User:KYPark/cane and can in consilience

eng:	cane
esp:	caña
fre:	canne
ita:	canna

jpn:	管
	kan
kor:	수수깡 (susukkang)[1]
	-kkang

eng:	can
dut:	kan
nor:	kanne
swe:	kanna

jpn:	罐
	kan
kor:	깡통 (kkangtong)
	kkang-

--KYPark (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Indecent interruption (1)

Please STOP adding your theories to entries. I had to revert you at sugarcane, where you added a hanja box in an English entry. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You deleted this box without Talk to me, and denied me to experiment with a new way of Definition to bridge West and East such that WMF positively encourages! I wish you see what was wrong with you. And again you talk to me now in the wrong place for that issue irrelevant right here.

Nonetheless, I would say this. To add the hanja pictogram box is never ever to add my subjective theory but to add something picturesque and much more than that, most objectively! The sugarcane is exactly equivalent to 蔗, irrespective of my theory. (Thus you were too hypersensitive, too, I fear.) You would see the trouble that the English meanings may change dynamic and unclear over time, while the hanja's remain static and clear, either whether ill or well.

For example, the (deprecated template usage) sugar originally meant the gravel, while 糖 has ever meant the same thing so that it could serve as a bench mark. Should both get together as I had them, the former could be defined or refined more precisely. Furthermore, the latter helps fast in case you look for a hanja for sugar. Hanja may be the greatest semantic heritage for us all, I guess.

How again and again I wish everyone here behave oneself!

--KYPark (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Sugar comes from Sanskrit, not from Chinese. The Chinese character has never been used for the Sanskrit word or any of its descendants. A Chinese character doesn't belong in the sugar entry any more than Tongan tō belongs in the 糖 entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You can start by behaving yourself. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's you who are wrong. Who said that (deprecated template usage) sugar came from Chinese and that it was used for the Sanskrit word? I said neither! Why is it too bad for English entries to have Chinese in reciprocity while it is so good for Chinese entries to have English? BTW will you interdere with my wishes? --KYPark (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, KY. We are a dictionary. We don't add hanja to English entries because they are "picturesque" or "static and clear" or "the greatest semantic heritage for us all". Those are opinions; we deal in facts. Furthermore, English entries are subject to WT:ELE and WT:AEN. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WT:ELE and WT:AEN ever did and would change. I'm afraid you don't understand how vital it is for wikis to experiment with new ways for such changes for ever. Yeah, WT might be most conservative in this perspective. --KYPark (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Decent discussion

There are two etymologies here. The western one traces back to borrowing from Hebrew קָנֶה (qane), or from some other Semitic language, into Greek and Latin, and from them throughout the languages of Europe. The eastern one is from Chinese, borrowed with or without the character 罐 (the character 缶 doesn't belong here, since it means "jar", not "cane" or "pipe"). The Middle Chinese form is transliterated as "*guǎn", and the Semitic one starts with some variant of the uvular stop q, so it would seem that they started out different and have converged over time. If you want to claim these are all the same, you'll have to show how the Semitic and the Chinese are connected. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very glad that you take into account the oriental thread. In Japanese, 缶 is practically the same as 罐, meaning "pitcher, can," differing from 管 "tube, cane." I'd never argue "these are all the same," especially both 管 and 罐 that definitely differ much more than English cane and (deprecated template usage) can that are etymologically quite confused in concert hence a remarkable consilience! This is not my subjective thesis or theory at all but an objective note or report. It's up to you or us how to interpret this unusual concert. Cheers. --KYPark (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• As an addendum, 管 in JA carries more connotations of pipe or tube, with additional senses of shuttle (as for weaving) and spindle (as for spinning thread); the JA word for cane is 杖 (tsue), a word deriving from Old Japanese rather than from Chinese.

But then, the meanings of kanji in modern JA are largely irrelevant as evidence of ancient use -- modern Japanese is most definitely not ancient Chinese, nor is it ancient Japanese. By way of example of semantic drift, modern JA 手紙 means letter, epistle; apparently, in modern Mandarin, this same word means toilet paper. Modern JA 卵 means egg, but I've had Chinese students laugh at Japanese labels, because it apparently means more specifically fish egg, roe in modern Mandarin. So mentioning the semantic similarity between (deprecated template usage) 缶 and (deprecated template usage) 罐 in modern JA as somehow significant to the meanings of the words in ancient Chinese suggests a profound confusion.

Put more simply, in order to even begin to find linguistic relationships on the level of PIE <-> Chinese, you would need to look at the oldest attested forms of the languages. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In a way, science looks like a double helix such as DNA, with empiricism and rationalism intertwined cooperatingly rather than conflictingly. The test is empiricist, and the rest is rationalist. Both are yang and yin, respectively, making up the universe!

Nevertheless, hard-testing empiricists or positivists may blame rationalists or interpretivists for their easy-going theories or theses, which though may open up a new horizon, including new empiricist jobs.

Focally you seem to argue that the modern Japanese reading kan and meaning "tube" of 管, for example, might be too different from the ancient Chinese originality to be seriously or etymologically compared with the European counterpart, say, (deprecated template usage) cane.

The more appealing rationalist thesis of mine,

the more appealing empiricist antithesis of yours.

This is a kind of the law of action and reaction. Explicitly, however, I am not yet appealing any etymological thesis, however appealing I may be in silence. Meanwhile, you look like appealing a positivist antithesis such that any Eurasian concert looks like a mirage. Simply, this is likely ahistoric!

Here we're not really caring the general "linguistic" but lexical "relationships" on the Eurasian, rather than PIE-Chinese, level. Such relationships did begin millenia ago, historically through the silk road, and as etymologically attested by such words as silk, china, tea, and so on.

This Eurasian trade and confusion, whether cultural or lingual, is not a matter of rationalist theory but empiricist historicity including moral reciprocity. Nevertheless, PIE among Eurocentrism makes Indo-Europeans absolutely self-contained, likely aiming to isolate it from the Eurasian contexture in reality, for one reason or another. This is absolutely absurd!

No thanks. I'm too old to take the toughest oldest tests for my favorite job. If young, you may make it yours. Cheers. --KYPark (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• A distinction I feel it is important to make:

I am not saying that cane and (deprecated template usage) 管 are absolutely unrelated. Given what little I know of the two terms, I am led to the conclusion that this is an open question. I am saying that we do not have enough evidence to say that cane and (deprecated template usage) 管 are related. We (the EN WT community) need evidence, or at least supporting quotations from respected linguists, before we can include such information in the main entry. You are welcome to add such theories on the Talk pages, but until we have evidence, the addition of such information to main entry pages will be reverted, as it was at sugar cane. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 09:08 am, 25 July 2012, last Wednesday (11 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−7)

I regret you extend the manifold injustice Metaknowledge did to me by and after reverting at sugar cane immediately, hypersensitively, illegitimately, without any Talk! His likely lack of hanja knowledge must have convinced him that it was because of etymological relatedness that I added the box of 蔗 to that page. Do you agree with him indeed? But he was wrong indeed, I fear!

It was no more than semantic identity, absolutely irrespective of any etymology and my theories, that drove me to do that to experiment with a new way of enhancing the Definition. Such is quite legitimate and encouraged in wikis, as you may agree.

You are welcome to add such theories on the Talk pages, but until we have evidence, the addition of such information to main entry pages will be reverted, as it was at sugar cane. -- Eiríkr Útlendi

You are quite right but for "as it was at sugar cane" which was definitely ill done in manifold ways. I ask you to see it through thoroughly. I greatly regret that you may not yet after you may have read my responses to Metaknowledge and Chuck Entz in the beginning.

So do I again that, whether deliberately or not, they and you in effect suggest to the readers that I am such an unlawful man as a vandal. Then I cannot help but suspect you all to make it a rule to make me sick and tired in such annoying ways, however shameful and shameless they may be. If so, please stop it right away! Why should we waste our precious time like this?

How well you are inspired depends on your mindset. My table on top above all suggests to the PIE folks that English cane and (deprecated template usage) can are in concert on the same etymological platform, as may be echoed here soon after my post.

Such is the case with many other European languages, hence such a great concert, which in the end might be far wider than the IE genesis. At least we are now inclined to take into account the Aramaic and Akkadian thread beyond PIE, which may probably extend even to the Far East. Now we have such a great open question we have to study neutrally from now on!

You should not warn me in advance not to bring that unsolved question into the Entry page. Please don't suggest that I am such a light-headed child. And we will not exhaust ourselves with useless precaution, such as the said ill-done revert.

--KYPark (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Indecent interruption (2)

Reverting such an action as that, which you well know is not permitted, was not "useless", as you claim, nor done "illegitimately". If I learn of you repeating this kind of action, I will block you for a relatively short period of time and request that you be blocked for a year before the Wiktionary community. Consider yourself warned. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I never ever know that my experiment with such a hanja box is not permitted but prohibited at Wiktionary.

Please let me know which provision of WT:ELE, WT:AEN, or whatever, prohibits me to do it, and endorses you to revert it right away without any Talk. I suspect there's no such thing.

I greatly regret you are repeatedly doing injustice to me including at last a block warning for an unclear reason, whether my repeated experiments or my repeated complaints or what else.

Please bring this case before the Wiktionary community so that what's precisely wrong with either you or me could be discussed. I have to know other views to know what was so wrong with me.

--KYPark (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason is clear. Our policies and established about pages do not allow it, and they do not have to disallow it for it to be disallowed. I am endorsed to revert it without discussion by dint of being an administrator. I don't want to make a big deal of this unless you persist. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want either unless such injustice repeats itself. (BTW I am so surprised and even scared by the likelihood of unprincipled adminship.) --KYPark (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The following User:Jamesjiao talk 03:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 
follows User:KYPark talk 02:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC), roughly 
an inch above. --KYPark (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 

Moral summing up

The case that Metaknowledge edged or wedged 

such a trivial definitional experiment into 
such a crucial etymological discussion is 

to make a spear out of a pin (針小棒大), and  
to see a mosquito and draw a sword (見蚊拔劒),

and suspected of a filibuster in itself either 

to muddle it up (뒤범벅), or 
to water it down (물타기). 

No one else yet blames him for his indecency.
So worried is unlikely communal self-cleanup!

--KYPark (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Morality as yin and yang

The cruelest lies are often told in silence.
   --Robert Louis Stevenson

The cruelest lies are often told eloquently.
   --KYPark (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He who knows does not speak,
he who speaks does not know. 
   --Lao Tzu [2]

Or, he who knows speaks ill.
   --KYPark (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Intentionality

Never be confused by intentionality as meddled and muddled up by philosophers, perhaps simply relating to such as "thought or reference" in the triangle of reference (1923), willing or will-less, but concerned with that as opposed to accidentality, involuntary or will-less.

To begin with, we are so vitally and fatally created as to be illusioned and delusioned by the world involuntarily! Thus we are not really responsible for such instances and consequences, however foolish, stupid, or harmful we may look.

Put otherwise, we are created, blessed or cursed, to live narrowed in context in concert, without God's apple, omniscience, or view from nowhere. Or, we are created to live a real life in prejudice in practice, whether and however willing or will-less.

Thus we have to sympathize with the prejudice of our fellow humans, if not including animals, hence together with moral reciprocity. Live by any prejudice as you cherish, unless you do little harm to others including myself, as I would do. Isn't it terribly fair enough?

In a way, morality is simply intentionality, especially willingness to moral reciprocity in good faith, whereby measure for measure in bad faith is hopefully excluded. It sounds simple! The practical choice, however, is always either good or bad faith. What could, would, should be ours from now on?

--KYPark (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Modified --KYPark (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See also

• Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/sugar cane
• Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/mole

Footnotes