User talk:Wyang/Archive10

С возвращением

С возвращением! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hey Frank, it's great to see you come back! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Pleasantly surprised to see that you came back before I did :) —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 19:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

無來由

Check the etymology. Also can you add a citation of the second sense of 象皮.--106.39.190.90 00:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

滾水

Hello! I understand why you reverted my edit to 滾水 [1], but a clear rationale for including this link has been discussed & established here: [2]. Basically, I believe that Wiktionary needs the sound for the words- we need audio files for Hokkien. Until I can find a 'free' database of mp3's (or whatever) to upload to Wikimedia Commons, adding this link is the best thing I can do. If you know where we can get those audio files, let me know and I will start uploading! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

They will apply CC to their audios as soon as they finish their maintenance. Better wait and upload audios then, than add links + remove links + upload audios. Wyang (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

My fear is that this work may never be completed or will only be completed after half a decade or more. You will note that they gave me no estimated time of completion for applying CC to their audio files. The need for audio is pressing if Wiktionary is to ever to actually incorporate the Min Nan language. These links can be used to attract and hold users interested in Min Nan. Min Nan has audio files for people to hear and we should not ignore that. It's not my fault that Min Nan has been pushed together under heading 'Chinese'. If Min Nan were treated as an independent language, no one would question adding these links. Of course, I'm not suggesting splitting the dialect-languages of Chinese again, but Min Nan still needs audio files. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

How long shall we wait? It has already been three months. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

When they do it, then I will upload the audio. Until they do it, they haven't done it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy against anything, rather a consideration for time management. The time of men is finite; no need to spend the time of 3x edits for what 1x edit can achieve. These Min Nan entries have been pronunciationless for 18 years. Plus this is pointing readers away to a site - that Wiktionary editors think is superior - and encourage them to browse there directly thereafter. Wyang (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It is PRECISELY for this reason that we must move quickly now. These Min Nan entries have been pronunciationless for 18 years and we must not wait one moment longer to give people some audio. The edits I have made are only to the most basic vocabulary- vocabulary found in Taiwanese study textbooks. I haven't added links for advanced vocabulary, and it will only come to that if the Min Nan dictionary never actually changes over to CC. That dictionary IS superior in at least one respect- it has audio files. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Promises and plans mean worth nothing compared to something in the hand. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Their maintenance finishes on 25 Dec 2019. Wyang (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I will stop adding the links for the next five months if I can start adding them again on December 26th, 2019 if the audio files are not out yet. What do you think of that? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Should send an email to them then to follow up and see what the estimated time of completion/delivery is, but I suspect it will be soon after the project end date. Wyang (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay. At that time, if I can't find the CC files online, then I will send them an email. I recommend leaving the links as-is for the moment. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking for a source

Hi Frank, I'm wondering if you could help me find out what publication "Zhang Huiying 张慧英 (2003)" refers to in this article; the author of the article seemed to have forgotten to include it in the references section. I'd like to add the possible etymology for the -k plural pronoun suffix in some dialects of Cantonese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The article does say (in a footnote, rather than in the references section): <<Original text cited in Zhang Huiying (2001):《攻愧集》卷 72《跋姜氏上梁文稿》：“在敕局时，见元丰中获盗推赏，刑部例皆节元案，不改俗语。有陈棘云：‘我部领你懑厮逐去深州边。’吉云：‘我随你懑去。’懑，本音闷，俗音门，犹言辈也。”>> ... Is that any use to you? Richwarm88 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Richwarm88: That's 2001, not 2003. The 2001 publication should be his 汉语方言代词研究. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This one also works: [3]. Wyang (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Tibeto-Burman

Does anyone still believe in Proto-Tibeto-Burman as a separate language from Proto-Sino-Tibetan? Would you be in favor of demoting PTB to an etymology-only variant of PST, much the way Proto-Baltic is an etymology-only variant of Balto-Slavic? —Mahāgaja · talk 21:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are still people considering so, e.g. the 2019 Nature article "Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in northern China in the Late Neolithic" and to a lesser extent the 2019 PNAS article "Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan". That said, I wouldn't mind treating them as equivalent. Wyang (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

To judge from the titles and the journals they're published in, it sounds like those papers are based nonlinguistic evidence anyway. If you're not opposed, then, I'll broach the issue at WT:RFM. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverts

I 100% understand why you had to revert the edits that treated the different varities of Chinese as morally equal and therefore best ordered according to the way they are ordered in the list of language versions of Wikipedia which can be seen on the left hand side of the page of Wikipedia, the website which my edits linked to. But once you have thrown off the years of Mandarin-centric ideology, you will realize that my edit was the only morally correct way to order the dialect-langagues of China and you will revert the edit yourself. It may take decades to realize it- some of those languages will be seriously diminished too. But one day this edit will be reverted because Mandarin is a language just like any other, be it Cantonese, Gan, Hakka, Min Dong, Min Nan, or Wu, and the website we are linking to (Wikipedia) has chosen a way to order the websites (alphabetically by native romanization- aka, Ban lam gu then Gan then Hakka etc etc) and it is dangerously inappropriate for us to use the English language order (and give the top spot to Mandarin) when there is already an order that we can follow, namely the Wikipedia order. I have faith that we will one day follow the true order that the Wikipedias are listed in because justice and the truth can't lose- but it may need to wait. It's not appropriate to order these languages by subjectively appropriate English language names for these languages, period. Min Nan could also be Hokkien, etc. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No need to overdramatise this. This is appropriate on many levels. zh.wikipedia is called Chinese Wikipedia, not Mandarin Wikipedia. The language used to write it is Standard Chinese. It is the biggest Wikipedia in Chinese in terms of both quantity and quality, and outperforms the rest by a very, very wide margin. Most people who are interested in reading Chinese links are interested in zh.wikipedia articles. You are getting worked up in this political correctness. No major editor is against the other varieties here; you will probably find that this is the most inclusive of websites of its kind. Equality does not mean equity. Wyang (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's the proof this website is accidentally biased in favor of evil: it took ME, a fucking dumbass with no knowledge of programming, to put in the leg work to include Tongyong Pinyin in the list of Mandarin romanizations on this website. AND IT WAS FUCKING EASY. Stop pretending to yourself Wiktionary is representing some kind of academic consensus that Mandarin has to be on the top of the list and we need to order the languages according to subjectively appropriate English language forms: we are representing one of the most evil lies on this Earth which is that Mandarin is superior to the other the eight Chinese languages that have separate Wikipedias. We are evil. This is not about the academic world, this is about recognizing the lie for what it is. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop blowing this up into something it's not. The Tongyong Pinyin issue was not that easy to deal, and there are still things to work out (see WT:GP). Your first attempts made a mess that would have caused module errors on every single page with Mandarin pronunciations, which pushed me to work on it - but this is not the way to go. No one is saying Mandarin/Hanyu Pinyin is superior - it's just that in reality, Standard Mandarin is the standard. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Chiming in from the sidelines -- I have to agree with Wyang and Justin here. The EN WIKT attempts to be a descriptive dictionary. As part of that, we generally prioritize the most common forms of a term. Along similar lines, considering that the vast majority of Chinese-language materials are available in Standard Written Chinese, it follows, ipso facto, that links to Standard Written Chinese should probably go at the top or front of any list of links to Chinese-language materials. That's not "evil", that's descriptive. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative, subjectively, I find your posts in this thread to be irrational and concerning. That's not a dig or attempt at insult, rather, I'm worried about your behavior. It might be good for your mental health to take a wikibreak. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In 1789, they all knew slavery was evil, but they had to compromise in order to create the United States. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Geographyinitiative, I reiterate, your posts are coming across as irrational and concerning... ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you are concerned, and I thank you for your concern. I am deeply dissatisfied with the status quo on Wiktionary and Wikipedia and always have been (hence I started editing) and I have finally found the courage to start speaking a little more openly about how I am feeling. Thanks for your time. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Slavery involved people being kidnapped, shipped halfway across the world against their will under horrific conditions, guns, whips and chains being used to force their obedience, and their being made to work without pay for the rest of their lives. What's at issue here is the format of dictionary articles. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In Wikimedia, if you hate our Project, you are free to leave. — a Fascist 22:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I do suspect that it is within the boundaries of the notion of 'fascist' to present to the world that nine languages should fall under the label of one language, especially when Wikipedia divides them into nine languages. I may have gone too far with the word, but I guess I'm going with the times and the 'woke' ideology. However, it is definitely 100% understandable that Wiktionary is in the situation that we are in because of the propaganda the Western world has accepted over the past half millennia (and the Chinese-speaking world has accepted for longer) concerning the Chinese langauge. If I am wrong, then I'm just a silly person with a silly belief- no worries. I think I can still work within the boundaries of the system as it stands and make a contribution that is both useful and interesting for me and for others. But we don't call the Romance languages one language just because they all use the Latin alphabet. Look at zh-pron and tell me that's one language man! Sorry for causing disturbances. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear world, maybe stop saying that everything you don't like is oppression, Nazism, and concentration camps. Equinox ◑ 02:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear world, speak your mind and let me hear it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I stand in eternal defiance of the absurd notion that all these dialect-languages are one language under the definition of language that is used to divide the languages of other continents. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The 'woke' ideology is not 100% right, but I can still oppose evil. No ideology or scheme of any type will work for humanity if the people do not have a conscience. I am just letting you know what my conscience is telling me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think everyone of consequence on Wiktionary who has spent the least time thinking about the question agrees that the Chinese languages are separate languages in the same way that French and Italian are. It would be insane not to think so. — Eru·tuon 03:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

We have a separate label for Middle English entries- see for instance the page for Englisch where the word Englisch falls under the category for 'Middle English'. We don't pretend that English is one gigantic language thingy. That's all I'm saying. Let's have a 'Classical Chinese' label. No you say? Too complicated? Too labor intensive? Well yeah, the world is too complicated and labor intensive. That's just the nature of the thing. I understand if nothing comes of this, but I thought I ought to spray out a few wild insults for fun I guess. Thanks for the kindness and patience I have been shown here. This is just my 個人意見,也許不對. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Classical Chinese and Mandarin Chinese are two languages, get over it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Chinese is simultaneously a complex of numerous mutually-unintelligible spoken languages and a single written language with numerous divergent dialects. Alphabetic and syllabic scripts that are primarily phonetic can't simultaneously handle multiple languages the way the Han characters can- even the Hanjia part of Korean, the Kanji part of Japanese and the Han tu parts of Vietnamese are mutually intelligible with Chinese to a limited extent. More importantly, Chinese is a macrolanguage- a group of languages that consider themselves a single language, with one or more lects that are held to be standards over the whole.

We tried treating everything as separate languages, and it didn't work very well- there's far too much that can't be neatly assigned to one lect or another, and you end up covering the same thing in several different places, or not at all. The linguistic situation is far too complicated for any approach to fit 100%, but the current system of multiple pronunciations orbiting around a central written part works, for the most part.

If you're so intent on fighting for linguistic justice, how about getting the people of Taiwan to switch to the indigenous Austronesian languages. The island is the homeland of one of the great language families of the world, one that stretches from the Philippines and Indonesia to Madagascar in Africa and Hawaii in the United States, but now there are just a few marginalized remnants left there (not that my own country has done much better with the American Indians and the native Hawaiians).

All a dictionary can do is make sure that everything is documented and preserved. Righting all the wrongs in the world is too much to ask. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I did a preliminary survey to see if languages that have an independent Wikipedia version have an indpendent heading on English Wiktionary. Here's my result:

Languages under the Chinese header:

The language of zh.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Chinese'/'Mandarin' on Wiktionary

The language of zh-yue.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Chinese' on Wiktionary

The language of wuu.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Chinese' on Wiktionary

Languages not under the Chinese header:

The language of bat-smg.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Samogitian' on Wiktionary (example: Žemaitėjė)

The language of yo.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Yoruba' on Wiktionary (example: Yorùbá)

The language of yi.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Yiddish' on Wiktionary (example: יאַפּאַניש)

The language of wo.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Wolof' on Wiktionary (example: Angale)

The language of fiu-vro.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Võro' on Wiktionary (example:Mõisakülä)

The language of vo.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Volapük' on Wiktionary (example: Bajkirän)

The language of vi.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Vietnamese' on Wiktionary (example: tiếng Việt/㗂越)

The language of za.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Zhuang' on Wiktionary (example: Lenzhozgoz)

The language of ur.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Urdu' on Wiktionary (example: دنیا)

The language of uk.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Ukrainian' on Wiktionary (example: українська)

The language of tg.wikipedia.org is part of the header 'Tajik' on Wiktionary (example: тоҷикӣ)

If this survey needs to be continued and done in full, let me know- I just don't want to embarrass everyone any more than I already have. WE ARE THE FASCISTS oops!

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You forgot the Simple English Wikipedia. They also have Gothic and Old English Wikipedias, even though both languages died out over a thousand years ago and there are no native speakers. Decisions as to whether to have a separate Wikipedia aren't always based on anything in the real world. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

We treat the Chinese languages separately on Wikipedia because we can't write articles in multiple languages at once. On the other hand, we treat the Chinese languages together on Wiktionary because we're concerned primarily with words, and the words are written the same so we can describe them at once with different pronunciations, for efficiency. When it comes to syntax, where the languages get different, we can do it in this way without losing efficiency:

====Usage notes====
Standard Mandarin {{cmn-l|先}} comes before the verb; Cantonese {{yue-l|先}} and Southeast Asian Mandarin {{cmn-l|先|???}} come after the verb.
<!-- Standard Mandarin example -->
<!-- Cantonese example -->
<!-- Southeast Asian Mandarin example -->

Which is similar to the fact that we can have example sentences in different languages under the same definition line. ({{yue-l}} extracts the Cantonese pronunciation from the entry it links to, just like {{zh-l}} extracts the MSC pronunciation.)

Whether we should undo Unified Chinese is a separate thing. In terms of software architecture, we can say that the biggest problem of Wiktionary is that there is no Model-View Separation, so that we're forced to write pages in the form they appear to the reader. We can't, for example, treat the Chinese languages together in our source code (the "Model") and make them presented to the reader as different languages in different sections ("Views"). So I guess undoing Unified Chinese would cause a dramatic decrease in efficiency and hamper the non-Mandarin, non-Cantonese languages in the long run, given the proportions of the languages' speakers. Should we really disunify, I suggest that we write some scripts that allow the editor to submit multiple languages at once, instead of submitting source code directly, by parsing the source code of the page, applying the changes, and reencoding the source code before submitting it. This would allow us to retain part of the efficiency with Unified Chinese. --Dine2016 (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• As best I can tell, the only editor proposing the dis-unification of our Chinese entries appears to be basing their argument on ... confused? flawed? technically illiterate? grounds. (Again, not digs, but attempts at accurate description.) The unification of the Chinese entries was a real feat of technical wizardry that massively deduped content in a rational and easily-understood way. I also confess that I simply don't understand Geographyinitiative's argument -- they seem to be saying that Wiktionary is somehow oppressing non-Mandarin varieties of Chinese, but from my perspective, our coverage appears to have improved, now that editors can see at a glance in the tables under the ===Chinese=== header whether or not a given variety has a pronunciation, usage note, etc.

IFF multiple other Chinese editors, and especially native speakers of different Chinese lects (who would presumably have first-hand experience of any such Chinese linguistic oppression), also propose dis-unification of our Chinese entries, and can make cogent and rational arguments, then let's set about doing so. However, the unified structure subjectively makes more sense to me, appears to be better usability in general, and provides numerous technical advantages that the previous un-unified Chinese approach failed to bring us. So until other editors make such arguments, let's proceed with the unified structure. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a unified structure brings many advantages, such as easier creation of entries. The only downside to it is that there may be some false positives, because lemmas can be created by adding a pronunciation to it. The use of labels such as {{lb|zh|chiefly|Mandarin}} may be useful for words such as 高興／高兴 (gāoxìng) to make things clearer. KevinUp (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Japanese entry layout

Hi. When trying to refactor Module:ja-parse, I find that I need a name for the following unit: If a Japanese entry has multiple etymology sections, each etymology section constitutes a ______. Otherwise, all content under ==Japanese==, excluding those below ===Kanji===, constitutes a single ______. In my code I call it the "etymology section" but this name is too long, and it doesn't apply to the latter case. Do you have a better name for it?

(I think it's long-wanted because it just corresponds to ordinary entries in paper dictionaries as well as other electronic dictionaries like Wikidata, EDICT and CEDICT. It's pretty amazing that we're still able to compete with the other electronic dictionaries even though we use MediaWiki pages and they use true database entries which allow them to accelerate entries faster. Maybe it's because their entry format is fixed and cannot be extended by the community.) --Dine2016 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

1) word / block, 2) core / main content. Wyang (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Hey there. I want to share some of the stuff I've been working on (these are all work in progress):

1. Category talk:Middle Korean lemmas - A comparative list of Middle Korean and modern Korean lemmas.
2. Appendix:Middle Korean hanja readings - A Middle Korean hangeul to hanja comparison list.
3. Template talk:cmn-ear-l - Templates for EMC, LMC and EM (Early Mandarin) based on Pulleyblank (1991, Vancouver).

   (Depends on Module:zhx-pulleyblank-pron and individual data for each character.)

I've also been improving the entry layout of Korean and Vietnamese Han characters. Any thoughts on the formatting of entries such as 顋#Korean and 𢭮#Vietnamese?

Also, what do you think of this proposed format for Middle Chinese readings at Module:User:Suzukaze-c/zh-pron#non-template model? KevinUp (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Etymology query regarding meaning of 公 in 愚公

A user I'm not familiar with added a comment at Talk:愚公山を移す that "公 means an old man, and not "common" in this case." I perused 公#Chinese and find myself slightly confused by the wide array of meanings. Do you have any insight regarding the meaning of 愚公? I have no strong opinions, just an interest in correcting the 愚公#Japanese and 愚公山を移す entries if so needed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr: It's definitely "foolish old man", not "stupid and common". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd last worked on those Japanese etymologies in 2011, well before you all helped build out our Chinese entries. I'll update the JA entries. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Gong (2001)

Hi Frank, I was editing the etymology for 事 and stumbled across Gong (2001) mentioned by STEDT. This should be referring to 上古漢語與原始漢藏語帶r與l複聲母的構擬, which was republished in 漢藏語研究論文集. However, I looked at the article and found no mention of 事. Am I missing something, or is it another article? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

STEDT made a mistake. Should be 2000. This article Wyang (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! I've fixed it at 事. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)