionary or never heard before in the Penang Hokkien Podcast? Sounds like bad assumption. Iambluemon (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Iambluemon: Labelling it as "Malaysia Hokkien" doesn't necessarily mean all speakers everywhere in Malaysia, just like labelling something as "US" doesn't necessarily mean it's used everywhere in the US. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
If it's not used everywhere in the US or whatever region, then someone has to write something in the usage notes. How about using "North America" for something used in Canada, but can't confirm whether it's used in US. Or how about "Asia" for something used in Japan, but not sure whether it's used in India, China, etc? I mean if you're not sure then don't make a generalized statement. Better use only "California" if you know it's used in California, but can't confirm whether it's also used in other regions. Iambluemon (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Iambluemon: Well in that case, we should say "Johor" rather than "Southern Malaysia". I still think it's okay to use "Malaysia" since we're usually specific to the country level for Chinese-speaking regions outside of PRC and ROC. Even for Taiwan, I would put "Taiwanese Hokkien" even if it's not necessarily applicable to all of Taiwan. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I also think is better to use Johor Hokkien rather than Southern Malaysia Hokkien. "Malaysia Hokkien" is not ideal because nobody knows which variety it refers to. For Taiwanese Hokkien, Taipei and Kaohsiung Hokkien is considered the prestige dialect, so that can be assumed to be what it refers to, but no one knows what is the prestige dialect for Malaysia Hokkien. Iambluemon (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Iambluemon: Fair enough. @The dog2, what do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since I'm not absolutely sure that they are not used in Penang, sure, I'm fine with either approach. If I were sure that they are not used in Penang, then labelling it as Muar or Johor Hokkien would definitely be the way to go.

And it's not just north and south. The Hokkien in Penang, Klang, Muar, Malacca and Kuching all differ from each other, so I think in the dialectal tables, we should replace "Malaysia-MN" with "Penang" to account for the regional differences. And it's not just Hokkien. The Cantonese in Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh and Sandakan are also different from each other. The dog2 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi Justin. I noticed the given pronunciation here for mainland China is "qiángpò', however I think "qiǎngpò" is standard, and the guifan cidian confirms this. What do you think? ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that's standard in China, but in Singapore, we always pronounce it "qiángpò" The dog2 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Yup, you're right. qiǎngpò is standard in Mainland and Taiwan, but qiángpò is probably a common variant. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Justin. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hokkien 某 vs Teochew 𡚸Edit

Given how similar they sound and how closely related Hokkien and Teochew are, these certainly seem to be cognates of each other. Should we keep them as separate characters in the dialect tables, or should we find one character to merge them into like we did for Hokkien 濟 and Teochew 㩼? The dog2 (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: I'm not sure. 某 is very common in Hokkien, but in other Min dialects, it's usually written as 𡚸. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser What do you think? The dog2 (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: As you know, I'm biased to the idea of keeping cognates together, especially if we have confidence that they're the same word, so that's why we put "袂" in Hokkien, "𣍐" in Min Dong and Min Bei, and "𠁞" in Teochew into the same entry.
For the case of "某" and "𡚸", on the other hand, I would be inclined to apply the same thing, but several factors come to mind, but if we are to merge them, which character? If "某", then we'd be prescribing it to Teochew and Min Dong when they're not used there. If "𡚸", same thing, and too many entries are already made with "某". However, if you look at our entry in 查某, we do use it for Teochew. My question then would be, how widespread is Min Dong and Teochew in written form in the first place? If it's not really widespread, unlike in Hokkien, then maybe we can combine the entries, but somehow indicate that "𡚸" is still the more common character used in those dialects. This is because I'm more inclined to show the cognates in one entry, and especially in Teochew and Hokkien, which has so many common words, it would unnecessarily split many Hokkien and Teochew words into two entries, I mean those words that contain "某", which I think are a lot. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Teochew writing is certainly less common than Hokkien writing, but there are dictionaries and academic publications about Teochew. And it's even studied at the university level. There are actual professors of Teochew at the university level, of whom 林倫倫 is probably the most well-known. I'd definitely rank it as one of the better documented varieties of Chinese The dog2 (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


I created the dialectal synonyms table for this some days back, so could you please complete it if you have more sources? Thanks. The dog2 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: I've added a few more dialects. I have a question about Teochew 寬 though. It seems to be an adverb to me. I think we want to keep that module as an adjective use for now (either 那輛車很慢 or 他走得很慢, not 慢慢來/慢來). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: 慢 is definitely a lot more common than 寬 in Teochew, and in Singapore, I've never heard anyone use 寬. So far, that video (they claim it's the Chaozhou dialect) is the only example for the use of 寬 that I have seen. What do your dictionaries say? The dog2 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: 潮·普双言语词典 labels it as an adjective but the example sentence is clearly an adverbial use: 宽来,免用急。 广州话、客家话、潮汕话与普通话对照词典 has 宽 and 慢, but the example for 宽 is definitely adverbial: 宽宽食 and 行够 hoh4 慢. I know in Hokkien it's also used adverbially, usually in the form 寬寬仔, 寬寬 or 寬仔. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: I've actually never used 寬 in Hokkien. I've always said "慢慢來". And the same expression is used in Teochew with a different pronunciation. The dog2 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oyster omeletteEdit

Just wondering, how sure are we that 蚵煎 is used in Xiamen and Zhangzhou? The Hokkien videos that I have seen about the dish in Xiamen and Zhangzhou call it 蚵仔煎. The dog2 (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: They're probably less common. They're in the relevant dictionaries (普通话闽南方言词典 for Xiamen and 闽南话漳腔辞典 for Zhangzhou), though. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your corrections todayEdit

Re: diff: Hello, Justin. I made a couple of mistakes today. They are honest, unintentional mistakes in dialectal transliterations. Please don't be harsh on me. Everyone makes mistakes and I don't think mine are very frequent and I don't think anyone, apart from you, even attempts to do it using these complex methods. I have already reduced heavily my adding of dialectal readings but I still find very basic characters without transliterations (I only add those missing basic characters, I am not actively learning any of these dialects and I don't think anyone does), which have to be converted from another source. I have been just a little out of practice a bit and forgot some caveats after a hard week. Thank you again for correcting and I appreciate your patience. Anatoli --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Sorry if I was a little harsh on you. It's just a little frustrating sometimes when there are little mistakes that aren't easily caught with untrained eyes. I really appreciate your efforts in trying to learn these systems. It's not easy! I really hope more editors can learn the dialectal romanizations, especially our in-house romanizations. Right now, I think only @Mar vin kaiser and @Thedarkknightli are trying to get a hold of them, and I really appreciate their work as well. One of these days, I should also try to add more to the about pages to make the romanizations more accessible... — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
And let's not forget what you did at 吃完 where "chia̍h-oân" is added as Min Nan. This is serious error because 吃 is not the correct character for "chia̍h" in Min Nan. You really shouldn't mess with these languages unless you're actively learning them.吃完&oldid=31644243 and吃完&action=history —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Iambluemon (talkcontribs) at 09:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC).

New kSimplifiedVariant and kTraditionalVariant values in Unicode 13.0Edit

In Unicode 13.0, thousands of new kSimplifiedVariant and kTraditionalVariant values were added. You may find this useful: [1]

--2600:1:B101:ED04:E184:4476:89C0:CF88 15:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this is great! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove languageEdit

I think we should remove dungan from wiktionary, it is inaccurate, has no standard, it has too many similarities with standard mandarin. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Cantesesiya (talkcontribs).

@Cantesesiya: Yes, there is a standard (as in standard spelling in Cyrillic), and published dictionaries show the tone for each word. Similarities to Standard Mandarin isn't a reason, really. We have other Mandarin dialects (like Sichuanese) in Wiktionary too. And we will include other Mandarin dialects in the future. Inaccuracy is there insofar as data we have on Dungan phonology, which is not that available in English. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Mar vin kaiser, for explaining it quite clearly. I will just build on what you have already mentioned.
@Cantesesiya: I'm afraid your suggestion is entirely antithetical to the dictionary's goal to "describe all words of all languages". While Dungan isn't standardized in the same way Standard Mandarin is, it has its own orthography, which is some degree of standardization, but even if a language variety doesn't have standardization at all, it doesn't mean we don't include it in the dictionary. We include plenty of so-called "non-standard" varieties and languages that have not been standardized. Also, Dungan is substantially different from Standard Mandarin at all levels, especially at the phonetic/phonological, morphological, lexical levels. Our accuracy depends on the material that we have access to, which is very little compared to Standard Mandarin, but nonetheless existent. It is mostly documented by Russian and Chinese scholars. If you know of any inaccurate, by all means point it out to us, but requesting removal of a language variety from the dictionary is nothing but destructive to the project. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
What a shocking request and in the wrong place! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I've blocked them. I can't go into detail without violating privacy policies, but they've already been blocked before under other account names for systematically removing Dungan from character entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Thanks! I suspected it was the same person as the previous attempts at removing Dungan. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong vs Hong Kong CantoneseEdit

How should I determine whether to add the label Hong Kong or Hong Kong Cantonese for terms that are used only in Hong Kong? RcAlex36 (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: If it can also be used in 書面語, then it's Hong Kong, otherwise, Hong Kong Cantonese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 11:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: In your opinion, which one should be used for 港豬港猪 (gǎngzhū)? RcAlex36 (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@RcAlex36: I think chiefly Hong Kong? I'm not entirely familiar with the term. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Puxian MinEdit

Hey! I was wondering whether you've done any work on Puxian Min. I'm thinking, that since it has its own romanization, it's possible to include, but the consonant assimilation seems to be like Min Dong. Thoughts? Mar vin kaiser (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: I haven't looked into its romanization. There isn't much out there on how the romanization works, but if I remember correctly, there might be a paper on it. And yes, it does have Min Dong-like assimilation, which is another layer of complication. There aren't dictionaries based on the romanization though, and the publications using the romanization are minimal/not accessible online. Also, for some reason, I can't get into the Fujian 方志 website ([2]) anymore. I have a feeling that they've restricted its access to Mainland China or something. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Have you seen the article 莆仙語 in Wikipedia? To me, it looks like a detailed description of the romanization and the consonant assimilation. The article in 百度 about the romanization looks useful too. But yeah, you're right, I have a copy of 莆仙方言辞典 and 莆仙方言简明词汇, and both don't use the romanization. The former has its own romanization and the latter uses a phonetic system. I also have a copy of 兴化话罗马字研究, which looks like the same information as the one in Wikipedia. To me, it looks like it has more potential than Hainanese in inclusion in Wiktionary. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser: I've got a copy of 莆仙方言辞典, but not of 莆仙方言简明词汇. I also have 兴化话罗马字研究. 莆仙方言辞典 looks really messy though (on multiple levels). 莆仙方言简明词汇 looks pretty decent; have you checked if the IPA they use corresponds well with what's described in 兴化话罗马字研究 or Wikipedia? I've also archived parts of 莆田市志 from the Fujian 方志 website (but I wasn't able to completely do so because I can no longer access it as I've mentioned before). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Tones look exactly the same as in Wikipedia. The finals and consonants too. Though the IPA in 莆仙方言简明词汇 only shows the IPA with the 2nd consonant already assimilated. Though it doesn't seem hard to infer what the original consonant was, given the table in Wikipedia and previous knowledge of Min Nan. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: By the way, there is a cached link to 莆田市志 in the Chinese Wikipedia article of 莆仙語. And I can see the contents. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser: Nice! All the content from the 方言 chapter is there. I was trying to access the other books on the site, but it doesn't seem like they're archived. Well, at least I have the content from 莆田市志. (By the way, just wondering how you got 莆仙方言简明词汇.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese dialect sourceEdit

@Justinrleung Hey, have you ever seen source? Looks nice: --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: Ooh, it does look nice. The data comes from Xiàndài Hànyǔ fāngyán yīnkù, a series which I don't have all the books of. Thanks for finding this. (We finally have a source for Taoyuan Hakka!) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

給 in Singapore TeochewEdit

Listen to [3] (around 3:09) to hear how it sounds. It sounds like "ko" to me. I wonder if it (and Haifeng 科) might be related to Hokkien 予 ("ho") since they sound quite similar. The dog2 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: For Singaporean Teochew, I suspect it's still 乞; it's hard to tell from that one instance in the video because it's right next to 我, which may have caused it to be rounded, especially because it's in a position where phonetic reduction is quite possible. As for whether they're related to Hokkien 予, it's really hard to say what it is without investigating the relevant dialects, which are quite underinvestigated. Another possibility is that 科 in Haifeng is 予 influenced by 乞 in the surrounding Teochew dialects. It's just difficult to say. The tone is also quite important when it comes to finding the etymological character, and tone sandhi and fast speech make it difficult to determine what it is exactly. For now, I'd leave Singaporean Teochew out. If you find more evidence on this, please let me know. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Apparently in the Yun'ao dialect (in Nan'ao, Shantou), 乞 is pronounced as /kʰoʔ/ before 我 (and /kʰoi/ elsewhere). Coincidentally, a recent article by 张静芬 (2017) proposed exactly what I proposed above (予 influenced by 乞) for this dialect as a possible explanation for this pronunciation. (The other explanation is that /kʰoʔ/ is just 乞, but she thinks the 予 influenced by 乞 explanation is better. I think her argument is a bit weak, though.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There's another example here (around 20:51), but he pronounces it as "ho". Singapore Teochew is quite heavily influenced by Hokkien, so that is a possible origin. Also, while Singapore Teochew seems to be mainly based on the Shantou dialect there could have been some degree of dialectal mixing given that the Teochews in Singapore came from many different villages. For instance, both the "ug8" and "ngh8" pronunciations are used for 夗 (sleep) in Singapore, depending on which specific Teochew individual you are talking to. The dog2 (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: Hmm, this is pretty clearly 予, but this is making things complicated. It's also possible that in this instance of a Teochew speaker speaking to a Hokkien speaker, there's some influence from Hokkien in the Teochew speech. This records several variants (and I suspect that there might be some mistakes/inconsistencies since this was done by someone in their BA), include /kʰoʔ/, /kʰɔʔ/, /kɔʔ/, /kʰɔɪ/. I'm inclined to say these are more likely to be variants of 乞 because of their glottal stop (except the last version, which is probably a fusion with 伊 per 张静芬 2017). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've already given you 2 examples from 予. I don't know how else to deal with it, but it seems to be a borrowing from Hokkien, so naturally, it wouldn't be using the standard Teochew pronunciation. But if you listen to both Teochew speakers, the vowel is the Teochew vowel and not the Hokkien vowel. The dog2 (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: The second example from here is unclear to me. I'm not sure what you mean by Teochew vowel or Hokkien vowel. The vowel for 乞 in Singaporean Teochew recorded in the source above is about the same as the vowel in 予. In quick speech, it's possible for the /kʰ/ to be weakened to /h/. There may be influence from Hokkien 予, but it's unclear to me whether we should consider this to be 予. The tone sounds like it's high, which would be more like the tone if it were 乞. There's no need to put things we're not clear about. It's better to be accurate than to add lots of things we're half sure about. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
With regard to the vowel, o is pronounced /o/ in Hokkien, but /ɔ/ in Teochew, like you can hear in the pronunciation of words like 好 or 無. Of course, it varies by area, because for Teochew, it shifts back to /o/ when you get to Shanwei, and for Hokkien, when you get to Quanzhou, the vowel shifts to something similar /ə/, but more to the back of the oral cavity. The dog2 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
By the way, here's another example of "ko" in Singapore Teochew: [4] (10:33). And in fact, in the same video, you can hear her using "ho" at 9:42 and 10:28. The dog2 (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: While it's clear that it's ho at 9:42 and 10:28, they mean "by", not "to give". In the first example ([5]), it's also in a position that's not a main verb (kind of equivalent "to" in English). I wonder if there's a separation in function between koh and ho. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Time in Singapore TeochewEdit

Here's a new video with a guy teaching about time in Singapore Teochew: [6]. I just can't figure out what some of the characters are. Like for "tomorrow", he says "ma-jek". Of course, the second character is obviously 日, but what about the first character? The dog2 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: We've been writing it as 明日. 潮·普双言语词典 writes it as 暪日. My speculation is that "ma" (or "mua") is ultimately from 明旦, as with "bin-a", "mia-a" or "mia" in Hokkien. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Should we switch all the Teochew entries to 暪日 and 暪起, or should we keep them as it is? And in this case, it's lexically different from Hokkien. In Singapore Hokkien, we would say "tomorrow" as "mia-tzai". The dog2 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
潮州话1月通 writes it as 明日, so I think it's okay to write it as 明日. For the Singaporean Hokkien word, I would write it as 明仔載 (as we have it right now). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


Hey Justin, would you mind looking over this Cantonese entry when you get the chance? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic:   Done — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Dialectal resourcesEdit

You have good list of dialectal resources. Do you know if there are dictionaries for these dialects? They are overseas dialects that are not well documented:

  • Medan Hokkien
  • Philippine Hokkien
  • Southern Malaysian Hokkien
  • Singapore Teochew
  • Singapore Cantonese
  • Malaysian Cantonese
  • North American Cantonese

If there are no dictionaries, how can entries be created for these dialects? Can people just create entries and add labels without bothering to find citations? User talk:iambluemon 11:20, 8 June 2020

@Iambluemon: Out of all of these, I'm only aware of Philippine Hokkien, Singapore Teochew and Malaysian Cantonese as having some sort of systematic documentation (not exactly dictionaries): 菲律賓咱人話研究 (蔡惠名), A sketch grammar of Singapore Teochew (Pamela Yu Hui Yeo), and 马来西亚的三个汉语方言 (陈晓锦). For these and the other varieties you've listed, there may also be some YouTube videos in these varieties. Technically everything needs to pass WT:ATTEST in some way, so if someone questions it in some way, evidence would need to be presented. However, in practice, it is possible that some people create entries without checking for citations and use their native intuitions, especially for undocumented or limitedly documented varieties. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 11:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for listing the references. I wonder why Northern American Cantonese is not well documented. It has almost as many speakers as the other varieties of overseas dialects. User talk:iambluemon 11:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Iambluemon: There are several reasons. North American Cantonese is relatively young, so there isn't much difference from the homeland that would require systematic documentation at all levels (especially at the lexical level, which we're most interested about). English is usually the dominant language among second generation immigrants and their descendants. As such, heritage language attrition is much more serious in North America than in SE Asia. If we apply Schneider's dynamic model to the situation in North America, there isn't enough basis for nativization in North America as it is still exonormative (i.e. the standards are still based on Hong Kong or Guangzhou Cantonese). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

星期六日 and 禮拜六日Edit

Are these SoP? I just created 星期六日. RcAlex36 (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: Maybe. It's sometimes written as 星期六、日, which makes it seem like it's not a word. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Alright, please delete it. RcAlex36 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@RcAlex36: I deleted it as "created in error". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:defdate and JA entriesEdit

Hello, re: diff, per some discussion at Talk:結び with @Nyarukoseijin, the beginning of the line made more sense to us. This information is much like the label info; subjectively, it's much easier for me to skim past stuff at the beginning if I don't want it, than to have to hunt for additional metadata at the end of a line, which is almost always in a visually different place due to differences in the length of each line. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Alright then. Just a few things to note though. 1) This is different from other languages. I guess it's fine if JA editors are good with it. 2) {{defdate}} usually specifies the entire range when the sense is attested rather than the date of first attestation. Again, if JA editors agree that it's how it's used, I won't have much to say. That said, the documentation for this template contradicts the consensus of JA editors. I think this needs to be documented somewhere. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


Just so you know, I created the dialect table for this some time back. Please fill up what you know when you have the time. Thanks. The dog2 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: Thanks. It's hard to find stuff on this one. I don't think it's usually part of the field work / investigation that people do for some reason. I'm guess it's because most dialects use 久. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Cantonese doesn't though. The dog2 (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: True. But I think every other dialect uses 久. Even Taishanese uses 久. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


Not sure how to handle some Cantonese 方言點s. Can you please take a look? Thanks. RcAlex36 (talk)

@RcAlex36: I've treated them as 閒嘢 for now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Reversed Chao tone letters are IPA after allEdit

Hi Justin,

Re Template_talk:IPA#non-IPA_or_Sinological_notation?, I never felt I had the time to devote to a new debate at the Beer Parlour. But in the meantime I discovered that the reversed Chao tone letters, ⟨꜒ ꜓ ꜔ ꜕ ꜖⟩, are IPA after all. They were adopted at the 1989 Kiel Convention, and described in its Report (available at JSTOR), specifically as part of establishing a more nuanced method of transcribing tone. Staveless Chao letter were already part of the IPA, and it was only the stave that was introduced in 1989, and then only as an option. Staveless letters don't have Unicode support, though, so they're irrelevant for us. The right-facing letters don't appear on the Chart, but then neither do most contour tones, even ones that occur in the Handbook. The Chart isn't the entire IPA. As the editor of the Report notes in an added comment, there are therefore 6 ways to indicate tone with Chao tone letters in the IPA: left-facing staved, right-facing staved and traditional staveless, all either before or after the word or syllable. kwami (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I read the report and I'm having trouble understanding a line: "narrow phonetic marks should precede the line and broad/phonological marks follow the reference line". Does this mean we would have the "phonological/citation" tone after the vertical line and the "phonetic" tone before? This seems to be different from common practice, where the phonetic tone would be put after the vertical line. Also, how binding are the decisions made in 1989? There have been subsequent revisions of the IPA. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK you're correct that the recommended narrow-vs-broad distinction was never implemented, but it was just a recommendation. There have been other recommendations of IPA usage that haven't taken hold. I don't see any problem with following common convention, as long as we unambiguously explain what we're doing in any key. My point was that the objection that our IPA conventions aren't really IPA was spurious -- they are. As for how binding the Kiel Convention remains, AFAICT no changes have been made to IPA tone notation since, so it should stand in its entirety. The key in my mind, though, is that officially [e] with an extra-high tone could be transcribed ⟨˥e⟩, ⟨꜒e⟩, ⟨¯e⟩, ⟨e˥⟩, ⟨e꜒⟩, ⟨e¯⟩, at the choice of the transcriber. (The staveless letters don't have Unicode support, though, something that the IPA is currently drafting a response to.) kwami (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

食 vs 啜 in HainaneseEdit

Just so you know, I've been to Wenchang, and people definitely said 食湯 or 食茶. The dog2 (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: That's just visiting, right? I'm not doubting what you remember, but since you're not a native speaker, I don't think I can trust your judgment on what's more common. 海南省志 人口志 方言志 宗教志 only lists 啜. 海南方言研究 has 食茶, 食酒 and 啜酒. Perhaps it has to do with what they're drinking, but I don't think it's necessarily more common. Also 啜 seems to be more specific for drinking. I don't think there's a need to list the synonyms differently from Haikou. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
OK. And by the way, in the context of Hainanese speakers in Singapore, 啜 is understood but extremely rare; everyone just uses 食. You are right though that 啜 refers specifically to drinking, while 食 refers to both eating and drinking. The dog2 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


I'm not sure why someone in Mozambique is adding Min Nan dialectal information (the only edit from that ISP that isn't stray characters or vandalism), but it triggered a module error. Could you take a look at it? Chuck Entz (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Reverted. It's not POJ, and it's not for the right entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

See alsoEdit

A user added 忽略 (hūlüè) to the See also section of 不問不问 (bùwèn), when these verbs are so different in meaning. Should it be kept? RcAlex36 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Also see discussion at beer parlour. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@RcAlex36: I don't really have an opinion. A lot of things can go under see also, and 忽略 and 不問 are connected by the gloss "to disregard", so it's not that far away. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

拄 vs 堵Edit

How should we handle this? While I agree with you that they're probably etymologically related, 拄 is not pronounced du2 in Teochew, while 堵 is not pronounced tú in Hokkien. The corresponding pronunciations are zu2 and tó͘ respectively. The dog2 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: 拄 should be the 本字, but maybe it's unclear. I think we could change it back to 堵... Taiwanese Hakka seems to use 堵 too. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hainanese 欲 vs 要Edit

To give you proper context, in Hainanese, you use 欲 (pronounced beh) before a verb, and 要 (pronounced yoh) before a noun. For instance, if you want to say "I want to drink tea.", it's "我欲食茶。". But if you want to say "I want tea.", it's "我要茶。". The dog2 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: Yup, I think I understood the contexts, but I didn't know if 欲 was beh or ioh. There seems to be beh (要), ioh (欲) and io (要) in Wenchang. I'm wondering if you have proof of beh in Wenchang used for "want". My sources have beh, but it only glosses it as "if". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually I found beh "want" in 海南方言研究 p. 158. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
If you still want it, I can give you an example from a video.
And by the way, I also recently created more dialect tables, and a few more other entries, if you want to add to them. The dog2 (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "shut up"Edit

Since you said that 住口 and 恬 should not be listed as interjections, shouldn't the same rule apply to 收聲 then? After all, 收聲 is just the Cantonese equivalent of 住口. The dog2 (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: Yup, thanks, I've removed the interjection sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)