Open main menu
will often not reply to pings immediately for the time being —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Japanese linking template

Chinese Postal romanizations

Hey- I saw that you created the Chinkiang page recently, and I was wondering what you thought of my recent spate of postal romanization edits, both in Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Thanks for any pointers. If you look at my contributions, I started doing these edits on the 29th of January. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe you should be using {{qualifier|postal romanization}} instead of {{sense|postal romabization}}, but otherwise I have no particular comments ^^ (also, I might have time to fix them myself later) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 03:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I have just made that change on these pages: Gaoyou Zhenjiang. I will begin changing them all over to 'qualifier' later today. Please let me know if you develop any other concerns or have suggestions. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: 結婚指輪

Hello. I wanted to reach out to you, re: 結婚指輪. I fixed it. Thank you. Johnnysama (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


IPs shouldn't be removing {{rfv}}- that should be done by whoever closes and/or archives it on rfv. That's my only objection. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Mm, I see that it was indeed premature, but User:荒巻モロゾフ is not an IP, and IMO a wholesale rollback is a bit aggressive, since many improvements were made as well. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not IP. I wonce wrote in Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#彼女 that "Japanese custom don't treat ship as female." But I found lemmatized example of that in the dictionary, and checked the source of a quote in it, and wrote and translated the relevant part. Do we need someone who closes the rfv?--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

some thoughts on Japanese

  • Japanese entries usually have multiple etymology sections, and {{ja-new}} can only help create the first. The other etymology sections must be created manually because {{ja-new}} hardcodes ==Japanese== and L3 POS headers. What about adding another parameter to make the template generate ===Etymology n=== and L4 POS headers instead?
  • From the reader's perspective, reading Japanese entries is like reading a txt or rtf file—an ocean of text and locating the information you want requires a great effort. The introduction of {{ja-spellings}} added visual guides on the right side and was the first step in making the structure of the page clearer. I think we can take the following additional steps:
    • Avoid a mixture of bitmap and ClearType-optimized font—change the Japanese font to something like Meiryo UI for Windows.
    • As an etymology section consists of “etymology + pronunciation + POS + inflection table”, format the pronunciation template and the inflection table as little boxes (like the Chinese {{zh-pron}} and {{zh-dial}}) to make the page 灰白相間、層次分明.

--Dine2016 (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. It sounds reasonable to me. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 03:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice work on User:Suzukaze-c/template consistency. Here are some of my additions:

  • |rom= → |tr=
  • Some form-of templates such as {{alternative form of}} supports both |t= and |3= while some such as {{short for}} only supports |3=.
  • For most languages, one parameter is enough to enter a word (e.g. {{m|en|English}}), but for Japanese, two parameters are often needed (e.g. {{ja-r|日本語|^にほんご}}). This leaves different ways to place the slots of those two parameters. For example, {{ja-compound|日本|^にほん|語|ご}} groups parameters by word, while {{ja-vp|見る|見える|みる|みえる|c=見せる|ck=みせる}} groups parameters by orthography. This is why I proposed a newer citation format of Japanese words KANJI:KANA (inspired by the format of {{zh-l}}) to make the syntax of Japanese templates more consistent and more predictable: {{ja-compound|日本:^にほん|語:ご}} and {{ja-vp|見る:みる|見える:みえる|c=見せる:みせる}}, and more in line with the general norm of one slot per word: {{compound|en|Japan|ese}}. --Dine2016 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Added!
  • Indeed. Editing templates to add support for |t= would also be possible, but we really need consistency, at any rate, and sometimes one is too lazy…
  • Ah, now I like it even more :) I also wonder how we could make things nicer for Korean hanja and Vietnamese han tu. The French Wiktionary has a |tradi= parameter that is used for Chinese and Korean. (oddly, it seems to be present only in fr:Template:trad, and not fr:Template:lien… but maybe they also need to think about consistency!)
—Suzukaze-c◇◇ 04:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe you contributed to GNU Unifont, a project I have been admiring since junior high :) From their website: There is only a small degree of freedom how to draw an 'm' in a grid of 8x16 pixels so that you will not be dwelling on it for hours and progress much faster. I think part of the problem with Japanese entries is that there is too much freedom on what entries can look like, so that manual tweaking eats time and hampers the parsability of the page. For example

手工業 工業
inline float: right; (manual clearing, needs to group boxes with divs when there are many) floatright class (auto-clearing)
* {{ja-r|高麗 錦|^こま にしき|rom=-}}, {{ja-r|狛 錦|^こま にしき}}
* {{ja-r|こまにしき|高麗錦|狛錦|Koma nishiki}}
* {{ja-r|こまにしき}}
(auto fetching of kanji and romaji when there's no homophone)
Source of quotation outside {{ja-usex}}: a large number of templates, from {{quote-song}} to {{RQ:Taketori Monogatari}}, of which nobody can remember all the details Source of quotation inside {{zh-x}}: simple identifiers like Analects, or easy-to-type one-liners like '''1945''', {{w|Mao Zedong}}, ...

By giving up control of the finer details of the page we can automate many things :) @Eirikr --Dine2016 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Changing |rom= to |tr= clashes with 'transitivity' :( --Dine2016 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
hm, but my username's been removed from the release notes. who told you _(:3」∠)_ pixel fonts are fun. I've wanted to make a decently comprehensive CJK bitmap font for a[n absurdly long] while, but I'm not smart enough _(:3」∠)_
I agree with 1 and 2. As for 3, I think I still prefer delegating quotation information to a second template. I do really like the short keywords, but I wonder if perhaps it could be more flexible (adding chapter, translator name, link, etc.) [The idea of choosing between ctext and Wikisource makes me uncomfortable though (;・∀・)] But perhaps, then we might as well create/use Template:R:Analects. Oh well.
And as for {{quote-song}} vs. manual wikiformatting: I personally use the quote- templates so that I don't have to think about formatting. We already have enough consistencies _(:3」∠)_
(I've wondered if we could use Template:Q for Chinese, since it already exists, but I don't think it would work.)
—Suzukaze-c◇◇ 16:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. If templates {{quote-song}} could retain semantic information in html then it's definitely superior to hand-formatting the citation.
It seems lemmatizing common wago at kanji has some support, so {{ja-spellings}} is a failure _(:3」∠)_ Maybe I should move the modern & hist kana to pronunciation section, and kanji spellings to {{ja-kanjitab}}:
Kanji in this term
Grade: 4
Alternative spelling 闘う
(I googled bing searched Umbreon126 the Script Importer on UTAU Lyrics Wiki before I realized it was you ...) --Dine2016 (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I almost forgot this one:

=====Derived terms=====
* {{ja-r|掛け麹|かけこうじ}}
* {{ja-r|麹 黴|コウジ カビ|[[aspergillus]]}}
* {{ja-r|麹%菌|こうじ%きん|[[aspergillus]]}}
* {{ja-r|麹%酸|こうじ%-さん|[[kojic acid]]}}
* {{ja-r|麹%漬け|こうじ%-づけ}}
* {{ja-r|麹%花|こうじ%ばな}}
* {{ja-r|麹%町|^こうじ%-まち}}
* {{ja-r|麹%室|こうじ%-むろ}}
* {{ja-r|米 麹|こめ こうじ}}
* {{ja-r|甘%麹|あま%こうじ}}
* {{ja-r|支那 麹|^しな こうじ}}
* {{ja-r|白%麹|しろ%こうじ}}
* {{ja-r|種 麹|たね こうじ}}
* {{ja-r|練り麹|ねりこうじ|rom=-}}, {{ja-r|煉り麹|ねりこうじ}}
* {{ja-r|味噌 麹|みそ こうじ}}
* {{ja-r|麦 麹|むぎ こうじ}}
=====Derived terms=====
{{ja-der|掛け麹|麹黴:aspergillus|麹菌:aspergillus|麹酸:kojic acid|麹漬け|麹花|麹町|麹室|米麹|甘麹|支那麹|白麹|種麹|練り麹/煉り麹|味噌麹|麦麹}}

Similarly I hope quotations can take up only one line in the source. --Dine2016 (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Lua error in Module:zh at line 404: [fill in the blank] is not a recognized language.

I'm not sure exactly what went wrong with your edits to this module, but something did. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Nothing went wrong, actually. The entries were always formatted wrong, but the code didn't check. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 04:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It's all fixed now, which was my only point in bringing it up- whatever works! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

lemma spelling of Japanese entries

  • Do you think wago compounds like 引き摺る and 見積もり should be lemmatized at the kana spelling? I think that, on one hand, they have a greater degree of variety in spelling (either part can be written in full kana, and okurigana for nouns and verb infinitives can be omitted for brevity) so they ought to be lemmatized at the kana spelling; on the other hand, they have a relatively fixed structure compared with single wago terms, making the choice of kanji narrower and the potential spellings less competing, so they can be lemmatized at the most common (or most regular) kanji spellings with no problem.
  • KyÅ«jitai is a tough problem not only because (1) wago terms involve different abstract kanji (みる→観・覧) and the same abstract kanji may have different forms (観→観・觀、覧→覧・覽), creating a two-tier hierarchy (sometimes three if you take Unicode codepoints into account) and (2) the poor font support (unless you resort to a Korean font, which is closer to the Kangxi printing style, or you resort to pictures, which have to be mass imported from GlyphWiki to Wikimedia Commons), but also because we have different degrees of oldness. For example, 篭 is still an extended shinjitai with no official status (according to ‎KevinUp). Should we list spellings such as 灯籠 as perfectly shinjitai or half-shin-half-kyÅ«, given the existence of 灯篭?
  • Do you think {{ja-spellings}} should implicitly make the page title one of its arguments—that is, should みる read {{ja-spellings|h=みる|見る|観る|…}} or {{ja-spellings|みる|h=みる|見る|観る|…}}? The advantage of the former is brevity, and it's also what {{zh-forms}} do (using the page title as |t=), and the advantage of the latter is that you won't break things while moving entries.

--Dine2016 (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I thought that 和語 compounds might be lemmatized at the kana spelling for consistency with non-compound 和語 terms. For example, the spelling of 引き摺る is surely rarer than 引きずる.
  • We could make shinjitai the canonical kanji spelling for simplicity, regardless of historical state. We also ought to include extended shinjitai if it's common, perhaps with a short {{qualifier}} noting that it might not be official.
  • I like the former. How often would we move pages in such a way that it {{{1}}} would need to be fixed?
—Suzukaze-c◇◇ 20:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Ya, I too thought that the direction going forward was to lemmatize 和語 at the kana spellings (although I admit to a certain amount of inertia in that regard). Has that consensus (or at least, what I'd thought was consensus) changed in the past couple months? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Hi. Welcome back! Progress has been slow in reaching a consensus on the new Japanese entry format. As Suzukaze puts it, "it would be a massive change, and we can't decide on the details, which is why discussions don't last" or "I think that part of the problem is that our current setup is 'alright' and Good Enough™, and other editors don't feel an urgent need to change." I have a lot of ideas about the new Japanese entry format (some of them are here), but I'm too lazyソシオフォビック to push for changes. --Dine2016 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dine2016: It feels like we have been discussing things in multiple places, and I have been having trouble keeping track. Could we compile a single list of past discussions related to entry/template reform? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 04:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably, but there are many unsolved issues (such as kanji and kana spellings, inflected forms, and how to present Middle / Old Japanese or whether to use unified Japanese). I'll compile a proposal to show to other Japanese editors sometime. --Dine2016 (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the most urgent issue at the moment is to switch existing usages of {{ja-r}} to the inline format. The vertical metric configuration of Meiryo leaves horrible gaps between kanji and kana, and the matching is sometimes wrong: 昨 (き)日 (のう) (kinō). But even with these issues fixed, (1) the kanji is still too big compared with Japanese terms without ruby, causing disharmony, and the kana too small (as Eirikr reports), making uncomfortable reading. Also, Wyang said that templates like {{ja-r}} taking up too much vertical space would discourage editors to add more examples, synonyms, etc. (2) When citing wago, {{ja-r}} leaves no way to link to the kana spelling, put kana before kanji, or have multiple kanji spellings, etc., which is incompatible with the kana-centric approach.

As for entry/policy reform, I actually don't mind lemmatizing wago terms (especially those with stable kanji spellings) at kanji spellings if it's not because doing so would require both {{ja-spellings}} and {{ja-kanjitab}} which will take up too much space. This issue ({{ja-spellings}} + {{ja-kanjitab}} taking up too much space) also troubles kanji entries. I think the long-term solution is to combine the two templates into a single morphology-showing template like {{zh-forms}}. --Dine2016 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dine2016: (Well, if you want to combine {{ja-spellings}} and {{ja-kanjitab}}, perhaps now is a good time to think of it... —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 20:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC))
What about this (conceptually)?
Usage: {{ja-forms|おう>おい はらう|h=おひ はらふ|追い 払う|追い はらう|追 払う}}. We can use a data module to automatically assert that 追:おう is a kun'yomi and provide the gloss.
Irregular reading types can be provided manually, e.g. {{ja-forms|かり そめ|仮 初め|仮 初|苟且-jukujikun}}. --Dine2016 (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hiragana modern おいはらう
historical おひはらふ
Kanji 追い払う
追 (おい < おう, kun'yomi) “to chase; to follow; to drive out”

払 (はらう, kun'yomi) “to drive away; to pay; to empty”

@Dine2016: ありだね。 —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi. Can you change the Japanese font to Meiryo or Meiryo UI for Windows?

  • The Chinese font has been changed to Microsoft JhengHei/YaHei and the Korean font has been changed to Malgun Gothic. Japanese is falling behind.
  • MS PGothic has only one weight, which means that bolding (the b element) has to be achieved by an increase of font size, causing disharmony:
    • 部分的な太字 (dadaism?)
    • コード switching (inconsistent weight and size).
  • If we change the Japanese font to a ClearType-optimized font, we can implement the b element by a true increase in font weight:
    • 部分的な太字
    • コード switching

--Dine2016 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think many usages of {{ja-r}} should be changed to an inline format. For example, the "See also" section of 気が重い should read

instead of

What do you think? --Dine2016 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the second one if other editors prefer it as well. Perhaps adding a second form within the parentheses needs to be incorporated into Module:links itself, as I mentioned elsewhere. This would allow us to use templates like {{der}} "normally" without need for ...|-}} {{ja-l/new|..., and might be useful for languages like Korean as well (when adding hanja). —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 04:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • One additional consideration -- bolded kanji can become hard to read. I'd actually thought that was why the templates used enlargement instead of bolding. I think any use of bold for kanji should be well-tested to ensure that the bolded characters are still legible. Turning things into blobs of color isn't very helpful. :)
Also, FWIW, the furigana in the lower "instead of" examples are so small I can't read them (laptop running Windows 10). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Thanks for your reply. I have a bold idea: What about changing the behavior of {{ja-r}} to output the inline format by default? This way we don't need to mass-update entries in the mainspace.
By the way, my personal implementation of the new {{ja-l}} (inline citation template) supports the following functions: (1) putting the kana before kanji, or having multiple kanji spellings. (2) Automatic fetching of reading when given only kanji. Therefore {{ja-l|わぎも|吾妹|我妹|[[my]] [[dear]] (woman)|lit=my little sister}} gives わぎも (吾妹, 我妹, wagimo, “my dear (woman)”, literally “my little sister”), and {{ja-l|国際音声記号}} gives 国際音声記号 (こくさいおんせいきごう, Kokusai Onsei Kigō), but {{ja-l|東京}} gives 東京 [Reading?] because there are multiple readings. I think {{ja-r}} can be made to work like this without breaking things. Please see also #some thoughts on Japanese above for the new format KANJI:KANA in addition to KANJI|KANA. --Dine2016 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Can't add . in zh-x 求助

Hey- just like I couldn't add a space into a Chinese example text a while back (四十埠), now I can't add a '.' into a Chinese example text. It's on the 地牛翻身 page- a '5.6' earthquake was written with a . Tshiánn-mn̄g, is there a way to fix this that you know of? To-siā. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I used more HTML entities (&#46;), tricking {{zh-x}} into not seeing a period, but still rendering as a period. nei5 gok3 dak1 jyu4 ho4? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hó! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The 将棋 entry

Re: the 将棋 page: I restored the pronunciation with the right hiragana for that word. My apologies, sometimes my mind tends to go on autopilot for some reason. Johnnysama (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Japanese rōmaji

Why are you changing the rōmaji definitions for the pages I am creating? The pages to which I declare the definition state the page as the proper rōmaji. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC).

See WT:AJA#Romaji entries. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

موُمِنَاهِي at 木乃伊


Why did you remove my usage example? It is not only illustrative of the word's usage, but also teaches children important things about Armenia's fauna. --Vahag (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Ehh 🤷 —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 15:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it better? Are you happy now? --Vahag (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
🤷 —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 15:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Min Nan shurufa

Hey, sorry to bother you, but I'm tired of this ridiculous tailo input software system . I want to be able to switch between input of Jiaolo, Tailo or Hanzi with the click of a button or only a few clicks, and not be forced to use Tailo pinyin and do a billion clicks to switch between Tailo and Hanzi input. I want to be able to make the little dot after the letter o without copy pasting anything. This shurufa should exist somewhere.

I know I could probably ask other people, but I wanted to ask you to see what Min Nan input software is good, what is commonly used. I saw, looks promising. Who should I contact that would likely respond to such a low level question? I bet the answer is somewhere on Min Nan Wikipedia, but I don't know how/where to look or how to search for this answer.

If Min Nan Wikipedia uses Jiaolo and not Tailo, why the fuck would I want an input system that can't write Jiaolo?

Thanks for any help or suggestions

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Mm, I don't know what other people use. I would suggest RIME, but I'm not sure if the existing Hokkien schema does what you want. It seems like you can certainly type Tai-lo and hanji, but not POJ. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 02:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Lí hó!Just following up. I installed the program I mentioned above and it works GREAT. It doesn't force you to use Tailo- you can use POJ to type characters or just type out POJ. Consider this idealistic impossible fantasy realized. Chài-kiàn!--Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
RIME 大灋好。—Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Talk:대나무#Etymology.


Are you sure ㅿ is pronounced as 'z'? There are many other theories,too. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of my opinion, Yale uses 'z'. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Middle Korean ᅀ (半齒音 如穰字初發聲) 穰發聲音: 唐音:njiÉ‘ng / njiÉ‘ĚŒng. 汉语拼音 :rĂĄng, / rÇŽng, / rĂŠng. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@B2V22BHARAT: If ᅀ was ng, then what was ㆁ?
For example, here, we find 我 (ᅌᅥ), 月 (ᅌᆑᇹ), 如 (ᅀᅲ), 時 (씨ᇫ), 往 (왕).
Middle Chinese: 我 (MC ŋɑX), 月 (MC ŋʉɐt̚), 如 (MC ȵɨʌ, ȵɨʌH), 時 (MC d͡ʑɨ), 往 (MC ɦʉɐŋX)
It seems particularly strange that ᅀ should be ng in 時 (씨ᇫ).
—Suzukaze-c◇◇ 21:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, 穰 (MC ȵɨɐŋ, ȵɨɐŋX) was pronounced as ȵɨɐŋX in middle Chinese, so that's why I have put r or ng because ng is what Koreans are pronouncing for the Chinese Characters that have r phoneme in China right now. I don't know for sure how Chinese pronounced 穰 (MC ȵɨɐŋ, ȵɨɐŋX) when Hunmin jeongeum was made, so that's why I have put r or ng. Do you know the exact period of Middle Chinese(eg. AD xx~ AD xx)? How I see it is that ᅀ seemed to have represented 'r' phoneme both in China and Korea back in the day, but changed to ng phoneme in Korea for the ease of pronunciation like 두음 법칙 (頭音法則, dueum beopchik). B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right. ㆁ is ng, right? Then I think it's likely that ᅀ have represented r phoneme for Chinese characters. I wasn't just sure of the period of Middle Chinese. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages seem to say that the Middle Chinese period ends along with the Song Dynasty, so we must look at later dialects, probably early Mandarin. I'm not familiar enough with 漢語音韻學 / Historical Chinese phonology or the history of Korean to confidently make further statements. :(
I note that 中原音韻#聲母 (Korean Wikipedia: 중원음운) mentions "日 *ʒ", so perhaps ᅀ was already not ȵ by the time that 훈민정음 and 노걸대언해 were written. Then we can guess that ᅀ might be something like ʒ ~ ɻ, or z ~ r.
By the way, do you know about Google Scholar? These articles are probably better than my amateur speculation. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 08:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm just curious.. How can z pronunciation turn into r? Do you think it's logical? I understand s--> z part as in bus(z)iness but z..>r?? questionable.. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not saying that z turned into r, but that ᅀ is a sound somewhat like z or r. What do you think of rǎng#Pronunciation or rì#Pronunciation? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 09:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the Pinyin of 穰 is ráng, not rǎng. ráng#Pronunciation, rì#Pronunciation. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC) I don't hear any 'z' sound from these examples. Also, for rǎng, there's no 'z' sound, either. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, in the end, r is just the letter of the Pinyin alphabet that someone chose for the consonant in 日, just like someone decided that 어 should be eo in the Revised Romanization. The actual sound in terms of phonetics is more important. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 10:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

So are you arguing that acutual phoneme of ç©° in China has 'z' sound in it? Can you prove me with the examples? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not using that site(DBpia) because I have to pay money to read the content. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Paywalls are indeed troublesome... —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 09:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I agree.. By the way, if you want to use that site, you can enroll in the Korea National Open University, which costs only 700,000 won a year. Or you can apply for a library pass from a university nearby your place if you're in Korea and use it for free. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you show me the "actual" examples of Chinese characters that have used ᅀ in the past and have sound of 'z' in China? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh never mind.. z was not pronounced as z.. it was just a symbol for r.. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC) This person is also misinterpreting the phoneme of z as z like I did.. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC) I made a mistake. you're right. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

But still, I don't understand why they have assigned phonetic symbol ʐ instead of r or ɹ on 人民日报 Rénmín Rìbào. It's kinda confusing..위키백과:IPA B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... pretty political.. To me, it sounds more like j and z not r.. 5:40~ But anyway, thanks I learned something new today. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There is actually different opinion regarding the r sound in modern Mandarin. See the footnotes at w:Help:IPA/Mandarin and w:Standard Chinese phonology#Consonants.
And if you think it sounds like j, then so did Wade-Giles ;) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 15:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thinking through the biomechanics of speech, [z] is a voiced alveolar sibilant. As the tip of the tongue moves further back along the top of the mouth, this shifts to [ʒ] or a voiced postalveolar fricative. From there, it's very easy to shift to a [ʐ] or voiced retroflex fricative sound, and then a further minor shift yields the [ɹ] or postalveolar approximant of the English /r/ sound. Considering the mouth shapes and broadly similar points of articulation, I could easily imagine that ᅀ might have represented a sound in this same general family, perhaps closer to [ɹ] or closer to [z], which in Chinese later evolved into the [ʐ] of modern Mandarin.
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see. That makes me clear now. Actually, I saw in the wikipedia page explaining z phoneme relation to r phoneme, but it was English(Norman, Latin?) so I just igonred it, but I guess it can be also applied to Asian language phenomenon as well. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Middle Korean font

What are you using? I'm using, developed by Department of Information Computer Engineering at Pusan National University(AI Research Center) It's being co-produced by Nara Infotech and advised by Lee Sang-hyeok, a professor at Seoul National University.

I'm using NanumBarumGothic YetHangul and NanumMyeongjo YetHangul. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, says that Korean Romanization is a way of Romanizing Korean, and has ①'Revised Romanization of Korean' (Republic of Korea standard, Ministry of Culture and Tourism Notice No. 2000-8, 2000. 7.7) ②'McCune-Reischauer Romanization' ③'Yale Romanization', Our romanization converter follows the above three schemes.

A method used in ① and ② is transcription, which represents the standard pronunciation of Korean language, while a method used in ③ is transliteration, which does not represent sound but only letters. So "YALE DOES NOT REPRESENT PRONUNCIATION BUT ONLY LETTERS." B2V22BHARAT (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yale is suitable for expressing the morphological structure of a word, as opposed to the McCune-Reischauer Romanization or the Revised Romanization of Korean, which focuses on making the pronunciation of the whole word similar, so Yale notation is commonly used for linguistic analysis. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Any reply..? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what your comments on Yale have to do with fonts for Old Hangul (^_^;) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You first asked me about the font. 04:38, 8 May 2019 →‎Etymology: mm, are you using the correct fonts?

You're saying that my translation is incorrect. But I'm saying that Yale itself does not consider actual pronunciation, but focus on morphological structure of a word. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You said that middle Korean phonetic should follow the Yale style, so that's what I did. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hm, this is what I see on my computer. In Yale, 아래아 is 'o', not 'wi'. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be Middle Yale Romanization(중세 예일) and Modern Yale Romanization(현대어 예일). This program( seems to be using Middle Yale version one. Did you notice this? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. I think it is an error. states that the results presented by the Roman converter are automatic through the program, so there may be an error. Please point out any errors or omissions that I made next time. I'll fix the 아래아 part. Also, if there is any good automatic middle Korean translator progarm, please give me the link. It would save our time. Thanks. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there must be something wrong with the website. The RR of ᄋᆞ is definitely not 'twi' either. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
You're using this one, is that correct? ^^ B2V22BHARAT (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I'll use this, too next time.
It is an interesting link. However, I am currently writing the romanization manually. _(:3 」∠ )_ So there might be mistakes in my text too. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I see. You can refer to this link, too. I think it shows correct Yale romanization except for the Chinese character. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi. What do you think about this claim? that 李's phonetics derived from 來? Because there was no source behind this argument, I have put a rfv on this claim.. Do you think you can back up this claim? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this claim is plausible because of this reason: 李 is read 'li' and 來 is read 'lai'. So they're similar. However, in 木(mu) and 子(zi), there is no l sound.. so I think Wyang has a point, but just no source. Probably he read it from somewhere. It's unfortunate that he left. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It's solved. @Geographyinitiative taught me where the source came from. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, you should keep in mind that Chinese pronunciation has changed a lot over time. 子 was not always 'zi'. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 16:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh as long as it does not contain l sound, it doesn't matter.. I was mostly interested in the 木(tree) part. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

What is m okm

심토ᇰ (simthong). Do I need to use this format for middle Korean? Please explain. Thanks in advance. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

m is Template:m. {{m}} is like {{l}}, except {{l}} is used in Lists (like ===Synonyms===). {{m}} is for Mentions of words (like inside ===Etymology=== paragraphs).
okm is Middle Korean. (ja is Japanese, en is English, etc.)
—Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


Hello- I just want to say thanks for your years of dedication to this project. I'm sorry that I have come in conflict with you at various points. I know that you are a wise person and I thank you for the help you have given me as well as the criticism. I may seem erratic at times, but I will try to keep it to a minimum and do useful editing. Vigorous debate will increase the quality of the dictionary, not decrease it. Keep up your good work and keep fighting anything I do you think is wrong. Thanks again for your time and work. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

異形詞 example

Hello again- once again, sorry for causing problems. Anyway, because I am a doofus, I don't know how to add a dash (-) in the Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin for the example given on the 異形詞 page. The reason I want to put a dash between "Dì" and "yī" is that adding a dash there not only conforms to the way we write the pinyin in zh-pron on the 第一 (dì-yī) page, it also conforms to normative practice for documents like this (for example: the first page of Second Chinese Character Simplification Scheme (Draft) published in May 1977 has a dash between "DI" and "ER"). I'm asking you because you have helped me with similar pinyin-related problems in the past. If you can help me this one time, I will add the example to the Template:zh-x page so that I don't have to ask you again in the future. If you don't know, I may need to go to the tea room. I thought I would ask you first. Thanks for any help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a workaround for this issue. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 23:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Suzukaze-c".