. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
| This is an archive page that has been kept for historical purposes. The conversations on this page are no longer live.
|
Why do you keep reverting my edits? Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: Because they're not right. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 05:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Well, go back and look at an older revision and see who's right. Johnny Shiz (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: I'm not getting what you're getting at. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 06:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Justinrleung: Go back to an earlier revision of this, and see if it says that its a variant of 草. Johnny Shiz (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: Earlier revisions are earlier because they've been changed- more often than not because they weren't as good as what replaced them, or because they were just wrong. Earlier revisions aren't lost ancient wisdom, they're just earlier revisions. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
This is an old version of the page for 壽. It was revised because the etymology couldn't be sourced. Can you please try to see if you can find a source for the 1st one? Johnny Shiz (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: The old etymology doesn't make much sense; the new etymology makes more sense. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Can you please attempt to search for the glyph origin for this character? Johnny Shiz (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I still kinda don't understand. How can this be a variant of 草 if it were made much earlier than 草? (skepticism) I think it is an ancient or obsolete form. Johnny Shiz (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, it should probably be an ancient form. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 13:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
乒乓𠀗𠀖𠀫𠀪 Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Also can you Google Translate what "khệnh khạng" means in English? I'm in China now, and Google is blocked there. Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Haha... I don't speak Vietnamese, so I can't be sure what khệnh khạng means. This dictionary says it means slowly. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 00:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- You still haven't answered my question yet. What is this? Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
This ] is from the simplified version of 兒, 儿. But Bopomofo is mainly used in Taiwan, and traditional characters are mainly used in Taiwan. (as well as HK, and Macau). But 儿 has other senses. My questions are this:
- 1) Is ㄦ derived from 儿 as a simplified character, or 儿 from another sense?
- 2) If it is derived from 儿 as another sense, then which sense?
- 3) If it is derived from 儿 as a simplified character, then why do you think that Taiwan would even venture into the realm of simplification? Simplified characters are banned in Taiwan government documents.
Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: Bopomofo was introduced in the 1910s, when China was still the ROC, when simplified characters were not really a huge concern. In fact, the Nationalist party started the discussion on simplified characters in the 1930s. It is quite possible that it is taken directly from 儿, which was probably already a common variant of 兒 at that time. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 04:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
On this page, it says that it was derived from 卩 which was an ancient form of 節. But ㄗ represents "z" in Bopomofo, and 卩 and 節 are pronounced "jié". The page addresses this, saying that they were formerly pronounced zié, but that seems extremely unlikely to me. Is that true? If not, please edit the page and see if you can find out why "j" becomes "z" here. Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: Bopomofo was first used to represent the sounds of Old National Pronunciation, where 節 was pronounced as ㄗㄧㄝ (zie, entering tone). — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 04:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
This bopomofo has 𠫓 as its basis. On the Wikipedia page, it says the origin of 𠫓 is a pictogram of an upside-down baby (子). On the Wiktionary page of ㄊ, it says that 𠫓 is an ancient variant of 突. 𠫓 doesn't have an article yet, and I want to create one, however I don't know which sense to use. I think it's possible for both senses to be correct. What do you think? Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: Please take a look at w:Talk:Bopomofo#Etymology of ㄊ. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 04:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Did this character exist before the simplification? Cause its traditional form, 號's glyph origin lists 号 as a phonetic and 虎 as a semantic. Is the glyph origin correct? If it is, then I need to know what 号 meant before the simplification. If it isn't, then I need to know the correct glyph origin. Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
(Links added for the quotes)
Wikipedia: "From 𠃉, archaic variant of 鳦 yǐ or 乚 yà (乚 is yǐn according to other sources)"
Wiktionary: "Derived from 𠃑, an ancient form of 隱 (Mandarin: yǐn)"
Just curious, is 乚 somehow related to 隱?
Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
How do I get it to say "..which is in turn a variant form of..."? Johnny Shiz (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: If you redirect (with
{{zh-see|(something)|s}}) to a page with {{zh-see|(something else)|v}}. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 05:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
What are THESE used for? Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: Just read the file and you'll know. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 05:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
What does 𠄑𠄍 mean? Go check on zdic and help me translate the entry. If that fails, try somewhere else. You know Chinese better than me. Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
They're variants of each other. How legit. Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
二叠字 like 林, 三叠字 like 晶, even 四叠字 like 叕, but 五叠字 like 𠂹? Whoa. Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- It's a variant of 垂. Johnny Shiz (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Look at etymology 3 Johnny Shiz (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC) (PS have you read my other posts here?)Reply
Here's one more. Wyang (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Wyang Haha...
- @Johnny Shiz you've gotta learn to be a tiny bit more considerate of others. I can't be up all night answering your questions. I know you're really curious, but you need to control yourself a bit. It's quite rude of you to have removed Wyang's post here; you can't just remove other people's comments that may be pointing out your faults. It's okay to make mistakes and you don't need to hide it, but you've gotta learn from them. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 13:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Justinrleung I was removing spam. Isn't that good? Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: I don't think Wyang was spamming compared to what you're doing, if you know what I mean. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 21:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Justinrleung: Sorry, I didn't know that you'd be triggered by removing that post, just trying to make good faith edits here. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: I'm sorry if I have assumed anything. I wasn't that irritated that you removed the post, but more concerned about the flood of questions, which is honestly quite overwhelming. I assume the questions are asked in good faith. I'm not pushing you away from asking questions, but there are better ways to do so. I'm not the only editor here. The questions should be asked at their appropriate places, e.g. WT:TR and WT:ES. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 23:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- An important rule of wiki etiquette: don't mess with other people's comments on talk pages, especially if you don't know the context- Wyang is a veteran editor, and was making a joke. Also, remember that everyone here is a volunteer, doing this in their spare time. A few questions are welcome. A lot of questions take too much time away from doing other things. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Hmm, perhaps I shouldn't be making jokes... Wyang (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
This is not listed as a variant of 草 in the 教育部异体字字典. http://dict2.variants.moe.edu.tw/variants/rbt/word_attribute.rbt?quote_code=QzAwODkx Johnny Shiz (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Update: Same with 卩.Reply
- @Johnny Shiz: We don't have to follow that particular dictionary, though it is a great resource. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 13:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think this user is making strange edits, especially to Module:zh-see. Could you check them? (especially because it seems to be the same person who was reverted at 裏 multiple times...) —suzukaze (t・c) 01:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I reverted the zh-see edits and everything that used them. There's no explanation of what an "appendix word" is, and how it's different from a variant. It's completely irresponsible to add things to entries that no one will be able to understand, and without consulting the community about it. I can't read the character variant dictionary that they linked to, so I don't know if it has an appendix. Even if there is, a variant is a variant regardless of where it's listed. My guess is a well-meaning but wrong-headed "bright idea" by someone whose level of English comprehension isn't high enough to understand what Wiktionary is doing rather than merely being able to reverse-engineer it.
- I don't know Chinese well enough to tell whether their other edits have any merit or even whether there may be something to their ideas, if introduced properly- but that part was obviously wrong, so I reverted it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Chuck Entz, Suzukaze-c Their zh-see edits are definitely wrong. This user is holding the MoE Dictionary of Variants like a Bible. The dictionary does have an appendix, but they're just more variants, but probably identified with less certainty. We have no need to mirror that dictionary. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 05:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Oh dear. I think they've been editing under other IP addresses too. Some of these also geolocate to Shandong as well. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I was wondering if you could complete this entry. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Suzukaze-c: I've added the translation. I'm just not sure about 著 (which seems to be 就) and 塊 (which seems to be used as 佇). — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 05:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply