User talk:MuDavid

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• Community Portal
• Entry layout explained
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! — Vildricianus 16:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hallo daar, please note that for words that are both masculine and feminine (which occurs often in Dutch), there is {{m|f}}, to be used instead of {{m}} and/or {{f}}. H. (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, fantastisch. I'll start using it from now on. Dank je voor het hint. David 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

23:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite confused. My used name is MuDavid, not David... MuDavid (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Might I request that you look at this category? Entries are in this category because they have been tagged with {{attention}}. AFAIK most of them are in there simply because the entry's creator was unsure of the quality/accuracy of the entry, not because of glaring issues that require a lot of work to fix. There's a lot of entries but checking even a handful once in a while would help reduce the number. —suzukaze (t・c) 02:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

So much to do… Anyway, there's many entries there of which I don't see where attention is needed. Like, what's wrong with cà chua? MuDavid (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Probably nothing, which is why {{attention}} needs to be removed from them. Like I said, the entry's creator was being really cautious and wanted someone else to look at it, but no one else ever did. —suzukaze (t・c) 03:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

If only said creator had left a note somewhere explaining their intention. I mean, they might have spotted some subtle issue that I'm too obtuse to see. MuDavid (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maybe set for life? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Seems like it, thanks! MuDavid (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great work on the Catalan entries! I really appreciate the citations. I just wanted to say that if you create an entry for a verb, please add it to User:DTLHS/catalan bot requests so the forms can be created by bot. Ultimateria (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I find it helps me remember my vocabulary. :-) Thanks for the hint! Does it also work for nouns and adjectives? MuDavid (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I believe so, but I've never tried it so I'm not sure. @DTLHS? Ultimateria (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

No it does not. DTLHS (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

But MediaWiki:Gadget-AcceleratedFormCreation.js/documentation aka ACCEL works. --XY3999 (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for spotting that. There's a template to add words to the rhymes page that automatically adds the rhyme template in the pronunciation section and credits the edit to whoever added the link. I thought it had been fixed so it stopped doing that, but apparently not. I'll have to keep an eye on it in the future. embryomystic (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

If possible, can you make some edits at Template:Han compound so as to facilitate the creation for entries of phonetic + phonetic Nôm characters such as 𢀨, 𢀥, 𪬪, etc. I am quite bad at more technical stuff like this, so I would be thankful if someone can help. PhanAnh123 (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking at the template, and I'm not sure I could modify it without breaking it. I think it'd be easier to create a new template from scratch with only the functionality necessary for Nôm characters. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you can ask around on the talk page; the experts who coded the template can probably help you better. Otherwise you could describe what functionality you’d like a specialized Nôm template to have and I’ll see if I can find some time. I was under the impression that Nôm characters have many types that do not fall under the lục thư classification of Chinese characters. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't know it already had that category, I thought it was a bare quote. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your edit to Module:sw-conj has caused module errors in several templates. While it's true that none of them are transcluded anywhere, there's already too much random stuff in Cat:E. Having more clutter there makes it harder for others to spot the bad results of their own module edits. Please fix them. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I nominated them for deletion. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

FYI, the Swahili "infixes" that you've been adding are actually prefixes. Just a heads-up so you know what I'm doing. Yes, I know in Bantuist lit they're generally called "infixes", but that's in-house jargon not shared by the rest of the world. kwami (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

We discussed this and concluded that Wiktionary shares this “in-house jargon”. Could you please join the discussion rather than doing unilateral mass reverts/edits? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

There was no such conclusion. The only consensus for change would appear to use two hyphens, which BTW I would support; if anything, it appears that opinion is against use of 'infix'. Certainly you'd want consensus for the change before you start making unilateral mass changes/edits! kwami (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

WTF? Benwing2 explicitly speaks out against calling them prefixes without even being asked, Al-Muqanna says that “The term in this case is infix” and that changing the header to prefix is “simply ignoring how the term's been defined for in-house use”, and -sche agrees with Al-Muqanna on the point. How is that not consensus? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MuDavid, Kwamikagami I think 'infix' is OK. Kwami, please do join the discussion in BP if you have concerns. Benwing2 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

MuDavid, you misunderstood just about everything that was said there. No-one said that the Bantu prefixes were infixes. kwami (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just noting that this isn't the first situation where Kwami has tried to unilaterally implement his narrow interpretation of something without or against consensus (see also the attempted removals of syllable breaks). It's an unhelpful habit, because ideally we'd discuss and find consensus on what part of speech to call these (and there may be good arguments for considering something to be a suffix even if it is conventionally notated with hyphens on both sides and other things follow it; certainly Navajo seems to have no problem calling e.g. -ba a prefix despite where the hyphen is), and then we'd implement whatever we find consensus for, but when one editor is trying to enforce their interpretation without regard for the discussion, the temptation is to just roll back that user's edits until and unless the discussion actually finds consensus for them. - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

So we should roll back MuDavid's edits because there's an ongoing discussion and they don't have consensus for them? kwami (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Kwami, you’re tiring. The discussion had run its course, consensus was that we can call them infixes (no-one said they are infixes, what they are is auxiliary verbs and pronouns that turned clitics), then I made my edits. You were late to the party, and just stormed in and did your thing, and then joined the discussion while refusing to understand what was actually said.

It’s sad when someone who could be so productive instead wastes everybody’s energy on trifles. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

There was no such consensus. The discussion was on whether we should use hyphens on both sides, which you apparently misread as meaning "infix". kwami (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Are you trolling are can’t you read English? The title was on whether whether we should use hyphens on both sides, yeah. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you show me how to make RFD request? I can't figure how it works. Duchuyfootball (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I figured it out. Thank you. Duchuyfootball (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It’s better if you put the {{rfd|vi|reason}} on the page first, and then you just click on the plus sign to create the new section in the RfD page with link to the RfD template and all. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed your picture of Đa vịt in chữ Nôm. I just wanted to let you know that historically in chữ Nôm Catholic texts, Đa-vít (David) was transliterated as 耶曰.

Lachy70 (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello David! I'm currently interested in expanding the cardinal box of the Vietnamese cardinal number entries by incorporating chữ Nôm and chữ Hán given in the table under the section "Basic figures" of the Wikipedia article Vietnamese numerals. But I'm not sure if it should be done by using Template:number box (see the Korean entry 하나 (hana) as an example) or by creating a new template similar to Template:Chinese-numbers which is used for the Chinese cardinal numbers (see 四 (sì) under "See also" as an example}}. ChemPro (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, the Korean box is much nicer, less crowded. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any suggestions on whom I could ask for technical assisstance in order to create Module:number list/data/vi? Creating modules is not really in my field of expertise. --ChemPro (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure. Maybe you can ask for assistance on the Module Talk:number list page or in the grease pit? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll check them out. Thanks! --ChemPro (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with your change to zaka, which changes "quiver" to "tithe". I'm not exactly sure what needs to happen. The entry currently says (in ety 2) that zaka is an alternative form of zakati, which means zakat or almsgiving. I assume this is similar to "tithe". It seems that zakati actually isn't as common as zaka.

So my suggestion:

1. Ety 1 of zaka: sense 1) zakat/almsgiving. sense 2) tithe
2. Convert zakati to an alt form of zaka
3. Ety 2 of zaka: keep "quiver" but mark is as "rfv-sense". I do see the "quiver" sense mentioned in Baldi but in none of the other dictionaries I checked.

I don't have time to investigate this more in the near future (e.g. how common zakati vs zaka is). Maybe you have time? We should probably keep a Swahili TODO list somewhere. I do have some other items in a local file... tbm (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see now. What I meant was, apparently, zakati. (I didn’t know it’s called zakat in English, so I went with tithe.) I didn’t find the sense of arrow quiver in Tuki, and online all I found was related to the zakat. In this case I guess the “correct” procedure is to revert to quiver, launch a request for verification, wait for a month (and no-one will respond unless we do), and delete the quiver sense. Anyway, I certainly couldn’t find any evidence of mazakati as the plural. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello MuDavid, sorry for not reading {{autocat}}'s documentation carefully, your edit really have me rethink of what I'd done. Its documentation specifically mentions in explicit terms that all categories should now be handled by the template, which I previously don't consider it to be included, that is because it wrote that terms in the category should have {{af}} (which to my knowledge it's also included in other "adapted borrowings" pages by default). I suppose that it just isn't in line with the terms categorized since Vietnamese shouldn't have affixed terms, or have little of them.

I still want to change the default content of the category, so I went around a bit and found out that Module:category tree/poscatboiler/data/lang-specific/vi should be changing the {{autocat}} in Vietnamese categories. Can modifying its code change the content? Or am I heading to the wrong place? Kindly thanks for any help. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The requirement of an affix to be an "adapted borrowing" may be a quirk of Wiktionary. You can ask in the Beer Parlour to make sure. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

i noticed you made an edition on the page phụ with a description that "not a word". I assume you was saying that phụ (婦) in "phụ nữ" is not a different word from phụ (父) in "phụ thân". That's not true. They are different words and the examples are necessary. So I reverted. If you have something to say with me, leave a message and tag me here. Thanks. Yang Deming (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, I’m not saying it is “not a different word”, I’m saying it’s not a word, period. Phụ nữ is a word, phu phụ is a word, phụ on its own is not. And “phu phụ tương kính như tân” is not Vietnamese but Chinese in Vietnamese transliteration. Please read this section on the difference between Chinese and Vietnamese. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

If phụ (婦) is not a word, what is it in your understanding?

And according to your knowledge, what is the definition of word ? So that we can effectively discuss further. Remember there is no consensus among linguists on its definition and numerous attempts to find specific criteria of the concept remain controversial (Bussmann, Hadumod, 1998).

Here I refute your points.

phu phụ is a word and phụ (presumably you meant 婦) on its own is not a word. So is phu on its own a word ? If it's not, why is there a page of phu in the sense of husband ? Yang Deming (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Phụ in the meaning of "help" or "secondary" is a word. Phụ as part of phụ nữ or phu phụ is half a word. Phụ on its own never ever means woman or wife in Vietamese. And there is no page phu "in the sense of husband". The only senses given for phu are "laborer" and "Sino-Vietnamese reading of 夫". MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

While I and you are having a divergence in defining a word and whether or not adding phụ (婦) as a Sino-Vietnamese reading on the page phụ, you changed it to your previous version without waiting for me to reply. The last time I undid your edition because we didn't have a conversation at that point. Though now I can revert your action, I didn't. That somehow I politely show respect to you and your reasonings, but you didn't. Wiktionary may not restrict the revert of someone edition without gaining any consensus, but I expect it as a civil, democratic and courteous manner. Yang Deming (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Elementary politeness would be that you familiarize yourself with conventions before jumping into a collaborative project. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Have you got any idea how to do that? I searched around but nothing.

And what's with the Vietnamese Wikitionary, I opened the edit page and was so shocked (*crying emoji). They seem to go all-template mode over there. I wanted to write some content but afer what I've seen, not so sure anymore... Duchuyfootball (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Templates are created and edited like any other page. Mark that many templates here use Lua, which you can learn a bit here. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Duchuyfootball (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The gloss of uncommon label says that:

"A term or sense that is attested but not used commonly either in spoken or written language, but more commonly than rare terms. In comparison to a rare term, an uncommon term may be easy to find in a deliberate search, but is very unlikely to be encountered naturally..."

