Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.
If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
- Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
- Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
- If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
- The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
- A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
- If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.
You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.
Hey LibCae, keep up the good work. I see you've added Solon (I'm guessing this is the 'Eastern Evenki' you've mentioned) as an alternative form to дылача, previously I've asked for Solon to get a separate code in accordance to its treatment in (Russian) the literature and it was granted, so Solon and Evenki are treated as two languages.
So far I've used either Cyrillic or an ad hoc latin transcription to write Solon since that's how materials I have write it. I see you've written it in Pinyin. Is this an official Pinyin orthography or a scholarly concensus? If yes, could you recommend some resources that I could use to find modern spellings of words given elsewhere? Crom daba (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Crom daba, I was originally writing to you about Solon problems but you commented me first. The “Eastern” Evenki speakings I heard were Russo-Yakutians but not Solon. I do agree to a separate treatment for Solon from Evenki on Wiktionary, but I’m not sure yet about it’s language-name acceptance so far. The term Solon is used to call Chinese Evenks historically, obseletely, Russo-linguistically and strictly excluding Chinese Khamnigans, Tunguses and Yakuts.
- I added terms according to DU Dao’erji (Do Dorji)’s Ewenki–Chinese Dictionary (in Chinese, 1998). The dictionary used letter barred o, as Du’s 2007-version alphabet shown on Wikipedia used ō. So far there is no true official Evenki script in China (like Chinese Tuvan), but the Ewenki Museum (鄂温克博物馆) in China used Kesingge et al or Du’s alphabet for sign as EWENGKI NI MUZEI.
- With it’s standard, the dictionary is mixed-dialectical, including Solon, Khamnigan, and Shilu (使鹿, “reindeer-herding”, for Chinese Yakuts). We may not use the name just Solon by the Russian way, but may Chinese Evenki or Ewenki. The latter is the official ethno-linguistical name for Chinese native Evenks by the People’s Republic. LibCae (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would disagree that "Solon" is obsolete in English. Flipping through most recent work, Andreas Hölzl and José Andrés Alonso de la Fuente, if stuff from 2000s is valid there's also Tsumagari, Gorelova, Zhang (Kilen grammar) and Nikolaeva. A notable exception are Janhunen and Khabtagaeva who write "Solon Evenki/Ewenki".
- Du's dictionary looks very useful, I support using his orthography, although maybe ɵ could be replaced with ō. Mixed nature of the dictionary may be a problem though, is there a way to tell whether a given word is Solon, Khamnigan or Yakut (these are probably what we call Oroqen in English, they also have a separate language code in our scheme, although AFAIK they aren't significantly different from other Evenki groups)? Crom daba (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, ‘obseletely’ I meant just in Chinese. The subgroups of Evenks without official status shown are certainly not the Oroqens (which is one of the ‘fifty-six ethnic groups’). I’m sorry that Du didn’t label dialectical informations of terms, but the terms ‘Khamnigan’ and ‘Yakut’ there both means an Evenki dialect, due to geographical issues, the variations of these dialects (especially phonemically) seem not to be so much. LibCae (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2018
- Dialect mixing's unfortunate, although it doesn't mean we can't compare Solon terms given elsewhere with Du and adopt his orthography. How do you feel about ɵ/ō?
- I'm trying to piece together a picture of Evenki dialects, but getting good info is hard. This work by Doerfer (in German) helps to delineate Solon from Oroqen (Birar-Kumar-Gankui), but doesn't mention any dialectal division within Solon and it doesn't mention Khamnigan and Yakuts. The only information I could find on the Yakut Evenki of China is this page. If Chinese Khamnigan and Yakuts are similar to Evenki dialects spoken in Zabaykalsky Krai and on the Russian part of Argun river respectively, they could potentially be very different from Solons proper. Crom daba (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually Tsumagari does mention the non-Solon Chinese Evenki dialects, weird how I didn't check that first:
- <blockqoute>Thus,according to the Chinese terminology, the Ewenki people are subdivided into:(1) the Solon Ewenki
- Actually Tsumagari does mention the non-Solon Chinese Evenki dialects, weird how I didn't check that first:
(Chi. Suolun Ewenke), (2) the Tungus Ewenki ( Tonggusi Ewenke), and (3) the Yakut Ewenki( Yakute Ewenke). Of these three, the Solon group accounts for 90 per cent of the total population of some 29000 Ewenkis (1992). In Chinese usage,the Ewenki language ( Ewenke-yu) practically means the language of the Solon group, while the languages of the other two groups are regarded as the dialects of the former. According to the generally accepted linguistic classification of Tungusic, however, the language of the Solon group should be regarded as a separate language (i.e. Solon), not as a dialect of Siberian Ewenki (Rus.Evenk) as the name implies. On the other hand,so-called Tungus Ewenki (aka Khamnigan Ewenki) and Yakut Ewenki (aka Oluguya Ewenki), together with the language of the Orochen (Elunchun) which is another officially recognized Tungusic minority in China,can be identified as dialects of Ewenki proper (see Janhunen 1991 and Tsumagari 1992, 1997b).
- He also has a work about them that I cannot access: A basic vocabulary of Khamnigan and Oluguya Ewenki in northern Inner Mongolia.
- Solon s is a regular reflex of Proto-Tungusic *ç, although it is sporadically preserved so this might or might not be indicative of dialect mixing in the dictionary. Crom daba (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Merging Classical Mongolian into MongolianEdit
Hey, I've made a request to merge Mongolian and Classical Mongolian, your input about this as an active Mongolian editor would be valuable. Crom daba (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Kazakh word حوشۇنEdit
I would like to know the resources of the word حوشۇن because I found many Kazakh translations of the word banner except this one. Besides, I suggest that the page should merge with the one with Cyrillic alphabet title. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. May we not merger but use a template as simplified Chinese, Cyrillic Uzbek or Uyghur in each Modern Chinese Kazak article? About khoshun, I had once seen it in a Xinjiang-pressed dictionary, probably 汉哈大词典 (I still have got a photo of the page), the word would be common in Kazak(h) texts and lists about the PRC administrative divisions. LibCae (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- It’s written in Perso-Arabic Xiaojing (小经), the traditional script used by the Dongxiang people. The word, I had seen it both in a civil written letter (October 1981), and a paper by Chen Yuanlong (2015). LibCae 05:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, I wish I had access to materials like that.
- How do you feel about redirecting Xiaojing spellings to pinyin based ones used by Ma Guozhong (2000)? If I understand correctly, Xiaojing orthography was never standardized and has no official support, so it would be simpler to just have all entries redirected to Ma's spelling.
- See my change at بی and tell me if you find it acceptable. Crom daba (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- May we need a regional box template for Dongxiang (like for Persian)? To put glosses under the Latin spellings, listing Xiaojing spellings, with links to Latin under the Perso-Arabics. It might be suitable. Xiaojing’s pretty like Chagatai, there were word spellings with no variants. And the analysis of the abjad’s status was ongoing in Gansu, by local governments and organisations. But before an official status, we could keep on Ma’s orthography. It’s right, simpler. LibCae 15:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
但还是有两点不太明白。1.请问您所说的“FVS characters”具体是什么呢？（在Baidu、Bing上搜索了一下，但是没有搜到）据我所知，满文在Unicode standards之内。
2.“correct language codes”是否只能在ISO639-3的标准以内呢？
3.每一个单词是否需要注明出处呢？ 祝愿您编辑顺利。 MiiCii (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. You may see how FVS characters control Mongolian letter forms at https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1800.pdf. However, under our fonts (e.g. Noto Sans Mongolian) words may not be correctly displayed as the Unicode standard. The language codes, I meant which were used in the Wiktionary templates (e.g. of derivation), shall be checked that if they conform with the related languages, or it may make a wrong category, like Russian words under French. For the references, see WT:REF. Thank you. PS we might have talks in English, in order to, make everybody here (the English Wiktionary) understand. LibCae 12:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Community Insights SurveyEdit
RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit
RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit
RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Can we have use nesting only as agreed on, please? If nesting is not added by the translation-adder, maybe we shouldn't nest them that way?
E.g. For Uyghur, the Arabic script is defaults, so is Roman/Latin for Uzbek or Malay, so I think we should use:
For Mongolian, I think it's better to use this nesting, see also Uyghurjin:
- Mongolian: Монгол (mn) (Mongol), Монгол улс (Mongol uls)
- It was my fault used personal type of nesting without discussion. But I’m not agreed your way of nesting, considered that both those ‘alternative script forms’ are not used as each other’s auxiliary, but actually used equally now by region or occasion. Radically I don’t think China’s Uyghur Arabic shall be defaulted, only because of it’s population advantage. However your type of nesting is suitable for the obsolete Janalif or UYY spellings, which might be secondarily listed. About Mongolian, I don’t know if ‘Uyghurjin’’s good idea. You know the term refers much more the Uyghur-script Middle Mongolian spellings, rather than their modern forms, there were quite many differences between Middle Uyghurjin and Modern Mongolian. For me, I just chose the name for the script code Mong, ‘Mongolian’. LibCae, 10:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Have you got an attesting source of reference for the short-vowel spelling? I mean I’ve been seen the long-vowel ones both in Qing and Russian materials, as nuur, or nour, with Mongolian a rounded to o. However, I’ve never checked the word in original Dzungarian texts, perhaps there would be alternative spellings. LibCae, 10:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@HeliosX: Hello. I’m sure that words like нур, нүр, дү in Cyrillic orthography were originally long-voweled, and (modern) vowel reductions were never (as I know) presented in the Clear Script spelling system. If you have a manuscript or typography with this spelling, please tell me. Thank you. LibCae (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Was Manchu ᡨᠠᡵᠪᠠᡥᠠᡨᠠᡳ (tarbahatai) borrowed from Written Oirat? If so, what's that word in Written Oirat? I only have the cognate of the word in Mongolian. RcAlex36 (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve checked 西域同文錄, the Clear Script spelling was recorded as tarbagatai (ᡐᠠᠷᡋᠠᡎᠠᡐᠠᡅ). According to the book, the loan is derived from Jungarian Oirat.
- However, Written Oirat and Classical Mongolian were actually considered as one joint system when transliterating into Manchu. So it’s hard to certificate and prove that if the loan was directly borrowed from xwo or via cmg. But as I’ve seen no earlier Mongolic recordings of the loan before the Oirats’ migration to today’s Northern Xinjiang, I thought the direct borrowing might be more possible. LibCae 12:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Can "Manchu ᠮᡳᠨ (min)" translate into "I (first-person singular pronoun)"? Is it "(possessive) My", which is related to Written Manchu ᠮᡳᠨᡳ (mini)?
Could you give some examples/references according to ancient books?MiiCii (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve heard the form as a subject spoken in this video youtu.be/m8q8-KmHuok or b23.tv/kd8LzR (native Sanjiazi Manchu and Xibe speakers talking; with romanised subtitles), but so far not in otherwhere attested. LibCae 15:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I have seen the same one on bilibili.com(https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV15t411t7Dn?from=search&seid=12804859026212456841) more than once. In the video, we can find several sentences including "min". From my perspective, some can translate into "1st-person singular pronoun I" (01:14 ᠣᠩᡤᠣᠯᠣ ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᠵᡳ᠍ᡥᡝ ᠠᡴᡡ/ongolo min jihe aqu, ""I have never been here(Cabcal) before" 03:18 ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᠰᠠᡵᡴᡡ/min tsarqu，"I don't know"), but according to vertical Manchu script on the right side of the screen, each place consists of "min" is correspond to written word "Manchu ᠮᡳᠨᡳ (mini)"(00:24 ᠰᡳ ᡩᠠᠮᠪᠠᡤᡠ ᠣᠮᡳ᠍ᠮᠪᡳ᠈ ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᡨᡠ᠋ᠸᠠᠮᡝ ᠣᠴᡳ/si dameng omim, min tamci...;01:34 ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᠰᠠᡥᠠᡩᡝ᠋ ᡝᡵᡝ ᠪᠠᡩᡝ᠋ ᠮᠠᠨ᠋ᠵᡠ ᠨᡳ᠍ᠶᠠᠯᠮᠠ…/min tsahe, er bade manju nyame...;03:18 ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᠰᠠᡵᡴᡡ/min tsarqu;04:25 ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᡨᡝ᠋ᡩᡝ᠋ ᠠᠯᠠᠮᠪᡳ/min ted alemye) MiiCii (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 00:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Clearly this type of nonstandard pronoun forms (also men for ‘we’) was never written before. I’m not agree with the Manchu subtitles because of its possessively suffixed -i, for a nominative pronoun it’s inexplicable. But min- and men- are oblique stems of the pronouns, they might be able alternatives… We really need materials on it. LibCae (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- You've got a point there. I consulted acquaintance who is a speaker of Xibe this morning and she said that in Spoken Xibe, "min"for "my" and "bi"for"I"is different. Meanwhile, according to Basic Vocabulary Collection of Spoken Manchu(which is now recoginzed officially as Xibe language in Xinjiang, China) (Japanese original title:滿洲語口語基礎語彙集) written by Kengo Yamamoto with the assistance of a native Xibe speaker, "I"is corresponded to "bii"[biˑ](Literary:ᠪᡳ/bi), while "my" is corresponded to "mini"[miɲ](Literary:ᠮᡳᠨᡳ/mini).
- We can consider "ᠮᡳᠨ᠊/min-" and "ᠮᡝᠨ᠊/men-" as the stems of "first-person singular pronoun" and "third-person singular pronoun", which are corresponded to ("ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨ᠋ᡩᡝ᠋/min-de","ᠮᡳᠮᠪᡝ/mim-be","ᠮᡳᠨᠴᡳ/min-ci" and "ᠮᡝᠨᡩᡝ᠋/men-de", "ᠮᡝᠮᠪᡝ/mem-be", "ᠮᡝᠨᠴᡳ/men-ci"). As we both know, when "ᠮᡳᠨ᠊/min-" is grafted to the suffix "᠊ᠪᡝ/-be", the stem should change into "ᠮᡳᠮ᠊/mim-", so the whole word becomes "ᠮᡳᠮᠪᡝ/mimbe". Though it's hard for us to find the materials on "min-" and "men-", they can be considered as roots, for Manchu is a aggulucative language. Is it feasible to move the page Manchu ᠮᡳᠨ (min)/Manchu ᠮᡝᠨ (men) to Manchu ᠮᡳᠨ᠊ (min᠊)/Manchu ᠮᡝᠨ᠊ (men᠊) and then create a page titled Manchu ᠮᡳᠮ᠊ (mim᠊)/Manchu ᠮᡝᠮ᠊ (mem᠊)?MiiCii (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. So far there had been little evidence for min so I’m hoing to abandon this entry. However, min- as an oblique stem could be accepted, displaying as traditional form ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨ without connecting nirugu (I see stems had never be written in this form). LibCae (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you help editing?Edit
I started the programs of Manchu Wikinews/Even Wikivoyage, Even Wiktionary/Even Wikibooks, Evenki Wiktionary/Evenki Wikibooks, Oroqen Wiktionary/Oroqen Wiktionary/Oroqen Wikibooks, Negidal Wiktionary/Negidal Wiktionary/Negidal Wikibooks, Udege Wiktionary/Udege Wikibooks, Oroch Wiktionary/Oroch Wiktionary/Oroch Wikibooks, Nanai Wiktionary/Nanai Wikibooks, Ulch Wiktionary/Ulch Wiktionary/Ulch Wikibooks, Orok Wiktionary/Orok Wikibooks on 14th July, 2020. If you know at least one of these Tungusic languages, can you help editing? (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
We sent you an e-mailEdit
Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email firstname.lastname@example.org.
You can see my explanation here.
Hi, it's nice to see you around again! Would you mind taking a look at the etymological section of 巴里坤? I put there that 巴里坤 was borrowed from Oirat via Manchu, but that was speculative. I am also uncertain if it involved Chagatai. Thanks in advance! RcAlex36 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I remembered there were attested -n, -l variants in Manchu documents and the form 巴里坤 should be borrowed from the -n variant. I’m going to search the documents and find out this for a reference support. LibCae (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I found the spelling bar kun in Qing-era texts. The character 里 for liquid -r/-l, was more commonly used not in Qing, but in Liao and Jin transliterations. Strictly 巴里坤 shall correspond with a sound *bari kun, but I didn’t see this spelling attested, as also in Uygur and Kazak there is just Barköl. On the Renat map spelling ᡋᠠᠷ ᡍᡉᠯ is attested. In Manchu, l had to be one of the consonants that often avoid word-final position, as Mongolian words were loaned with -n instead of original -l. A suspected derivation of mine might be 巴里坤 ← Manchu ᠪᠠᡵ ᡴᡠᠨ ← Oirat ᡋᠠᠷ ᡍᡉᠯ. LibCae (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I noticed you modify one of the Kazakh transliterations. As far as I know, the ligatures (ٵ, etc.) are used when the front vowel is at the beginning of a word and there is no ك, گ or ە shown in the word.
- The book Грамматика тувинского языка says r is weaker than Russian. You can also clearly hear this tap in actual speaking (e.g. TV broadcast) and singing. There’re some audio recordings on tuvan.swarthmore.edu and forvo.com. However, the rhotic in China’s Altay dialect is pronounced as a trill; it may be an influence of Oirat-Mongolian. LibCae 04:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've heard people from both the western and central regions pronouncing it with a trill, in both singing and normal speech. Of course, that doesn't mean anything, since phonologies aren't based on individuals' subjective perceptions, which are prone to error. But the point is: if it can be pronounced as a trill, then it should be annotated so. People in Russia also frequently reduce their R's to a single tap; it isn't unusual for a language to have both a trill and a tapped R as an allophone. Regardless, if you want to make changes to the IPA, you will need better material than a Russian grammar with vague phonological descriptions. Alves9 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- We do have several different opinions, as well as phonetic transcription of б- and д-. Actually they are final voiced or initial devoiced, as we know Tuvan vowels voice consonants (not only intervocalically). Standard IPA lacks accurate VOT markings. As in a broad transcription I used /b/ and /d/ to avoid equating them with the voiceless Mongolian consonants, they are phonetically different at all.
- About r, sometimes I watch the most formal news broadcasts. Although it has listed by Harrison’s grammar as a trill, surely I don’t see this variation is the much more frequently pronounced one—whereas in Mongolian you can always hear trills. The Wikipedia entry of Tuvan listed the flap [ɾ].
- Generally at least for me there’s no book paying more attention on Tuvan phonetics than that Russian. It might be vague for r and a but otherwise it is accurate. :) LibCae (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Since this word is attested in Ming dynasty texts such as 皇明經世文編, 國朝獻徵錄, 國朝典故 and 胡端敏奏議, I think 吐魯番 was borrowed from Chagatai. Could you please verify and modify the etymology section? RcAlex36 (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)