Open main menu




What is the glyph origin for ? Johnny Shiz (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Does it have anything to do with money? Because a lot of characters with the radical have to do with money: , , , etc. Johnny Shiz (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: I've added a glyph origin. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverts on 哈囉 and 哈佬Edit

What is the meaning of these reverts? Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: I don’t see how they’re phonosemantic matching. Neither of them has any connection to “hello” on a semantic level. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I was a bit confused with the definition of "phono-semantic matching". Got it now. It wasn't all my fault though; I saw a nearly identical message on 幽默. 幽默 has two definitions: quiet and tranquil, or humor. The latter of those is a phono-semantic match, since the pinyin (yōumò) resembles the pronunciation of "humor". But how does the supposed "match" add up? In other words, how does "humor" relate to "quiet and tranquil"? If such a "match" is indeed nonexistent, should I alter the etymology of 幽默 too? Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: 幽默 is a different case. It’s adapting an existing word to a foreign word, so that also counts as phono-semantic. 哈, 囉 and 佬 really don’t have meaning in the words 哈囉 and 哈佬, but in 幽默, the characters do mean something while also matching in sound. If you don’t entirely understand something, I would advise you to ask at WT:TR, WT:BP or WT:ES (whichever one is applicable), or ping me before going ahead with your edits. If you continue to make questionable edits, I don’t know how long you’ll last until you get blocked. I know you’re trying and I’ve seen a lot of improvement, but you still have plenty to learn. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I've already been blocked once. I'll try not to make edits unless I know with ample precision what I am doing. Indeed, if you take a peek at my contributions page, you'll see that I'm now adding entries to Wikipedia:Requested entries/Chinese more often than just creating them outright. I now ping you on entry talk pages to gain approval of edits before making them myself. Hopefully that'll reduce the "questionability" of my edits, I presume. Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for being more careful with your edits. I hope you can continue to learn and be more independent in the future. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

some Zhuang wordsEdit

I just follow Alifshinobi's suggestion on thwikt (he is a real linguist). By the way, revert/change ltc to zh won't hurt. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Octahedron80: Ah, I see. I'd actually like to know what @Alifshinobi's view is on this issue then. From what I have read (mostly based on 壯漢同源詞借詞研究), Zhuang probably doesn't borrow directly from Middle Chinese but from a descendant of Middle Chinese that was also the donor to Vietnamese and was the ancestor of Pinghua. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Justinrleung: and @Octahedron80. I'm not a Zhuang expert. So, I should learn from you. The speculation that Zhuang didn't borrow directly from MC (including Early and Late MC) seems reasonable. However, I'm confused because your answer suggests historical borrowing ("that was also the donor to Vietnamese and was the ancestor of Pinghua") and modern borrowing ("probably doesn't borrow directly...a descendant of Middle Chinese" -- perhaps a modern southern dialect of Chinese). Can you please clarify? For historical borrowing, if your argument is that Zhuang borrowed words from a descendent of MC (not a modern descendent), perhaps you can still say that these words are ultimately from MC. For modern borrowing, if you don't know which Chinese dialect a Zhuang word is from, I think it's fine to change ltc to zh, like Octahedron80 did. Please do what you see fit. --A.S. (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Alifshinobi: I meant historical borrowing. If I remember correctly, the author of 壯漢同源詞借詞研究 (and Pan Wuyun) suggests that the Sinitic language (a descendant of Middle Chinese) that gave Zhuang its Chinese loanwords is likely the ancestor of Pinghua. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I see. So these words are ultimately from Middle Chinese. What do you suggest @Octahedron80 and I do in these cases? Should we use zh or add "ultimately" to from Middle Chinese? Is there an argument against adding "ultimately"? --A.S. (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Alifshinobi: For single character words, it would be fine to say ultimately from MC per se, but there are some words that look particularly like Cantonese/Pinghua (and not likely from other varieties), such as bae (to plaster) (where isn't used in MC for this sense). For consistency, I'd prefer "from Chinese" followed by the etymon with the MC pronunciation (autogenerated by {{ltc-l}}) given for reference. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

rejection of Geyin FuhaoEdit

When I was in Wuhan, I would occasionally notice that some advertisements would skip a geyin fuhao. No one understood the "before a o and e" rule, even though it was written in every dictionary and book about Mandarin Chinese. But in Taipei, the number of skipped geyin fuhao is incredible. Is this intentional? Did Taiwan adopt Hanyu Pinyin Fang'an or did they adopt something almost identical to it? Have you noticed this?--Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I think most people are unaware of the official rules concerning pinyin orthography. In Taiwan, it's especially so since its adoption is relatively recent (10 years ago). People may be used to rules from older systems, such as Wade-Giles or Tongyong Pinyin. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Chinese people in general know the various rules of pinyin. Just ask them to spell out their name and you'll notice all kinds of renderings - e.g. Wang Jing Ling, Wang Jing-ling, Wang JingLing, etc. It's not something that is paid much attention to. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


Hey. What's going on with the synonym there? Its meaning does not line up with the Min Nan definition in the respective entry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: It's referring to the "weighing equipment" sense, which refers to a balance, especially the steelyard. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
One more - could you please check non-Mandarin senses for 開初? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Hmm, I don't see why it's dialectal. It's found in all of the major dictionaries without any label for being dialectal/regional. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure either. I just noticed it mentioned as one of the senses for childhood in Cantonese. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Only in the figurative sense of childhood as "beginning", but I think it's mostly used as an adverb. Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian both say 開初 is a noun but the examples given are used as adverbs. We might need a noun sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I had the same thoughts. I've added a noun sense now. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotation embed -- some help?Edit

Thanks for creating the page 越王頭. Pls add the Nanfang Caomu Zhuang quote + translation and format it accordingly:


I'm not confident with Wiktionary enough to do it. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


Would you like to pronounce RFV failed there? Dokurrat (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Merci! Dokurrat (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: No problem! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

教會, Chinese InterwikiEdit

How can the absence of the Chinese interwiki link for the term 教會 be remedied without doing what I did? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Lo Ximiendo: Honestly, I'm not sure why it's not showing up. I'll ask at Grease Pit. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi Justin,

There seems to be large dialectal differences for the word price in Chinese topolects, e.g Wu 價鈿价钿. Are you able to access dialectal data on this? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Atitarev: There doesn't seem like there are large dialectal differences. It's 價錢 in most southern dialects, where most dialectal variation occurs. Even Wu 價鈿 is actually just 價錢 (because comes from ). I'll look around to see what I can find. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks, no worries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: I've attempted to make one. Most dialect survey resources do not include this word, so that's about all I have so far. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I think Dungan could be added to the dialectal map as "Kyrgyzstan"(?) All terms that have Dungan readings and also have "Module:zh/data/dial-syn" could be added. e.g. җячян (ži͡ači͡an) in 價錢价钱 (jiàqián). Can it be done as an experiment first? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Ah, it seems like you haven't realized that Dungan has already been added to the dialectal map a few months ago. The two major dialects, Gansu and Shaanxi, are represented by Sokuluk ("Gansu-DG") and Masanchin ("Shaanxi-DG") respectively. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, good to know but I don't think Gansu and Shaanxi dialects are the same as Kyrgyzstan Dungan, which will have many non-Sinitic words as well, just like Min Nan can have words from Japanese in POJ. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: It shouldn't be implying that they are the same as the Gansu and Shaanxi dialects. Those are just the traditional names given to the Dungan dialects spoken in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. That's why we have -DG in the label. For non-Sinitic words, I usually follow 东干语调查研究 by 林涛 if it gives Chinese characters for it. Otherwise, it'd be fine to leave it in Cyrillic, just like we have POJ for Min Nan. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: I'm not sure if it's a good idea to put the Cyrillic version in the dialectal tables as well. The map would interpret that as a different word and create an extra point on the map. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought it might be the case. I've taken it out. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


This entry have some dialectal meaning, but I don't know where to put them.-- 20:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


Hey Justin, which senses does Min Nan 變弄 refer to here? ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Min Nan readingEdit

I found a page via a web search that seems to give a Min Nan reading for as "kēng" when converted from Modern Literal Taiwanese romanization to POJ. I didn't want to add it without checking with an expert first. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bumm13: Looks right to me :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Is "kěng" using a correct POJ tone mark? It's using a caron rather than a circumflex. Bumm13 (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bumm13: Yes, it's the 6th tone unique to the Quanzhou dialect. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


Is there any special way to translate "火艶" other than flame? I'm kind of stumped with this one. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bumm13: I would interpret it as meaning "(of fire) burning brightly/beautifully", but this is just an educated guess. The definitions in ancient dictionaries often have the form N + V/A, so that's I would interpret this one. It's a definition (for , I assume) that is only found in Jiyun without any actual attestation AFAIK. Also, I would point you to, which would have more resources to help you with the translations. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Geyin FuhaoEdit

Like I was saying before, Taiwan just does not GET geyin fuhao. They like to put in a dash or just ignore it. So it just gets fantastically uncoordinated. Do you happen to know if Tongyong Pinyin had the geyin fuhao? I bet they had a dash. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not even just Taiwan. It's probably most people because the geyin fuhao isn't really taught very well. And you're right - it is a dash for Tongyong Pinyin (at least for 地名譯寫原則). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi. I recently added one sense "script; written form" there; I wonder if this sense has tone sandhi in Cantonese or not. Would you like to enlighten me? Dokurrat (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: No, there's no tone change for the examples you gave. BTW, Cantonese doesn't really have tone sandhi, which is phonologically conditioned tone change. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, merci beaucoup! I see. Dokurrat (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Bienvenue! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Did you mean “ can be inserted after any verb in any verb + object construction, like 食飯, 唱歌, 曬命.”? Dokurrat (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Thanks for pointing that out. 唱晒歌 technically could exist, but it's kinda weird. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. And you're welcome. Dokurrat (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)



Is the spelling o͘-nín-gió͘ ("doll") from 人形 (にんぎょう) (oningyō) valid for Min Nan? The pronunciation module can't handle the second syllable "nín". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be "o͘-lín-gió" - 洋娃娃 (yángwáwa), as in [1]. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: This has 'oo33 lin55 gioo51', so o͘-lín-gió͘ would be another way to spell it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, please take a look at [[o͘-lín-gió]] and [[娃娃]] (Shanghainese) - I don't fully understand the sentence structure, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: For 娃娃, did you happen to get the sentence from somewhere? The character choice is interesting. I would've expected 我 instead of 吾, 隻 instead of 扎 and 撥 (4peq) instead of 把. Also, I see you've added 吾 as an alternative form for 我 in Hakka (and Wu) - where did you get this from? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you're welcome to try [2]. Wyang gave me the link a while ago. It has many audio recordings as well - there's also an app. The difficulty is that they use very colloquial pronunciations, often "Mandarinised" pronunciations and non-standard/colloquial characters. They replace hard to use characters like 𠲎 (va) with . Always use (ngu), never . The phrase comes from [3]. You can find some words by searching Mandarin words (simplified) in the search window. I'd like to standardise phrases from this site in the Wiktionary (if I knew all substitutes) but perhaps we can enhance Wiktionary with these colloquial usages - variants? Please replace with more standard characters, as you see fit. I also have two little textbooks on Shanghainese at home. I used words from there in the past. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Thanks. It's best to put a reference when you take a sentence from somewhere. Umm, also, I'm wondering where you got 吾 as an alternative form for 我 in Hakka. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Possibly from some sample sentences. I've taken it out. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Alright, thanks! For Hakka, you might've been thinking of 吾 ngâ, the first-person possessive. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Min Nan entriesEdit


When you have a chance, could you please check these entries: 罕行 and 那講那罵那讲那骂? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Atitarev: 罕行 is an adjective (or possibly a verb), despite it being glossed as 稀客. 那講那罵 seems to be SoP, and I can only see three hits on Google, which may not be a good sign. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. That's what I was checking. I really wasn't sure what PoS 罕行 is. I found 那講那罵 accidentally - not all words POJ are valid there, unfortunately.
BTW, I looked again at 台湾語会話かいわフレーズブック I mentioned to you, it's good but I lied about hanzi only in the book, there are a few words (particles, etc.) written in POJ (sometimes with comment like "also can be written as ...". I struggle to find a couple of words but I still think it's a good book and good audio in three languages - ja/nan/cmn Min Nan and (Taiwanese) Mandarin have also full romanisations - POJ and pinyin. I'm not so familiar with Hokkien accent but in the audio, /l/ sometimes sounds like the Japanese flap /ɾ/ to my ear.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典 is pretty good with PoS's AFAIK, so you could follow it most of the time. The book you recommended looks interesting, but I probably won't be getting it anytime soon. /l/ in Hokkien is definitely more like a flap (and may even be phonologically analysed as a stop). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I am using it but occasionally it seems wrong, another recent example was "bî-tha-mín". Wrong POJ, isn't it?
Thanks for explaining, otherwise I was worried that the recordings were made by people with the Japanese accent - I could clearly hear the tones, though. Tawianese Mandarin without any erhua, hardly any neutral tones and funny ending particles sounded quite unusual to me as well. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Not sure which you mean by "it" - you mean Tw-Ch台文中文辭典? 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典 has bi33 ta55 bin51, which would be bi-tá-bín or bî-tá-bín. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I mean Tw-Ch台文中文辭典. If you search for 維他命, it will give these results - "bî-tá-mín' and "bî-tha-mín". Is "mín" a valid syllable (not "bín")? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Atitarev: Are you sure it's 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典? It only has bi33 ta55 bin51. 台文華文線頂辭典 (or Tw-Ch台文中文辭典) is the one that has bî-tá-mín and bî-tha-mín. In real life, [min] may be a valid pronunciation of the last syllable, but I think we should stick to "legal" syllables, i.e. m only occurs with nasalized rimes. Maryknoll gives bi-tah-bín, bi-tá-mín and bî-tá-mín, and Embree has bi-tá-mín (not sure about the tone of the first syllable). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


Could you help me check the Min Nan here? I have created two separate thesaurus entries for "to change" - one for the transitive verbs (Thesaurus:更改), and one for the intransitive verbs (Thesaurus:變化). Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: 變變 seems to be transitive from the example sentence in 闽南方言大词典, which defines it as "变换;改动". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks mate. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: No problem :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

About loi-ceuEdit

Maybe you can explain why undo my edits about loi-ceu? Davidzdh (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Davidzdh: Do you have any source that writes it as 𡳞鳥? I've only seen it written as 䐯鳥, 脧友, 脧鳥, 腡鳥 or 螺鳥. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I will write 䐯鳥, 脧友, 脧鳥, 腡鳥 and 螺鳥 later. Thank you for telling me. Davidzdh (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: I would only create an entry for one of them, probably 䐯鳥, and put the rest as alternative forms for now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
That's what I mean. I'm sorry for having not said it clearly. Tks! Davidzdh (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you have added a rfv mark in 庳哩 and I just want to know how to build a existed but character-questionable word. Use Bàng-uâ-cê? Davidzdh (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Davidzdh: We currently do not allow Bàng-uâ-cê entries. I'm not really sure how we should deal with these, to be honest. I often hold off on creating an entry until I have sufficient evidence from more reliable sources for the characters. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Hey, I was looking at your edit on 竹筏, and I was wondering: is 竹排 a legitimate alternative form of 竹棑? My shurufa (FHL Taigi-Hakka IME) gives me 竹排 when I type in 'tek-pâi'. Would a usage note be called for on the page, like with ? Thanks for your patience. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: 竹排 is used in standard Chinese and I think it can be used to write the Min Nan word, too. seems to be a valid alternative form of (in this context) in standard Chinese too. I think we should probably have 竹排 as the main form and 竹棑 as an alternative form. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung What about something like the way I have set up 豬血糕猪血糕 (zhūxuègāo) and 豬血粿猪血粿 (zhūxuèguǒ)? The issue seems to turn on the question of whether 棑 is an alternate form of 排. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Xiandai Hanyu Cidian says 棑 is an alternative form of 排 for the "raft" sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian has a similar opinion. But I don't think they are saying that this is an alternative form- 异体字 are in parenthesis next to the character, but this character has it's own entry. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, 棑 doesn't appear in通用规范汉字表 as an 异体字 (or at all). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: It doesn't have to be an officially-listed 異體字 to be considered an alternative form. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I made some edits to that page. I have come to the conclusion that 竹排 is an unofficial '異型詞'(alternate form) of 竹棑 in Min Nan, and that 竹棑 is a Min Nan synonym for the Mandarin 竹排. I enjoy trying to think this through. Sorry for troubling you. If I am wrong, by all means change the page. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: I've made 竹棑 into a variant form of 竹排 and added a note at 竹排. 竹排 seems to be more common across various varieties of Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Is the Ministry of Education of Taiwan just playing around when they give us 竹棑 as the standard form for Min Nan? They don't know what they are doing, do they? Bunch of idiots they are! How can they not know that 竹排 is the real form? How can they be so stupid as to add a rare character there? Again I repeat: 竹排 is (seems to be?) an unofficial '異型詞'(alternate form) of 竹棑 in Min Nan, and that 竹棑 is (seems to be?) a Min Nan synonym for the Mandarin 竹排. Yet again, here we are, bullying dialects to conform. Yuck, yuck, yuck. We are wiser than the scholars at the Ministry of Education of Taiwan who complied that dictionary. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Please do not revert edits without discussion. The MoE has their reasons for choosing 棑, namely that 棑 is a more specialized character to mean "raft". However, we don't need to follow them on everything. I think it's more appropriate to choose the form that is used more commonly across varieties of Chinese. 竹排 is also used for Min Nan, e.g. in 普通话闽南方言常用词典 and 台文華文線頂辭典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to follow them on everything, but why diverge? This is not about other dialects, this is about Min Nan. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Ultimately, it is just the choice of character made by one prescriptivist body, no? We are not beholden to follow them. Diverge because we have the freedom to do so and see that it may be better. —Suzukaze-c 22:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Geographyinitiative: When we deal with words that are used in different varieties, we can't just isolate one variety and focus on it. Since Min Nan is considered a variety of Chinese, we should think of all the varieties together and pick the most common form across varieties. If 竹排 were not used in Min Nan, then ok, we can consider 竹棑 to be a different lemma, but since it is used in Min Nan, 竹棑 would have to be a variant form of 竹排 because 棑 is generally considered to be a variant of 排 in the "raft" sense. If you disagree with this philosophy of choosing the main form, feel free to bring it up in WT:BP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Many dialects with roots in North Europe spell 'September' as 'September' (German Norwegian Swedish Danish Scots Dutch) but the Wikipedia page for the Frysk/West Frisian reads as 'Septimber'. West Frisian has its own page on Wiktionary 竹排 is an unofficial variant- maybe it's code-mixing from Mandarin when it appears in text. "棑 is generally considered to be a variant of 排 in the "raft" sense"- is this true? If this is really true, then why is the character not shown in parenthesis after the character 排 in Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian? Also, 棑 is not listed as a variant of 排 in the Table of General Standard Chinese Characters, so I don't agree that "棑 is generally considered to be a variant of 排". It's not a variant, its the proper form of a word that has been 'simplified' down (in my estimation). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: The notion of considering variants as "official variants" and "unofficial variants" is kind of absurd - whatever diverges from the "standard" would be a variant. While 棑 is not listed in Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian right beside 排 in parentheses, the entry for 棑 says it's equivalent to 排 in the "raft" sense, which is essentially the same as what we're doing with {{zh-see}} or {{zh-alt-form}}, i.e. treating it as a variant form. (Of course there are also dictionaries that treat 簰 as the main form, but that's definitely out of the question because it's much less common in the modern context.) As I have said before, Min Nan is considered a variety of Chinese here; under this framework, which is different from how other languages/dialects are dealt with, we need to consider Min Nan in the bigger context of the whole body of Chinese. To have a full entry at 竹棑 only for Min Nan is also bad because 竹棑 is not restricted to Min Nan - it seems to be used in at least Mandarin and Hakka as well. We also want to pay more attention to the spoken form rather than the written orthography: 竹棑 and 竹排 are definitely the same word orally. Having both 竹棑 and 竹排 as full entries makes it redundant, making {{zh-see}} a much better solution to this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
To not realize that there are officially sanctioned and recognized variants as well as unofficial variants is the true absurdity.
Let Min Nan use the characters the way it wants to, bully. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Just butting in to say that calling other editors bullies in good-faith, meaningful discussions is unproductive. We don't want to descend to personal attacks. (Also, I don't know much about this topic, but I want to point out that despite the unusual status of the Chinese languages, I think we should still aim to follow most common orthographical usage [for Min Nan] rather than the MoE or any other regulatory body that people tend to ignore in everyday contexts.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Geographyinitiative: Are official/recognized variants more valid than unlisted variants? Definitely not if you're a descriptivist. Any language user can use whatever characters they want - but when it comes to deciding the main form of an entry, we should stick to the principles I've mentioned above. The usage note should be sufficient in describing what one governing body has decided on. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I'll say it again: the MoE is not the only authority on Min Nan (in fact, the characters they propose are called 推薦用字 - recommended characters). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Let Wiktionary use the characters the way it wants to, independent of prescriptive bodies and holistically considering the orthography situation 🤔 —Suzukaze-c 23:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe that I have won the argument. In order to facilitate a cooperative environment on Wiktionary, I must temporarily retreat from this argument for the time being. I don't want to get kicked out of here because of one character. Thank you for your work here, which is 99.999% good (in my opinion). This is a very small issue. Change the page however you see fit. I do consider some behavior I have seen as 'bullying', but then again I am a bit of a snowflake. Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion. It is only through these type of discussions that we can build a truly worthwhile dictionary. Thank you for your time. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Thanks for your time and your efforts towards the dictionary as well :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


After you fixed the module error here, another Indonesian IP (I'm guessing the same person) added some more, causing a another module error. Any chance you could deal with this? I know nothing about Min Nan, and no one has done anything in the two weeks it's been in CAT:E. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I've reverted their edits. They say it's Nan'an dialect, but it's hard to know if they understand what they're doing. (Besides, our modules don't support Nan'an dialect yet.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


Hi. I noticed that currently we display the pinyin for 空 at "Erhua form of..." as kōng which should be kòng. Any ideas how to fix that? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Fixed with "|tr=kòng". The templates read the default reading "kōng". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Anatoli! ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

perspective on capitalizationEdit

I agree that the entry you changed [4] would be capitalized according to some interpretations. But 现代汉语规范词典第3版 p1021 has "pǔtōnghuà shuǐpíng cèshì" (and as I remember, 现代汉语词典 has no entry for it). I don't want it changed back, but I do feel that one day there should be some way for both the lowercase form and uppercase form to be shown. You may be inclined to say "it's a difference without a distinction." Maybe so- but it is a difference. A difference is a difference. Both versions exist. If both versions exist and this is a descriptive dictionary, then why not show both? Of course, in English, capitalization and the lack thereof can be meaningless, but it can also be deadly serious. In my wild fantasy, this dictionary would incorporate all the different perspectives on Hanyu Pinyin and all the romanizations of all Chinese forms, current and historical, wise and foolish. This way the dictionary becomes a truly descriptive dictionary. It would be quite an endeavour to do it all, but I don't think it's impossible, especially if the popularity of Wiktionary increases. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the reason I wrote it in lowercase was because I didn't have evidence of the capitalized form: "both forms" didn't exist. Yes, the common sense notion would be to go with capitalized letters, but Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian goes out of its way to make everything lowercase, so there must be some logic to it. I just respected what I saw on the page in front of me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Common sense is dangerous because it is often right but sometimes wrong. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
(take for example the widespread misunderstanding of the proper use of 隔音符號) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: We generally do not follow the capitalization conventions used in 现代汉语规范词典; the editors have their choice, and we have our choice. I, like most other editors here, do not think that it is necessary to show all possible capitalizations, mainly because there is no meaningful difference other than convention. The main purpose of the Pinyin is for pronunciation purposes, not for documenting different romanization conventions. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I think I somewhat understand your perspective, but I have my choice too and I chose to use what I saw in front of me. You, like other editors here, have a position which I may disagree with at times, and that is okay. That doesn't mean you or I are wrong or right, it just means people have opinions. To me, the idea that there is no meaningful difference between the two forms is laughable nonsense (just trying to share my real opinion so that you can know how I really feel- you don't have to agree with my opinion). I do not see Hanyu Pinyin through the prism of its alleged purpose, I see it only for what it is: that is to say, what's on the page. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: It's definitely not about right or wrong in the grand scheme of things — it's simply convention. Consistency is important for dictionaries like this, where many people are collaborating. If you are still unsatisfied with our general conventions, feel free to bring it up again at WT:BP, but if you do not have any good arguments supporting your opinion, I highly doubt the community would change its conventions. Just calling the idea above "laughable nonsense" without any argument is just not convincing.
Also, I wasn't talking about Pinyin in general when I was talking about its main purpose here. I was talking about the Pinyin we put under the "Pronunciation" section - its purpose is pretty clear. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
To me, winning the argument is as simple as opening a book and pointing to what's printed there. Why keep pushing against what can be seen in books? I agree Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian's stance is a minority position, so I understand that according to current policy others might want to change the entry. That's not the editing I want to do, and I will do my editing and let others do their own. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: We are an independent dictionary, not a compilation of other dictionaries. There are certain things where we can deviate from what's seen in books because we can have our own conventions that keep our entries consistent across the board. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
All the sudden this seems like an important issue doesn't it? Oh yeah, maybe it is important. And if it is important, maybe we should be inclusive and not exclusive. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: It becomes important if editors can't agree because it affects the quality of the dictionary, but its importance doesn't lead to favouring "inclusivity". It's clear that you are very much for this kind of "inclusivity", which you might think is always a good thing, but for showing all capitalizations for a romanization, I think it's not ok. Other people who use Wiktionary would inevitable ask what the point of having both pǔtōnghuà shuǐpíng cèshì and Pǔtōnghuà Shuǐpíng Cèshì is. It is not quite user-friendly or professional to show them both. Anyway, I really don't want to revisit this issue time and time again. Discussing here only limits the discussion to you and me. Let's bring this discussion to WT:BP to get this blown-up issue out of the way. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: The point of having both pǔtōnghuà shuǐpíng cèshì and Pǔtōnghuà Shuǐpíng Cèshì is that both are used and neither needs to be ignored. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

熱鬧热闹 (rènao)Edit

Hello again. (I saw your messages on the measure words, and I will label the measure words appropriately from now on- thanks.) Anyway, I wanted to ask you a question if you are interested: why in the heck would the Jianbian Guoyu Cidian pretend that 熱鬧 is pronounced as "ㄖㄜˋ ㄋㄠˋ"? Maybe if it's the first time someone has ever seen the word and their teacher is reading the word aloud, someone might say ㄋㄠˋ (for emphasis), but even then I doubt it. Do you believe that there are (or ever have been?) human beings on this earth that actually say "ㄖㄜˋ ㄋㄠˋ" and not "ㄖㄜˋ ˙ㄋㄠ" consistently in their lives? I just can't imagine it, but I guess it could possibly exist, or could have existed at one time maybe?? Do you have any thoughts on this question? It seems utterly 荒唐 to me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I'm probably one of those human beings who have been saying rènào consistently lol (but of course, I'm not a native speaker). But to be serious, it's not that 荒唐; I think many people in Taiwan and southern China would pronounce it without 輕聲. It's not quite clear in quick speech, but I think there are some examples here: [5] [6] [7] [8]. While Jianbian is "prescriptive", it seems to do a good job in reflecting the decline of 輕聲 in Taiwan. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The example is extremely clear to me as an example of the ㄋㄠˋ pronunciation- I am going to add that one to the 热闹 page if I can do it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Similar question with 嘰咕叽咕 (jīgu)Edit

Hello again- sorry for bothering you, but in this edit [9] you said that the standard pronunciation for Taiwanese Mandarin was jīgū. Was that on the basis of 國語一字多音審訂表? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I think I made that edit a long time ago based on LAC. It's not in Jianbian so I'm not quite sure if we should call it "standard in Taiwan". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: About eight months or so in the past, I came to the conclusion that "standard in" only works if it appears on the (Mainland) 普通话审音表 or (Taiwan) 國語一字多音審訂表. I no longer believe that Jianbian/Chongbian or Xiandai Hanyu Cidian/Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian are the "standards" per se. Do you still think of these dictionaries as the standard? Is there any way to confirm their standard or official status? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: I think we can generally treat these dictionaries (except Chongbian) as secondary standards. About Jianbian in particular, see question 3 here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
"若為教學利用,建請參考依教育部《國語一字多音審訂表》(教科書多音字音讀審定依據)取音之《國語小字典》、《國語辭典簡編本》。" This just supports that 國語一字多音審訂表 is the standard, not that 《國語小字典》or《國語辭典簡編本》is a standard or a secondary standard. Am I wrong? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: That's why I said they're secondary standards, i.e. they aim to follow 國語一字多音審訂表, which is the primary standard. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is, that I would tend to believe that there is only one literal "standard"- the standards issued directly by an authoritative body. The dictionaries that are based on the standard (to a greater or lesser degree) are just dictionaries- they don't qualify as a 'standard' in any sense, secondary or tertiary. Some dictionaries may be authoritatively standard, but I would like direct evidence of that before accepting it. For instance, there's no way that I could change the Shendingbiao today, but I made another successful petition to change the online Chongbian Guoyu Cidian this week. So what do you think of this? Can Jianbian really reach the level of standard like Shendingbiao can? If not, what is the nature of the 'secondary standard' status? General acceptance? Why call it secondary? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: 審訂表 and 审音表 are the official standards at the character level. There aren't official standards for the word level, so we would have to depend on dictionaries that follow the character-level standards and treat them as unofficial secondary "standards", especially when we're dealing with 輕聲 or 多音字/破音字. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should not lower our standards for what counts as 'the standard'. Only 'the standard' can count as a standard. The other stuff may come pretty close, but it just doesn't reach the level of 'the standard' until there is an official status. The Shenyinbiao does cover some qingsheng situations (very few). If 'the standard' doesn't cover some areas, then the dictionaries are just giving opinions, albeit relatively authoritative (similar to your "second standard"?) opinions. Some of the distinctions I made in the past between the 'Mainland standard' and 'Taiwan standard' are probably unwarranted because I based them on dictionaries alone rather than on a comparison of 審訂表 and 审音表. When there is only a clash between Mainland and Taiwan dictionaries (like with the word 先生 (xiānsheng)) but not between 審訂表 and 审音表, then I would say that the word 'standard' is just way too strong. A simple 'lnb=Mainland,2nb=Taiwan' is sufficient and (I would think) more proper. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Have I thought this through fully? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
How about calling pronunciations derived from 審訂表 and 审音表 'official in Mainland' / 'official in Taiwan' and then calling pronunciations based only on the authoritative dictionaries 'standard in Mainland' / 'standard in Taiwan'? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: That might be a good idea. @Wyang, Dokurrat, Suzukaze-c, Tooironic, Atitarev, any input? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
add more cites and references to entries. —Suzukaze-c 03:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I want to continue this conversation, but I don't know how to proceed and I don't want to mess up Wiktionary. I'm just going to keep editing until this comes up again or new perspectives are brought to light. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi Justin would you mind checking which sense the Min Nan synonym here 目神 applies to? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Not the dialectal sense. I've made the entry for 目神. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: No problem :D — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

no colloquial?Edit

Hey- I saw your edit here: [10]. I do feel that 親嘴 is colloquial, especially compared to 接吻. Should I add a 'q'- something like 'q|colloquial'? You seemed to say that to say that this would be against current practice. I'm fine either way, but I think it could be worthwhile to write 'colloquial' there. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I'm just saying that it's not as common to put {{q|colloquial}}, but you could use {{q|colloquial}} if you want. You should definitely not put {{lb|zh|colloquial}}, which would put 接吻 into CAT:Chinese colloquialisms (rather than 親嘴). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand now. I was accidentally putting 接吻 into CAT:Chinese colloquialisms by using lb|zh. I didn't realize that this was happening. Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: No problem! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinyin & BopomofoEdit

I remember someone saying that 'bopomofo' would be confused with 'pinyin' in English and that the dictionary must therefore use 'Zhuyin' to refer to 'Zhuyin Fuhao', but I didn't agree and still do not. Anyway, I would like to say that by the same logic, there is more than one 拼音 and that to assume 'pinyin' must be understood as 'Hanyu Pinyin' is wrong. The English language consensus is on the 'Bopomofo' side for the 'Zhuyin Fuhao' system- since the 80's if I remember the sources I found. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I think that was me, but that wasn't the main argument as far as I can remember. Yes, it is true that "Pinyin" may be confused for other kinds of pinyin, but Pinyin is well-established to refer to Hanyu Pinyin. The main problem was that "Bopomofo" is generally understood to be colloquial, even though probably more commonly used than "Zhuyin". You haven't replied to me at WT:Beer parlour/2019/May#Bopomofo or Zhuyin?, so maybe you forgot about it? @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Atitarev, thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's keep the conversation on that page. Yes, I had forgotten where that conversation was happening. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


Would you mind checking which sense the Min Nan synonym here refers to? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: It should be the "irritable" sense, though I'm not sure if the second sense should be a separate sense. Most monolingual dictionaries don't have two senses for this word. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. I wasn't sure about that either. We could rfv it. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I think the two senses could probably be combined. @Wyang, Dokurrat, Dine2016, what do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The dictionaries I have access to all combine them, so yeah. --Dine2016 (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


You made a minor mistake on undoing my edit, please refer to the university paper "南安方言副词分析" for the evidence. Best regards. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

@ First, what we mean by "Quanzhou" is the traditional urban area, which is represented by the Licheng dialect. The Nan'an dialect is not included in what we call "Quanzhou", so technically the paper is irrelevant. Second, I'm not sure how reliable the paper is - it's internally inconsistent. On one hand, it says [m], [n] and [ŋ] are allophones of /b/, /l/ and /g/ on page 3, but on the other hand, it gives 慢 as [man] on page 24, 万 as [man] on page 26, and the contraction of 伓通 as [maŋ] on page 31, which would contradict the fact above. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


I added some content to the Chinese section of (kōng), and templates in the section of other languages (Japanese, Korean, Okinawan and Vietnamese) now render Lua error: not enough memory. Is there a way to fix it? — RcAlex36 (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A lot of single-character Chinese entries are very close to the memory limit, so it doesn't take much to push them over the edge. I added it to the exclusion list in {{redlink category}}, which just barely brought it under the limit. I'm not sure how long that will last, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi Justin. I'm just curious whether Cantonese uses this transcription or something else for putting green? ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I'm not too familiar with golf, so I'm not sure. From a quick Google search, I think it's also used in Cantonese, but I'm not sure if it should be gwo2 leng5 or gwo2 ling5 (or both). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks mate! ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Justinrleung".