As for hoạt tự, the word is attested, but it is not used commonly: very unlikely to be encountered naturally. That makes it an uncommon word. This is my chain of thought. What do you think? Duchuyfootball (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

There’s been some discussion recently on Discord about exactly this. Quoting:

• Qwertygiy: For me to consider it "rare" it has to be in comparison to some other term used to express the same idea in the same register
• Theknightwho: It feels akin to labelling niche scientific terms as rare
• Theknightwho: When they may be very common within their specific field
• Theknightwho: "rare" as a label is useful when comparing it with other terms with the same characteristics
• Qwertygiy: it's not a useful label if the referent itself is what is rare

So, when Vietnamese people discuss movable type in Vietnamese, what would they call it? It may be unlikely to naturally encounter Vietnamese people discussing movable type in Vietnamese, but that does not in any way change the status of the word. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Um, so it's a lack of clear explanation of the label. I'll try to stop use labels like that from now on. Thanks. Duchuyfootball (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you take a quick look at the translations? One of the words you recently RFD-ed is linked to there. Ultimateria (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn’t check links to the variant spelling. Thanks for the reminder. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Also idle and sit around still link to ngồi không. Ultimateria (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I must’ve been asleep yesterday. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of entries that are traditional tone placements, which link to another (assumably non-traditional) tone placement. Should we move the content of the nontraditional to the traditional, because the latter is more common? Duchuyfootball (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which form is the lemma form depends on more than just commonness, and should be thoroughly discussed first. An important argument against is that the amount of work to switch to "traditional" would be gargantuan. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Who should we discuss this with? And can't we use bots to automate the process? Duchuyfootball (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

All Vietnamese editors, of course. I’m quite sure Mxn will be on your side, and then there’s PhanAnh123, Erminwin, HungKhanh0106, Billcipher123, and I’m certainly forgetting some. And as for bots, can *you* use a bot to automate it? You can’t just go around demanding others do it for you. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary talk:About Vietnamese would be a good place to discuss this. I'd prefer that we make a decision based on correctness or usefulness rather than convenience. It's a wiki, after all. I'd be willing to revive Tildebot to implement a change in this direction, but it would be far more delicate than moving pages around, since many of the affected entries are combined with other languages, and inbound links would need to change as well. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you please take a look at this Vietnamese entry? It a bit of a mess. Ultimateria (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Vietnamese Nôm is very much a mess. I reverted the messy additions. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I saw the guidelines writing that a discussion that had sat for a month without any citation could be closed. And there's already an RFV for Hà Lan sitting for 4 months without much attention, can it be closed? HungKhanh0106 (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The one month is no hard rule. It should be at least a month, but for Vietnamese entries it often takes much longer before anyone even tries attestation, so I usually let them linger for a while longer, but it depends. If you think it won’t ever be attested, go ahead and close the discussion. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will go ahead and RFV-fail it. I don't believe there is such a sense. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello MuDavid,

Recently, I am confused to see you undoing all changes I made to duyên, which I take as disagreeing with all points (in edit summary that I made) and misunderstanding the situation as a whole.

I would firstly argue that the first 2 senses should be merged together because the 1st sense doesn't really much appear in Vietnamese, also sense 3 would be confusing when there are two distinct phenomena - "tact" and "charm/grace", which I should be distinguished from each other. Quotations are also edited, please at least please check my translations/additions before reverting those back. For examples, I somewhat agree with the point that some should be placed at their appropriate pages (compound words), but they clearly do illustrate usage (e.g. duyên âm which is kept) so some could be reasonably kept. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• What you call the first sense (“spiritual thread that binds people, animals, and things that are fated to come together”) is super common, as I mentioned in an edit summary. Just this week my wife used it in the context of buying real estate.
• “Tact” and “charm/grace” are indeed different phenomena, but nowhere in your edits do I see you separating them out. If you were to simply remove the gloss “tact”, I’d have no problem with that, but that is not what you did.
• “Duyên âm” is sum of parts, and so can be used in usage examples in both pages duyên and âm; “duyên dáng” and “vô duyên” are a reduplication and a Sino-Vietnamese compound respectively, and you cannot really say they contain “duyên” as a word — they contain “duyên” as a morpheme.
• I did see you edited the quotations, such as making the translations insufferably literal. Translations should be smooth enough that you can understand them without having to analyse the original.

Hope that clears up some of your confusion. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply, it really does clear up some of my confusion. I would agree to keep sense 1 ("spiritual thread etc.", which I agree is common, though I don't really much use it), but it should be cleared up of its definition/connotation (which is so occult I wouldn't think anyone except Vietnamese speakers understand). Specifically, it should be free of words such as "spiritual thread" (too informal and ambiguous) or "come together" (some animal or object or event couldn't walk or travel to some person).

For "tact" and "charm/grace", I in fact did try to separate them (I wonder if you're looking at older edits or just didn't take my newer edits as valid differentiation).

For duyên âm, duyên dáng and vô duyên, I initially took them as not inessential to put on the page. That's because they demonstrate how translating those words (and others) should not just religiously follow the definitions (e.g. "vô duyên" doesn't mean "uncharming", but more so "tactless"), and that's also the reason why I don't place them in their own respective pages.

And sorry for saying duyên as a word. Though I also know it's a morpheme before, I was lazy to be explicitly clear about its distinction.

For translations though, you are right that I'm trying to make them literal--conservatively literal (though I still tried to apply English grammar). I would say doing that would make people's impression of the word more variable and democratic, while they understand the implications native speakers would consider of the word.

Besides that, I didn't understand why did you remove the sense "cause; reason", which is present (for the morpheme) in two words. It could just be some oversight--or something else--but I won't mind if you give its reason, either subjective or rational. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

which is so occult I wouldn't think anyone except Vietnamese speakers understand You’re the only one saying the wording is hard to understand. Svartava had no problem with it at all when he featured it on FWotD.

some animal or object or event couldn't walk or travel to some person It isn’t necessary for both parties to travel to come together. This argument holds no water. If two animals, objects, or events cannot come together, then they obviously don’t have duyên with each other.

For "tact" and "charm/grace", I in fact did try to separate them Neither in your older edits nor in your newer edits do I see any trace of this “trying”.

"vô duyên" doesn't mean "uncharming", but more so "tactless" As I said before, vô duyên is a different word from duyên. They may share partial etymologies, but that’s all. Equating them is called etymological fallacy.

That's because they demonstrate how translating those words (and others) should not just religiously follow the definitions , and that's also the reason why I don't place them in their own respective pages. This sentence doesn’t make any sense. Try again. I would say doing that would make people's impression of the word more variable and democratic, This sentence doesn’t either. Tiếng Anh kém thì bác cứ viết bằng tiếng Việt đi.

while they understand the implications native speakers would consider of the word. I don’t see how the verbosity of

wasn't fated to love in her previous life. / Judging from that, some hope of her fulfilling her destiny of true love this life.

helps anyone understand anything, let alone the word duyên (which is the only thing that matters on that page).

Besides that, I didn't understand why did you remove the sense "cause; reason", which is present (for the morpheme) in two words. It could just be some oversight--or something else--but I won't mind if you give its reason, either subjective or rational. Because that is not the meaning of duyên. The part duyên in those words is just the reading of the Chinese character 緣 / 缘, which sometimes means “cause; reason” in Chinese. It has this meaning in Chinese, not in Vietnamese. The Vietnamese word duyên cớ is not duyên + cớ, but it is one word and should be treated as such.

Hope this helps.

BTW, you unilaterally changed quày quả from verb to adverb, without bringing any supporting evidence or even arguments. You shouldn’t do that either. The English Wiktionary is based on evidence, not on your own personal opinions. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your changes in quày quả when there are more quotes to prove that it's also a verb (outside adverb I originally expected, as there is only a singular quote from “Củi mục trôi về”, which I confirmed by searching up the 'net).

For "tact" and "charm/grace", I still hold the argument that I in fact did try to separate them ("manner of being tactful and lovable" vs "charm; grace") - though if I correctly understand you, this distinction might just be on the surface. You can differentiate them however you want, but that's my take there.

I also support your point of me nitpicking "come together" or "spiritual thread", but I still find the second sense ("fate to meet a romantic partner") to be inadequate - it does not convey the full meaning of the word. We could say that two people who came together to have duyên, but only if they truly desired to be in love. The first sense was not familiar to me, so I will need to find more examples for a clearer understanding. (I also noticed that Svartava has not commented on whether he understood the definitions or even anything of the Vietnamese language.)

Regarding vô duyên being labeled an etymological fallacy, I don’t see the "partial etymologies" you mentioned, as the original Chinese meanings do not include the "tactless" sense. The current etymology supports this. The example of "vô duyên" should reasonably be retained for illustrative purposes. There are other relevant examples being removed, which you didn't even mention. Take "duyên âm", for example, which was given the translation "karma from past lives that affect relationships" (different as compared to "link with someone in the underworld"). And there was "ăn nói có duyên" (synonymous with "nói năng có duyên") which got a rather clumsy translation ("to be charming when talking"), but you should get the idea (it's not "charmingly eloquent").

As for the translations, the current ones are quite radical compared to the word's senses. The quote coming from Truyện Kiều is not saying the girl being fated to be alone, she just doesn't have a lover who stays with her. Other translations have not been addressed, so I will still maintain my position here.

And finally, if the "cause; reason" sense stay removed, I would counter that countless other senses in many pages (labelled as "chiefly in compounds") be removed. They are also solely used in Sino-Vietnamese compounds. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@MuDavid: I know you could possibly not have much time for this wiki, but can you please consider replying to my message? You can say if you don't want to comment on this or anything. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It’s very hard to understand what you’re actually arguing. Like, “manner of being tactful and lovable” and “charm; grace” were on the same line. How on earth is that try to separate? What are you even talking about? What does manner of being tactful and lovable even mean?

As for the translations, the current ones are quite radical compared to the word's senses. Translations should be smooth enough to make sense, regardless of the “word's senses” (whatever that means). Translations that respect all the individual words almost never end up intelligible.

I would counter that countless other senses in many pages (labelled as "chiefly in compounds") be removed. That isn’t “counter” to anything. That’s exactly what needs to be done. Especially Fumiko Take had some strange ideas on dictionary-building, and it’ll be a lifetime before her messes have been cleaned up. Please don’t make it worse in the meantime.

— MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you on your first point of me not "trying to separate" the two phenomena of "tact" and "charm; grace", which I opine is a bad attempt at doing so when they are just direct translations of what definitions I was thinking about (e.g. in Vietnamese: đáng yêu -> lovable, khéo léo trong giao tiếp -> tactful). That is, though, I will still keep my opinion of separating the two phenomena, in whatever way you or other people like to (as is said on my previous post).

And as someone who has been translating articles over on Wikipedia, I do agree that word-by-word translations should be unintelligible to the English speaker, and I will still maintain my position (e.g. The quote coming from Truyện Kiều is not saying the girl being fated to be alone, she just doesn't have a lover who stays with her.) as you still do not address my example here, but other than that the rest should stay the same for the sake of agreement. (and still, you do not address such translations directly but rather focus on easier-to-debunk arguments)

And finally, sure, those Sino definitions could be wiped out if people want to. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I know that this is time-consuming and effort-wasting for you. And it wouldn't be happy if someone counters your reasoning (even for me), and even if I continue to argue, it is unreasonable for me to think that you would accept my proposals, so I would close this discussion. This is just a word in a whole big lexicon, after all. HungKhanh0106 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply