User talk:Erminwin

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
• If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 12:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I've had to correct a few of your recent edits, because it looks like you're just copying the text blindly without checking to see how it works. Our templates can be complicated, but it's important to note that you were categorising all those entries as being Vietnamese when you used {{inh}}, which is for inherited vocabulary — you wanted {{cog}}, which is for cognates. Also, we can use a template to generate a Wikipedia link to Austroasiatic languages, with the added benefit that it now categorises the entry as having that etymology. Take a look at my edits and tell me if you have any questions. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the corrections, Μετάknowledge! I've still got much to learn. Erminwin (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for adding etymologies! I've got a few more things to note:

• Glosses for Old Chinese should be placed as the second parameter of {{och-l}}, e.g. {{och-l|清|clear}}.
• Cognates should display and link to the orthographic entries instead of IPA, e.g. Jingpho lakung instead of ¹lə ¹kuŋ, Drung cangma instead of tsɑŋ⁵⁵ mɑ⁵⁵. If you need any help with finding the orthographic representation of such words, I can point you to a few resources.
• {{zh-ref}} should only be used in Chinese entries (i.e. not in Thai or Vietnamese entries). Different languages have different conventions for citations, which I'm not always familiar with. I believe the usual convention outside of Chinese entries is using footnote references.
• Conventions for {{zh-ref}}: either ({{zh-ref|Author, Year}}) or {{zh-ref|Author (Year)}}.

— justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the helpful advices, Justin! Those will help me become a better wiktionarian & linguist in the future!

Hi, you've added an etymology relating this word to Tamang words and PST *ka-j/w/m, but none of the sources you cited actually relate it to 泔. Are you sure about that? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Greetings, justin(r)leung! You were right! Most likely Sagart 2003 meant Simp: 飦 < Trad: 饘 "gruel" (zhān < OC *tjan (ZS) or *t-qa (BS)). I will correct that.Erminwin (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for correcting the etymology. Ferlus suggests that the Vietnamese is borrowed from 泔 though... — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • I've included that information as well. Imho, OC 泔 is related to the Tamangic words; because OC k generally corresponds to ST k & its Tamangic reflexes, not OC uvular q, which generally corresponds to ST glottal stop ʔ. Yet again, STEDT has yet to list 泔 as a comparandum. Better safe than sorry!Erminwin (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please do not mark huge edits (such as adding an etymology) as minor edits. See Help:Minor edit. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. That was a bad habit. Erminwin (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Also don't forget to use four tildes to sign your posts. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw that you compared the *-r- in the OC reconstruction of 鴉 with 爸 and 父. Do you have a source for such a comparison? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, justin! My apology for including original research. I will remove them soon. I was trying to give another example of colloquial-literary pair (鴉 vs. 烏; 爸 vs. 父). The reason I used the expression "near-parallel" is because each of the doublet-pairs result from a different phonological process: according to Schuessler, 烏 underwent regular sound-changes in MC Div-I, while 鴉 in Div-II, though they both came from minimal OC *ʔa; & I also notice that 父, which would regularly appear in Div-III (independent) yet colloquial 爸 in Div-I; even though they both are from OC *baʔ & one ST root *b/pa (admittedly, ZS also reconstructs alternative pronunciation *pras for 爸 to account for its MC departing tone) (not to mention 爸's attested Mandarin pronunciation is ba4 not regular **bo4).

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Erminwin (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Humans are fallible, I am human; therefore I am fallible. Yet does fallibility demand a block? In his entry mǎ₁ 馬, Schuessler (2007) wrote: "Tai maa^C2 and similar SE Asian forms are CH loans"; I interpreted this, perhaps mistakenly, as Schuessler implied that Vietic *m-ŋəʔ may be one of those (for neither did Schuessler put Proto-Vietic *m-ŋəʔ in entry yù₁₆ 禦, 御); after all the horses are not native to the Red River delta & the only people who might've introduced those equines to Proto-Vietic-speakers were Chinese or their Tibeto-Burman-speaking cousins). In entry zǐ₃ 姊, Schuessler wrote ": MK", meaning Schuessler definitely believes Old Chinese minimal *tsiʔ has a Mon-Khmer etymology; otherwise, if Schuessler wants to indicate that the loan could be in either direction (MK > CH or CH > MK), Schuessler would have jotted down ": <> MK", just like for jú₃ 橘; of course Schuessler only included Proto-Monic *kmciiʔ as a comparandum; Proto-Monic comparandum's PMK ancestor *kmciʔ "collateral relation" #48 had been reconstructed by Shorto (2006). Schuessler did not dismiss outright any connection from Old Chinese minimal *tsiʔ to PTB *dzar < PST *tsər ~ dzər), just that such a connection in Schuessler's own words is "phonetically less direct".

Yes - fallibility is block-worthy, especially when what is added goes beyond the realm of a minor oversight. You added in ngựa that it is possibly borrowed from Old Chinese 馬, which is apparent nonsense that you ascribe to a supposed misinterpretation of Schuessler's "Tai maa^C2 and similar SE Asian forms are CH loans". This is unacceptable sloppiness. On chị you write that it is from PMK *kmcii?, which is again your own opinion found in neither Schuessler nor Shorto. Schuessler merely says it is MK and cites PMonic *kmcii? as a cognate; in fact it specifically states that MK is *cii? and that Mon *km- is a common prefix. Shorto makes no mention of the Chinese. You also provided the wrong page number for Schuessler. I hope you realise that this is not to be treated as a playground where you can casually interpret what others have written on the basis of your preconceptions; I haven't checked your other edits but an error rate this high in the few Vietnamese ones I encountered is intolerable and inexcusable. Wyang (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang: Alright, can you source your proposed connection of Proto-Vietic *m-ŋəʔ (> VNmese ngựa) to ngự < 御 *ŋas (ZS); *m-(r)aʔ *(r)a-s (BS)? "On chị you write that it is from PMK *kmcii?" I acknowledged that chị is a loan from OC, just that OC is not native, in turn borrowed from MK, & unfortunately Schuessler did not provide any PMK. For Proto-Monic *kmciiʔ, Schuessler also added "(in Old Mon)"; the only plausible Old Mon form is kuṁci IPA /kəmciʔ/, provided by Shorto, who also confirmed the Old Mon as a descendant of PMK *kmciʔ. Any editor can infer such a connection of OC *tsiʔ to PMK *kmciʔ. Not to mention Peiros also reconstructed Proto-Monic *ci:ʔ, from PAA *cVj "sister", with pre-syllable kəm-. Erminwin (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Since you fail to acknowledge your mistakes, arguing instead that those were reasonable errors and you had not done a disservice to the readers of those etymologies, I have increased your block duration. Your etymology on ngựa had been left unchanged on that entry for almost a month before I noticed and removed it today. Your etymology on chị is inconsistent with what Schuessler's opinions were in the book and is your own synthesis, which appears questionable. The proposed ngựa ― 御 connection is not new, perhaps first raised by Wang Li (1948) in 漢越語研究 (pg. 66) and subsequently mentioned in Paul Schneider (1990)'s Dictionnaire historique des ideogrammes vietnamiens (pg. 596), Lê Gia (1999)'s Tiếng nói nôm na (pg. 620), John Phan (2013)'s Lacquered Words (pg. 118), Trần Trọng Dương (2014)'s Nguyễn Trãi quốc âm từ điển, ... which apparently you are not familiar with. Wyang (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I did acknowledge that I was mistaken about what Schuessler meant by "other similar SE forms" to Tai maa^C2. I appreciate that you provide other sources which I can access later in order to read other supporting arguments (as I'd downloaded Schuessler & Shorto from online due to lack of resources). I did read John Phan's Lacquered Words (though only once, that's why I forgot that the initial proposal was made by Wang Li) and Phan "rejected" (with a cautionary note, "tentative") a connection between 御 & ngựa (< Proto-Vietic *m-ŋəʔ): as Phan reasoned that the expected Vietnamese reflex of OC *ŋas should have been **ngữa instead (from suffix -s + voiced initial). Also, we editors are not mere copying machines, we can reason with existing tools; sometimes correctly, sometimes wrongly: even without access to other sources besides Phan's Lacquered words, I can use my own reasoning alone to accept, despite Phan's tentative rejection, Wang Li's proposed connection between 御 & ngựa: for BS alternatively reconstructed OC *m-(r)aʔ, which could theoretically, become "ngựa" (thanks to -ʔ & the voicing effect of pre-initial m- on qʰ). "severity, disservice to the readers of those etymologies" Why so melodramatic?Erminwin (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

“I interpreted this, perhaps mistakenly, ...; after all, (+ rationalisation of your perhaps 'mistaken interpretation')”...

I was pointed to your etymology of ngựa because someone else referred to it and treated it as gospel. You have been adding a lot of etymologies, and these careless etymologies that you wrote are more destructive than constructive. If you are ready to go through all of your added etymologies again to ensure all were interpreted and cited correctly, I can unblock you, although I'm not convinced that you can see the need for this at this stage. None of your own 'reasoning' (like that in chị) should be allowed in etymologies because it is a form of misattribution, and you certainly wouldn't be happy if you see someone citing something from you that you did not say. Wyang (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

"If you are ready to go through all of your added etymologies again to ensure all were interpreted and cited correctly" Suggestion accepted!Erminwin (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

All right then, I will unblock you. Please do not add new etymologies before this is completed; if other errors are discovered after you finish checking them, they will be dealt with similarly strictly. Wyang (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here is a list of the entries you have edited:

Wyang (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I changed my mind. You are obviously the same person as the permanently blocked User:Tirgil34 on the English Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34): similarity 1 (you vs Radosfrester (sockpuppet)), similarity 2 (you vs Al Hanvar (sockpuppet)). I do not trust any of the things that you have written here. Permablocked. Wyang (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Tirgil34 can read Vietnamese? Erminwin (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I doubt it. All the more worthy of a block for not understanding the language one is adding. Wyang (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been able to find any translation of Trần Trọng Dương's 2013 article in English. Not to mention Vietnamese is my mother-tongue (that's why I can read his article without efforts). Your statement "I doubt it" means you do not believe in Tirgil34's command of Vietnamese. So why not reflect on your frivo accusation that I, a native Vietnamese speaker, is Tirgil34, whose Vietnamese proficiency you doubt? Erminwin (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Care to translate this from the article? (pg. 9)

Lấp đầy khoảng trống âm thanh thực chất là đang khỏa lấp những điểm vênh/ chênh về ngữ âm của tiếng Việt cổ thế kỷ XV với thể loại thơ thất ngôn Đường luật (thể thơ đỉnh cao của một loại hình ngôn ngữ đã đơn tiết hóa triệt để). Chỉ cần thực hiện một thao tác đơn giản là lắp các vị trí đã được âm tiết hóa kia vào câu thơ, chúng ta sẽ phần nào khôi phục được những âm tiết trong cảm thức của Nguyễn Trãi.

Wyang (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Translated from Vietnamese to English:

"To fill out the sound-gap is actually to be covering the phonological instabilities of 15th-century Archaic Vietnamese with the heptasyllabic form of Tang prosody poems (the top poetic form of a thoroughly monosyllabic language). Just by performing one simple operation, that is, by incorporating the syllabified positions into the lines, we will (be able to) partially restore the syllables in Nguyễn Trãi's perception."

Notes:

I've noted progressive particle "đang" & so translated "đang khỏa lấp" as "to be covering".

("Đường luật" literally means "Tang-law(-abiding)"; however, I use translation, also used by Trần Thị Lệ Thanh, available here)

("tái lập" is the established Sino-Vietnamese translation of English "(to) reconstruct"; as Dương is a linguist, he presumably chose his terminology carefully; that's why I translate "khôi phục" as "(to) restore"). 23:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Your translation makes no sense. Wyang (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I can still translate "cáo buộc tầm phào" into "frivolous accusation". Erminwin (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

“Frivolous” as in “this evidence is so strong that Erminwin should be blocked and tagged as per WP:DUCK regardless of the CheckUser results”, “there is conclusive behavioral evidence beyond doubt that Erminwin, पाटलिपुत्र and Alx bio are socks of Tirgil34” (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34/Archive). Wyang (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

In the SPI Wyang linked to, the checkuser concluded that the filer was "obsessed" and declined to issue blocks. For the record, here is a link to our checkuser's investigation, which found no credible connection. Based on that, I would unblock you, but like Wyang, I am deeply troubled by someone claiming to be a native Vietnamese speaker and yet not able to translate from Vietnamese. (I have no capacity to judge, but I trust him fully when he says it "makes no sense".) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge I've unblocked them, but I would be fine with anyone reblocking for a shorter term than infinite if they disagree. Either way, this shouldn't be construed as my objecting to the block, just to the length of it- Wyang wasn't the only one to spot problems with sloppiness in interpreting sources. Guessing is very bad where a reference work like Wiktionary is concerned. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: I reblocked for a month, but I think that indef may be the right call. There was some discussion of this on the Discord server, where @Mellohi! brought up a pattern of problematic edits in various languages where claims not made in referenced material were added. Additionally, even though Wyang was seemingly wrong with his accusations, it remains true that Erminwin claimed to be a native Vietnamese speaker and yet was unable to demonstrate that, which is a giant red flag. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, lots of red flags, and indef may very well be necessary... eventually. I see from their Wikipedia page that they're a student editor in the US, which might explain their problems with referencing. As for the native-speaker problem: someone who hasn't used their native language since childhood might very well have trouble reading a scholarly journal in that language- it might be a matter of exaggerating their competence rather than outright lying. I find it odd that they got erroneously accused of being a sock of two completely different sockmasters. For some reason, it makes me think about a hermit crab being mistaken for a mollusc... 01:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

To @Metaknowledge and @Chuck Entz, respectfully. I have no reason to 'exaggerate my Vietnamese competence" considering that I was a student of class 2003-2006 at Nguyễn Thị Minh Khai General Middle School (THPT, equivalent to US high school) & earned my General Middle School Graduation Certificate (bằng tốt nghiệp trung học phổ thông) after having passed the National General Graduation Examination held in 2006. Could I have graduated without being a native Vietnamese speaker? The endearing insult for THPT Nguyễn Thị Minh KHai among middle-school students' community is Người Tình Mặt Khỉ "Monkey-Faced Lover". An aphorism by MK students to rank the "Big Four" strictest teachers in my day (still applicable for the 2004-2007 class) can be found here (in Vietnamese).

How about me translating, from Vietnamese into English, an excerpt from Nguyễn Khải's "Mùa Lạc - Peanut Season", found in the 12th-grade textbook "Literature - Volume 1: Vietnamese Literature", p. 135 (link Select "Trang 68/155" in the central dropbox).

Vietnamese original: "Anh muốn đem lại nhiều hạnh phúc cho người mình yêu mà không hề đòi hỏi được trả lại. Nhưng chính cái tránh nhiệm với người mình yêu đã đem lại cho anh sự say sưa làm việc chưa từng có, sự sung sướng được đưa tay ra nâng người khác lên ngang tầm với mình, và lòng tự hào về cái tình yêu rất trong sáng đó"

My translation into English: "He wishes to bring much happiness to the one he loves without demanding anything in return. Yet his responsibility for the one he loves has given him his enthusiasm for work which he never had, his gladness to extend his hand to elevate another person to be his equal, and his pride in that love so pure." Erminwin (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Would you add {{Babel}} to your user page? It is not mandatory, just useful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the helpful advice. I will do. After the block, ofc.

Please take a look at Wiktionary:About Proto-Sino-Tibetan. We generally take Proto-Tibeto-Burman as equivalent to Proto-Sino-Tibetan (even though it's not quite accurate). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the advice! I will amend my old edits. Erminwin (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just wanted to remind you of some things for formatting Chinese entries. The ===Definitions=== header should only be used in single character entries; in other entries, the respective PoS header should be used. PoS headers should also be followed by a head template (usually just {{head}}, but there are Chinese-specific ones for some PoS's, like verbs {{zh-verb}}). The |n= parameter in {{zh-pron}} is used for PoS categorization, so make sure you have the right PoS there. Please take note of the edits here by RcAlex36. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please use semicolons instead of commas and don't use ‡. RcAlex36 (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I did not make myself clear, but there is no difference between {{zh-hist-ghost}} and ‡. If you think a sense is obsolete, please use {{lb|zh|obsolete}} instead. RcAlex36 (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You failed to put ref=Shijing for the example sentence you added in this edit. Could you please format properly so that other editors do not need to pick up after you? RcAlex36 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Apologies! Will preview edits more thoroughly.

Erminwin (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete so many of the usage examples and quotes on yêu? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Too many are unsourced & their tone is just vulgar. I'll replace them with neutrally toned quotes. I will restore the sourced quote from Xuân Giao's song "Cháu Yêu Bà" (1969).Erminwin (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, Fumiko’s usexes can be replaced, but what’s wrong with Em thương anh lắm, nhưng không yêu thôi? It shows the difference between the two senses. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reasonable! I will restore that quote! Erminwin (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think you know about my skepticism for/reservations towards Schuessler (2007) as well as STEDT. I consider STEDT/Matisoff to be somewhat similar to Shorto (2006) on the Austroasitic side: a rough guideline to many valid cognate sets, but the reconstructed forms should never be taken at face value, while Schuessler (2007) is ...adventurous to say the least. While I would never quote either of them in Vietnamese entries, I am much more reluctant to make changes to the Chinese entries, because I don't speak any Sinitic lect and I don't think I know enough about Chinese historical linguistics. Anyway, I don't know if you know of its existence, but Hill (2019)'s The Historical Phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese is a more modern, and, in my opinion, more reliable, work on comparative Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan linguistics (although not without its faults), and in recent years, there has been numerous grammars and dictionaries on various Sino-Tibetan languages as well, so there is little need to be overreliant on some rather outdated sources. You seem to know Modern Written Chinese, so you likely have more ease of access to more recent sources written in Chinese as well, those that I often see cited by researchers who write in English. PhanAnh123 (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for recommending Hill (2019). I'll try to obtain that book & read it afterwards.Erminwin (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@PhanAnh123: Hill (2019) obtained. I'm skimming it now & will read it thorough. Afterwards, I'll incorporate Hill (2019)'s proposals, whenever applicable, into Chinese etymologies.

I can see why you remarked that Hill (2019) is "not without its faults"; one example:

There are also a few proposals that are probably spurious. On p.204 there is a comparison made between Chinese 虎 h < *qʰˤraʔ ‘tiger’ and Tibetan སྟག་ stag ‘tiger’, with reference to Beckwith and Kiyose’s reconstruction of Old Chinese 虎 *staɣ. It is not convincing, especially in light of evidence from Austro-asiatic languages pointing to the possible foreign origin of the Chinese word, cf. Khmer /kʰlaː/ ‘tiger’, and it is possible that Burmese word for tiger ကျား kyā—but not the Tibetan word—shares the same origin.

—Zheng Zining's review

Erminwin (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for being unsolicited. I stumble upon your request for translation. Please see Corrections and Comments on 潛夫論. In particular the text had allegedly garbled.

It should have been the above. I wish I could provide an accurate translation. -- Ywhy (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not at all "unsolicited"! I requested translation and you have not only trannslated the relevant texts but also offered pointed the problem with the text itself. My many heartfelt thanks! Erminwin (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if it could be interpreted as 不知其稱而必有也 ― knows not its appropriate amount and incessantly seek after

稱 (“measure;gauge”) 有 (“have/own sth;hence avarice or excess”) -- Ywhy (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is out of my league. Take this with a shaker of salt.

Pardon me for late amendment. -- Ywhy (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! & will heed your advise in the future! Erminwin (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, the last few days I have been looking at the Nẫu dialects in Bình Định and Phú Yên. At first I thought that /əːj > əː/ and /e > əː/ happened in these dialects (a merger), but the more I look into it, it seems to me that there's secondary articulation in the nucleus that mainstream /əːj/ shifted into, while mainstream /e/ did actually shift into plain /əː/ . Here's a song, the subtitles seem to maintain a contrast between what are spelled as ‹ơi› and ‹ơ›. Unless my ears are playing trick on me, I think I hear velarization for those spelled with ‹ơi›, they're obviously not like mainstream dialects but they're not plain like those spelled with ‹ơ› either (mainstream để vs. Nẫu đở), you can hear it with tới nơi, trời and ơi in the song. What do you think, is it actually phonetic (spelled ‹ơi›) and (spelled ‹ơ›), or am I just mistakten? PhanAnh123 (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, your ears were not playing tricks on you / you were not mistaken: I also hear a velar element, yet I would phonetically transcribe that velar element as (voiced velar approximant) and spell it as ư; as well as transcribe the diphthong as & spell as ơư (as in tớư nơư, trờư). Here are my other observations: /j/ is velarized and labialized to after ô (as in "standard "ngồi /ŋoj˨˩/ vs. Nẫu UR /ŋow˨˩/ SR , spelt ngầu); after ươ /ɯ/ (/ɨə ~ ɯə/ in "Northernly" dialects yet just /ɨ ~ ɯ/ in "Southernly" dialects (like mine, Sài Gòn)), /j/ is dropped, hence Nẫu ngừ vs. Huế & Sài Gòn người (eye dialect spelling: "ngừi") vs. Hà Nội người. Interestingly, velarization of palatal /j/ to is present in other dialects as well, in my line of work I heard eye dialect spelling "ở dướư" & "trong ngườư" from a few clients (still I forgot to ask which dialects those clients spoke). Erminwin (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday I watched this video, at about the 20:30 mark, an older speaker from Vân Cù (whose tên Nôm seems to be Cồ btw), Nam Định was interviewed. The man is obviously a competent speaker of a modern coastal Northern dialect and he also displays the expected features like the consistent merger of /l/-/n/ into and the preservation of the rhotic. What caught me by surprise though is that I was expecting the retroflexed fricative like some Huế speakers I've met, but his pronunciation is surprisingly close to mine, that is, the approximant , I hear little retroflexion too, so it's probably not . What do you think? PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PhanAnh123: I think I've got what you meant: the "-r-" in "ngoài ra". Like you, I do not perceive it as a retroflex fricative yet I perceive it as a retroflex trill instead of the approximant . Another observation: to my ears, some of his "đ-" /ɗ/ sound... lateral (tho' not quite a voiced lateral flap ). Erminwin (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply