Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK

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

Cleanup requests, 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/Others
add new | history

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

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 moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{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).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry’s talk-page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry’s talk-page (using {{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:non-lemma, Talk:accident-blackspot.

Tagged RFVs

February 2018Edit


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

There're many hits in Google Books.--Zcreator (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)

May 2018Edit


A hot word, tagged as being older than a year, with no definition. - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I remember seeing a report that it became popular to use the manji (卍) in Japan's youth recently. There's even a manji gesture which consists of crossing your arms in some manner. The included Wikipedia article says it's a symbol for hype and basically means 'awesome', but I can't read the details. First reference (Kotobank) on Wikipedia says it's a compound of 'まじ' (really) and '卍' (cool) and got some media attention. I think kotobank.jp was used as an acceptable source for verification here before, but I don't know our policies. I added a definition at . Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I've added two examples of slang usage in online advertisements. The examples are about two years apart, so I don't think it is a hot word. There is also a lot of mention on the web or in magazines explaining the usage. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Cnilep, there are only 2 cites (out of 3) for the adjective and only 1 for the noun. — surjection??⟩ 11:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realize this was all on me. I added another adjective, but there's still just one for the noun. Cnilep (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Since the adjective seems to be cited, I've moved the RFV for the noun. If there aren't any more cites to be found for that one, I'll get around to deleting it eventually. — surjection??⟩ 20:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

June 2018Edit

Vietnamese Edit

I find it odd that Vietnamese writers would make use of a specifically Japanese phonetic glyph with a value of nu as the typographic equivalent of the " ditto mark.

I suspect that the intended glyph is not the Japanese katakana character (nu, Unicode hex value 30CC), but rather the graphically similar Chinese (and thus Vietnamese chữ Nôm) character (again, as well, Unicode hex value 53C8). In fact, the Japanese phonetic katakana character originally derived from a shorthand version of (used phonetically to represent nu), which includes the glyph as its right-hand portion.

Our entry at cites a website that appears to be volunteer-based data of uncertain provenance. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese Nom Preservation Foundation's online lookup tool has no entry for ヌ (Ux30CC), but it does have an entry for 又 (Ux53C8). Could someone check other sources and confirm?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The website in question says has a pronunciation of lại, and you can find several instances of pronounced lại on the same site. It is very likely to be a confusion of the two by their shapes. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information. The chunom.org website is the one cited at the ヌ#Vietnamese entry, and the data there is of unclear provenance. I cannot tell if this is a reliable and trustworthy source, or instead something that might be error-prone in a manner similar to Jisho.org. (That might be what you were suggesting, that chunom.org is error-prone?)
If, ultimately, the Ux30CC glyph is actually in use in electronic Vietnamese chữ Nôm texts, then we should probably have an entry. If instead electronic texts only use Ux53C8, ヌ#Vietnamese should probably go away.
Are there any other electronic Vietnamese sources, or even ideally published works, that use glyph (Ux30CC) interchangeably with (Ux53C8)? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a reduced form of ("again"), used as an iteration mark in Vietnamese Chu Nom, e.g. 喑ヌ (ầm ầm), 猪ヌ (chưa chưa), 赤ヌ (xích xích), 紅ヌ (hồng hồng). Lại means “again”. Listing it on is probably using the wrong codepoint, but then I'm not sure where this should belong. Wyang (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
They seem to use U+30CC and U+31F4 interchangeably, which suggests there is no officially assigned code point. I prefer moving the information to with a soft redirect at , until the official code point is given in Unicode. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Even Chunom.org's main entry is the U+314F one (), while their U+30CC entry is pretty minimal.
In the absence of any Vietnamese editor input, I second Shinji's suggestion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji: I checked the links provided by Wyang and the character is indeed attested in Vietnamese texts published from 1909 to 1940. The only problem is that it shouldn't be using the same codepoint that is meant for katakana. I don't think this character is unifiable with (the glyph forms are different) so I checked the proposed charts for CJK Extension G and H as well as CJK Extension B,C,D,E,F but this character is not there. I propose moving the entry over to ⿻㇇丶 (See Category:Terms containing unencoded characters for other terms that are not yet encoded). KevinUp (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that using the katakana codepoint is less troublesome, in the same vein as how Cyrillic codepoints are used for some tones in the old Zhuang Latin script. —Suzukaze-c 20:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @KevinUp, any chance that's a scanno kind of problem? I highly doubt that the original texts from 1909–1940 were using any codepoints at all.  :)  And thinking through how such texts became digitized, scanning + OCR comes to mind as a likely approach. And if the OCR engine weren't configured quite right, that might be how (Ux30CC) crept in where some graphical variant of (Ux53C8) might have been the glyph actually used in the dead-tree texts.
An idea, anyway. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Eirikr: I don't think Vietnamese texts can be digitized using OCR because many Nôm characters are still unencoded in Unicode. I think the Katakana character was chosen because no other character is available to represent that glyph (the links contain actual images of the text). For now, we could just keep the entry under ヌ#Vietnamese until it is encoded by Unicode. KevinUp (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
KevinUp: interesting re: digitizing.
For completeness' sake, I see that there is also (U+3121), visually identical to Japanese (Ux30CC) in some fonts, and more explicitly derived from (U+53C8). However, the Nôm lookup tool doesn't have U+3121 either, only U+53C8. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Eirikr, Suzukaze-c: I checked the images at chunom.org and noticed that there is another variation of this character where the dot does not extend beyond the bottom stroke of . Since this character is not a katakana or Zhuyin letter, it shouldn't be using any of these two codepoints. I think it would be better to move this entry to ⿻㇇丶 which can also represent the second variation of this glyph. KevinUp (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @KevinUp, thank you for the additional research. I wonder how much of this variation is due to differences in scribal handwriting? On the page for the ngày ngày example, for instance, I note several irregularities in other characters as well.
Agreed that our Vietnamese entry for this should probably be moved. One concern, however, is how would users find ⿻㇇丶 when searching? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
They won't. If the Nom Foundation is the primary body working on digital Nom texts, we should follow their usage. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

September 2018Edit


Suzukaze-c 06:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Does this suffice? google books:"ウォールフラワー"
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. This seems much more commonly to refer to Erysimum sp. (at least before the film came out). The "awkward person" usages I found were almost all in reference to the Stephen Chbosky young adult novel or the film adapted from it. Cnilep (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c Can this be struck? While there are only two cites for both meanings, there are enough results on BGC that it's hard to see how this would not be attestable. — surjection??⟩ 15:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Surjection: I still don't like the second sense, especially since it is glossed with "壁の花" in quotes (and the second quote is a translation of an English novel). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2019Edit


RFV of all the definitions under ロリ#Etymology 2. —Suzukaze-c 04:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sense "person with the Lolita complex" removed by User:UhhMaybe. —Suzukaze-c 02:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this etymology circular? That is, ロリ1 is a clipping of ロリータ, while ロリ2 is said to be a clipping of ロリコン. But ロリコン is a clipping of ロリータ・コンプレックス. Therefore, both come from the same source. And the meanings are certainly related (1: an attractive young girl; 2: attraction to young girls; one attracted to young girls; manga depicting attraction to young girls). This is a case of polysemy, not separate lexemes with separate etymologies. [Also – キモい! sexualized orientalist nonsense] Cnilep (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I think we can call that two separate etymologies, even if the two are related to each other. Roriitarori and Roriita konpurekkusurorikonrori are different etymological paths, not a case of polysemy of a term with a single etymology. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not obvious to me that the path you suggest is indeed the etymology. It could be, or the three senses listed could come directly from ロリータ. (Even if that is the path, I'm not entirely convinced that those are sufficiently separate, but of course it is not unreasonable for you or others to think that they are sufficiently separate.) At this point, we have neither attestation of the three senses defined, nor verification of the etymology. Cnilep (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2019Edit


The word exists, but the characters seem questionable. I can only find this orthography in a wikibook (b:zh:福州語/數字). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

福州方言研究 writes the monosyllabic form (recorded in 福州方言詞典 1998 as ) as . — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
榕典 suggests 捭哩. Perhaps we can move the entry there? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Moved to 捭哩 following 榕典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

September 2019Edit



厼 (eumhun 금) It is the borrowed notation(借字表記 / 차자표기), which was veryfied in some references. (1984, P. Nam, “차자표기법 연구”(借字表記法 硏究), Dankook University Publish, published 1984.)Reference

是去有良。이거이신아。 attested in the Jeonyul Tongbo (典律通補 / 전율통보), 1786. Reference

--Meoru00 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c, Tibidibi Are you familiar with this? RcAlex36 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@RcAlex36 This was used since the first millennium to write the distributive/emphatic particle (Yale: kwom), obsolete in modern Korean except in a few fossilized words like 다시금 (dasigeum, once again). Not sure about the glyph origin, though. Korean probably isn't the best L2 header for it.--Tibidibi (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

October 2019Edit


Rfv-sense: "less advanced people". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I suspect this definition corresponds to 後進之人 in Guoyu Cidian or 指以后成长起来的人 in Hanyu Da Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Cited (with two quotes, which is enough since it's a non-Standard Written Chinese sense). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Never mind, added a third quote. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
RFV passed with modified definition "people with less experience; younger generation". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2019Edit


Rfv-sense: "beating; pounding". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I'm not quite sure how "in Japanese contexts" would be relevant to this sense, seeing that the usage in Japanese isn't usually anything cultural. It's unclear what the IP who added the sense intended to say. There are lots of hits of "心臟鼓動" in Google books, but I would probably analyse this as a verb instead of a noun. 漢語大詞典 seems to include something similar under the sense 顫動: 郭沫若《洪波曲》第一章五:“盡管是怎樣化了石的廣州,經受著抗戰的大風暴,也微微地有生命的脈搏在鼓動。” It also includes our "to fan; to flap" under the same sense, as illustrated by this quote: 葉聖陶《一課》:“他跟著他們望去,見一個白的蝴蝶飛舞窗外,兩翅鼓動得極快,全身幾乎成爲圓形。” — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2019Edit


Defined as "(Japan) girl". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The entry has a reference. If you are looking for usage in a text, does such literature exist? —Suzukaze-c 03:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Google News Search gives several hits, also in articles that are not Japan-related. I cannot judge if any of this is durably archived.  --Lambiam 10:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
What does this mean?? Do we know? Is this used by Koreans living in Japan? It looks like they just added a third character into the existing word for girl , 여자. Soap 20:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Soap: I'm confused by your question? Look at the entry. It explains right there what this means:

Calque of Japanese 女の子, from (, yeo, woman, female) +‎ (ui, -possessive particle) +‎ (, ja, child)

Was there something else that you wanted to know about? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I mean, is this a word used by Koreans living in Japan only? Or is it a term used by Koreans everywhere for girls living in Japan (presumably with a set of matching words for boys, men, and women)? Is the extra morpheme in the middle part of a wider trend? Soap 20:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Soap -- Thanks for clarifying. I'm not first-hand familiar with the Korean term, but "the extra morpheme in the middle", (ui), is the possessive particle, mirroring the Japanese (no) possessive particle in the source term that the Korean term is copying. It would be interesting and relevant, and arguably useful, to indicate if there are similar calques, perhaps standard Korean 남자 (namja, “boy”) shifting to 남의자 (namuija) to mirror the Japanese 男の子 (otoko no ko, boy), etc. I suspect the "Japan" label indicates that this is used primarily by speakers of Korean living in Japan, but I agree that this could be explained more clearly.
It might be useful to ping the editors who have worked on this entry: @Suzukaze-c, 幻光尘, Atitarev, do you all have any further information or insights? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The label is still not clear. The way I read it, it's the term used by Koreans living in Japan but I'm not certain. I asked for an RFV in hope it would clarify or at least, demonstrate that the term is actually used. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The book named in the references section is called Language of Koreans in Japan. —Suzukaze-c 06:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The 여의자 in those news articles is a conjugated form of the verb 여의다 and has nothing to do with Japanese 女の子.
Also, if I remember correctly, there is no 두음 법칙 in Zainichi Korean. So the calque of 女の子 in Zainichi Korean (if it actually exists) should be 녀의자 instead of 여의자. -- 04:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


Chinese, added by User:Atitarev in 2014. —Suzukaze-c 04:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It's in the 漢語詞典, which includes a quotation by Lu Xun. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Also in ABC English-Chinese/Chinese-English Dictionary, which is integrated into Wenlin Software. My original definition was a single noun arrangement, which is in the dictionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2020Edit


Rfv-sense "everlasting peace". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a translation of one of the literary senses in the 漢語詞典. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I think either sense there should be a verb, not a noun. What do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that would make sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic, Justinrleung: The term is also in ABC English-Chinese/Chinese-English Dictionary used in Wenlin Software. The entry is a noun: "永安 yǒng'ān* n. perpetual peace"
If I remember correctly, @Tooironic also had the Wenlin editor. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2020Edit


Appears in the Daijirin. I want to see quotations anyway. @Britannic124Suzukaze-c 03:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears as parts of names, but this is arguably transliterated Spanish.
  • Chunichi Shimbun, June 8, 2017:
    Supein saiōte no santandēru ginkō wa nanoka, dōkoku ōte no popuraru esupanyōru ginkō o baishū shita to happyō shita.
    Spain's largest bank, Banco Santander, announced on the 7th that it will acquire the major Banco Popular Español in the same country.
  • Tokyo Shimbun, June 15, 2020:
    欧州(おうしゅう)サッカー []  エスパニョール2-0アラベス
    Ōshū sakkā [] Esupanyōru 2-0 Arabesu
    European soccer [] Español 2-0 Alavés
I don't find it used productively in Japanese, though. Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for Chinese: Is (qià) a common misspelling of ()? -- 08:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Voidvector, who added this. Which sense of 卡 did you mean? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
卡 as in 髮卡, more commonly pronounced qiǎ. Example of 恰 being used instead.
This came out of my researching the article Kirgizjangal Pass where the common Chinese name has these variations. (黑卡达坂 and 黑恰达坂).
IANA lexicographer, if 恰子 is correct usage for hairpin, then feel free to replace.
I have added gloss and specific transliteration. --voidvector (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

April 2020Edit


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)

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)

中共肺炎#Chinese, #JapaneseEdit

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

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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
@Cnilep: are you sure the quotes you added are from durably archived sources? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
@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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
Cited for 中共肺炎#Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
RFV passed for 中共肺炎#Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-senses: "good friend" and "religious mentor". Tagged by @Tooironic, but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Good friend" is given in Guoyu Cidian as 善友, and it lists one quote from 《石點頭·卷七·感恩鬼三古傳題旨》. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


Japanese - Rfv-sense: Alternative spelling of 菜の花. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this verifies it, or if anything could. It asserts that they refer to the same thing, but that's not the same as saying they are alternate spellings of the same word. For that, maybe you would need something like (ナノ)(ハナ).
Also, I'm pretty sure I added the sense, maybe paraphrasing a work that I have forgotten. Sorry. Cnilep (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Looking at w:ja:菜の花, it seems that the spelling with the medial (no) particle as 菜の花 (nanohana) indicates Brassica flowers in general, while the spelling without the particle as 菜花 (nabana) refers more specifically to those Brassica flowers that are edible.
There's also a Chinese-derived reading saika, but so far I've only encountered that in a single compound, 菜花糖 (saikatō, literally rapeseed flower sugar), a kind of traditional sweet in the former Echizen Province of Japan, modern-day Fukui Prefecture. See also google:"菜花糖".
A search on Jim Breen's dictionary site suggests that the 菜花 spelling without the medial (no) particle does appear with the nanohana reading as a feminine given name. Perhaps that might be where @Cnilep picked up on that? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I find 菜花(ナノハナ)(ちょう)() (nanohana chō ni kasu) in dictionaries or word lists (e.g. here), but that is mention, not use. Of course, though, it is more common to specify the reading when discussing language. (The expression seems to refer to yellow butterflies on yellow rapeseed flowers; I don't know if it has metaphorical use as well.) Cnilep (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


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

  • 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)
@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)


Rfv-sense: state of mind; thoughts. Not in any dictionaries I have access to. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Guoyu Cidian: 比喻意緒、心緒. Hanyu Da Cidian: 比喻心思意緒. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Beautiful woman. Not in any dictionaries I can access. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic: You probably missed 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本 and 漢語大詞典, which both list 美人 as its first definition. The problem is that the quote from Shijing used to exemplify the definition is not always interpreted as such. Legge translates it as "a wealthy man". 漢語大詞典 has an additional quote, which seems to be clearer. @Frigoris, do you agree with these two dictionaries or Legge? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Frigoris, not sure if you got the ping above, so I'm pinging you again. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung, hello, what is the thing with (presumably James) Legge? Is there a quotation? --Frigoris (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Frigoris: Sorry for not including the quote. It's from 《詩經·魏風·葛屨》:「要之襋之,好人服之。」 Both 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本 and 漢語大詞典 have included this under their definition of 美人, but Legge translate this line as "[His bride] puts the waistband to his lower garment and the collar to his upper, / And he, a wealthy man, wears them." — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung, I think Legge was too deeply mired in the 毛詩 exegesis tradition, in this particular case, for our use in this dictionary. We can simply read it as "good human", referring to the beloved. --Frigoris (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Frigoris: Sorry for the late reply. So if it should just be interpreted as "good human", should "beautiful woman" be removed? Hanyu Da Cidian cites 馬瑞辰通釋:“好人猶言美人。” as a commentary on the Shijing passage mentioned above. 唐張鷟《遊仙窟》:“昨夜眼皮瞤,今朝見好人。” is also given in Hanyu Da Cidian as a use for the 美人 sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung, I just think the term itself doesn't imply a particular gendering; the Shijing verse probably was addressed to a male by a female, while in the Tang erotic story referring to female(s). I feel that the RFVSensed sense could be phrased as "a fair one; a good, beautiful, or dear person". --Frigoris (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

May 2020Edit


I see that there is a hip-hop group called レペゼン地球, but I'm not sure if this term is used generally to mean "a representation". It does remind me of the African American English use of Represent!, so the hip-hop connection makes sense. Cnilep (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Web dictionary says: A phrase often used as an abbreviation for the English verb "represent". Mainly used in hip-hop lyrics. "represent" means 代表する (to represent). For example, "レペゼン大阪" is reffered in the meanings like "I came on behalf of Osaka" or "I'm taking charge of Osaka".--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This is weird to me (but of course, I'm an old): it seems to be used mainly in names of rappers, groups, etc., and sometimes in lyrics. That said, I did manage to find three apparently independent attestations. FWIW, none 'represent' a hometown (unless you count 地球(ちきゅう) (chikyū, Earth)). Cnilep (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

レペゼン is a pretty common hip-hop term to mean “represent (the hometown)”: [3]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

June 2020Edit


"diaper" —Suzukaze-c 19:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Google Books hits, I see a lot of scannos for ダイバー (daibā, diver), ダイバージェンス (daibājensu, divergence), that kind of thing.
Seems like it's probably cromulent, but also rare. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I've seen this on a diaper changing station in a bathroom. Searching for the expanded form ダイパーチェンジ "diaper change" turns up a lot of use examples for brand name products. Soap 13:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I added two uses of 'diaper cake' (which is apparently a thing, originally from the US and now popular in Japan?) and one of 'diaper pot'. I also labeled it as uncommon and used in compounds. Cnilep (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

(Chinese, Etymology 2)Edit

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)

@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)
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)
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)
@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)


Created by @Corsicanwarrah, who certainly got it from Wikipedia (considering past discussions :p).

Google Books has two mentions (Jing ji bu gong bao, Volume 35, Issues 22-24; 臺北市政府公報, Part 1 / Taiwan sheng zheng fu gong bao, Part 1).

Google Scholar has 0 results. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Usually used in lists from the Taiwanese government. I'm not sure if these count as mentions or uses. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I managed to fine two uses for this so far. If we count one of the instances in the lists from the Taiwanese government documents as a use, this should be cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

厄瓜多爾胡狼, 厄瓜多尔胡狼Edit

One Google Books mention (破坏环境资源保护罪的定罪与量刑).

0 Google Scholar results. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Appears in legislation by the Hong Kong government regarding endangered animals (google:"厄瓜多爾胡狼" site:.gov.hk), a mention. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese government uses 厄瓜多尔狐狼 in its CITES appendix.[4][5] Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


Nothing in G.Books / G.Scholar for "山狐" "Lycalopex" (scientific name to narrow down the results from "mountain" + "fox") —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Suzukaze-c I created those entries quite early in my time here, when I wasn't aware that I couldn't take terms from Wikipedia... Funnily enough, I had thought of sending these terms to RFV earlier, but then I saw that they had hits on QQ. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Japanese surname senses under Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @沈澄心, who added these. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
[6][7] -- 05:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Cited. -- 05:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@沈澄心: Hmm, the first one is 大坂 rather than 大阪, and the rest are referring to the same person. I think we need to have three different people for this to pass the independence criterion. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

July 2020Edit


Second-round simplified. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


Another second-round simplified. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I can only find it here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
(In case the link goes down: it's a film called "铁辺沋击队". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC))
I can only find 沋击 in texts published in 1978. Even though it officially ended in 1986, I'm not sure how long the second-round simplified characters have been actually used in practice. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Since the second-round simplified characters were very short-lived, I think we can count 沋击 as cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

August 2020Edit


Alt. form of デュース. LittleWholeSuzukaze-c (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

google books:"ヅース" finds 242 ostensible hits, collapsing to 30 when paging through.
Of those 30 hits, most of them appear to be scannos of uncertain original form. As an example of how wacky scannos can get, at least one of these is actually a French manuscript, and Google misparsed the cursive script as Japanese somehow. More tamely, at least five of these were misparsings of ソース (sōsu), a borrowing of either source (as in "source code") or sauce.
The only one instance that might actually be ヅース (zūsu) seems to be a transliteration of a Hungarian name.
I'd say delete as unconfirmable.


Alt. form of デュアル. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I can find this some word-lists for language learners, and few online shopping sites (none seemingly durably archived), but not in newspapers, magazines, or books. Cnilep (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


Literally "white-painted large building", as opposed to "the White House".

空色の季節Suzukaze-c (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There is this estate listing, but arguably this is a proper name. The accompanying photo is of a large white building:
白堊館(はくあかん)は、東京都狛江市岩戸北4丁目(とうきょうとこまえしいわときた4ちょうめ)にあるマンションです。最寄(もよ)(えき)は、小田急小田原線喜多見駅(おだきゅうおだわらせんきたみえき)徒歩5分(とほ 5ふん)場所(ばしょ)にあります。
Hakuakan wa, Tōkyō-to Komae-shi Iwato kita 4-chō-me ni aru manshon desu. Moyori eki wa, Odakyū Odawara sen Kitami eki de toho 5-fun no basho ni arimasu.
Hakuakan is an apartment building at #4 North Iwado in Komae city, Tokyo. The nearest train station is Kitami station on the Odakyu Odawara line, a five minute walk.

Ainu: kamuy kar put ya mosir, カムィ カㇻ プㇳ ヤ モシㇼEdit

Seeking verification. I cannot confirm that this exists as Ainu, and even assuming validity, the spelling is off.

  • Provenance:
Granted, Ainu is an WT:LDL. However, I cannot find this term in Ainu-language materials. It appears in the Japanese Wikipedia article about Karafuto (i.e. the island of Sakhalin) in the section about the name, at w:ja:樺太#名称:

「からふと」の名は、一説にはアイヌ語でこの島を「カムイ・カラ・プト・ヤ・モシリ 」(kamuy kar put ya mosir) と呼んだ事に由来すると言う。これはアイヌ語で「神が河口に造った島」を意味し、...
The name Karafuto, in one theory, may have derived from the island being called 「カムイ・カラ・プト・ヤ・モシリ 」(kamuy kar put ya mosir) in Ainu. In Ainu, this means "island made by the gods at the river mouth", ...

Meanwhile, Ainu-language materials apparently call Sakhalin by the name Karapto / カラㇷ゚ト:
Googling seems to find mentions on Japanese-language sites, but not Ainu-language sites: google:"カムイ・カラ・プト・ヤ・モシリ" -wiki -chiebukuro -yahoo
  • Spelling:
Assuming the gloss in the JA WP article is correct, a few of the words are misspelled.
  • カムィ (kamuy, god) as in our entry is spelled with a small (-y). This is used academically to show that the -muy on the end is the one-mora diphthong /ui/ and not the two-mora dipthong /u.i/. However, outside of academia, this notation seems less common, with カムイ with a regular-sized instead: the Ainu Times has zero instances of カムィ, but plenty of カムイ. Likewise, the intermediate Chitose-dialect materials list カムイ but not カムィ (page 91 in the PDF), the Bihoro materials too (also page 91), and the Karafuto-dialect word list (page 4).
  • カㇻ (kar, to make, to create) with the small is listed instead as カラ (kara) in the Karafuto-dialect word list (page 4). Looking at other dialectal materials, I can't find any geographically close dialects for comparison; however, the presence of the second /-a-/ in the borrowed Japanese term Karafuto suggests that the source Ainu dialect was either Karafuto or something close by, with カラ (kara) instead of the カㇻ (kar) found further south.
  • プト (*put, river mouth) with the final small does not conform to Ainu katakana orthography, where coda consonants are (usually) spelled with the miniature kana from the same vowel series as the preceding voiced vowel. Thus, we'd expect this term to be spelled プッ instead with a final small -- which is indeed how we find this spelled in the Ainu Museum dictionary.

@幻光尘, Alves9, you've both edited the entries -- do either of you have any Ainu-language materials that include this name? If so, can you find any further information about whether anyone still uses this name? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You could probably move that to カラㇷ゚ト/Karapto and keep "カムィ カㇻ プㇳ ヤ モシㇼ" as an etymology. The spelling's fine, though. Alves9 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Alves9: Keeping カムィ カㇻ プㇳ ヤ モシㇼ as an etymology for カラㇷ゚ト / Karapto is an idea, but if we cannot confirm that this was actually used in Ainu, it might be only a folk etymology invented by Japanese speakers. In addition, the required shifts within Ainu are a bit odd -- why would kara put become karapto? Ainu has coda consonants, so the appearance of this final -o is unexpected and not explained by Ainu phonological patterns. This seems more like either 1) the etymology described in Japanese-language materials is incorrect, and the modern Ainu Karapto derives from something else entirely, or 2) the etymology described in Japanese-language materials is correct, and the modern Ainu Karapto may be a reborrowing from the Japanese. Either way, we need more detail.
Regarding the spelling, we seek to record what's actually in use. If there are multiple forms with differences in usage frequency, we lemmatize (create the main entry) at the most common form.
  • I have only seen small-ィ カムィ (kamuy) in academic writings, while big-イ カムイ (kamuy) is used in teaching materials and the Ainu Times, the only publication I know of in the Ainu language.
→ We should lemmatize at the カムイ spelling and clarify that カムィ is an alternative form used in academia.
  • Southern カㇻ (kar) is unlikely to be the source etymon for this compound term, while Sakhalin Ainu カラ (kara) fits both the phonology and the geography, and is much more likely to be the source term.
→ We should create an entry at カラ (kara) for the Sakhalin Ainu variant of this term.
  • I cannot find プㇳ (*put) in any of the Ainu materials I currently have access to, only プッ (put).
→ We should lemmatize at プッ, and only create any entry at プㇳ if we can confirm that this spelling has actually been used by Ainu speakers / writers.
(For that matter, we never really discussed Ainu lemma forms -- should we lemmatize at the katakana spellings, or the romanized spellings? Duplicating content in both places is bad practice. However, that's a matter for another thread.)
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you assume "Karapto" is a native word. It's only logical to think of it as a reborrowing from Japanese 樺太 which in it itself probably came from a corruption of "カムィ カㇻ プ[ㇳ/ッ] ヤ モシㇼ". It's the same processes with Sapporo: Ainu "sat poro pet", corrupted to Japanese "Sapporobetsu", then corrupted again to "Sapporo", and then finally reborrowed into Ainu as "Sapporo".
I will mention for correction's sake that Ainu has a tendency to delete syllable-final vowels, especially before consonants. There's nothing strange about "kamuy-kara-putu-ya-mosiri" becoming "kamuy-kar-put-ya-mosir", especially when thinking about toponyms. Alves9 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I confess I find your reply confusing and off-topic. I will respond to each point separately in an attempt at clarity.
  • "I'm not sure why you assume "Karapto" is a native word." → I don't make any such assumption. I'm confused that you think I did? Logically, the Ainu term must be either native or borrowed. I present both hypotheses.
  • "It's only logical to think of it as a reborrowing from Japanese" → Why? It might be a native term. It might be a borrowed term, not necessarily even from Japanese -- Orok and Nivkh are also spoken on Sakhalin.
  • "Ainu has a tendency to delete syllable-final vowels" → This is largely irrelevant to anything I've mentioned above. If anything, the opposite is more the problem -- unlike Japanese, Ainu has no tendency to insert filler vowels, so there is no clear mechanism within Ainu for kar put to become Karapto.
Even as a reborrowing, the phonology is problematic. Ainu has no /f/ phoneme, but it does have initial /h/, and Sakhalin Ainu even has coda /h/, so Japanese Karafuto would likely have been borrowed as Karahuto or Karahto. However, I find no evidence for either form in Ainu.
  • "There's nothing strange about "kamuy-kara-putu-ya-mosiri" becoming "kamuy-kar-put-ya-mosir"" → That was never in question. We still have zero Ainu-language evidence that either version even existed. All we have is Japanese-language sources supposing that this might have existed.
Additionally, we have no modern reference listing any term putu. Batchelor has that as his version of modern プッ (put), shown in the right-hand column of page 358 here, but it is hard to tell if that was the actual realization of this term, or if that's an artifact of interpreting the Ainu of the time through the lens of Japanese orthography and phonology. That said, the Ainu Museum dictionary lists this term as プッ (put), and the other modern materials I have to hand don't include this term at all.
Getting back to the main point of this thread, it sounds like we don't yet have any Ainu-language evidence for the existence of kamuy kar put ya mosir / カムィ カㇻ プㇳ ヤ モシㇼ. I'll see what additional information I can find online, and hopefully @幻光尘 will reply with further details. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
A bit of philological research will reveal that 樺太 was originally pronounced からぷと. If we assume that the Ainu term was reborrowed relatively recently into Japanese colonisation, there's no need to justify a "Karahto" (also because a "ht" cluster is illegal).
Overall it seems to me you need to research more about this rather than pretend you know more than scholars who fluently read and speak Ainu (scholars whose material you haven't even read!) Alves9 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Per the Nipponica encyclopedia section on the history of Sakhalin (in Japanese), the island was first definitively visited by a Japanese person in 1635, when the island was called various things including Karafuto and Kita Ezo-chi ("North Ainu-land").
At no point in the sources I have access to is the Japanese term ever recorded as Karaputo. With an appearance date of the 1630s-1640s, this term is far too young to undergo the /p//f/ lenition we see in the shift from Old Japanese to Early Middle Japanese.
I have made no argument against any purported "scholars who fluently read and speak Ainu". Part of the problem here is that we have nothing from any such scholar, unless you claim yourself to be one. So far, you've made various contentions, but with no backing evidence. I have only your say-so that you've done any research at all. If you have other sources that state differently than what I've outlined here, please provide links. I would welcome the opportunity to learn more. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


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)

@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)
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)
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 [8]. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

September 2020Edit


Rfv-sense "a set of song and dance originating from banquet performances". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like that sense was added in 2015 by C933103 (talkcontribs) who only has three edits to their credit. Jim Breen's doesn't have it, none of the resources at Kotobank have it, and none of the resources at Weblio have it. The closest is Weblio's mirror of the JA WP article at ja:w:野球拳, which at least mentions dancing, but just as part of the game of strip-janken.
Seems bogus to me, perhaps added out of confusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no memory of me performing this edit 5.5 years ago and I cannot explain why such edit was performed. Currently, I am not aware of such sense for the term either. C933103 (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
You were not wrong, I believe you just added the same thing. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


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)

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)[9],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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Lama Bai Edit

Southern Bai Edit

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)

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


Rfv-sense "knit".

Rfv-sense "nit".

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

  • ニット (nitto, knit) -- See various entries at Kotobank, Weblio. Seems to be a pretty well established loanword. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ニット (nitto, nit) -- Much less common. I do find this listed in my JA ↔ EN medical dictionary alongside alternative form ニト (nito), and also in a scientific jargon glossary with a separate sense of "candela per square meter". Confirming this one in the wild is much more difficult, however. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)

ニット as “[nit]” is pretty common: [10], although specialists always write it as nit. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


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

@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)


A supposed loanword from English meaning "giraffe." Never heard of this word before, and cannot find any relevant common noun result on Google, Naver, or Daum.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya It's included in less common dictionaries, that's why I didn't delete when I edited the entry in 2014 but labelled as "rare". Created by a user no longer active. I am okay to speedy the entry but perhaps Google books should be checked. It may be attestable (just barely) in the sense of "giraffe" or other senses. Naver has 지라프 마이크 (jirapeu maikeu) and Daum has 지라프 프린트 (jirapeu peurinteu). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I was unable to find anything on Google Books.--Tibidibi (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


# [[seltzer]]

Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I added three uses from 2015-2020, as "seltzer", "hard seltzer", and "seltzer water". (added:) Two are from a US-related sources, so probably translating an English original. The third is a Japanese story about the Coca-Cola company. Cnilep (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The first one does not particularly convince me since they felt the need to gloss it as "炭酸水", and the webpage of the third one is 90% カタカナ語 near-gibberish.
I note that all uses in Google Scholar seem to refer to foreigners of last name "Seltzer". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, books are also mostly the family name. Uses in recent news, though, are mostly "hard seltzer", which I gather must be an emerging product/business sector. Cnilep (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The entry now contains three independent instances from permanently recorded media, spanning more than five years, plus an additional three on Citations:セルツァー. In my opinion, at least the three in the article, and arguably all six of these, convey the meaning of the term. Cnilep (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

October 2020Edit


@萌百娘 Rfv-sense: all senses under sense 2. RcAlex36 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. Does 鹿角蟲 refer to stag beetles in general, or just the species Rhaetulus crenatus? RcAlex36 (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: I don't think it's quite possible to tell the difference with an RFV. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "pornography". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Huhu9001: Hmm, anything durably archived? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Google "公然发车". -- Huhu9001 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be used in other contexts, with a wider meaning of "lewd content"? Like 開車 and 車速, etc. But I'm not sure if we can find durably archived quotes for this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


# [[dragnet]]

@WorldwideBallcaps, not every English word has been borrowed into Japanese. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of hits at google books:"ドラグネット". This one is probably cromulent. In addition, Daijisen has it, albeit for the title of the TV show. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


RFV "galaxy". In my experience this word is only used for proper nouns that don't deserve entries (almost always the Samsung Galaxy phones).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


# [[love child]]

Is there evidence of usage other than usage as a transcription of English love child? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: It is a transcription but it's used in Japanese, isn't? Often spelled ラブ・チャイルド (rabu chairudo). TBH, I see no difference from ラブレター (rabu retā, love letter). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji, Eirikr, Cnilep: Hi. If you think this entry needs to be kept, please try adding some citations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Attested on Imidas: [11]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I added one quotation from a 1984 manga, but most of what I found looks like allusions to the Supremes song. And as Anatoli T. mentioned, most are written ラブ・チャイルド, with the dot. Cnilep (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji, Eirikr, Cnilep: Thanks, @Cnilep. One quote is not enough, need two more :). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Atitarev: My concern is identical to that at Talk:ファイヤ and Talk:フラワー. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: I understand, It probably belongs more to the category of loanwords like ラブレター (rabu retā, love letter) or シングルマザー (shinguru mazā, single mother) but it's less common, since it's a euphemism only, even in English. I find it interesting that there are a few loaned multiword terms but the actual compound words are uncommon (including the ones you listed). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020Edit


Rfv-sense: "laba (a long, straight, valveless brass trumpet used in the traditional music of China)". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. I'm not sure what the concern is. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

My concern is whether laba is a distinct musical instrument or just another name for a suona. If it is just a suona, then there should not be a separate sense-line for it. I've read the Baidu Baike page but am still confused. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I'm not sure either, but there's apparently some discussion in the past in Talk:喇叭. The common monolingual dictionaries seem to define this as a general term for horns and trumpets (as does our usage notes). I'm not sure if it needs to be a separate sense from "horn". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


Is this used outside of the Heart Sutra? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Poketalker, who made the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: what makes it a requirement of a usage outside of the Buddhist scripture in question? ~ POKéTalker) 02:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Poketalker: WT:ATTEST. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: in this case, this falls under the "widespread use" clause, as some Buddhist sects in Japan still chant the Heart Sutra in their congregations with these exact series of Chinese characters, though is a transliteration from its ancient Sanskrit original. Curious to why someone with a ja-0 put the RFV template, rather than an editor specializing in the Japanese language (other than me). ~ POKéTalker) 03:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@Poketalker: Does this mean that any word in other commonly read texts, like the Christian Bible, would be fair game for inclusion, even if the Bible is the only place where the word has been attested? I think widespread use still needs to be use in independent sources, even if those sources may not qualify as durably archived. Also, I brought this to RFV because the Chinese entry 揭諦揭諦波羅揭諦波羅僧揭諦菩提薩婆訶 was deleted by RFV. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: this one is enough. It falls outside the Heart Sutra (in a way), and is an entry in the dictionary linked. A term in Koine Greek, English, or another language in translation is appreciated if you can provide me an example. Back to the gate gate paragate, this is a Japanese term probably transmitted by a Chinese intermediary, the transliterations may vary by characters used. This is confusing, what exactly are you looking for: manuscripts of the transliteration (check the NDL), Buddhist sutra book, scholarly Buddhist... anything? Any thoughts, other Japanese editors? ~ POKéTalker) 01:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Poketalker: I'm looking for two other uses (not mentions) in any Japanese text independent of the Heart Sutra. The dictionary you linked is a mention in a non-Japanese text, so it would not count. An example of something from the Christian Bible that would probably not pass WT:CFI would be a name like 法路 (Phallu in English) found in the Chinese Union Version of the Bible. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Poketalker, Eirikr, how should we deal with this? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I yield/give up. Still don't get why this does not need mention here... transliteration nonetheless. ~ POKéTalker) 07:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Poketalker: Just to be clear, it's not about not allowing this term to be included because of the term's nature (which would be an RFD issue), but it's that this term does not seem to have attestation outside of one work AFAIK. If there is enough attestation outside of the Heart Sutra, I would be happy to have this included, but the fact that no such attestation has been found would make it a hapax, which we usually would not include for WT:WDL if I'm not mistaken. (Pinging @Eirikr again to see if they would like to chime in.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit puzzled how to handle this.
As a string of sounds, ぎゃていぎゃていはらぎゃていはらそうぎゃていぼじそわか (gyateigyateiharagyateiharasōgyateibojisowaka) doesn't seem to have any specific meaning as Japanese other than its direct context as part of the Heart Sutra.
Since this is in some ways an inherently non-Japanese string (in terms of meaning), I wouldn't expect it to show up in Japanese texts anywhere other than contexts related to the Heart Sutra.
I'm honestly surprised that Chinese 法路 (Pallu) is not considered entry-worthy, even though it's included in such a well-known text as the Bible. Likewise for this Japanese term.
I'm more accustomed to hapax legomenon referring to a term that is only ever encountered once, not just in a single work. Be that as it may, if Japanese 羯諦羯諦波羅羯諦波羅僧羯諦菩提薩婆訶 (gyatei gyatei haragyatei harasōgyatei boji sowaka) is such a hapax (presumably only occurring at the end of the sutra?), then it would ostensibly fail to meet CFI. That said, it does seem to appear elsewhere: google books:"羯諦羯諦波羅羯諦波羅僧羯諦菩提薩婆訶" "は" (adding the "は" to filter for Japanese) nets 342 apparent hits. Many of these have no preview, but at least some of the ones that do have previews seem like they might be more than just mentions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


WT:BRANDSuzukaze-c (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure how WT:BRAND works (attestations are plenty of course) but I vote keep because it's not the expected Hangul form for Pfizer, so it will catch learners off guard.--c (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Karaeng Matoaya: In the past I had no luck with Chinese brand names, which I found quite interesting how they were transliterated. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


WT:BRAND, and the Hangul form can be obviously deciphered by a learner anyways. Note that no corresponding English entry exists.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


See above.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete both. Though these might need to go to RFD. AG202 (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2020Edit


"PlayStation". WT:BRANDSuzukaze-c (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021Edit


Rfv-sense: "eventfulness". Added by @H2NCH2COOH, who appears to have copied the sense from Japanese. This idiom is unlikely to be a noun in Chinese anyway. Not found in major monolingual dictionaries. RcAlex36 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry for any inconvenience caused by copying the Japanese explanation without checking its property. I replaced it with "eventful" now. This idiom can be found in Baidu Hanyu. Though Baidu Hanyu is not always a reliable source, the word does appear occasionally in Chinese. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 11:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
See Chinese Wikisource for its usage in classical Chinese. Seems that it originates from 續玄怪錄 "方寸之間,波瀾萬丈". -H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 11:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@H2NCH2COOH: One would expect the idiom to be synonymous with 波瀾壯闊波澜壮阔 (bōlánzhuàngkuò), but most of the time it doesn't seem to 比喻声势雄壮,规模宏大。景象非常壮观. Judging by the fact that this idiom is not found in the three major monolingual dictionaries (Guoyu Cidian, Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Hanyu Da Cidian, the "eventful" sense is probably borrowed from Japanese. RcAlex36 (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
No. It is not borrowed from Japanese. As I mentioned above, this idiom could be found in 續玄怪錄: "吁,是何言哉!人世勞苦,萬愁纏心,盡如燈蛾,爭撲名利,愁勝而髮白,神敗而形羸,方寸之間,波瀾萬丈,相妒相賊,猛於豪獸。" (rough translation: "Alas! What are you even talking about! The mortal world is full of suffering, with thousands of things worrying your heart. Everyone competes for their fame and wealth just like a flying moth hurtling into candlelight. Their sorrows win which bleaches their hairs; their spirits lose which weakens their bodies. Within their tiny, agitated hearts, they envies and hates each other, making them fiercer than beasts.") Though I didn't choose "eventful" in this rough translation, I think it is because of the context (though preferably it could be better translated with a word other than "eventful".)--H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 13:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Or perhaps the meaning "agitated" could be treated as an obsolete one? --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 13:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@H2NCH2COOH: 續玄怪錄 is from the Tang dynasty. Now I don't have access to any large Chinese corpus (except 四庫全書), but if 波瀾壯闊 ("agitated") appears only once (i.e. is a hapax legomenon) in ancient texts and isn't continuously used afterwards, then the modern sense of "eventful" is probably a re-introduction from Japanese, or at least reinforced by the Japanese word. In my opinion, you can't really translate 波瀾萬丈 as "eventful" in the quote you have given. It doesn't seem to be commonly used in Chinese published media, and often when it's used the piece of news has something to do with Japan. Sometimes its meaning is closer to 波瀾壯闊, sometimes not ("eventful" isn't really close to 波瀾壯闊 in meaning). Of course, I would appreciate if you can cite some example sentences containing 波瀾萬丈 from the 20th century. @沈澄心, any thoughts? RcAlex36 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@RcAlex36, @H2NCH2COOH: attested in 中华读书报 ([12][13][14]) and Guangming Daily ([15]). There's also a quotation in 2007. However, I don't know how 波瀾萬丈 is used in the 20th century. -- 14:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
In People's Daily, this word is only used once during 1946-2021. -- 14:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I propose a verification request of 波亂萬丈 (kyūjitai) as listed in 波乱万丈. AFAIK, 波乱万丈 exists because of 同音の漢字による書きかえ (replacement of homophonic kanji), so its traditional form is supposed to be 波瀾萬丈, not its back-formation 波亂萬丈. Is there any method to suppress the auto-generation of kyūjitai forms? --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 11:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@H2NCH2COOH: |kyu=- -- Huhu9001 (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
By the way, what do you think of 錕斤拷? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It is justified to have this entry as an internet slang or something, but instead of following the convention that explanations should be put under traditional form, I think it should be put under simplified entry and redirect its traditional form to the simplified form. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 02:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to invest more money". Added by @Mar vin kaiser. Not in any mono- or bilingual dictionaries I have access to. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I got it from the main Pleco dictionary. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: neighborhood. Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. The definition is found in 譯典通英漢雙向字典 (Dr. Eye Chinese English Bilingual Dictionary), though it seems to be the same definition as the first (area surrounding (something); surroundings; vicinity; around; about). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: amen (noun). -- 04:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


# [[Pac-Man]] (a video game or a titular character)

WT:BRAND. English Pac-Man describes a metaphorical definition. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


@Quadmix77Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Cited for the video game only. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The quotations may need to be checked to see if they actually meet the requirements of WT:BRAND, though. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


# [[communist]]

@Lagrium, not every English word has been borrowed into Japanese. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Easily attested: [16]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Three quotations added from various sources. Cnilep (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


# [[mine]]

Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not common (except in reference to Minecraft or the like), but I found three quotations in various books. Also, the German proper noun Main is more common, so I added a separate etymology. Cnilep (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


# [[electric]]

Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Three quotations added from various sources, dating back almost a century. Cnilep (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


# [[charger]]

Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Attested: [17]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Three quotations added from various sources. Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


# [[cleaner]]

Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I found all these words from the Jisho dictionary. Lagrium (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Lagrium: What WWWJDIC ('the Jisho.org dictionary' does not exist) decides to record has little bearing on what we decide to record. I don't think these meet WT:CFI. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably マイン is not Japanese. チャージャー is sometimes appears as a part of name of battery charger. コミュニスト, エレクトリック, クリーナー are OK, but the meanings should be specified. クリーナー is a device, not a person. —Naggy Nagumo (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji, Eirikr: Do you want to weigh in? All the above terms are in the Weblio dictionary and are searchable in Japanese dictionary apps (such as "Imiwa", "Japanese"). Probably less common and unpreferred but valid, right? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Attested: [18]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Do you wish to review some of your RFV's based on Shinj's responses or do you insist on quotations? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The results for those are numerous, so I won't insist on quotations. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I added three quotations for クリーナー. See also コミュニスト and エレクトリック above. Cnilep (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


AFAIK this word existed for like a month. Unlikely to pass the one year test.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


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

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)

February 2021Edit


Personal name () of an emperor that people probably aren't giving to their children. @Phillipm0703. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

As the name of a Japanese emperor, this is certainly verifiable. See also the EN WP article on w:Emperor_Ninkō, particularly the #Early_life section, as well as the corresponding JA WP article at ja:w:仁孝天皇.
Our entry currently lists the kun'yomi of Ayahito. I see that the ENAMDICT entry lists the on'yomi of Keijin marked as a given name of as-yet-undetermined gender (subjectively, it sounds masculine to me), and another reading Eni that is marked as a feminine given name. This could probably use some further research to see if there's anyone in the past century or so who has had this grapheme as a name of any reading.
Setting aside the questions of currency and reading, my impression was that names in any language (surnames, given names) were fair game so long as we treat them as words and not biographies? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


It is the 'correct' hanja reading of the etymon (烏賊魚) of 오징어 (ojing'eo), and is not in actual use as a true Korean word (Talk:오적어). @JusjihSuzukaze-c (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

New Ace Korean Language Dictionary (Korean dictionary on MacOS) does have an entry for it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (of an object) soft; tender; gentle to the touch. Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. Pinging @Jamesjiao who added this sense when creating the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "posture". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. The sense was added by himself when he created the entry. It may correspond to "姿態與氣勢" found in 五南國語活用辭典. Dr. Eye Chinese English Bilingual Dictionary seems to put it in one sense with our sense #1 as "the situation; the posture". Pleco does something similar: "state; situation; posture". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

We have 架勢, possibly dialect nowadays. Though I found "壁位因润州高座寺张僧繇㦸胜天王本笔之画成矛㦸森严鼓吹戛击若有声在缥缈间至于鹰犬驰突云龙出没千状万态势" by "insource:/態勢/" in zhwikisource:[19] EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to plagiarize". Tagged by Dine2016 upon creation of the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably combinable with the first sense by extending the list in parentheses to "(experience, writing, etc.)". 现代汉语规范词典 defines it as 照抄或搬用(别人的经验、文字等). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "war chariot". This seems to stem from a misunderstanding of Guoyu Cidian, which defines it as "打退敵人攻城的戰車". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Also Rfv-sense: "to repulse an enemy". Tagged by @Geographyinitiative when adding the sense to the entry. Pleco is mentioned in their edit summary. I'm not sure what the reason for RFV is. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I see both meanings here: 打退敵人攻城的戰車。指拒敵取勝。 [20] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: If you're saying "war chariot" = 打退敵人攻城的戰車, then it seems to be a misunderstanding. It should be read as 打退 [敵人攻城的戰車]. It doesn't make sense that a noun sense is placed with a verb sense in one definition. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know enough to provide any further assistance here. Please edit the entry according to the evidence and Wiktionary policy. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to free oneself; to extricate oneself; to relieve". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. The sense was added by himself in this diff. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This seems to correspond to "解脫;排除" in Hanyu Da Cidian and "放開,解脫" in 五南國語活用辭典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Chinese. Tagged by @Ilawa-Kataka but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "a part of a cornice". Tagged by @Geographyinitiative but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Etymology 2 under Chinese. Tagged by @‎Prisencolin but not listed, although I'm not sure what they wanted to RFV when there were no definitions present under etymology 2 at the time when the section was tagged with RFV. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this was from the 四川方言词典.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (Cantonese) for (a recipient of pity or sympathy). Tagged by Dine2016 but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is dang6, which is usually written as 戥. It appears in The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters by Cheung and Bauer, who cites Sidney Lau's A Practical Cantonese-English Dictinoary (1977, page 134). This should be enough evidence. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


Chinese. Tagged by @Johnny Shiz but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is hard to verify because this character is in CJK Extension B, which means that it is not easily supported by computers. There seems to be some companies using this character in their names, like 𨰻沁科技有限公司 and 𨰻埕有限公司. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Also 𨰻㵘泰式烤肉火山排骨 — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This is in Kangxi Dictionary (備考 戌集), which cites 搜眞玉鏡. It also appears in Hanyu Da Zidian, citing 改併四聲篇海 and 字彙補. This should be enough for rare characters that are not really part of Written Standard Chinese. The "used in name" sense probably shouldn't be there. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


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

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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
@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)


Rfv-sense: "side room". Tagged by @Geographyinitiative but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

與樓閣相連的小屋。[21] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to adjust; to revise". Tagged by @Geographyinitiative but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

相似詞 調動、調整 釋義 安排配置。 [22] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


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

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)


Rfv-sense: "(archaic) at the time when". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "health" and "self; itself". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The "health" sense is probably mergeable with the "body" sense. As for "self", 重編國語辭典修訂本 defines it as 本身、自己 and cites 《儒林外史·第九回》:「疑惑一番,不必管他,落得身子乾淨,且下鄉去照舊看書。」 — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(literary) for a long time; permanently". Tagged by Dine2016 but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to verify". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tooironic, MDBG has "to verify by means of research (esp. historical details)" as part of the definition. I think "to verify" is just a less accurate translation of the first sense and is not worth a separate sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tooironic, RcAlex36, Justinrleung, the sense being discussed here looks like a dated usage pattern.
行在歸罪二人理官考證 [Written Vernacular Chinese, trad.]
行在归罪二人理官考证 [Written Vernacular Chinese, simp.]
From: 《朱子語類·本朝七·盜賊》
Kuí jì zhì Xíngzài, guīzuì yú èrrén, lǐguān wú suǒ kǎozhèng ⋯ [Pinyin]
Having arrived at Quinsay, Kui put all the blame on (those) two (dead persons), and the judge had nothing with which to verify (his claim) ...
--Frigoris (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Frigoris Do you think we should have this as a separate sense from the first sense and perhaps mark it as dated/archaic? If so, would you be able to find a few more quotes? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung, I can't find more quotations that can be securely matched to this usage. I think a {{lb|zh|dated}} would be fine. --Frigoris (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "profession". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I think you added this in this diff. I'm guessing you don't remember where you got it from? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
No, that was six years ago. It may have been in error. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tooironic, RcAlex36: It might be 指所從事的工作、業務 in 漢語大辭典 or 工作 in 重編國語辭典修訂本, which is a literary sense. What do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Good catch. That does make sense. So I guess this is a literary sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Cited. @Tooironic, RcAlex36, could you help with adding translations to the quotes? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to take by force". Tagged by @Geographyinitiative but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

奪。 [23] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "kidney bean". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Jamesjiao, who added this sense when creating the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "a bar". Tagged by @Geographyinitiative but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a noun, right? But there's only one noun here [24] and it's a surname. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "evil look of deep-set eyes". Tagged by @Geographyinitiative but not listed. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

目光深視的樣子。[25] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe that my original feeling was that the 'evil' part did not seem to be part of the definition. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


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)

March 2021Edit


--Tibidibi (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense- I agree with 'premier' and 'prime minister' as definitions, and I agree that 總理总理 (zǒnglǐ) could mean 'president' in theory. However, is there a specific example of 總理 being translated as 'president' officially? I would originally have thought that 總理 would NEVER be translated as president, but in Yang Jiechi's recent visit to Alaska, Yang referred to President Biden as 總理 and then took it back and said 總統. I was shocked when I saw that @Tooironic had added the word 'president' to the 總理 definition in 2016 [26]. I would say that even if it can be confirmed that 總理 has ever been translated as 'president', it should be made clear in this definition that 總理 is rarely translated as 'president'. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If you look on Google Books, it is sometimes translated as "president". However, it is obviously not the most common rendering — that's why I put it last. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
If anyone has a moment, could you please link one example of 總理 translated as 'president'? I looked at Google Books but I couldn't see what is being talked about in the above comment. I would go so far to contend that 總理 is absolutely never translated as 'president' or that if it is in some unusual case, Wiktionary absolutely must qualify the 'president' translation as "rare". It is a mistake to put all three words on par as equally valid or equally common English translations of 總理. When I look at the definition "premier, prime minister, president" I see something equivalent in strangeness to someone listing common household pets that writes "dogs, cats, ostriches". Yes, ostriches could live in a house, but it would be unusual and it would be a mistake to list these three together in an unqualified manner. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tooironic, Geographyinitiative: Here is one example. However, it seems to be talking about a president of a company. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Thanks for doing the work to find this evidence, which indeed seems to connect 總理 and 'president', as well as 'president' and 掌教, 山長山长, and 會長会长 (huìzhǎng). I knew that the link might be out there for some situations. However, in my opinion, this evidence is paltry. In my opinion, if this were the sum total of the evidence to be cited proving 總理 can also mean 'president', then Wiktionary would be justified in not including this translation among the three provided. Either that, or the 'president' part of the definition needs to be labeled 'rare'. To me, it's still similar to my analogy above: like saying that housepets include cats, dogs, and ostriches. The new evidence presented would be like me objecting that ostriches are not housepets and someone giving me a black & white picture of an ostrich in a shed. (Sorry if my wording is too extreme- I wanted to give you the full force of how I'm looking at this. I apologize if the level of evidence presented is already 100% sufficient on Wiktionary standards to include 'president'. I am trying to make the dictionary I would want to use and I would want someone who made this dictionary to be skeptical about this issue. Thanks for your time.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC) (modified)
@Geographyinitiative: From this one source, the "president" sense doesn't seem to refer to a government official, so it might have to be treated as a different sense. 兩岸辭典 lists "某些政黨領導人的名稱。如中國同盟會總理。" as another sense - so it might also be president of a political party? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, if it is shown that Sun was 總理 (and that this specific title was explicitly translated President) of the Tongmenghui, then yes, that would be different. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


--Tibidibi (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

우리나라 simply means "our country" Leasnam (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
No. It means Korea. See the Standard Korean Dictionary. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm curious, isn't that context-dependent?
Say, if a Korean speaker as part of the Korean-speaking population in Jilin, China were to use this word, would it mean "Korea"? Or would it mean "China", or even "Jilin"? Does it refer to any specific geopolitical region, or rather to "that area of the world where native speakers of Korean historically originated from"? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Eirikr That is already addressed on the entry. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Do note that the RFV is for Jeju. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021Edit


Should be 그래피티 (geuraepiti). Insufficient relevant results in Google Books.--Tibidibi (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)



# [[trapping]] [[technique]](s); the art and use of [[area-denial]] and [[anti-personnel]] [[weapon]]s and [[device]]s in trapping.

Created by a known incompetent IP-address editor. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @Suzukaze-c: Meh. I dimly recall a while back cleaning up a batch of their garbage that included this entry.
It is minimally attestable, at least judging by the hits at google books:"罠術" "は" - the addition of the Japanese-only (ha) filters out one Chinese hit, leaving us with 15 apparently cromulent instances of usage in Japanese books. When I last looked at our 罠術 entry, I saw enough likely hits that I thought this might just pass CFI, and I left it in place.
That said, I haven't gone through the hits in any depth, and I wouldn't protest if others deem this entry worthy of removal. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I found essentially nothing in GBooks. Only one of the books that the algorithm suggested offers a preview, and I couldn't find the word there. The others are quite possibly scannos or the like. Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Cnilep for going through those. I had no real opposition to deletion before, and given your findings, I now think we should delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
It’s definitely borderline. I’ve found hits that aren’t complete garbage data, but to be fair, they’re very relatively recent, with at least one postdating this discussion. And they’re a ninja themed RPG’s character sheet, an isekai LN (also a similarly named web novel which I assume is related), an isekai web novel unrelated to the other, and a throwaway description from the Twitter account of a mobile entry in a major Capcom franchise. The RPG specifies furigana みんじゅつ as one would expect from most usages of 〜術, but the kanji itself has only in recent decades proven to be one of the essentials, and the 音読み are so uncommon that not a single dictionary I consulted specifies any term using either one (it’s possible to use it in kanbun, I guess?). It’s much simpler to consider -jutsu a productive, easily understood suffix and not a dictionary kind of word…in this case…for now. BRPXQZME (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

May 2021Edit


--Tibidibi (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Copied from w:Korean numerals, but no citation there. Maybe we can cite the book in [27], or [28]. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Neither source is reliable. It is well-known that Middle Korean does not have a native numeral for "ten thousand".--Tibidibi (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to be punished for a crime". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This sense was added by @Tooironic in this diff. Xiandai Hanyu Cidian has 被判有罪;被加上某种罪名, which is more like "to be accused of a crime; to be charged with a crime". Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian similarly has 被加上某种罪名;被认为有罪. I'm not sure if this is different from "to offend the law; to commit a crime", which probably corresponds to the definition of 得罪 given in 重編國語辭典修訂本 and 漢語大詞典. @RcAlex36, Frigoris, 沈澄心, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: electric shork (the lemma is attested though). -- 14:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@沈澄心: It seems to come from CC-CEDICT, which defines it as "electric shock, electroshock". Guoyu Cidian defines it as "電力系統突然發生變動,導致電壓、頻率不穩,稱為「電震」。", which doesn't seem to match our current definition. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021Edit


"kuay teow" @User:BinarystepSuzukaze-c (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


"Honey".--Tibidibi (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

DeleteOmgtw15 (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


I have never heard of "。。。" being used to soften the tone of a sentence. When it's used in sentences like "你是傻子嗎。。。", I feel it only has the sense of speechlessness (and therefore offensiveness) as in sense 1. --ItMarki (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "strategically important". RcAlex36 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: Probably combinable with the first sense? Guoyu Cidian defines it as 地勢高峭險要. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Yeah I think they can be combined. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • RFV resolved by combining with "dangerously steep; precipitous". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to abruptly stop initiated projects". RcAlex36 (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: It seems to be a bad interpretation of something like 也形容干事情突然中止并散伙 Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian or 突然、混乱地散去 in Hanyu Da Cidian. Do you think this should be tweaked and kept as a second sense or put together in the first sense? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I think it should be put together in the first sense. RcAlex36 (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


"soup." Should be 수프 (supeu). Made by an unreliable user.--Tibidibi (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

探海 (sense), 翻身 (sense), 劍指, 身法, 小翻, 盤腕手, 踹燕, 橫飛燕, 蘭花掌, 元寶跳, 朝天蹬Edit

Added by User:Apisite using Shen Yun-associated sources. I would like to see independent usage from elsewhere. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

探海 is cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
朝天蹬 should be cited as well. The definition might need to be tweaked because it seems to be used in martial arts and opera as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
蘭花掌 is cited. It seems to be used in opera as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
踹燕 and 橫飛燕 are cited as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
元寶跳 is cited. I think the definition might need to be a little more specific. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
身法 is cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
RFV passed for 探海, 朝天蹬, 蘭花掌, 踹燕, 橫飛燕, 元寶跳 and 身法. The rest still need to be checked. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


Kanji spelling of あざとい. Search results are for mentiones in pop articles. @LittleWholeSuzukaze-c (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @LittleWhole as entry creator -- can you update the entry with any sources or cites? If not, we'll have to delete the entry as unverifiable. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

July 2021Edit


Rfv-sense: Juche (state ideology and calendar of North Korea). RcAlex36 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Though I think we can find non-dprk source, words used by North Korea Chinese media are still Chinese. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Cited for the calendar usage. I think it will be hard to find cites for the state ideology. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


"Hundred". Lee and Ramsey 2011 explicitly state that this is attested only before the late sixteenth century, hence okm and not ko, but I'm willing to be surprised.--Tibidibi (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "on one side; on the one hand...; one aspect is". 漢語大詞典 defines the conjunction sense of 一方 as "一面。表示一个动作跟另一个动作同时进行。". RcAlex36 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


"Uyghur". Nothing on Google.--Tibidibi (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


Only 위글어(語) (wigeureo) seems to be attested.

Also a SOP: 위글 (wigeul, Uyghur) + (mal, (colloquial) language), and not common enough to be grandfathered in like 한국말 (Han'gungmal) was.--Tibidibi (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

한글 맞춤법Edit

RFV for this specific sense. The definition in Standard Korean Language Dictionary is 한글로써 우리말을 표기하는 규칙의 전반을 이르는 말, which is blatantly SOP, so it can probably be deleted if it fails RFV here.--Tibidibi (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The MCST law regulating Korean orthography is admittedly titled 한글 맞춤법, but it seems SOP even in said document.--Tibidibi (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: “(Internet slang) to delete, block or censor”. --- 12:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be used as 被續, but it might be hard to find cites for this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

August 2021Edit


"sun's halo", created by User:KYPark with alt. forms 햇귀엣골, 햇귀엿골. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c Early Modern word, seemingly only found in 譯語類解 (1690) as ᄒᆡᆺ귀엣골. It seems to be a calque of Chinese 日珥, which it glosses. The normal Korean word is 햇무리 (haenmuri).--Tibidibi (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c I don't think it's out of the question that the authors didn't actually know what Chinese 日珥 meant and had to translate it character-by-character. 귀엣골 (gwietgol) is a (now obsolete) form of 귀엣고리 (gwietgori, earring).--Tibidibi (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


Near-complete lack of ghits for google:"朧月(ほろり)", save for a single link https://jp.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/8917928/ that I cannot open because I'm "using the wrong browser" (Firefox 91.0), and anyways FF XIV is a work of fiction where such odd names run rampant. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw a couple of Internet users (or possibly the same person on multiple sites) nicknamed 朧月(おぼろづき) (Oborozuki), but the only ほろり (Horori) I found was the Final Fantasy character. It seems likely this is in-game only. Cnilep (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Another mea culpa moment. How did EDICT (JMnedict) pick up that one, and added it as a female given name? ~ POKéTalker) 05:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
https://www.edrdg.org/jmdictdb/cgi-bin/entr.py?svc=jmdict&sid=&q=5725644 doesn't seem to provide the edit history that newer entries show. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

頭文字 (Chinese definition)Edit

I actually made the same request last night, but on another page and in an embarrassingly wrong way. I apologise for that. So:

As I've mentioned before, "頭文字" is a Japanese word, but it has never been borrowed into Chinese. It is included neither in the 现代汉语规范词典 nor the 教育部國語詞典. I checked some online English-Chinese dictionaries, and I can firmly say that the most common translation for "initial" (first letter of a word or name) is "首字母". Nosog (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


Cited for the first sense "first letter or initial of a word". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


One appearance in Google News from Epoch Times; zilch in Scholar or Books. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikipedian1250Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I find some instances of 自然左翼的 (but those are arguably SoP: “naturally left-wing; spontaneously left-wing”), but not the full phrase with idiomatic meaning. EG:
  • Kaneko Mitsuharu, 1975, 「当時僕は、左翼的な思想に没頭していたので、その方法は、自然左翼的なものの考えかたになり、解釈も、そんなふうになった。」 (In those days, I was devoted to left-wing ideology, so in that way, my way of thinking became naturally left-wing, as did my interpretations.)
Cnilep (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "the person facing one". RcAlex36 (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: I think this might be talking about "前面的人" in 漢語大詞典 and 兩岸辭典. If so, I would reword it as "the person whom one is facing". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Cited based on 漢語大詞典. @RcAlex36, please check. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


The sense of 剃頭 ("to have a haircut") is given in 上海话大词典, but I'm not sure if it's dated or where it's used. It's definitely plausible since the 玉篇 entry for gives 「鬀髮也」 ("to cut/shave hair"). Additionally, the 集韻 states that 「吳人謂髠髮爲劗」 which means something like "Wu people call the punishment shaving of a man's head as 劗." But I'm having trouble finding references for this sense; searching up the term 劗肉 just brings up a lot of results for 大劗肉, which is apparently a dialectical word for 獅子頭 lion's head meatballs. ChromeGames923 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@ChromeGames923: I'm not sure if this is the right avenue for the questions you have. Since Wu is not a WT:WDL, the verification process is looser, and the entry in 上海话大词典 would be good enough for passing verification. That said, I cannot find this sense in other dictionaries. In 上海方言詞典, the definitions are 切肉 (cut meat) and 剁肉 (chop up meat), which are probably more appropriately one definition, as we have it in the first sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
上海市区方言志 (p. 207) only has 切肉 and 剁肉 as well. It doesn't list 劗肉 as a synonym under 剃头 (p. 184) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Thanks for pointing out the verification difference, and I really appreciate you checking those two dictionaries. I just realized that 上海方言詞典 is organized by pronunciation, so I should really reference it more. It's not immediately clear to me how 上海市区方言志 is organized though. As for the haircut definition, do you think it makes sense to keep? Considering that it doesn't show up anywhere else, I reckon the sense is at least rare or old. (I also notice you added some other definitions to the page, that explains why the term kept giving me meatballs.) Thanks, ChromeGames923 (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the haircut sense could be kept, but I'll also ask the opinion of editors who might be a little more familiar with Wu. @Thedarkknightli, Shen233, 辛时雨, any thoughts?
上海市区方言志 is organized by semantic domains. 上海方言詞典 is a good resource as well, but its pronunciation is 老派, so it doesn't necessarily match the system we use here in {{zh-pron}}, which is based on 中派. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
劗肉 is in the dialectical synonyms under 理髮 for Shanghainese, so interesting. Personally I never used that word to mean haircut, but digging around it seems itself has the sense of haircut in Kangxi Dictionary, one such usage is in 玉篇 as it is previously mentioned, https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E5%8A%97, so it definitely meant that at least in the past. I'm not too sure where wiktionary gets the dialectical synonyms from, but they seems credible. I crossed checked with baidu and other chinese forums relating to Shanghainese and there is little to nothing about 劗肉 being haircut, so I'm leaning toward the argument that it's currently dated or obsolete.Shen233 (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Shen233: Thanks! The word is in the synonym table for 理髮 because it was added by @ChromeGames923, who started this RFV. I think it was only based on 上海话大词典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes that's right, sorry I should have mentioned I added it at the same time! ChromeGames923 (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021Edit


Regarding its reading. This entry was made from Japanese Wikipedia, which uses regular on'yomi ちょうふん.

From Google Books:

Without further evidence, add {{rfp}} and use plain {{head}} instead of {{ja-noun}}.

Suzukaze-c (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the broader web (not just Google Books), the first two non-Wikipedia sites that come up for me at https://www.google.com/search?q=%22腸粉%22+%22は%22 are cooking sites (appropriately enough). The first uses the reading チャンフェン, and the second (scroll down a bit) uses the reading チョンファン.
Searching for the kanji string plus the readings, I find that the readings in katakana find many more hits -- strongly suggesting that Japanese readers / writers consider this to be a foreign word. My findings:
HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


# [[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)

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)
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)
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)


He was on an editing spree today. I didn't think much of it but this edit ([31]) 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)

@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)
it's User:Fumiko Take. meh. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
(pinging IP address master @Chuck EntzSuzukaze-c (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC))
@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)


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)

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)
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)


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)

https://furigana.info/w/味気 :) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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)

Japanese 続ホー (tsuzuhō)Edit

Google Books finds all of four hits at google books:"続ホー", of which:

  • One might be valid.
  • One shows no text, and isn't possible to verify online (as best I can tell).
  • One is a misparsing (this is a substring of a longer term).
  • One is almost certainly a scanno, considering how much garbled mess is included in the snippet.

Can anyone else find proper citations for 続ホー (tsuzuhō), with the sense of "doing homework"?

The entry is a bit of a mess and is in need of cleanup, but I wanted to find out if it's even a valid term before putting in any more time. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in Google web search or Twitter. It's a hoax. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleted, striking. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


Tagged by @沈澄心 but not listed. I think I've seen this somewhere, but I can't recall where. @Suzukaze-c, any clue? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The IRG website has evidence for the single-character ⿰㐅也 from a Hong Kong advocacy group. https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/index.php?find=UK-20538Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Thanks, that's where I saw it. I wonder if there's more evidence for this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "principal; primary". Tagged by @Tooironic. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


Korean. I believe it is usually written as 一擧兩得 in Korean sources. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021Edit


The Japanese transliteration of Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu.--Tibidibi (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Huh, took a closer look at this and realized it's miscreated -- the JA is not a transcription of the MI-derived EN as given as the gloss in the JA entry -- it's a transcription of (one of the) shorter name(s). Compare, noting that the MI / EN ⟨wh⟩ correlates to JA ⟨f⟩: