Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 7. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 7, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 7 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 7 you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 7 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Justinrleung/Archive 7, 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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Actually I have no f--king idea. When I initially moved the text to the top, I noticed that the hyphen also changed to a fullwidth hyphen, but didn't catch "成". I don't know if it's my browser or what. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
After thinking about it a bit I wonder if it was the Japanese IME that I have on all the time (姓(sei)→成(sei)), but I'm not aware of any keystrokes that would do such things. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
麦
Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
@Justinrleung: My opinion is, I think by adding it as a variant, It can be shown that this glyph is not a product of a spelling reform. It is not used in modern traditional Chinese, so a label obsolete may be used aside. Dokurrat (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Dokurrat: Many glyphs were not really a product of a spelling reform, like 从 and 个. I think we can explain it in the glyph origin section. Wouldn't labelling it obsolete make it even more confusing? It's not obsolete since it's used in simplified Chinese and some people who write traditional Chinese also use it as a shorthand. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }03:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Dokurrat: We could, but the symbol should have a tooltip explaining what it represents. We could also maybe kill two birds with one stone and include another symbol to indicate that the simplified character is not in Zibiao. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }07:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's a real misspelling because it's mostly a product of Unicode. Many people are unaware of the two different codepoints. 胐 and 朏 are essentially the same graphically. A more obvious example is 二 and 𠄞; they are graphically identical. In fact, Hanyu Da Zidian treats them as the same character with two different pronunciations. I would not say 二 is a variant of 𠄞 or 上. @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, what's your take on this? — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }17:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm persuaded and think that a redirect suffices here (and in general, unless the variant Unicode form has other uses, e.g. 朏). I bet Suzukaze-c is going to say something along the lines of ...Wyang (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Justin ― Would you fancy becoming an admin? You have been around for quite some time, have impressive knowledge on the varieties of Chinese (and others), and have consistently been doing great work on creating, maintaining and patrolling Chinese entries and dealing with RFV/RFD/etc. It would be a mistake not to have you as admin. Wyang (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Because the Unicode G glyph (is this the way it is called?) of 膥 is not 未成肉, which caused me done such reaction. I've no idea whether it is a error made by Unicode or can be traced earlier. Dokurrat (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Dokurrat: I've got no idea why the G glyph has 末 instead of 未. The Unihan Database says that it comes from GB/T 15564-1995, which is a character set for Hong Kong characters. I'm pretty sure there's nothing special about it other than a mistake. See this discussion for more details. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }23:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I didn't say that I don't know. I know that it has no written from. For example, บะหมี่ (bamii, 面) บะจ่าง (bacaang, 粽) บะช่อ (bachor, ?) ซาลาเปา (saalaapao, ??包), there is no word for บะ (ba) ช่อ (chor) and ซาลา (saalaa). Equivalent characters of the same meaning also pronounce different: 肉 reads as nêg8 in Teochew against ba. (If I am correct.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Octahedron80: บะ is also written as 肉 (bhah4, as you can see in the entry). ช่อ is written as 脞 (per Thai Wikipedia). ซาลาเปา seems to be written as 沙拉包 per Google search results. That's why you can't be sure there's no written form. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }03:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Dokurrat I've only heard of ming4 wun4, the most common pronunciation, I believe; the Multi-function Chinese Character Database also says this is the recommended reading, and jyun4 is its variant. I'm unsure about jyun6. I'll see if I can find some more info from other sources. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }01:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: Thank you ! As for me, I only have see this word in written form but neither have I heard it nor have I spoken it, in Mandarin. But I have a wild guess that the Mandarin pronunciation ming2yuan4 is a very unpopular pronunciation, if not a only-seen-in-dictionary one... Dokurrat (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see you've discovered the problem with having more links crammed into the same space. Don't worry, you'll get used to it. I'll admit, though, that I still do that occasionally, myself, when my eyes are tired or my slow computer takes too much time to draw the page and things move at the last moment. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Dokurrat I don't have a strong opinion on this. It may be useful, but it will take a lot of effort to maintain, especially if we implement it and the Ministry of Education produces another edition of this in a few years' time... Wyang (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Wyang, Dokurrat: Ideally, we should include information like the info given at Japanese kanji entries (Grade n “Kyōiku” kanji, “Jinmeiyō” kanji, etc.), so for Chinese, that would mean Tongyong Guifan Hanzi Biao for PRC, List of Graphemes of Commonly-Used Chinese Characters for HK and Changyong Guozi Biaozhun Ziti Biao, Ci Changyong Guozi Biaozhun Ziti Biao and Hanyong Guozi Biaozhun Ziti Biao for ROC. I don't think this needs to be dealt with in multi-character entries. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }04:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to meddle, but I've been posting a request to add HSK levels to the respective entries. I have not received any reply, but I am still excited about the lexicographic improvement it would entail. I hope it can be done with some piece of code. I am willing to help as long as I can. Thanx --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Backinstadiums: I think the relevant editors have already seen your requests. You don't need to post everywhere. I'm not sure if we have the time right now to implement it. @Wyang, did you want to implement this? And we might want implement the other character lists as well. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }16:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't have the time to look into it; there is still a large backlog of recent changes to Chinese entries to be checked. Wyang (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Wyang How to descibe these characters? I am to edit Module:zh-see to add a new non_lemma_type. "extended simplified"? "leitui simplified"? Or sth else? Dokurrat (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. Does Cantonese have naan4 hing1 naan4 dai6 and naan6 hing1 naan6 dai6 to go with the two Mandarin readings? I also wonder if the two pronunciations should be split by etymology, and if the {{zh-forms}} should be duplicated to show different glosses and literal translations. --Dine2016 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think the etymology should be split to make it clearer; pronunciation 2 may have been inspired by the existing Pronunciation 1. Btw, I recently bumped into 漢學文典, an amazing website which has a much bigger collection of ancient texts than ctext. Wyang (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your Wishlist
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I agree that I don't have to be jūnì in the translation of zh-x. But I think I could still use "alcoholic drink" in definition of sense. What's your opinion about handling this sense? Dokurrat (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, I don't mean to push any of my ideas, I just want to know that, if I only want to describe a related entry as "abbreviation" but not "synonym", how should I format it? The reason I want to make this distinction is that, 化工 can mean 化學工業 and 化學工程 pretty much equally, with 化學工程 slightly more frequent, I believe; in such scenario, we can't just say 化工 is synonym of any either of the two; it's just an abbreviation. Labelling it as synonym is simply irresponsible to readers, especially Chinese learners. -- SzMithrandir (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
@SzMithrandir: It is a synonym, which doesn't mean it has to be used identically. 化工 is a synonym of both 化學工業 and 化學工程. If you want to emphasize that it's an abbreviation, we can put {{q|abbreviation}} in front. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }06:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid you're over-simplifying things. In my understanding, if A is synonym of both B and C, then B and C should be synonyms of each other as well. But obviously chemical engineering 化學工程 and chemical industry 化學工業 are not synonyms; how are you gonna rationalize that? As you suggested, just now I looked up Wiktionary:Entry layout; indeed, "abbreviation" is not designated. But that's not an excuse for labelling fake synonyms. Could we use instead "Related terms"? Or maybe just avoid using any sections, and put (abbrev.) 化工 in the definition directly? -- SzMithrandir (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
@SzMithrandir: I'm not oversimplifying. Synonyms do not have to be completely interchangeable; it's not like "=" in math. If A is a synonym of B and C, it just means A can mean the same thing as B and A can mean the same thing as C, but B doesn't have to mean the same thing as C because A could have more than one meaning. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }07:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oh. Well, I don't think Edbchinese.hk listed 肴 as a variant of 餚; I think Edbchinese.hk left 肴 undefined. (Which gives me an impression that as if 肴 is more or less obsolete.) Dokurrat (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply