User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 5

I'm curious: why add furigana here? Furigana are only useful in a JA context. Including them in a ZH→EN entry seems mistaken. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr: I don't know if it's especially useful in a ZH→EN context, but I don't see what's wrong with it. We also have {{ja-r}} in {{wasei kango}} and {{CJKV}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• As far as what's wrong with furigana, my concern is that it's potentially confusing in non-JA contexts. For users unfamiliar with Japanese writing customs, the furigana are wholly superfluous; they add nothing useful. Such users might even mistakenly view the furigana as part of the term's spelling. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  @Eirikr: Ah, I see what you mean. I've been changing them up to {{ja-r}} all this time. I guess we'll have to go back and remove the furigana that I've been adding. Do you think we'll have to remove furigana from {{wasei kango}} and {{CJKV}} then? Pinging @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Hongthay to see what they think. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  I don't really care. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  I see absolutely no problem in using furigana when Japanese terms are used, including non-Japanese entries. The argument is the same as using stresses on eg Russian terms or Arabic vocalisation. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Anatoli, except stresses are meaningful to English readers (our target audience), and Arabic vocalisation is actually part of the term, and could be considered an alternative spelling. Furigana are not part of the term, are not part of the spelling, and have no meaning to readers without Japanese knowledge.

  (FWIW, I'm looking at this purely from a usability standpoint.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Arabic and Hebrew vowel points only have meanings to learners and speakers, they are not part of the terms. The same is with stress marks. So, اَلْيَابَان (al-yābān) is not the Arabic spelling, اليابان is. By the same logic, readers may get confused that you need to write a stress mark in Япо́ния (Japónija). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Arabic and Hebrew vowels are not part of the lemma spellings, but they are definitely part of the terms. Our own Arabic entries seem to indicate vowels in the term renderings within the body of the page. كتاب in the lemmatized URL spelling is shown in the page headword as كِتَاب (kitāb) with the vowels marked. However, no JA dictionary anywhere treats furigana as part of the headwords.

  Even then, that's still within the context of the entries in the respective languages. Outside of AR entries, it may make sense to omit the vowel marks. Outside of JA entries, I strongly believe that furigana (in addition to romaji) add negligible value for JA-aware readers, and add negative value for non-JA-aware readers. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  I'm of a similar opinion to Anatoli. Japanese learners are often more familiar with kana than they are with kanji, and furigana is a good tool to translate something (kanji) the reader is unfamiliar with into something more familiar, and the romaji is to check that one's knowledge of kana is solid and / or for people who do not know kana. Since the romaji can be automatically generated from kana, there is a benefit of yielding double outputs with a single transcription input, plus it is more aesthetic than romaji alone. Of course, I don't edit Japanese much and I'm happy if others decide romaji alone is sufficient and preferred. Wyang (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, I also think that kana should be mandatory in translations of kanji terms. Users will be exposed to both and kana is often an alternative spelling of the kanji term. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • In *JA* entries, I generally agree with both Wyang's and Anatoli's comments here. In *non-JA* entries, I strongly disagree: we cannot assume that readers are Japanese learners, or even potential Japanese learners, and thus the furigana are superfluous visual noise. Non-JA entries are the wrong context for this kind of metadata. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Prefer the |tr= method, at most. Simpler. Kana already at Ja section. Hongthay (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

關於 module:nan-pron(2017/3/16 0:18 UTC+8 修正) 根據w:zh:洪惟仁的論文閩南語入字頭(日母)的音變潮流 pp.4-5，白話字的 j 在泉州、漳州以及台灣部份地區都有變化。連台灣教育部的辭典也記載此種分佈 eg.http://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/cuankho.jsp?no=0853 。考量辭典所呈現的方言差，應該盡量描繪當地方言特色，所以參考該論文，把念 /l/ 、/z/以及把「ji.*」 (這裡以 regexp 表示) 唸成 gi.* 的區域明示出來，標注子音的方言差。 -- Yoxem (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Yoxem 我當然明白這種方言差啦，可是我們經常編輯閩南語的老早已經決定不會用 POJ 的 j 來代表廈門、泉州、台北等的 和台中的 ，而是跟《臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典》一樣，用 j 代表 ，l 代表 ，g 代表 。 — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Yoxem 至於 跟 的分別，應該可以根據洪惟仁的論文稍微改一改，不用加那麼多的code。— justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

了解，原來你們是用這種像台羅特色的標音方法。雖然以前廈門話寫的白話字聖經，廈門人還是會把書上的 jī 念成 lī 吧。不過 /dz/ 和　/z/ 的區分倒是可以用 j_as_z_locations = {"Kaohsiung",.....} 來區分（可參考該論文的地圖，仍區分 dz 和 z 的音位變體）。

且說 lua 應該沒有類似 if A in one_array then... 這樣的語法，可能還是需要用 for item in loc_array do if location = item 這樣的語法來寫。--Yoxem (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Yoxem 也不算是台羅特色的標音方法啦，Tw-Ch台文中文辭典雖然用白話字，卻有時會用 l 啊。現在廈門市區（以思明區為準）基本上 j 併入 l 了，所以我們沒有必要用 j 來代表今音 。還有，看來你的code有error，我已經把它改了。— justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

另外，漳州雖然大部分地區都是用 ，但是我們主要根據的《閩南方言大字典》，裏面的漳州音應該是以薌城區為準，所以根據洪惟仁還是用 的。— justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

那我把 Zhangzhou 移除自 j_as_z_locations 集合了，順便修正下 bug，試試看有無問題吧。--Yoxem (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Yoxem 現在是沒有bug，可是跟我剛才改的又什麼差別呢？現在的code更長，有需要嗎？ — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

把高雄市區旁邊的鳳山（高雄市中心無採集方言，鄰近的小港的 g 是少數，故取這一個鄰近市中心的方言點）使用的的 z 音位變體加進去（會吐出IPA的方言，建議用該地的現存發音）。--Yoxem (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Yoxem 可是一直來的做法就是我改的方法，是因為那個 table 應該是 POJ 對應 IPA，而 z 不是 POJ，所以不應該在那個 table 裏面。你可以參考一下 eⁿ 和 eng 的方言差是怎麼處理的。— justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is 肅清 formatted correctly?--Prisencolin (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Prisencolin It looks quite off:

• Definition lines should be using numbered lists (#) instead of unordered lists (*).
• There should never be translations in non-English entries. (Why would there even be Chinese translations under Chinese? You're basically saying 肅清 = 肅清, which is pretty obvious.)
• The specific purge should be a proper noun.
• You need to put the part of speech in {{zh-pron}}.

Look at my edit to see what I mean. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

你好，路明！我已經編輯維基詞典近一年了。但是，我還有其他的事情要做，並決定離職。因為你是我的朋友，我可以寫這個信息而不被騷擾。告別，這對我而言是一次很好的經驗。— AWESOME meeos ！ * () 22:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Awesomemeeos, for real? I'm gonna be missing you. (Or is this just an April Fool's joke?) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

是的，這是愚人節的笑話。你怎麼猜了？哦，我的上帝！笑笑笑笑笑笑笑笑……— AWESOME meeos ！ * () 05:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Awesomemeeos, 哈哈，可能我太了解你了！ — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's included as one word in and , but I also agree with your analysis. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c: I guess it could be a phrase, but it seems kinda SOP. @Wyang, Kc kennylau, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Justinrleung, could you demonstrate that it is SOP? --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: 點算 (what should one do) + 好 (to be good; settled). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have no comments then. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

路明，我只想先祝福你，快乐的复活节。我希望你有好休息又好開心！ — AWESOME meeos ！ * () 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Awesomemeeos 我也祝你復活節快樂！耶穌的復活讓我有永生的盼望 :D — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Could you look at these? It seems different sources call them variants of each other. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c: It seems like 玨 is the standard in Taiwan (Guoyu Cidian, Cross Straits, Dictionary of Variant Characters) and 珏 is the standard in mainland China (Cross Straits, Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, Ziyuan). Interestingly, Hanyu Da Zidian considers 玨 to be the main form (but that might be because it considers traditional forms “standard”). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just thought you might want to look at this article since it's only used in Cantonese and has kind of non-standard readings. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Bumm13: It's not just used in Cantonese. Suzukaze-c has already dealt with it mostly. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Lua error in Module:nan-pron at line 761: Cannot recognise uaiⁿ." —suzukaze (t・c) 03:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Darn, thank you. —suzukaze (t・c) 03:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c: No worries! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

So what's the difference between Ruzhen and Nuzhen exactly?--Prisencolin (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Prisencolin I'm not sure what you're asking. All the sources I looked at, other than Chinese Wikipedia, say it's pronounced as Nǚzhēn. Chinese Wikipedia doesn't have a source for the pronunciation, so it may be unreliable. @Wyang, Tooironic, Atitarev, any idea if Rǔzhēn is a valid alternative pronunciation? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have trouble verifying this pronunciation, but Ru3 zhen1 is definitely what you would expect that would correspond to a j- in other languages (Jurchen etc.). Wyang (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I can't find Rǔzhēn. BTW, Pleco gives the definition as "Nüzhen (Nuchen)...". 女 has the reading rǔ when it's used as 汝. I couldn't find 汝真 either.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Wyang, Atitarev, this article seems to support Rǔzhēn. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great find, although unfortunately it doesn't seem to be citable. These articles look like they may be helpful in corroborating the pronunciation, especially the first one which lists some authors with similar views. Wyang (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good job. I won't mind if Rǔzhēn is added. A note that this can't be confirmed with certainty would be helpful. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

What is 疤瘌流星的? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: See Guoyu Cidian. I'm not sure if we should have that 的. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps not. It doesn't seem to be attested anywhere else. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's dialectal. Hanyu Da Cidian also has it (without 的) and cites the same passage. I'm not sure if we can find any more attestation. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hanyu Da Cidian listed 陽夏 under 舉下切 (jiǎ). The dict says it is a 古縣名。

I also found 夏 in 洪武正韻牋 (Ytenx.org "夏") and I see 陽夏 mentioned there, but I don't know how to read a rhime book so I'm not sure if 夏 is listed under 賈 small-rhime.

😁 Dokurrat (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh, You reverted b4 I sent this 😂 Then just ignore this. Dokurrat (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Dokurrat: I should have checked before reverting. I've changed up the definitions. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello here, it's me, Johnny Shiz. Do you happen to know the etymology behind 烧卖/燒賣? Cause "烧/燒" means "fried" and "卖/賣" means "sell", which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I also heard that there is another form called 烧麦/燒麥 (麦/麥 means wheat, which makes more sense), but the page says it's the incorrect form. Help me. Also do you visit the etymology scriptorium frequently? Cause I really should be posting these questions in there, but I figured you would have a higher chance of seeing this here.Johnny Shiz (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Johnny Shiz: welcome back! Chinese Wikipedia has several theories on the name, but there doesn't seem to be a reliable source to back them up. I've added a request at 燒賣 using {{rfe}}. 燒麥 is not incorrect, but a less common alternative form (and it doesn't make sense with respect to the Cantonese pronunciation). I have WT:ES on my watchlist, so feel free to ask questions there. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just curious, what Chinese dictionary do you use? I use Xinhua Zidian (Chinese to English), Xiandai Zidian, and Xiandai Cidian. Johnny Shiz (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Johnny Shiz: There are lots that I use for single characters and Mandarin, but the main ones are:

• Guoyu Cidian (重編國語辭典修訂版)
• Cross Straits Dictionary (中華語文大辭典)
• Hanyu Da Zidian and Hanyu Da Cidian (available at 国学大师)

Hope this helps! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why does Etymology 1 have Mandarin pronunciation? Its only definitions are Cantonese only. Johnny Shiz (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Johnny Shiz: They are Mandarin pronunciations inferred from the Cantonese. I think it's ok to keep them for single character entries. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Do you happen to know the pronunciation of this character in dialects, particularly Cantonese and Min Nan? BTW, I created this page.Johnny Shiz (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Johnny Shiz: It's highly unlikely to have dialectal pronunciations for such rare characters. They could probably be predicted from the fanqie (彌耶切; probably me4 in Cantonese, but don't put this in the entry), but I don't think there's any actual source that would have the pronunciations. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

How much does this link describe Richard Sears's etymology site? Johnny Shiz (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Johnny Shiz Some of Richard Sears's website is ok, but some of it is not reliable. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

A definition section says this character's definition is equivalent to 從. However, this has 6 pronunciations (bāo, bō, zōng, cōng, cóng, and zòng). None of the pronunciations were assigned with specific senses. However, 從 only has cóng, zòng, cōng, and zōng. They are assigned with specific definitions and split into 5 different "pronunciations". I have a few questions.

1) Are all senses of 𠚪 equivalent to 從? Or do some of them, particularily bāo and bō, mean something else?

2) If Q1 is "no", do all of the pronunciations of 𠚪 have identical definitions?

3) Is 𠚪 a variant, obsolete, or archaic form of 從?

4) Are 𠚪 and 从 (simplified version of 從) graphically related?

5) Does 從 have (a) "pronunciation(s)" pronounced bāo and/or bō?

I also put 𠚪 under zh-forms for 從 under "alt. forms". But I am confused. Please help me! Johnny Shiz (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Johnny Shiz: I've fixed the entry. In addition to being an ancient form of 從, it may also be an ancient form of 剝 (according to 字彙補 and Kangxi). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I notice a lot that many characters have two or more traditional forms, sometimes even in the same sense, like 里，台，复，真，etc. Johnny Shiz (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Johnny Shiz: Yup, that happens. Is there anything wrong with that? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I also notice that after the simplification, very few of these remained. Do you know any examples? Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Johnny Shiz Not quite sure what you mean. If I understand you correctly, there are more than one traditional form for each simplified form because simplification is not just simplification of individual characters but a standardization of variants. 里 replaced 裡/裏 (as well as being used for its original use); 台 replaced 臺/台, 檯/枱/台 and 颱 (as well as being used for its original use). The only instance I'm aware of where simplified Chinese has two forms for one traditional form is 著/着, depending on the standard. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is this related to the character with three 力 in any way besides pronunciation? Johnny Shiz (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Johnny Shiz: I don't see any connection between 刕 and 劦 except its shape. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply