Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK

Latest comment: 10 hours ago by Fish bowl in topic 革命的

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction
add new reconstruction request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This page is for entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English. For entries in other non-English languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
  • Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”



See also:

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

  • Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
  • Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV-failed or RFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.
    In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Tagged RFVs

February 2018




Seems to be the wrong traditional form of 複審. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

There're many hits in Google Books.--Zcreator (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Zcreator: True. Do you think there are any differences between 復審 and 複審 in terms of meaning? (In Cantonese, they would be pronounced differently.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
That is the correct form, and 複審 is a wrong form, which must be verified ([1], [2]). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
TAKASUGI Shinji: (This is a really late response.) I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on. Guoyu Cidian only has 複審. It seems like both 復審 and 複審 are valid from the google hits, but there might be some differences in meaning. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@廣九直通車 I'm wondering if you're familiar with this term's usage in law, particularly in Taiwan. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: While I'm not the most familiar with Taiwanese law, a search on Chinese Wikisource revealed a number of legal documents using this form:
Article 121, Execution of Penalty in Prisons Act
受刑對於廢止假釋一百十八不予許可假釋處分不服收受處分翌日法務提起復審假釋受刑假釋撤銷不當 [MSC, trad.]
受刑对于废止假释一百十八不予许可假释处分不服收受处分翌日法务提起复审假释受刑假释撤销不当 [MSC, simp.]
Shòuxíng rén duìyú qián tiáo fèizhǐ jiǎshì jí dì yībǎi shíbā tiáo bùyǔ xǔkě jiǎshì zhī chùfēn, rú yǒu bùfú, dé yú shōushòu chùfēn shū zhī yìrì qǐ shí rì nèi xiàng fǎwù bù tíqǐ fùshěn. Jiǎshì chū jiān zhī shòuxíng rén yǐ qí jiǎshì zhī chèxiāo wèi bùdāng zhě, yì tóng. [Pinyin]
(please add an English translation of this usage example)
Chapter 3 Heading, Protection of Civil Servant Act
復審程序复审程序  ―  fùshěn chéngxù  ―  (please add an English translation of this usage example)
Enclosed Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 611
原告不服提起復審復審決定駁回提起行政訴訟 [MSC, trad.]
原告不服提起复审复审决定驳回提起行政诉讼 [MSC, simp.]
Yuángào bùfú, tíqǐ fùshěn, zài fùshěn, jūn zāo juédìng bóhuí, suì tíqǐ xíngzhèngsùsòng. [Pinyin]
(please add an English translation of this usage example)
Regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@廣九直通車: Thanks for the quotes. I looked at the English translations of some of these, and it seems like it refers to "deliberation" (Protection of Civil Servant Act) or "petition" (Execution of Penalty in Prisons Act). Are these the same thing, and how do these correspond to our current definition of "to review a legal case; to retry a case"? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sgconlaw I wonder if you'd be able to help here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: what are you asking me? — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sgconlaw: The question above about "deliberation" and "petition". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: I'm afraid my Mandarin isn't good enough to help. But for what it's worth, I used Google Translate on the passages quoted above, and they seem to be applying sense 2 of 復審 ("to review a legal case; to retry a case"). I have no idea if this is different from 複審, though. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sgconlaw: I should've linked to the English translations.
監獄行刑法 Prison Act, Article 121: Where an inmate disagrees with the decision to cancel parole in the preceding paragraph or a decision to deny parole, he/she may file a petition to the Ministry of Justice within the ten (10) days starting from the next day following the delivery of decision to the inmate.
公務人員保障法 Civil Service Protection Act, Article 25: 公務人員對於服務機關或人事主管機關(以下均簡稱原處分機關)所為之行政處分,認為違法或顯然不當,致損害其權利或利益者,得依本法提起復審。 A civil servant may petition for deliberation pursuant to this Act against an administrative action, taken by the agency he/she serves or the Personnel Management Authority(hereinafter referred to as "the original action agency"), which, he/she thinks unlawful or obviously illegitimate and causes the infringement of his/her rights or interests.
Do these sound like it's the same as "to review a legal case; to retry a case"? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The literal translation provided by Google Translate seems to indicate a request for a legal case to be reviewed. Petition is too broad; that just refers to a request in general. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

April 2020




Google News results are exclusively from Falun Gong-related sources (soundofhope, epochtimes, ntdtv). Also probably missing a context label regarding connotation? —Suzukaze-c 08:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

For Chinese, I've added four quotes at Citations:中共病毒. Two are from Epoch Times-related media. The earliest we have is from 陳泱潮, who does not seem to be affiliated with Falun Gong, and another is from 梁文韜, who isn't known to be affiliated with Falun Gong either. 中共病毒 should be cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

中共肺炎#Chinese, #Japanese


Ditto. —Suzukaze-c 08:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The terms were coined, likely partly in condemnation of the Chinese Communist Party's cover-up of the epidemic in Wuhan. --Apisite (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
If all cites are coming from Falun Gong-related sources as suggested by Suzukaze-c, we probably shouldn't consider them independent sources. We need to look outside of Falun Gong sources. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Why? There's 40,000 to millions of Falun Gong followers out there; that's more than speakers of many languages we document here. If three leftist German newspapers used a term, we wouldn't consider them not independent sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Prosfilaes: Maybe I was mistaken about the extent of association of these media outlets to a single organization. I'm not 100% sure how the organization of Falun Gong practitioners works. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
It seems like it can be traced back to even earlier sources that use 中共病毒 not to refer to COVID-19, but other viruses that have been associated with China, like H5N1 (I think), as in this article. But again, it comes from Epoch Times. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I put four instances in Japanese at Citations:中共肺炎. One is from Epoch Times, one from Nico Nico and cited to Epoch Times, but one is in Mainichi Shimbun (quoting a Japanese politician), and one on a surfing blog. They don't span more than one year, but they seem to be more or less independent (discounting the two Epoch-sourced quotes). Cnilep (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I added another from this past week, so now they span nearly one year (about a week short). It's from 'G-News'; I don't know if that is Falun Gong-related, but the story certainly seems anti-PRC. I've also added "sometimes offensive" to the entry, as the usage is exclusionary and in at least one case has been called "hate speech". Cnilep (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Cnilep: are you sure the quotes you added are from durably archived sources? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't know who publishes the web pages or what their archiving policies are, but they include links. You can check them out if you have any doubt. (The exception is Mainichi Shimbun, which is a national newspaper and is durably archived in libraries and databases.) Cnilep (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Cnilep: Sorry, I just saw your reply now. I don't think web pages are generally considered durably archived. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: Um, OK. It's slightly annoying that some editors suggest web pages are not acceptable while other insist that only materials available online are acceptable, but such is the nature of a large group project, I suppose. Cnilep (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Epoch Times is archived in Lexis/Nexis, so that and Mainichi Shimbun make two. I'll look for another. Cnilep (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Cnilep: Thanks. I don't think only materials available online are acceptable, just preferred (according to how I am reading WT:ATTEST). I don't think web pages are acceptable unless they are somehow durably archived. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Japan Business Press appears to self-archive (their members page says "more than 30,000 archived articles over the 10 years since the first issue"), but is not in Lexis/Nexis or Proquest. If that's acceptable, it's the third archived (but not easily accessible) attestation. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the durably archived ones currently there are only from 2020, but Epoch Times continues to use the phrase. Cnilep (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Cited for 中共肺炎#Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
RFV passed for 中共肺炎#Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Japanese: "中共肺炎" "コロナ" -"大紀元時報" -"大紀元" remains barren. Perhaps online-sources (WT:ATTEST) can help at this point, but Twitter search top results being from 2020 and 2021 are not promising. —Fish bowl (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest results in Twitter "live" search: Dec 2022, Sep 2022, June 2022. —Fish bowl (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply



Rfv-sense: omen. Added by an anon IP. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • I have also rfv-sensed the other definitions added by said IP: essence. Mechanism. Hinge; crux. These are not in any dictionaries I have access to, and are certainly not used in the vernacular. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Tooironic: These seem to be from Hanyu Da Cidian. I think "omen" = "征兆,端倪", "essence" = "奥妙;真谛;底细", "mechanism" = "机关,发动机械装置的枢机", and "hinge; crux" = "引申指起决定性作用的事物"? I think the definitions could definitely be refined. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Modified "omen" as "sign; clue" and "mechanism" as "hidden mechanical device that moves other parts of the contraption when touched". These two senses are cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
RFV passed for "omen" > "sign; clue" and "mechanism" > "hidden mechanical device that moves other parts of the contraption when touched". The other senses still need verification. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

June 2020


(Chinese, Etymology 2)


The reading and definition looks suspiciously like a ghost entry inherited from earlier lexicographers. The source seems to be the 《觀象玩占》, an astrology book attributed to Li Chunfeng. A passage from the book reads 辰星…一曰免星 link, where the character could have been a misprint of something including or . The 《古今圖書集成》, quoting from the passage, corrects this character as link to the page. 《集韻》 has an entry 毚兔【辰星別名,或省】 link to page, which in the Jiyun formula seems to say these two characters and were considered variants to each other without specifying the linguistic context or referring to attestable literature. Overall the textual quality of these appearances has been subpar, and the reading, especially the tonal value in modern Mandarin, is not well-supported.

--Frigoris (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Frigoris: I just got around to reply. Hanyu Da Zidian quotes Shiji for this: 《史記·天官書》:“兔過太白。”司馬貞索隱:“《廣雅》云:‘辰星謂之兔星。’則辰星之別名兔。或作毚也。”張守節正義:“《漢書》云:‘辰星過太白,閒可械劍。’明《廣雅》是也。” — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The Shiji passage should be enough for verification. However, it seems that the 欽定四庫全書, 摛藻堂四庫全書薈要, 益雅堂叢書 and 古今逸史 versions of 廣雅 all read "辰星謂之...免星", which is different from what 司馬貞 quotes. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Just checked the different versions of Shiji, and it seems like the 欽定四庫全書, 汲古閣毛氏, 古香齋袖珍十種, 北京大學圖書館, 摛藻堂四庫全書薈要, 乾隆御覽四庫全書薈要, 哈佛燕京圖書館 (1), 哈佛燕京圖書館 (2) and 武英殿二十四史 editions all have 免. I wonder why modern editions of Shiji have 兔. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung, thank you very much for the research. If you ask me, I can only say "textual corruption", which is a huge problem with the Shiji in general. I checked the (Semi-)Critical Edition by Gu Jiegang et al. which reads in the passage quoting the lost text of Huangfu Mi, and in the main text. OTOH, the 《廣雅》 passage as quoted in the Shiji CE reads , but the 《廣雅》 was a secondary source considerably later than the Shiji, and its own textual history may just be as bewildering. For example, this passage from the purported Ming-era edition (i.e. same as the 古今逸史 edition you quoted above) clearly reads . I haven't got the time to dig into the critical edition of 《廣雅疏義》, which you can read here. --Frigoris (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

August 2020



Rfv-sense: grammatical particle for perfective aspect (in Wu language). The quotation does not seem to match the sense: the translation given there is an imperative sentence. --Frigoris (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Frigoris: 蘇州方言詞典 defines it as “句末助詞,表示變化或新情况,相當于北京話句末助詞‘了’” and lists these examples: “吾吃仔飯~|大家來吧,吃飯~|落雨~|天要好~|再等等,俚馬上來~|吾一走,屋裏嘸不人燒飯~|俚葛閑話好相信,太陽要從西天出來~!”. 上海方言詞典 is a little more vague and defines it as “語氣詞,表時態,用於句子末尾,相當於北京話的‘了’” and lists these examples: “落雨~|好~,𧟰吵~|我明朝就要回屋裏去~|儂再稍爲等一歇,我已經辣着鞋子~,就要好快~”. 上海话大词典 divides it into several definitions:
  • (旧)表示过去叙事情况下的语气:过一歇,伊又出去~|后来我去睏~。
  • (旧)表示事件的现在状态:生病~|钟停~|苹果熟~|三点钟~|天晴~。
  • 与进行体助词“辣辣/辣海”一起,表示现在进行时态:伊辣辣读书~|大楼辣海造~|伊辣来~。
  • 与存继承助词“辣海/辣辣”一起表示现在完成时态:奶妈请辣海~|我家生买辣辣~。
  • 与表示即行的“快”一起用时,表示现在即行时态:水开快~|苹果熟快~。
The only definition that seems to fit "perfective aspect" is the 4th sense in 上海话大词典, but it seems to not be contributing to that meaning without 辣海/辣辣. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Justinrleung: thank you for checking the rfsense. So indeed the quotation was misleading by not matching the definition it appears under. This really can use some cleanup. --Frigoris (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
仔 in 吾吃飯哉 is grammatical particle for perfective aspect. If you want to find 哉 as grammatical particle for perfective aspect, see [3]. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

September 2020



Is Central Bai written in Chinese characters, and if so, is this the actual character used for /ɕy³³/? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bai was written in chinese characters in a system called 僰文, using the characters to represent Bai words and written in a Bai syntax. As for the character itself, it appears in 山花碑/词记山花·咏苍洱境碑, which is written in 僰文, in the line:煴煊茶水(口㱔)𪢂呼 (translation into Chinese:热煮茶水相对饮)[4],due to the fact that it is written in a Bai syntax, it would be fair to assume it was probably composed in Bai, therefore be pronounced in Bai --Henry Wonh (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Henry Wonh: Thanks! This looks like good evidence. I'll try to incorporate this into the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've checked 赵橹's book and it seems like the text is slightly different from the blog post, and it's translated slightly differently as well. Either way, I've incorporated it into the entry, so this should be cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Henry Wonh: Actually, one more question. Is it actually Central Bai we're dealing with, or some other variety of Bai? The poem was written many centuries ago, but I'm not sure how much we actually know about the Bai languages at that time. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Justinrleung: Well, even though the stella was found in Dali city, it southern Bai territory, most sources claim central and southern Bai are mutually intelligible and are essentially dialects of each other, so I wouldn’t think it would pose a big problem, maybe merge the multiple Bai subsections?—-Henry Wonh (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Henry Wonh: If it's in Southern Bai territory, one way we could go about this is to assume that it's Southern Bai, which would mean it's not cited for Central Bai. However, since this was written long ago, I wonder how much the Bai varieties have diverged then. Are there 僰文 texts from elsewhere? Merging Bai varieties is a bigger discussion to be had since it'll affect all other Bai entries we have. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lama Bai


Southern Bai


Also in these Bai varieties. Given the cited text above, we need to determine which variety the text belongs to. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@幻光尘Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
(Added in diff, by the user pinged above.) - -sche (discuss) 16:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply



Rfv-sense "knit".

Rfv-sense "nit".

Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Checking knit#Noun (which I probably should have done beforehand: I actually wasn't aware that knit was usable as a noun, and believed the entry to be a suspicious mess created by equating etymology with definition, "ニット is from English knit and therefore means knit"), I see that it means (1 of 2 definitions) "knitter garment".
I also added a sense "knitwear" to ニット, so I suppose the RFV for this sense is essentially pointless, and I've removed the sense (maintaining that knit as a noun is not an intelligible definition) and the tag from ニット.
Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Regarding ニット (nitto, nit): I found several mentions of a product called ニットピッカー (nit-picker), either on shopping sites (which tend not to be durably archived) or mommy blogs such as this. I wonder if that is just transliteration of a product name originally in English, though. I also found a 2019 translation of Victorian Lady's Guide etc., which uses ruby in a way that suggests readers would not recognize the katakana word.
I associate that style of ruby in film subtitles, where they want to include the (transliterated) non-Japanese word and also a translation. Cnilep (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

ニット as “[nit]” is pretty common: [5], although specialists always write it as nit. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply



Rfv-senses: "solution" and "result; outcome". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic Seems like you added these in this diff. Dr. Eye Chinese English Bilingual Dictionary gives "the solution to a problem" as one of the definitions. "Solution" is also given in mdbg (not that this is necessarily right). "Result; outcome" might be mergeable with "place to settle", I think, which seems to be a little bit inaccurate without something like "result" since Guoyu Cidian and Liang'an Cidian define that sense with 歸宿 and 結果/結局. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

January 2021




RfV for Japanese entry: alternative spelling of セイタン. -- 04:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The JA WP article mentions this spelling in the 語源 (gogen, Etymology) section at w:ja:グルテンミート#語源, but I have not been able to confirm this in the wild (or at any rate, not online). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

February 2021



Rfv-sense: "order". Tagged by @Frigoris but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The sense "chapter" may come from "rule" or "order, arrangement", but I can't find "order, arrangement" at the first 500 of zhwikisource. Any evidence before Han dynasty? EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
I found: "《孔子家语·曲礼子贡问》:“孔子曰:‘季氏之妇可谓知礼矣,爱而无私,上下有章。’”", "交章论列" EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@EdwardAlexanderCrowley, it seems the gloss "order" in the Definitions on that page refers to the usage as in 雜亂無章. Although the 孔子家語 almost certainly belongs to the pseudepigrapha, we can use other examples to illustrate the sense. --Frigoris (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's hard to say 章≠rule in 雜亂無章. w:zh:孔子家语 says "1973年河北定州八角廊出土了汉墓竹简中有《儒家者言》,内容与《家语》相近。", you know, many ancient books suffers slanders. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Isn't the RFV about the definition item "order"? In particular what order means here, since the word can mean quite different things in English. Currently the sense 3 refers to "rules", which the usex suggests reference to the formal regulations, constitutions, charters, etc. It seems to me that whoever first put the definition "order" here refers to the more abstract and possibly more informal sense of "the quality of being organized", which I think matches the usex I just added (雜亂無章).
The 孔子家語 can match as many Han-era epigraphical texts as it may and is still considered pseudepigraphy, not because the text is "fake", but because the authorship very likely doesn't match how it has been claimed to be in the literary tradition. In fact there's little agreement about the true "authorship" if it has one. The text includes many passages that are paralleled in other classical works. If we can find them, it's preferable to use those more certain texts than the secondary literature. --Frigoris (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Frigoris Let's read 送孟東野序, which is the origin of 雜亂無章. “其为言也,乱杂而无章” means 不講文法(no clear sense/logic of literature), do you agree? EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Frigoris, Crowley666 Yes this sense should refer to being orderly, not to rules or distinctions, as this is how other dictionaries describe it (eg. as 條理); Kroll's Student's Dictionary writes "clearly and properly displayed, well-ordered". Other dictionaries all seem to reference 雜亂無章, but I think it is reasonable to say 章 has extended beyond "rule" here, for example Hanyu Da Cidian gives 無章 as 没有次序.
In some words, 章 seems close to meaning order, tied together with the sense "composition; structure". For example 章法 relates to the organization/arrangement of text, and 成章 relates to a text being well-presented/composed.
Also, here's a line from Chinese characters on Wikipedia: 'Some believe that the name [章草], based on 章 meaning "orderly", arose because the script was a more orderly form of cursive'. It cites Qiu Xigui Chinese writing (文字學概要). Indeed that says '[章] means "orderliness, regulation"' (「章」字有條理,法則等意義) towards the end of section 5.4. Actually the author goes further than Wikipedia suggests, saying that most people agree this explanation is likely correct, in which case 章草 would serve as another example of the sense "orderly". ChromeGames (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply



Rfv-sense: "written language". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

This sense seems to be added by @Zcreator alt (who I don't think is active anymore) in this diff. It may correspond to "指書面語;詩文的句子。" in Hanyu Da Cidian, though the definition would need some rewording if it is so. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply



Rfv-sense: in advance; beforehand. Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. This sense is common and is found in Pleco. Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian seem to treat it as a verb, though. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

September 2021




# [[Simplified Chinese]] character(s); [[Simplified Chinese]]

Entry presumably written because of the lede of the ja.wp article.

One usage found, from Google Books and Scholar searches for 〜と 〜を 〜は: 「通用規範漢字表」 について.

Suzukaze-c (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

From my limited searching, this spelling only seems to be used in Japanese works that quote Chinese texts.
Since this kind of usage does indeed happen, and since Japanese readers would indeed read this string with the expected Japanese pronunciation, I think it merits a Japanese entry. However, such an entry definitely needs to be clear about context and usage -- in Japanese writing, the term 簡体字 (kantaiji) is much more commonly used to mean "Simplified Chinese".
FWIW, I find more than one hit at Google Books: google books:"規範字" "は" nets me 223 ostensible hits, collapsing to 80 when paging through. Many of these have no preview and the relevant string is not apparent in the snippets shown, but there are enough that do show the string in context to meet CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Are we sure that they are referring to China's "規範字", and not to generic "規範" + "字"? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
For some of the hits, possibly. I only scanned the results briefly. I do note that many of them explicitly mention 中国の, or 台湾, or use phrasing like 「簡体字」または「規範字」, etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@H2NCH2COOHFish bowl (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
規範字 is mentioned in: 中国の常用漢字表『通用規範漢字表』が公開 計8105字に増加in a document title 『規範字と繁体字、異体字の対照表』; This paper by 辻田正雄; This design and printing glossary, etc.. Plus, 規範字 can hardly be understood separately as "規範" + "字", because this term is used only used in mainland China due to differences in terminologies. In Taiwan, it is called 正體字正体字 (zhèngtǐzì) or 國字標準字體国字标准字体 instead; in Japan, its counterpart is 常用漢字字体 (in-table) and 印刷標準字体 (chiefly off-table); no such mandatory standard exists in Hong Kong. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 02:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply



He was on an editing spree today. I didn't think much of it but this edit ([6]) looked weird to me. Could somebody maybe check this edit (and maybe some others) to make sure, this user isn't vandalizing? --Fytcha (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha: This is probably not the right venue for this, but thanks for reporting this. I think maybe WT:TR would be a better place to discuss this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
it's User:Fumiko Take. meh. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ya, apparently she's working through some kind of medical reference and hitting a lot of anatomy terms in Japanese. And, unfortunately, making a bit of a hash of it, as at 鎖骨 or 鎖骨下筋.
She's wrong often enough, and she's bull-headed enough, that I'd be tempted to block her to spare us the work of vetting and cleaning up after her -- but she jumps around IP addresses so much that I don't think this would be at all effective. <sigh.../> ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
(pinging IP address master @Chuck EntzSuzukaze-c (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC))Reply
@Suzukaze-c: I don't know if I can contribute much: although I did save some data when they were blocked and there was a reason to run checkuser on them, this IP range has no connection to anything in that data and I have no grounds for using the checkuser tool now to compare browser data- no one is blocked, and no one is using their anonymity to get away with anything.
The abuse filters we used to stop the Sky UK, Thai and Pays de Loire IPs won't work very well here, because there are lots of entries with both Vietnamese and Japanese sections, so there would be lots of collateral damage- we would be blocking Vietnamese IPs from editing their own language. It would require a more sophisticated regex to verify which language section they were editing, and I'm not exactly a regex master. Coming up with a list of IP ranges to trigger the regex checks is another challenge (fetching wikitext is very expensive as abuse filter operations go, so I don't want to do it for every single IP edit). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply



Sense: tire, languor

Although 深度, 進度, 震度, 心土, 伸度 and Sindh can all be read しんど, I'm not aware of this sense of the word. I wonder if the person who added it (an IP address apparently at Peking University) confused it with しんどい (maybe しんどさ)? Speaking of which, the same IP address edited the latter page one minute after they created this one, suggesting that しんどい comes from しんど. I don't think that is the case, either. Am I mistaken? Cnilep (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

See also Kotobank, which lists this specific sense. My local copy of Daijirin also notes that adjective しんどい (shindoi) comes from しんど (shindo), which the KDJ explains is in turn apparently a shift from 心労 (shinrō). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I saw the entry in KDJ only after I had posted this. I've never seen the word used (as far as I can recall), though. So to my question, "Am I mistaken?" apparently the answer is "yes". It's not the first time, and probably won't be the last. Cnilep (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
maybe a usage: https://wave.pref.wakayama.lg.jp/bunka-archive/minyou/02-202.html : つづら折りなる 細道を/しんどしんどと 人々はヨイヤサ
a usage, identical to the Digital Daijisen's usage example: https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/kodomo/page/0000038769.html : ついつい「あーしんど!」と
Fish bowl (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply



Contemporary senses of Etymology 1, あじきない (contra Etymology 2, あじけない, with the same kanji and essentially the same meaning)

I added three quotations before I stopped to think that, based on the writing system, there may no reasonable way to argue whether these are the first or second Etymology.

@Poketalker, Suzukaze-c, Do you have ideas about how this should be handled?

Cnilep (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

https://furigana.info/w/味気 :) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
PS: Thinking more specifically about the challenge that Cnilep brings up about identifying etym and sense, I see that the KDJ entry specifically indicates that the あじけない (ajikenai) reading correlates to sense ③ for the あじきない (ajikinai) reading. So presumably any quote that looks more clearly to be senses ① or ② for あじきない (ajikinai) thus cannot fit for あじけない (ajikenai), ruling out that reading. Likewise, the DDJS entry ties sense ① for あじきない (ajikinai) with あじけない (ajikenai), while the other senses for あじきない (ajikinai) appear to be specific to that reading. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

November 2021




Rfv-sense: "dwelling". Tagged by @Tooironic. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung, Tooironic: This sense ("dwelling" = "house" but more formal) exist in Japanese and Korean and also CC-CEDICT (along with "somebody else's house"). I have just created a Japanese and Korean (hanja) entry. I couldn't find anything solid to confirm this sense in Chinese but this search may give interesting matches. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Welcome back Anatoli! It may be a matter of translation. Probably, "household" and "dwelling" can be combined. In Chinese the sense is just 住户. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Tooironic: Thanks, Carl! If the sense "dwelling" is invalid, do you want to remove it? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but what about the RfV process? ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Tooironic: Ah, OK, if you just want it to take its course. Since you added, I thought you might want to cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed eventually. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Attested in 现代汉语词典. Also, "東南形勝,三吳都會,錢塘自古繁華。煙柳畫橋,風簾翠幕,參差十萬人家。" by 柳永, etc.. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 03:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@H2NCH2COOH: Thanks for the quote. We'd need two more for this to pass RFV. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@H2NCH2COOH: Also, I wanted to clarify which sense in 现代汉语词典 are you translating as "dwelling"? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: 住户. The example given in the dictionary is "这个村子有百十户~". And also, "遠上寒山石徑斜,白雲深處有人家" by 杜牧, "高秋水村路,隔㟁見人家" by 李中, "三藏道:「悟空,前面人家,可以借宿,明早再行。」" and "只奔山南坡下,忽見山凹之間有一座草舍人家。" in 西遊記, etc. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 08:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@H2NCH2COOH: 现代汉语词典 defines 住户 as 定居在某处的家庭或有单独户口的人 - isn't this referring to the occupants of a house rather than the dwelling place itself? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps it is a bad explanation then. See https://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=135766&q=1&word=%E4%BA%BA%E5%AE%B6#order1 for definition explicitly mentioning the house itself. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 08:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

December 2021



Rfv-senses 17-21: "thing; to exploit, to accept; currency; tomb" (moved to the end of the entry for now)

These senses were all added in one edit along with many other senses that I can account for. However I'm having trouble verifying these couple of senses. Any ideas where they come from or where they are used? Perhaps as alternative forms?

Speaking of alternative forms, the page currently has a lot of them. But I'm reluctant to call 采 an alternative form of other characters like and , because they seem like they might be alternative forms of each other rather than having one character be the main character (although certainly one is more specialized). Perhaps there's a better way to organize things? ChromeGames (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ChromeGames: These senses seem to be in Hanyu Da Cidian (at least).
@Justinrleung: Thanks for confirming their presence, I wonder if I have a different edition/version of Hanyu Da Cidian though since I don't see all of those definitions that you mention? Although I do find:
  • to exploit; to gain = 摘取 (?)
  • to accept = 采纳,采用
ChromeGames (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@ChromeGames: Sorry, my mistake. I meant Hanyu Da Zidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: Gotcha, I should definitely try to get my hands on that one. Thanks, ChromeGames (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

January 2022




# [[busbar]]Fish bowl (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The hits at google:"ブス" "電源" suggest that this is a domain-specific jargon term, shortening of ブスバー (busubā), in turn apparently an alternative for バスバー (basubā). If we have any appropriate labels or categories for "spelling pronunciation" to describe the shift from /a/ in バス (basu) to /u/ in ブス (busu), that would apply here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

February 2022




Japanese. Rfv-senses: Alternative form of ては (Etymology 3); and short for ではないか (Etymology 4)

Of Etymology 3, Eirikr says, “How so? Examples? Unclear that this etym even warrants inclusion.” and “Etym 3 is just a usage of the particle combo in Etym 1, whereas ては would presumably be from って (tte) + (wa)”. [Etymology 1 is ‘Compound of で and は’, ‘at, in’.]

It is similarly not clear to me that this is a separate lexical item.

Of Etymology 4, Eirikr says, “Etym 4 is not a verb, but a different use of the particle combo in Etym 1, eliding the negative coupula ない (nai) and question particle (ka).”

Note that I changed the POS from verb-form to particle. Even so, I do not think that this is a lexical item as such. It is just a use of the Etymology 1 sense.

(Note, too, that I tried to rectify a separate issue noted by Eirikr: “No appropriate sense to cover the では in それでは, so the Etym 2 section is effectively broken (user goes to それでは, gets no explanation)”. That is not related to this RfV, but others might want to see if you disagree with what I did.)

@Eirikr, Fish bowl, Nardog, 荒巻モロゾフ, Shen233

Cnilep (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Etymology 3 seems to be the verb conjugation, as in 噛んではいた.
As for Etymology 4: I considered ではないか to be formed from である, and では to be a shortening (or ellipsis?) of that, hence "verb form". —Fish bowl (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
agreed, etym 3 and 4 looks redundant to me. Shen233 (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I spoke to some people I regard as experts, people who teach and/or write about Japanese grammar. We agree that forms such as 嚙んではいない consist of Verb + + いる. No one I asked thought that ては / では in this construction is a suffix. Cnilep (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@荒巻モロゾフFish bowl (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oh, is that what etym 3 was supposed to be about! Completely unclear as currently written.
But ya, that is simply the conjunctive ~て・~で form of a verb + particle (wa). You could also have particle (mo), or (ya), or (to), or no particle at all. This is not a lexical item. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well, it points to ては, which is itself fairly straightforward... —Fish bowl (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
As for etym 4, being a very new usage, so it's not in common dictionaries, and at least not a verb since it's not a conjugated word. The word which has been elided can be not only ないか, but also polite forms ないですか and ありませんか, honorific form ございませんか and etc. If there were an improvement, it might be to explain it as "negative copula + か".
Etym 3 occurs when the verb root is ended in nasal (-g-, -n-, -m-). で in etym 3 is originated from classical verb (tsu), while で in etym 1 is from particle にて (nite), so they are different things.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@荒巻モロゾフ: But those are not lexical items. Those are grammatical constructions. The ~て or ~で is part of the verb (adjective, etc.) conjugation, while は, as well as ない, ございません, or what have you are separate lexical items. Similarly, whether one of those items is elided is a matter of grammar and/or usage, not a part of the lexicon.
As such they are likely to be found in grammars, and not in dictionaries. See for example Nihongo Bunkei Jiten (1998):
[N/Na では]
(“ては. noun では, adj-くては, verb-ては. Combination of the te-form of the predicate with ‘wa’.”)
Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV failed Cnilep (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hm, that it exists is not really disputed. The appropriate treatment IMO would be RFD or RFC. では and ては (verb suffix) should be kept or deleted together as a set. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Then let's delete. The verb suffix portion is only the (te) or (de), exclusive of the (wa), which is clearly the particle and not part of the suffix. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Weak keep ては・では (verb suffix); or else move its content to ;
keep では (ではないか). —Fish bowl (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply


Japanese. Rfv-sense: In Man'yōshū I, 2, the first verse 山常庭 (Yamato ni wa) proves the historical use of the Man'yōgana 庭 used phonographically to represent the particle には (ni wa) introducing the place where an action is done. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 08:49, 14 February 2022.

User:Poketalker added two rfv-sense requests on 26 February 2017.
  1. (historical) place where something is done
  2. (regional) at the entrance of a house, a dirt floor
Per's comment, the first of these seems to be ateji for the particles には. If that is the case, that would make it archaic (and perhaps uncommon, or obsolete) rather than historical. It would also be a postposition or particle rather than a noun. Cnilep (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • For the current sense 2 ("place where something is done"), if we view this as as man'yōgana, this is arguably not entry-worthy, as that is a spelling convention and not a lexical item -- as the anon correctly notes, this is simply locative particle (ni) + topic / contrastive particle (wa). And as @Cnilep notes, this is a particle combination, not a noun. Moreover, this usage Old Japanese, not Japanese.
That said, there is a noun (niwa) with the sense of "place where something is done". The lack of any usex obscured this. My local copy of Daijirin gives examples like 「学びの―」「裁きの―」, where the preceding genitive (no) means that, grammatically, this niwa must be a noun. The entry also includes a quote from the Nihon Shoki: 「すなわち霊畤(マツリノニワ)を鳥見の山の中に立てて/日本書紀(神武訓)」 (clearly showing use in a compound noun), and one from the Man'yōshū: 「武庫の海の―良くあらし漁(イサリ)する/万葉 3609」 (here coming again after a (no), marking this as a noun).
I am not sure if the noun sense for "place where something is done" is still current, however -- the quotes are OJP and not JA.
  • The current sense 3 ("at the entrance of a house, a dirt floor") is included in Daijirin as well, with a quote from a 浄瑠璃 (jōruri, street theater, storytelling with musical accompaniment, ballad or chant) play dating to 1720: 「そろばん追取―へくわらりと投げ捨たり/浄瑠璃・天の網島(中)」.
Again, I'm unsure if this sense is still in current use, and if it is regional (as currently labeled), I don't know what regions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I put three citations of 'place where something is done' on Citations:庭. I also removed 'historical' from the sense, as these are contemporary. Cnilep (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
No offense directed at you personally. But I am really frustrated at seeing inline citations being removed. I use dictionaries to find "how" and "when" a word and sense have been in use. It supports the given sense as well as etymology. I am most interested in the older citations, but any are better than none. Without any supporting citations, why should I believe any of the definitions given?
While I was not involved in this entry, I have spent many pain staking hours searching and adding citations to find them gone several years later. When there are dozens or even hundreds of citations, moving some to the citation page may make sense, while prioritizing older and relevant citations. But very few entries in this entire project have that many citations. Most entries and senses are missing them completely, which really hurts this dictionary. Bendono (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV passed for sense "place where something is done". No citations yet for "dirt floor", but it is in other dictionaries. Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

March 2022

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK.



Japanese. (dialect) imperative of する

Added by User:0.02s, who included the label dialect and asked "what dialect?"

Nihon Hōgen Daijiten includes したれば (alternate form of したら, which in turn is a Tohoku conjunction meaning そうすると, それなら (if that is the case)), as well as したれる (form of the verb 湿(しと) (shitoru, be damp)) and ごしたれる (form of the Tohoku/Hokuriku verb ごしむく (goshimuku, die)). Nihon Kokugo Daijiten includes したれ‐ど and したれ‐ども, which it derives respectively as する +‎ たり +‎ and する +‎ たり +‎ ども (both roughly “doing in spite of”, if I understand correctly), but doesn't mark them as dialect. Both Digital Daijisen and Shin Wa-Ei Chūjiten have してやる, variously glossed as “do for (someone)”, “trick (someone)”, or “do as one pleases”. I can't find したれ as such, though, and don't know whether it might be a form of Tohoku したら or some other (regional? class?) variant of してやる (or maybe just して?). Cnilep (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see a hit over at Nihon Jiten. Their entry for したれ (shitare) indicates that this is 阿波弁 (Awa-ben), the dialect used in Tokushima prefecture on Shikoku. Apparently it's a contraction of してやれ (shite yare). There's also a separate entry for the Kansai dialect phrase どないかしたれや (donai ka shitare ya, loosely, something like “just do whatever already”), where this したれ (shitare) appears to be again a contraction of してやれ (shite yare).
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
So, should it be したれ, or したる? The current Digital Daijisen in Kotobank has 為て遣ったり but (oddly) not 為て遣る. (It does, however, gloss 為て遣ったり as 「してやる」 + 「たり」.) I can't tell if this is some kind of defective paradigm, or just "dialect" enough that the editors neglect it a bit. Cnilep (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply





# [https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Phowa phowa]

nothing in google scholar/books —Fish bowl (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply


# [[phowa]]

04:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  • FWIW, just in preliminary poking, I found that the JA WP has a hint of this at ja:w:ポア, a disambig page -- but the mentioned article about this particular aspect of Tibetan Buddhism, at ja:w:ポア (チベット仏教), is a redlink.
There's some background material about this subject in English at w:Phowa. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 10:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

if these entries are about w:ja:ポア (オウム真理教), that should be made very clear, and the "Tibetan Buddhism" tag now currently on ポワ should be removed pending cites about Tibetan Buddhism. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've rewritten ポア, but ポワ still needs to be examined, and the claim I made about ポワ there (based on the Japanese Wikipedia page) should be verified. —Fish bowl (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

April 2022




Japanese. Rfv-sense: (modern fiction, women's speech) I; me (used by haughty women of the highest classes of society)

The entry was previously tagged for cleanup as "Very confusing entry, requires clarification and formatting; expansion also needed". I've done my best to clean it up, but I don't know why there are two senses both glossed, essentially, as "I". (The other is: "(archaic, women's speech, humble) I; me".) I guess that if the word is used in contemporary fiction with a different connotation, this might make sense, but I haven't seen such use myself. I should note, though, that Japanese sources say the the pronoun came to be associated with samurai women in early Modern Japanese, so that may be a clue. Cnilep (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Widespread use: see w:ja:日本語の一人称代名詞#妾(わらわ) (as already written in the entry as a comment), as well as the list of fictional characters using this pronoun at https://dic.pixiv.net/a/わらわ#h2_1 well exceeding 3 independent works. —Fish bowl (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
The Wikipedia article on pronouns includes commentary, but no usage examples. If the usage is easy to find, then could you please add some? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
There's also w:ja:わらわ, which mentions humble usage, but says nothing about haughtiness... ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 10:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Probably not immediately due to a lack of direct access to these works, and I still think it is widespread use. —Fish bowl (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fish bowl You suggested this is widespread, but so far no one has added attestation. Any update? Cnilep (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply




# [[goldbrick]]

@KwékwlosFish bowl (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not finding anything likely.
google:"ゴーブレーキは" (adding the (wa, topic particle) to filter) turns up only three hits, of which only one doesn't have punctuation between the ゴー () and the ブレーキ (burēki) -- but it's a blog hosted on a server in Poland, and visiting the site shows that it is indeed written in Polish, and the term ゴーブレーキ is nowhere to be found.
If @Kwékwlos can't add any more detail, I think we must delete this as unconfirmable. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Eirikr It is found on Tranter's "The Languages of Japan and Korea" citing Tsuhako's "Okinawa Chū-Nanbu hōgen", but I forgot to add it. Kwékwlos (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kwékwlos — Ah, thank you! I don't suppose you can find any quotes? And is this Okinawan, as in Naha Ryukyuan, or Okinawan, as in Okinawan-flavored Japanese? A few of the mainland JA uses I encountered in searches seemed to suggest a subset of ブレーキ (burēki, brake, as for a vehicle), but I didn't (and don't) have time for a more extensive search. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The actual Okinawan language, not the Japanese dialect. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

May 2022



Chinese. Simplified form of 𬠰. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The simplified form of 𬠰 is because 𦥯 always becomes 𰃮 in simplified Chinese.
I was not making things up. I was simply following 简化字总表. -- 06:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
類推簡化字 need to be attested. None of these are found exactly in 简化字总表. Pinging @H2NCH2COOH for opinion on these. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
They don't require independent verrification. 简化字总表 states that any trad.-simp. pair in Table 2 is generally applicable to other characters, even if it isn't listed in Table 3. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 04:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@H2NCH2COOH Okay, so they are acceptable as 類推簡化字. However, I do think they need to be attested per WT:ATTEST for the purposes of Wiktionary. I'm wondering if other Chinese editors have any opinion on this (Notifying Atitarev, Tooironic, Fish bowl, Mar vin kaiser, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Michael Ly): — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The problem with clinging to attestation in Chinese is that there are tons of variants (not just simplified Chinese, but also ancient ones), and it is simply impossible to do in practice. And since simplified Chinese is a relatively new and "artificial" thing, it is hard to find cases where the simplified forms of these rare characters being used. However, the Table 2 did tell us how they should theoretically be simplified when used (since the writing system is "artificial"). This rule has been generally applied to rare characters in classical Chinese publications, and there should not be any exception in these cases when they appear (unless you are talking about the guideline of the latest standard, which recommends traditional forms if outside 通用规范汉字表: but that would probably be even more dreadful to deal with). --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 20:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well I do think there is something questionable. Not about the simplification rule, but the existence of the supposed "traditional" forms in Chinese -- are they really used in ancient texts? Or are they just made up for names? --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 21:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
𨍶 and 𦦗 are presented in Kangxi Dictionary and some others, so I believe they are actually used in ancient text and their simplified form can be derived accordingly. 𠙦 seems like a variant form of so they both can possibly be treated as variants. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 15:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Neutral: honestly a lot of the weirder chinese characters don't meet CFI anyway (like {{zh-historical-dict}}, which literally says citations probably don't exist). —Fish bowl (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fish bowl: True, but it should at least be verifiable by the same way as {{zh-historical-dict}} entries, i.e. listed in a published source as a variant/simplified form. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung Is it worth formalising Chinese as a limited documentation language when dealing with (say) Middle Chinese and earlier? There might be a better cut-off point. Theknightwho (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: Only Standard Written Chinese is well-documented, so any other form of Chinese would be considered limited documentation language. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung To be clear, I'm referring to ancient forms only cited in historical dictionaries, such as the ones Fish bowl mentions. If those are already covered by the LDL policy due to being pre-modern anyway then fair enough. Theknightwho (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: Yup, that's covered. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I am sceptical that this one can be attested, because 𬠰 (U+2C830) is only used in Taiwanese names[7] and has the reading xué[8]. I'm quite relaxed about including simplified forms of rare characters, but the prima facie evidence suggests this is unlikely to be real. Theknightwho (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. Simplified form of 𨍶. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The simplified form of 𨍶 is because 𤇾 and always become 𫇦 and respectively in simplified Chinese. -- 06:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. Simplified form of 𦦗. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The simplified form of 𦦗 is because 𦥯 always becomes 𰃮 in simplified Chinese. -- 06:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The traditional form isn't in the Kangxi dictionary (Unicode says it would appear on p. 1005), but it is in 《字彙補·八》. Theknightwho (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Note: 𦦗 is now created. 2607:FB91:3AE:8EA8:61BC:D373:3EC4:F7BC 00:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. Simplified form of 𣞁. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The simplified form of 𣞁 is because 𤇾 always becomes 𫇦 in simplified Chinese. -- 06:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Although neither are presented in mainstream dictionaries, it follows the simplification rule, and Unihan has 㮠 as the simp. form of 𣞁. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 15:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Again, I'm sceptical of this one, because 𣞁 (U+23781) is used in Taiwanese names[9] with the reading róng[10]. @ND381 is that how it's also used in Hong Kong? I assume so from the definition, but I just want to check that that usage applies to both. Theknightwho (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: It's probably not an everyday character, so asking anyone about how it's used would not give you much info. I did find 𣞁 in names of people from ancient texts, which I've put in Citations:𣞁. As for whether the simplified form is found, it might be worth looking for simplified reprints of those ancient texts, but I haven't been able to find any of those. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Chinese. Simplified form of 𠙦. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The simplified form of 𠙦 is because 𤇾 always becomes 𫇦 in simplified Chinese. -- 06:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
𠙦 (U+20666) is a variant of 茕 that is apparently in 中華字海, and also shows up in 教育部異體字字典. Apparently the source for 䒮 is Singapore, but I can't find what list it came from, and this doc submitted to Unicode in February considers it questionable. Theknightwho (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: I checked a copy of 中华字海, and it seems like 𠙦 doesn't exist in the dictionary. It is instead 焭 (page 123, 几部 + 10 strokes). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

July 2022




Japanese. Rfv-sense:

2020 November 9, “煩悩【ぼんのう】”, in 実用日本語表現辞典[11]:
In common usage, this commonly carries the meaning of 'worldly desires' (in particular) or 'sexual desire'.
2004, 彰宏 中谷, 今したいことを、今しよう。[12]:
'I have a weakness for alcohol... my desire for alcohol really is strong.' [...] One can think, 'I like alcohol this much. This isn't something I can spend my life on, can it.' This is how one can start to objectively recognise one's worldly desires.

— This unsigned comment was added by Jaml0 (talkcontribs) at 02:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC).Reply

(@PoketalkerFish bowl (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC))Reply
@Jaml0, Fish bowl: neologism for the dictionary citation? The 2004 cite most likely refers to "the mental state of klesha" sense. ~ POKéTalker07:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • I would caution against relying on 実用日本語表現辞典. 実用日本語表現辞典 is an anonymously published blog. It's not even pseudonymous. It apparently tries to document terms in recently popular usage in the Japanese speaking internet. Weblio apparently includes their entries, but I would say that indicates Weblio's loose standards more than anything else. Whym (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

August 2022



Japanese. Not part of the Kanken. Added here. If this can't be verified then be advised that this is not a one-off; I've encountered quite a number of such spurious kanji entries (and senses). — Fytcha T | L | C 22:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Weblio's Kanji Jiten ("Kanji Dictionary") entry explicitly states that this isn't used in Japanese: https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E7%9D%98
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
睘睘(けいけい) (keikei) would be necessary for a 漢文訓読 reading of the 詩経: google:"睘睘" "けいけい", but that might be the only usage. —Fish bowl (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
google:"睘々" "けいけい"斯く開創当初より既に睘々踽々(けいけいくく)の輩を以て組織せられたるもの. Someone flexing their vocabulary. —Fish bowl (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
[13] using the variant 々 —Fish bowl (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply




# {{lb|ko|anatomy}} [[trisplanchnic]]

0 results at google:"삼대체강", google scholar:"삼대체강", 1 result at google books:"삼대체강" (두개강 (頭蓋座) , 흉강 (胸陸) , 복강 (腹陸) 의 삼대 체강 에는 공간 이 가득 차 있음에도 불구 하고).

@SpacestationtrustfundFish bowl (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

It seems that the spelling is borrowed from the Japanese "三大体腔". [14][15] --Dubukimchi (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

October 2022




Japanese. An IP claims this "Kanji [] has no known use beyond Literary Chinese writings", in which case it seems not to merit a Japanese entry. But I don't know a whole lot about the niceties of CJK, so bringing it here. This, that and the other (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kotobank has something like that sense for Chinese (in Chu-Nichi Jiten), but elsewhere has the kanji as a variant of くじり (くじること). I added the Japanese sense and formatted the section, but haven't verified the IP user's sense or the readings. Cnilep (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
This seems like a rare but valid kanji spelling. I'm having a go at this, locating the main entries at the kana spellings of くじり (kujiri) and つのぎり (tsunogiri). (Still in process, links are still red as I write this.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Usage of 觿 would be necessary for a 漢文訓読 translation of 礼記 ([16]) and 史記 ([17]). —Fish bowl (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

January 2023



Discussion moved from WT:RFVNE.

Vietnamese. Chữ Nôm character. The reading is , but I cannot connect it to any of the meanings on its page. As much as I've found is dictionaries saying it means reed, and "một và bông lau" which doesn't make much sense to me. Regireki (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Regireki Bông lau means "reed". Và means "and" or "several". So in this quote and context, "một và bông lau", it means "several reed plants". Compare một và to một chút (a little bit) and một ít (a little bit).
Also the character is composed of 𣀟 (⿺巴數) where 巴 is the phonetic radical and 數 is the semantic radical meaning "several". Lachy70 (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

February 2023



Chinese. Rfv-sense: "Liu River". Tagged by @Tooironic — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps just a typo; 潭水 exists according to Wikipedia. —Fish bowl (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's not a typo, but it's a historical name for 柳江 according to 漢語大字典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply



Japanese. Rfv-sense: "thing that happens regularly".

Added by me in [18] and removed by User:Rajzin since it doesn't appear in other reference works.

I note the existence of https://dic.nicovideo.jp/a/ノルマ達成 and https://dic.pixiv.net/a/ノルマ達成 (and also that they define ノルマ using the conventional definition), but cannot find the time for further verification work. I can accept that it is just my misinterpretation.

Fish bowl (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think I can see where that sense fits. Whether that's included in other reference works is irrelevant if we can find enough clear examples of usage demonstrating this sense to meet CFI (three).
I have no time today for this, possibly not for the near term (various other responsibilities IRL keeping me busy). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply


Chinese. Rfv-sense: "(Cantonese) Used to point out something that one would like confirmation for.", pronunciation ho1. I believe this should be an alt form of (ho2, "(Cantonese) Sentence-final particle used in an interrogative seeking confirmation."), also commonly written as 可 and possibly 呵, but I do not think it would be pronounced ho1. – Wpi31 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Wpi31: I think it should be ho2. Matthews and Yip (Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar) writes ho2 as 呵. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply





# [[Voldemort]]

If "Noun" is correct, this RFV requests quotes matching Voldemort#Noun: "An evil, harmful, or widely feared person or thing."

If "Noun" is a mistake for "Proper noun", see WT:FICTION.

Fish bowl (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Another entry. —Fish bowl (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

March 2023


Kawanakajima shōgi

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK.

川中島将棋 (redlink) appears to be rather niche, with one Google Scholar hit, two Google Books hits, and 36 Google hits under default settings.



# [[Kawanakajima]]

====Derived terms====

where 川中島將棋 is a redlink.

Fish bowl (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Fish bowl: These seem like RFV issues. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
OK; moved. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Fish bowl: forgot to re-ping @Apisite after the move? Also, added Japanese entry to Kawanakajima so the entry does not get deleted completely. ~ POKéTalker(==) 05:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply



Japanese. At google:"神デレ" the first result is Wiktionary, the only other relevant result is F*ndom (yikes), and the rest is some (presumably) proper noun related to a single product. @Immanuelle

Fish bowl (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This search seems to weed out a lot of specific cruft: google:"神デレ" -wiki -wikt -kamikaze -wax -"character" -"god" -tumblr -twitter. A lot of this appears to be manga and anime, an area of Japanese that I actually never really got into.
I note also that google books:"神デレ" finds nothing at all. Using hiragana for google books:"神でれ" does generate hits, but none for this noun sense -- the でれ (dere) in these hits appears to be a verb stem, and the appears to be the latter element of a compound. Not promising for WT:CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply




User:馬太阿房 noted this as Gikun for () (mitsu) in the Meiji Bible, but couldn't find other Japanese usage. I can't find it in archives of Asahi Shimbun (from 1879) or Yomiuri Shimbun (from 1876), and Google Books snippets seem like probably scannos. NKD lists it as じゅう‐じん, with a note, "「仞」はみちる意" (仞/牣 means みちる "to be filled"). The site furigana.info also says the reading is じゅうじん.

I briefly changed the POS from noun to verb-suru, since the gloss suggests an accomplishment, but the one usage I found thanks to NKD (from 1869) doesn't include する, so I changed it back. Cnilep (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

(furigana.info also includes book extracts from Aozora Bunko, and they have two uses of 充牣する by 夏目漱石. —Fish bowl (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC))Reply
https://lab.ndl.go.jp/dl/book/770526?keyword=充牣&page=6 has 充牣 in some list probably for learning 漢語, annotated simultaneously as ジウジン and ミツ. —Fish bowl (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

April 2023




Japanese. No Google Scholar hits, no (meaningful) Google Books hits,[note 1] no Kotobank hits……: just lots and lots of video games. Is that acceptable? —Fish bowl (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ 3 shitty word list epubs and 2 usages as a surname? 文學界, Volume 10 朝日新聞縮刷版

In addition, note that the title is フランベルジェ (furanberuje) and not フランベルジュ (furanberuju). —Fish bowl (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply




I can only find a few newspaper articles about the US military's position on "レーストラック方式", which I gather is a (calque of an English) term for some kind flight path for airplanes? Granted, such mentions go back to the 1970s, but they do not seem to refer to any actual racetracks. e.g. Yomiuri Shimbun, 2011:

  • 米国防総省(べいこくぼうそうしょう)6月(ろくがつ)新型垂直離着陸輸送機(しんがたすいちょくりちゃくりくゆそうき)「MV22オスプレイ」の配備(はいび)()めたことを()け、対象航空機(たいしょうこうくうき)CH46中型輸送(CH46 ちゅうがたゆそう)ヘリからMV22オスプレイに、飛行経路(ひこうけいろ)台形(だいけい)から陸上競技場型(りくじょうきょうぎじょうかた)レーストラック(かた))に変更(へんこう)
    Beikoku Bōsōshō ga rokugatsu ni shingata suichoku richakuriku yusōki “MV22 Osupurei” no haibi o kimeta koto o uke, taishō kōkūki o CH46 chūgata yusō heri kara MV22 Osupurei ni, hikō keiro wa daikei kara rikujō kyōgijō kata (rēsutorakku kata) ni henkō.
    From June the US Department of Defense has decided to deploy new vertical take off and landing “MV22 Osprey”, switching from CH46 midsize transport helicopter to the MV22 Osprey, the flight path shifting from a trapezoid pattern to a athletic field pattern (racetrack pattern).

That is not at all what I would imagine from seeing レーストラック glossed as "racetrack". Cnilep (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

(Note: entry by Special:Contributions/2601:601:4002:E260:7999:F752:5C3C:7DADFish bowl (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC))Reply
One use in a song: UVERworld - ace of ace; but this being the predominant Google result for google:"レーストラックに" is a bad sign. —Fish bowl (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
It looks like it's used to describe a certain shape of electromagnetic coils and other similar devices, in the form of レーストラック型, レーストラック形状, etc. It might be a stretch to say レーストラック without a suffix means something like "racetrack-shaped", though. Maybe we can have a usage note about it? Whym (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

May 2023




Chinese. Rfv-sense: necromancer. Removed by @Vampyricon out of process. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing this was intended to be the definition 宋時對道士的俗稱 in Hanyu Da Cidian? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply


Chinese. Rfv-sense: "to raise; to rear (domestic animals)" and "storage; savings". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

内存溢出的猫 (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply


Chinese. Rfv-sense: (Cantonese) to pull up (pants or socks). Removed by @Wpi out of process. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

This sense exists; both it and 優 are pronounced as jau1, but they should be unrelated otherwise. It should be cognate to (cau1), cf (caang3) vs 𨅝 (jaang3), (caai2) vs (jaai2).
Ideally we would put this sense on under a separate etymology, but it appears to me that is a more common form than both 抽 or 優. In any case, it should be a placed under an etymology separate from the main one on any of these three characters. – Wpi (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Wpi: 優 is given in 廣州話方言詞典 and 廣州話普通話詞典. 廣州方言詞典 writes it as 摳. Words.hk has 抽, 摳, 拞 and 揄. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please see my talk page. -- Ywhy (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Found some uses, but not durably archived. But given this and the two dictionaries, I think this is enough to be considered cited for Cantonese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply





# to [[govern]] the [[country]]

Setting aside "Noun" which seems to be a typo, I can only see usage of "為国" (為国(ためくに)?) as a personal name.

為国(いこく) appears in Kotobank, but as a part of a 漢文 dictionary.

Fish bowl (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

google:"為国し" (adding the し to filter for Japanese verb constructions) generates three hits.
google books:"為国し" generates five hits, but all only with Google's error-prone "snippet view".
  • Two are from text snippets that demonstrate other scanning artifacts (making it likely that these hits are also scannos, and both of them certainly look dubious).
  • One has a comma in between the two kanji.
  • Two might possibly be valid -- or they might be scannos as well.
At any rate, we don't have enough likely-cromulent hits to meet the three-minimum requirement for WT:CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
It looks like it comes from Confucius (子曰能以禮讓爲國乎章) which is usually not translated into Japanese in a way that connects the two characters as a word. However, there are other examples that I think count. None of them suggest -suru verb usage, so it makes sense that "為国し" generates few hits.
That said, I don't think I grasp the meaning of the last two sentences well (at least without further research), and I cannot be of much help in adding quotations and their translations. Whym (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Chinese. Rfv-sense: Alternative form of 女同. Previously failed RFV, but there seems to be some more evidence surfacing. However, still none of it is durably archived and needs to be discussed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:姛#RFV discussion: December 2022–January 2023. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

June 2023




Japanese. Apparently an adverb meaning "bam". No idea what this is supposed to be referring to. Theknightwho (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • それから、服も脱がずに、ベッドへがばっと倒れ伏して、やすらぎのない眠りにおちた。[19]
  • 敦夫は臥破(がば)と起上った。[20]
Whym (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Whym Thanks. Is all of a sudden a suitable gloss? "bam" is meaningless to me. Theknightwho (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think suddenly and all of a sudden are both fine. See also https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%8C%E3%81%B0%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8. By way of sound-effects similarity, consider kerflop when used as an adverb. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Suddenly and all of a sudden are not wrong, but we might want to be more precise. I think we want to indicate that something like がばっと空が暗くなった would be less common. がばっと usually implies physical movement and sound made by the subject (typically a human or an animal), or a metaphor of that. There are collocations like がばっと開く (to open wide, like an open mouth) - I don't know if this can be explained together with what's discussed above, or should be explained as a separate sense. Whym (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd say "suddenly and rapidly". Compare Daijisen. Nardog (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply



Tangut. "broken". According to [21] which references 簡明夏漢字典 this word means "servant". @theknightwhoWpi (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Wpi Yep - 西夏文詞典 gives the definition and defines the compound 𗟿𘜫 as 奴婢, so I think we should just change it. Theknightwho (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

𬖾 (⿰米頗)


Wikipedia:Chữ Nôm features 𬖾 (⿰米頗) as an example of a Vietnam-created character. I would like to see the Pho sense cited to Wiktionary standard (Wiktionary:Attestation) if possible. Pinging @72trombones, a new editor interested in the subject. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The field of Vietnamese characters is sadly full of cruft. The Nôm writing system was never taught or tested in a formal way. People studied Chinese and Nôm was halfway there, like Franglish for people who are studying French. So making up characters as you went along was a perfectly valid thing to do back in the Nôm era, which ended around 1920. The Han-Nom Institute in Hanoi recommends several dictionaries to sort this issue out, including Tran Van Kiem (2004), Ho Le (1976), Nguyen Quang Hong (2014), Takeuchi (1989), and the Institute of Vietnamese Studies (2009).
The character above is not from any of these dictionaries, but rather from Đại Từ Điển Chữ Nôm (Great Nôm Dictionary, 1998) by Vũ Văn Kính. With numerous unsourced characters, this dictionary is not on the institute's list of approved references. However, it is easily the best-selling Nôm dictionary in Vietnam, not that many Vietnamese buy Nôm dictionaries these days.
Earlier, this character appeared in the Wikipedia article "pho." I have changed it to something better attested. Perhaps the illustration in the chu Nom article can be replaced with 𡂄 (⿰口頗). Its a similar character from Ho Le's dictionary. 72trombones (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply



Japanese. RFV in search of any unambiguous use of this term as a noun -- as an agent or patient of a verb, such as marked by (ga, subject particle) or (o, object particle).

I've done some preliminary digging. While certain Japanese monolingual dictionaries include "noun" as a POS for this (Kojien, Daijirin, Daijisen; FWIW, the NKD does not do this), none of the usage examples listed, nor any I've found online so far, actually show clear use as a noun -- with the term appearing as the agent or patient of a verb. Instead, all usage I've seen so far is consistent with this term being used sometimes as a so-called "no adjective".

If no one can find actual clear use of this term as a noun, I think we have to view the Japanese sources that do this as using an analysis based solely on use with the particle (no), and that this term is not actually a "noun" as we define it.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

How would you analyze ただ同然 and ただに等しい? Whym (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Whym --
In both cases, ただ (tada) is immediately modifying the following adjective, and in that syntactic role, it must be an adverb.
  • ただ同然
The ただ (tada) here is clearly being used as a bare adverb modifying na adjective 同然 (dōzen, same, equivalent, identical).
→ I see a similar confusion in Japanese references for 同然 (dōzen) that I see for ただ (tada). The NKD lists this as a na adjective, Kojien and Shinmeikai give no part of speech (often implying "noun"), and Daijirin and Daijisen list as both na adjective and noun. But again, the usage examples in the references just show regular no adjective constructions, without any clear evidence of "noun-ness" -- not used as a patient or agent of a verb. Googling around (google books:"同然が") shows cases like しかも本人同然がいずれも女子であるから (shika mo honnin dōzen ga izure mo joshi de aru kara), where the 同然 (dōzen) seems to be used to mean "all of them the same" -- but this sense is not listed in the Japanese dictionaries.
I have to revise the above a bit after looking more closely at the linked page. The fuller context for this instance of ただ (tada) is:
If we parse the 同然 (dōzen) as "all of them the same", the ただ (tada) still parses out as an adverb (basically, "just"), but in this case it's modifying the phrase 同然配って (dōzen de kubatte, distributing them all the same), or possibly the longer phrase 同然配って雰囲気盛り上げた (dōzen de kubatte fun'iki o moriageta, distributing them all the same and enlivening the mood/atmosphere). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • ただに等しい
The ただ (tada) in this one can be parsed as either a na adjective used with the (ni) adverbial particle, or simply as an adverb that takes the (ni) adverbial particle, modifying the i adjective 等しい (hitoshii, same, equivalent, identical).
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
同然 in ただ同然 is like "virtually", "practically", "almost". Just ただで would be "for free", and ただ同然で is "basically for free", "barely taking any money". At least semantically, it's 同然 that's modifying ただ(で), not vice versa. 同然 seems to almost always follow a noun or も. I don't know if that automatically means ただ there is a noun, but it's definitely not an adverb.
ただに等しい is also synonymous to ただ同然: "practically free". に is definitely not an adverbial particle. に等しい = "equivalent to", "tantamount to". It can follow a verb or adjective, as in ないに等しい, するに等しい. Again not sure if that automatically means ただ here is a noun, but your parsing is incorrect. Nardog (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

July 2023



Chinese. Rfv-sense: "to flip or turn over". – Wpi (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is attested in 康熙字典 and 漢語大詞典 -- Ywhy (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Objection. Premature ruling. No consensus has been reached yet.
More contexts/quotes are required to refine the gloss. Who's in? -- Ywhy (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I checked 漢語大詞典 again, and it gives the definition 變動;反覆, citing a few more quotes: 《漢書·禮樂志二》:“幡比翄回集,貳雙飛常羊。”《漢書·高帝紀下》“譬猶居高屋之上建瓴水也”顏師古注引三國魏如淳曰:“居高屋之上而幡瓴水,言其向下之勢易也。” This sense can be readded, but I think "to flip or turn over" is not a great translation and should be refined. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Urgh, whoever cares may see my notes. Sorry for the hiatus. I'm out. -- Ywhy (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply


Korean. Does this mean "plural noun"? (If so, it needs reformatting as [[plural]] noun, and surely it needs to be under a "noun" POS.) Or is it some grammatical marker? This, that and the other (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that Objectivesea confused and -들. --Dubukimchi (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply



Japanese. Etymoloy 2: (archaic) the nominative case; marks the subject of the verb

This is described in the etymology as being "Found in the Okinawa strata" and has the label (Northern Ryukyuan), and has one citation dating back to the 16th century from the Omoro Sōshi, which makes me think this much more likely to be a Ryukyuan language than Japanese. Theknightwho (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed that that should be moved to an ===Okinawan=== entry (and/or some other Ryukyuan language as appropriate).
Looking at the history, I suspect that the entry is a leftover from before we had much coverage for the Okinawan languages. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Eirikr It's a bit tricky to know exactly what L2 it should go under, but I suspect it would be Proto-Northern Ryukyuan (which we don't have at the moment, because the Ryukyuan languages haven't been organised up till now).
Here's a pretty conservative suggestion for how we could do things, and further refinements are certainly possible.
  • Northern Ryukyuan - Proto-Northern Ryukyuan?
    • Amami-Oshima
      • Northern Amami-Oshima (ryn)
      • Southern Amami-Oshima (ams)
    • Kikai (kzg)
    • Kunigami (xug)
    • Okinawan (ryu)
    • Oki-No-Erabu (okn)
    • Toku-No-Shima (tkn)
    • Yoron (yox)
  • Southern Ryukyuan - Proto-Southern Ryukyuan?
    • Miyako (mvi)
    • Yaeyama (rys)
    • Yonaguni (yoi)
Theknightwho (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
This seems reasonable, but I'm not sure how many of those actually include reflexes of this gya particle. A quick search over at JLect finds nothing (https://www.jlect.com/search.php?r=%E3%81%8E%E3%82%83&l=ryukyu&group=words), but then again their Ryukyuan coverage is patchy. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
ぎゃ palatalizes after original pR *i (never *e), as in きこゑ大きみぎや (kikowe OFOkimi gya 'the great lord who listens...').
The Ryukyuan reflexes in the dictionaries should just reflex -ga. It's actually well attested (probably both as or either a subject marker or a genitive marker) in Ryukyuan; of course JLect's Ryukyuan coverage is more than extremely patchy, so I only use the integrated Okinawa-go Data Shu in it, and even then I've been using them less, as I'm using https://okinawago.app, although you can't search by kanji. (more entry indexing by pure search; no need for special broken characters). Chuterix (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also this is how we can sort things phylogemy of Ryukyuan:
  • Northern Ryukyuan:
    • Amami:
      • Northern Amami-Oshima:
        • Naze:
        • Yamatohama:
        • Yuwan:
      • Kikai:
        • Aden:
        • Nakazato:
      • Southern Amami-Oshima:
        • Koniya:
        • Shodon:
      • Toku-no-Shima:
        • Asama:
        • Kametsu:
      • Oki-no-Erabu:
        • Wadomari:
        • China:
      • Yoron:
    • (Old) Okinawan:
      • Northern Okinawan::
        • Iheya:
        • Izena:
        • Nago:
        • Nakijin:
        • Iejima:
      • Southern Okinawan:
        • Kowan:
        • Shuri:
          • Naha:
        • Tonaki:
  • Southern Ryukyuan/Sakishima:
    • Miyako:
      • Hirara:
      • Uruka:
      • Minaai:
      • Ikema:
      • Irabu:
        • Nagahama:
        • Nakachi:
      • Ogami:
      • Tarama:
      • Minna:
    • Macro-Yaeyama:
      • Nuclear-Yaeyama:
        • Ishigaki:
        • Taketomi:
        • Hatoma:
        • Hateruma:
      • Yonaguni:
Chuterix (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm a bit confused on a couple points.
  • "ぎゃ palatalizes after original pR *i (never *e), as in きこゑ大きみぎや (kikowe OFOkimi gya 'the great lord who listens...')"
A palatalized gya would presumably become ja. Yet I find no particle じゃ or じゃー at the okinawago.jp site: https://okinawago.app/search-results/%E3%81%98%E3%82%83
Did you mean instead that が (ga) would palatalize to ぎゃ (gya)? There is a topic particle が listed: https://okinawago.app/definition/oki2yamato/%E3%82%AC
  • "It's actually well attested (probably both as or either a subject marker or a genitive marker) in Ryukyuan; of course JLect's Ryukyuan coverage is more than extremely patchy, so I only use the integrated Okinawa-go Data Shu in it, and even then I've been using them less, as I'm using https://okinawago.app..."
Nor do I find any particle ぎゃ or ぎゃー: https://okinawago.app/search-results/%E3%81%8E%E3%82%83
Do you have any other sources that list a particle ぎゃ, ぎゃー, じゃ, or じゃー?
If Ryukyuan topic particle ga palatalized to gya in a regular and stable fashion, we should presumably still find examples of gya (or affricated ja) in modern Ryukyuan lects. Is there any such evidence?
If the only place we find this is in the w:Omoro Sōshi, then I suggest we rework the entry currently at ぎゃ to use "Okinawan" as the L2 heading, and clarify that this is an (archaic? obsolete?) alternative form of が#Okinawan only appearing after front vowel /i/. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Eirikr Sorry for the confusion; I said -ga is well attested in Ryukyuan; (-i)-gya is only in Old Okinawan, and the palatalization was reverted for unknown reasons (perhaps a combination of consistency and influence from Japanese?). No palatalized form of -ga is found in any Ryukyuan languages. Chuterix (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix, thank you for the clarification, that makes more sense. 😄 Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply



我 ngã should not be labelled as archaic for the meaning "I" since in Vietnamese Nôm texts, it was mainly used to mean "to fall". It never had the sense of "I". That sense is only found in Literary Chinese texts written by Vietnamese, but is never found in any Vietnamese language texts. So labelling the term as archaic is misleading.

1. chữ Hán form of ngã, ngả (“(archaic) I; me”). Lachy70 (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The easy solution is to simply remove any label, like you said, it's simply not a Vietnamese morpheme, but it's a Vietnamese reading of a Chinese morpheme using a fairly static set of literary readings and therefore does merit a mention. Vietnamese speakers or not, it seems to people just constantly mistake Written Chinese terms for Vietnamese terms, there used to be even users who straight-up added examples blatantly in Chinese in Vietnamese entries because they were in texts written by Vietnamese writers; I bet there're still dozens and dozens entries of such "Chinese terms with Vietnamese readings" that haven't been detected and delete yet and they're still sometimes made. Korean contributors sometimes use the label "Korean Classical Chinese" when they want to add a particular "Korean" usage of Chinese morphemes or term; obviously in this particular case of ngã there's no need for anything similar since it's simply a Chinese morpheme used in its function in the original language, but I do think sometimes stuff should just be added to the Chinese entries using "Vietnamese Classical Chinese" or such similar label. PhanAnh123 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that is why I added the label "Literary Chinese" for the entry, the edit was later reverted. I would prefer it if it was common practice to label Literary Chinese terms with Vietnamese practice as something like "Vietnamese Classical Chinese" or something similar. Lachy70 (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

In Buddhist literature, the word ngã is used for the atman, their concept of the ego. This sense is still missing, though. Otherwise the sense “I, me” should be deleted as not Vietnamese. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

August 2023




Chinese, sense "specialized hospital".

Came across this in the list of false friends between Chinese and Japanese. Can't say that it's wrong, but I think it cannot occur alone with this meaning. It only occurs in compounds in the form "[name of disease]病院", meaning a specialized hospital for that disease. In such a case it is better analyzed as "……病" + "院". Stormraiser (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Stormraiser: This sense is in major monolingual (Mandarin) Chinese dictionaries, such as 现代汉语词典, 现代汉语规范词典 and 兩岸詞典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cited. All the cited examples feature phrases that cannot be analyzed as [name of disease]病 + 院. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

September 2023




Japanese. Rfv-sense: "Identical in meaning to the particle , but used only after pronunciations of , 𛀁, and .", marked as obsolete. Tagged over three years ago by User:Huhu9001 but seemingly never listed. 0DF (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm honestly not even entirely sure what that sense line is supposed to mean. Extrapolating, this sounds like -- at best -- an orthographic variant in an attempt at indicating a glide to prevent hiatus between the otherwise-identical two /e/ sounds. Given the historical vagaries I've seen in spellings, I suspect this might have been part of the Meiji era penchant for pedantic hypercorrection, but without more detail, it's hard to be certain.
I just did some poking around in my references, and I can't find any mention of this use, FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr: RFV failed? 0DF (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply



===Etymology 1===
Derivation of the verb {{m|ja|笑う|tr=warau||to laugh; to smile}}.


# {{lb|ja|literary}} [[laughter]]

@Dingo1234555Fish bowl (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply



Chinese. Rfv-sense: "to steal other people's delivery" and "to steal other people's work or production that is just finished or nearly finished". I think that the meaning of this word is "to do something before others can do it" or "be the early bird". These two senses are already included in my suggestion of the revised definition.--Mahogany115 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply


Japanese, Chinese, Translingual. This is ostensibly a ghost character, a character which doesn't actually exist and was only encoded due to an error by the Japanese standards body: but it is asserted to have a definition in both Japanese and Chinese, and to exist Translingually. So does it exist? In which languages? - -sche (discuss) 03:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Weblio only has a KANJIDIC stub, and KANJIDIC / Unihan is known for being rife with errors when it comes to the rare characters.
Meanwhile, the JA Wikt entry at ja:墸 calls it a variant / mistaken form for 𣦡 or .
  • For the former, the entry notes that this appears just once in excerpts from the w:Jiyun, and is likely a scribal mistake.
  • For the former, the entry notes that this was included in the earlier JIS standards, but further research for the fourth edition in 1997 concluded that this was a ghost character.
I say this is rubbish -- KANJIDIC / Unihan appear to have gotten this wrong. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply


Japanese, Chinese, Translingual. As with , above. Does this exist in Chinese? Is only the Japanese section a ghost? Or is the whole character not real? - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply


Japanese, Chinese. As with 壥: is it a real character? In which languages? - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

For Chinese, it seems to be a dictionary-only variant of , found in Yupian and Jiyun. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply


As with 壥 above: the Japanese standards body now claims this character doesn't exist, yet we list a meaning not only in Japanese, but also in Chinese. In which languages is it a real character? - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Attested in Chinese, but there seem to be various usages, which I've started compiling at Citations:挧. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Like . - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Like . - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cited (as a misspelling) for Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply