Open main menu

User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 8


Would you like to deal with these vandalized entries? 真係 and 大象. I can revert them, but I'd like to see these revisions deleted, which only a sysop can do. Dokurrat (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Recent changes patrol for those with time.... Wyang (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: Thank you. Dokurrat (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

𬒗&𥗽 lán

I saw that some people said this was a 会意字, but I didn't get what they were saying. Do you think it's 会意字? Or do you think that the justification for it being a 形声字 is too flimsy? Very interested to hear your thoughts! Thanks for all the edits you did on the geographical terms I have been studying. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: It's definitely a 形聲字, but I'm not sure if it's a 會意字. I think the article is saying that a rock is named 干𥗽 to be a 繫纜石, which does have that 覽 component to it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: If we wanted to include that explanation (even as a folk explanation) how would it be done?

Ideogrammic compound (會意):  (rock) +  (from 繫纜石) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Not sure really. I don't think it's necessarily folk etymology; it's just that I'm having a hard time understanding the article. (Maybe @Wyang can take a stab at it.) The t parameters are only for glosses (definitions), not for things like "from ...". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

AWB applicant

Pkbwcgs has contacted me regarding xyr request for AWB CheckPage addition of more than 24 hours. I noticed you have edited that page somewhat recently so I am forwarding the ping. - Amgine/ t·e 18:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Stroke order edits

Glad to get your feedback about the stroke order edits I made. My only question is, why is it not necessary? I'm not really worried about it either way, but the 1997 book of official stroke orders in Mainland China puts each stroke in a stroke category and then gives the stroke category number- they seemed to think it was worthwhile. Also, gives you the stroke category for each stroke. Just a thought. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I guess it's not entirely useless, but I feel like it's kind of redundant to the stroke order diagrams. Also, your addition is not formatted in a way that would be appropriate. Where you put the stroke order info is usually where definitions go, so that is definitely inappropriate. I think it could be incorporated into {{Han char}}, which would make things look nicer. This needs to be discussed more before implementation on pages. @Suzukaze-c, Wyang, Dokurrat, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
It should be called something like "suggested stroke order", I think. To people like me, stroke order is a personal choice. Dokurrat (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: I should have given you more context. What we're talking about is something like 一丨ノ丶ノノノ (1234333) for 杉, which, BTW, was a common way of inputting Chinese characters on cellphones. About stroke order in general, it's common for dictionaries to include these, and we should make users be aware of standards or suggestions given by the respective ministries of education. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that we should make users be aware of standards or suggestions given by the respective ministries of education. By the way, I know people who still use this kind of IME on smartphone. Dokurrat (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Well, we can do that with stroke order diagrams, which should be much more helpful than the stroke order input stuff. Do you think we should add stroke order (input style) into {{Han char}}? Unless we have a database of this kind of stuff, I don't think we should be adding these any time soon. There are more important input methods like Wubi that we don't have now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
About whether to include stroke order (input style) into {{Han char}}, I don't think I hold a strong opinion for now. Dokurrat (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I use stroke input sometimes. I don't see the harm in it if we can find a database we can use, especially since the stroke order diagram coverage isn't complete. —suzukaze (tc) 23:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I use the 'Stroke count method' (that's the name of the wikipedia article) on my cellphone everyday- it uses the mainland stroke orders. Here are some websites with the ROC, Japanese and HK stroke orders: ROC: Japan: Hong Kong: Here's a pdf with the first few pages of the Mainland Ministry of Education standard from 1997: --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c, Geographyinitiative: I'm very much aware of the relevant standards, but thanks anyhow. If we can find a database (one that is digitized), then I guess we can add these to the template. Of course, I'm also hoping that the SO project over at Wikimedia Commons can have better coverage. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I reckon the stroke sequence pics are heaps better; e.g. the stroke order 'フフ一 (551)' on is still confusing if I don't know Chinese characters that well. @Geographyinitiative Welcome and thanks for your edits! Would you mind adding {{babel}} to your userpage to indicate what languages you speak? Thanks! Wyang (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you about the stroke order pics. Because I use the stroke stuff every day in the five stroke keyboard of Google Pinyin/Sougou, I'm interested in trying to tell the English speaking world about the technicals behind the whole five stroke-type stroke category scheme, so I added it to see what you all would think about it. gives you this data when you open the page for any character (underneath '笔顺'). I think we need the stroke order pics like they have, plus the technical stroke order data they also give you. Further, I think that the stroke order diagrams should also go beyond the standards of tradition, Mainland, Taiwan, Japan, HK, ChuNom?, Korea? etc and tell you how many people actually write the characters: I know of documentation for an alternative way to write 火 (点撇点捺) that is probably divergent from all of these standards. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
害 Stroke order: Japan: 丶丶フ一丨一一丨フ一 HK: 丶丶フノ一一丨丨フ一 PRC: 丶丶フ一一一丨丨フ一 ROC: 丶丶フノ一丨一丨フ一 Traditional: (?)

(stroke orders given in alphabetical order) Based on:害 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I just realized that the final visual effect of these four stroke orders is pretty different too; check it out if interested. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I read that the 丰 in 害 is supposed to be 丯:草介 (from Guangyun 古拜切) which leads to the different stroke orders. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


They don't have the same immediate etymology. Should they be in different etymology? or probably use another seperator to seperate two zh-see box?

Also have this problem. To indicate 你 is used in place of 妳 in simplified Chinese, other than the current mention in synonym section, I have proposed four ways to indicate this. Which should be preferred?--Zcreator (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator: For this particular case, I think it's traditional Chinese that has made the distinction between 你們 and 妳們, while simplified Chinese stuck to 你們 and simplified it. They essentially have the same etymology. I'm really not sure how to deal with this in a a sane way. Of the proposals, I think the 2nd way (I'm assuming with t2) works ok. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Glyph of 𣚺

Another unicode codepoint that contains a doubious 末 which seems should be 未. But this time it's not from G source, but from UCS. I even don't know what does UCS stand for! Then, How should we trace its origin, if possible at all? I want to track its origin because I want to tell apart whether it's an attested alt form or simply an error in coding standards. Dokurrat (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think UCS refers to the Universal Coded Character Set. It's definitely 未 again; it should be an error in coding standards. The H and T source glyphs use 未. @Suzukaze-c, do you know what this UCS2003 glyph refers to? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
[1]suzukaze (tc) 05:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Thanks! We can still call it a "G source glyph", right? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I don't think so. China has their own glyphs in the Unicode charts. (also, [2]) —suzukaze (tc) 06:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Ah ok. Thanks again! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if the note about 末 should go under Translingual > Usage notes. It is a "glyph origin", but it also seems more like a description of something computer users should look out for. —suzukaze (tc) 06:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Yeah, it should probably be under usage notes. The same should be done for . — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


I think you can pronounce it as rfv failed now. Dokurrat (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I pronunced 若漢 and 陸 (that specific sense) as rfv failed, but 若漢 and 若汉 needs to be deleted. Would you like to help? Dokurrat (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat:   Done for both. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. And sorry for my being bossy here. Dokurrat (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Nah, that's fine. Thanks for your work on RFV! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
😁 Dokurrat (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Muddled explanation of 陽 "Phono-semantic compound (形聲): semantic  (hill) + phonetic  (OC *laŋ, bright, sunny) – sunny side of mountain."

The explanation given for 陽 is:

Phono-semantic compound (形聲): semantic  (hill) + phonetic  (OC *laŋ, bright, sunny) – sunny side of mountain.

The attempt here is to piggy-back a huiyizi interpretation onto a phono-semantic interpretation (which has roots in Shuowen: '从⻖昜聲'). If you want to say it's a huiyizi, that's different from saying it's a xingshengzi. It could be both at the same time, but those two explanations should be separate from each other. Although I personally don't believe that the huiyizi interpretation has much to do with the glyph's actual origin, I have no doubt that the huiyizi interpretation is probably a widely believed interpretation of the character. Because the huiyizi interpretation was deleted at 茸, I am deleting it here too. Let me know if you have any thoughts. I believe both interpretations should be kept, but I'm just going by how things went down on the 茸 page. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: We have to look at these case by case. In this case, it seems to be both phono-semantic and ideographic. See this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

前額 dialectal synonyms

Currently the impression is given that 額頭 is not standard Mandarin, listed only in Taiwan, Yangzhou, etc. Surely this is an error? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I've added it to "formal". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


What needs attention? —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: I don't think it's a plurale tantum, but it seems to be plural (google:"los Haratin"). I can't seem to find what the singular form is, so I wanted it checked out. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
w:es:Haratin: "Haratin (también transliterado haratins, harratines o haratine, etc., en singular hartani)". —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: So is the singular form hartani? It seems really strange to me. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Extremely so. As a native anglo who is conversant in Spanish, that seems incorrect. Spain were in Western Sahara for about a century, so I'm sure there is some native Hispanic literature on Haratin. I can try to dig up something. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: Thanks! Also, shouldn't haratin be in lowercase? Spanish doesn't seem to capitalize nationalities. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
True. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


I made a change based on the 古代汉语词典第2版 page 1747, let me know if it doesn't make sense. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I just checked 古代汉语词典, and actually, it says that it doesn't show neutral tones. I've tentatively called them "literary", but they are also common variants, especially in the south. I'm not actually sure what to do with these pronunciations. @Wyang, Tooironic, Dokurrat, any thoughts on how to deal with these "original" tones that are not considered standard? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I also added the pronunciations for 意思 and 饅頭 as found in the 古代汉语词典~ --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of curisoity, does 古代汉语词典 indicate the neutral tone? For instance, does it display 豆腐 as dou4fu or dou4fu3? If it be the latter, we may not be able to rely on their pinyin transcriptions. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: It says that it doesn't indicate the neutral tone in its 凡例: "复音词中的连读变调、轻声等不予标注". (豆腐 is not in the dictionary.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
In that case, how can we sure that what the dictionary is prescribing is the way modern-neutral-tone words actually used to be pronounced? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Tonelessness-genesis was relatively recent ― developed since the 10th century at the earliest. Personally I would read 衣服 in a Classical Chinese text as yi1fu2, as with many other now-toneless words (not that 豆腐 would typically occur in Classical Chinese though...). I think marking it as "literary or (non-native) accented variant in Mainland" would be suitable. Wyang (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Interesting insight. Does this mean that potentially all of our neutral-tone-only entries that can be attested before the 10th century should be changed to indicate the original tone with a neutral tone variant? Also, on a side note, is there a single-character-term for tofu in Classical Chinese? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: No, I don't think 10th century pronunciations has any "power" over modern Standard Chinese pronunciations such that we have to show the neutral tone as a variant, despite it being the modern standard. We can, however, per Frank's suggestion, add the original tone version as a literary variant. I don't really think we need to say it's in Mainland unless the Taiwanese standard is the one with the original tone. In the case of 衣服, 意思, 饅頭 and 豆腐, the Taiwanese and Mainland standards agree. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense. There are many words that, AFAIK, are always netural tone - off the topic of my head, 困難, 耳朵 and 喇叭. Would these also have full-tone literary variants? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I've added it for 困難 and 喇叭, but I'm not sure for 耳朵. I've never heard 耳朵 with full tones. @Wyang, what are your thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree, 耳朵 with full tones sounds really strange to me (though early in history it may have been pronounced as such). Wyang (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#般遷, 般迁

Would you like to pronounce rfv failed for these entries? Dokurrat (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hold on. [3]--Zcreator (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts about zaozifa on wiktionary~

Documentation for alternative facts on the 造字法 of this character[edit] Alternative explanation: Ideogrammic compound (會意): 可 (“sound of singing”) + 可 (“sound of singing”) + 欠 (“open mouth”).

Lee, Philip Yungkin. 250 Essential Chinese Character for Everyday Use. Vol. 2. Tuttle Publishing. 2004.

This book was written by a teacher with 30 years of experience teaching Chinese to foreigners.

I absolutely don't believe this is the correct explanation for this character, but I have documentation that it is an existing, published explanation. I'm guessing that this explanation is probably used in teaching Chinese to primary school youth in Asia as well as Chinese language learners. Most people aren't aware of the historically-grounded phonetic-semantic compound explanations. My question to the community is: Should we totally ignore the only 造字法 explanations that most Chinese people (including Chinese language teachers) believe? Why not include them here as 'alternative explanations' that are noted to have some degree of popular acceptance among the actual users of the actual language? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is another explanation for 歌 from Baidu Baike. After brushing over the fact that this is an obvious phonetic-semantic character, it too is also trying to find a way to say that the 哥 element of 歌 is part of the meaning of 歌. Here is the relevant text: 歌字从欠,从哥声。“哥”字从二可,可字义为“肩挑、荷担(以运送土石)”,即服徭役;二可上下叠加所造成的“哥”,表示的是“服过二次徭役、资深服役者”。“欠”即“欠身”,指上半身动作、胸部动作。“哥”加“欠”表示“资深服役者的胸部动作”、“资深服役者用声音抒发胸怀”。 歌 on Baidu Baike This explanation is different because 可and 可 are no longer sounds in a song. Instead of that, the meaning of 哥 as a whole is directly incorporated into the explanation for the logic of the character. Is there a way to incorporate these seemingly spurious yet probably widely accepted 造字法 into these articles? I think it's what people believe, and we need to know what people believe while simultaneously letting people know what the academically accepted answer is and that this explanation represents a popular understanding rather than a fact. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: These are "folk etymologies". If they are popular, they could be included, but we must mention that these are folk etymologies. Note that I'm not giving you the ticket to putting all such explanations into entries. You must be very cautious about these explanations, but from your edits, I don't think you're ready to add these without someone else checking them over. Perhaps you can collect these on a subpage under your username for now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for checking up on my editing. 'Folk etymology' is not terminology from the academic literature- I was grappling with a way to coming up with a term to describe some of these explanations. I will avoid using that term again unless I have a academic sourcing. The reason I used the term 'folk etymology' is that these ideogrammic explanations seem to me to conflict with Shuowen and websites like etc, but are reflective of the views given in some published materials (which I've seen on this website, on Baidu Baike, on Wikipedia, in the classroom and in three books I have etc). Although I believe they are not the correct explanations, I think they are important to be noted, since I feel that many people ignore, reject or don't understand the phono-semantic compound explanations while readily embracing what I understand to be non-academic ideogrammic explanations. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It is used in non-animals (郁達夫《春風沉醉的晚上》三:「想想前幾回的譯稿的絕無消息,過了幾天,也便把牠們忘了。」 )--Zcreator (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zcreator: Hmm, interesting. I should've checked Hanyu Da Cidian and Hanyu Da Zidian before I made those edits. This is certainly different from current usage in Hong Kong and Taiwan, where it is reserved for animals only. If possible, it'd be best if we could somehow verify these with the original publications, which might be hard. For some reason, Hanyu Da Cidian and Hanyu Da Zidian use simplified Chinese for these quotations even though they were published before 1949. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi Justin, when you get time could you check this Cantonese entry I just made? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Looks good! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mandarin Idioms on Mah Jongg

I’m doing research on what are apparently Mandarins idioms engraved on Mah Jongg flower cards (tiles) in a game set produced for Western players in the 1920’s.

Massive numbers of bamboo backed hand-engraved bone Mah Jongg tile sets were produced for the Western market in the 1920’s - and the engraving style particularly of the “Flower Cards” varied greatly.

In general, each “set” of four flower cards is engraved with the arabic numbers 1 through 4 along with a Chinese character and a pictograph of some sort. Often the characters are simply the words: Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter; or North, South, East, West, but in many cases the characters apparently spell out a chengyu (4 character idiom).

The hand engraving often makes the characters difficult to identify, but I believe I have deciphered a phrase on a set for which I can find no intelligible translation - or a match in the very long list of idioms in this Wiki.

Here it is: 稅 何 利 權 A photo of the tiles would be better I’m sure, but I know of no way to attach one to this discussion. Any thoughts or assistance would be most welcome. Abthurber1956 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Abthurber1956: Hi, I'm not too familiar with mahjong, but it'd probably be better if you could have a picture for me to see. You can either upload it to Wikimedia Commons (using commons:Special:UploadWizard) or to another site and link it here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and the information on how to post a photo. Here is the link: The set of 4 “flower” tiles with the red characters was identified by another as source as translating to the common phrase “cultured or civilized world”. The pictographs on these tiles seem to symbolize a similar theme. It is the set of 4 tiles with the green numbers and characters that I am currently trying to decipher. The same source suggested “have the right to sue” but that seems a bit odd. Thoughts? Abthurber1956 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Abthurber1956: It seems like you've misidentified 1 and 2. It should read 挽囘(回)利權 (to recover one's economic rights?). The red ones would read 攵(文)明世界. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Abthurber1956: BTW, you can put the image directly here like this: — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It also appears that the pictographs on the green tiles represent “the four occupations or "four categories of the people" ... a hierarchic social class structure developed in ancient China by either Confucian or Legalist scholars as far back as the late Zhou dynasty”. These would be in hierarchal order: gentry scholar (scroll), peasant farmer (round hat with 4 strings), artisan craftsman (axe and carpenter’s square), and merchant trader (fishing basket). My guess for the character phrase translation would be something along the lines of “performing your duty benefits society” - but then again I am a totally clueless westerner. :) Abthurber1956 (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops, was typing my addition before I read your answer. Interesting - a revolution had just happened in China. A proletariat phrase snuck onto gaming pieces? Abthurber1956 (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Abthurber1956: Yeah, it seems likely. The pictures, as you've mentioned, refer to 士農工商, the occupations of the civilians. With that in mind, the phrase probably refers to recovering a country's economic rights (from foreigners). The phrase seems to be a common slogan in the May Fourth Movement, often found on packaging of goods (like this matchbox). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems I’ve totally mixed up the pictographs (looking at too many websites with different flower cards). I guess in this set the merchant trader would be represented by what seems to be a (fishing?) boat and the gentry scholar by the pot and ? Anyway ... thanks so much for your assistance! Abthurber1956 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We’ve been typing over each other. Great info - thanks again! Abthurber1956 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Haha, glad to be of help! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Best approach to Sawndip

Dear Justin, when increasing Zhuang coverage I was wondering what is the best approach to Sawndip. For vunz(a person) you added the six characters listed in 'Sawndip Sawdenj' however the 6th character is in fact a character used for fwx(another person). In such cases what is the best approach to listing Sawndip for a given Zhuang word? Johnkn63 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Johnkn63: I got the characters from Sawndip Sawloih. Is there another source for Sawndip characters? I don't see listed for fwx. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
'Sawndip Sawloih'(2012) is just an enlarged facsimile reprint of 'Sawndip Sawdenj'(1989) with a different cover. As such it reproduces the mistakes of the former. In 壮族民歌古籍集成 情歌 (二)欢𭪤 (田阳情歌),广西民族出版社 1997 pages 213, 275, and 611 it has with the reading fwx.Johnkn63 (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Johnkn63: I see. No wonder both versions look the same. That said, how do we know that it's a mistake in the dictionary and that it can't be both vunz and fwx? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually my main point would be that the best approach to adding Sawndip is not just copying the characters from 'Sawndip Sawdenj/loih'. Where would be a good place to discuss and develop guidelines for Sawndip in wiktionary? The 'Sawndip Sawdenj/loih' entry for vunz has a number of issues. As to the problem is no published text has it as vunz but there is for it as fwx. The use of fwx is not as widespread as vunz, someone unfamiliar with fwx might transcribe it as vunz by mistake. Also fwx makes sense as a phonetic loan. In short the evidence strongly suggests is not used for vunz but definitely is used for fwx. In this case I would, pending further evidence, suggest removing from vunz, and when there is an page for fwx include it there.Johnkn63 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

奠 glyph origin

Hey, I really enjoyed your contributions on the 氢 page. If you have the time, please take a look at my change to the glyph origin of 奠. According to what I read, 奠 is a pictograph (not an ideogrammic compound like we had before). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

toneless final syllable variant 重·次輕詞語

Hey- this is a more important issue-- I think that we need to make a definition page for 'toneless final syllable variant' and '重·次輕詞語', but I would appreciate it if I had your help, since I know of no source beside Wiktionary itself where 重·次輕詞語 is named as toneless final syllable variant in English. I've already made the pages. Here's a citation I used on wikipedia for the only place I know where this concept is mentioned in a published dictionary: [1] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Page 3 of the 凡例, section 3.5: "一般读轻声、间或重读的字{...}" 现代汉语词典(第七版). A Dictionary of Current Chinese (Seventh Edition)., 北京. Beijing: 商务印书馆. The Commercial Press., 1 September 2016, →ISBN, page 3
@Geographyinitiative: I don't think these two phrases are necessarily equivalent. Also, here at Wiktionary, we have a very strict criteria for inclusion. Both phrases seem to be sum of parts, which is not allowed by CFI. Please be very careful when making edits. When you're unsure of any edits, please do not make them in the actual pages, but make them in a sandbox or discuss things with other users. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: My main concern here is: is there any place on wikipedia or wiktionary where the concept of the 'toneless final syllable variant' is defined or explained? If so, can we link it in the Pronunciation box for the words that have the 'toneless final syllable variant'? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: I don't think it's defined anywhere, but it should not be made an entry here in Wiktionary. It could probably be incorporated into the Wikipedia article on Standard Mandarin phonology, or we could have an about page here. @Wyang, Dokurrat, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this is largely Wikipedia material. It may be suitable for appendix here in the future, but at present we don't even have an appendix page for Mandarin pronunciation here. Wyang (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang: Although the concept is little-known, it seems to me that a correct understanding of this concept seems critical in terms of a compete understanding the official standard for the pronunciation of words like 聰明 and 合同 in Mainland Standard Mandarin. I'm not saying I have that understanding, but I think that knowledge should be part of wiktionary and/or wikipedia. I don't know if Taiwan Guoyu has the toneless final syllable variant. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: It's definitely not suitable as an entry here. You might get a quicker answer if you ask over at Wikipedia (maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages or Talk:Standard Chinese phonology). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

suggestion for dialectal synonyms

Hi Justin. I have a suggestion for dialectal synoynms when you get the chance - for "you're welcome". So far I have collected the following:

不會 (Taiwan)



Min Nan:


---> Tooironic (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Thanks for the suggestion! I've made it based on what you have here and what was on 不客氣, but it's hard to find this in the resources I have. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks great. Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Justinrleung/Archive 8".