User talk:Nbarth/Archive 2013

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

See: Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium: 鮟

Hello Nils --

For some reason I was under the impression that you were no longer active, or I would have just asked you directly, but it seems I had you confused with someone else. As it is, I've started a query over at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#鮟_--_character_etymology about a kanji etym you added back in April 2011. You noted that 鮟 is a kokuji, but after some poking around, the only source I can find that says this is the JA WT entry at ja:鮟, and there, it's only in the cats, not in the body of the entry. Could you confirm this etym? TIA, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eiríkr,

Thanks for the note!

I’ve replied, moving the discussion to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium: 鮟, where we can continue discussion.

(Briefly, you’re correct that it is used in Chinese (as import from Japanese), and it is not generally considered a kokuji, so I’ve corrected (and elaborated) the entry – thanks for the prodding!)

I’m certainly still active! Not as active as previously, but seem to be running at about 100 edits/month (1,000+/year) these days; more on English etymologies and the like lately than Chinese characters though.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you Nils, that's great information! I appreciate your legwork on this. I've futzed with the etym at 鮟 to add in some more of the info from the WT:ES discussion; I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look and make sure I haven't gotten the wrong end of any sticks.  :) Cheers, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Changes looks great (sorry for omitting the script tags), thanks!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't suppose you have any info about where the source term ankō came from? 安康 just means something like "peaceful and healthy" or is short for an imperial reign name, and as you note this spelling was just ateji anyway. But I can't find anything in my meager library that mentions any source for where JA ankō came from. The only fishy word listed in my dictionaries to hand is 鮟鱇. Online sources Nihonjiten.com and Gogen Allguide mostly agree with each other, with more detail at Gogen Allguide. Wyang mentions KO 아귀 (agwi, “anglerfish”), but he's (she's?) unclear as to whether this was borrowed into KO from JA, or the other way around, or represents a cognate based on some shared root lost in the mists of time. I don't suppose you have any insight or access to materials that might elucidate the details here? Hopeful, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

There’s some discussion at アンコウ: 語源 at Japanese Wikipedia; origin is unclear, perhaps from あんぐり. Reference is:

フリーランス雑学ライダーズ編『あて字のおもしろ雑学』 p.47 1988年 永岡書店

Based on Wyang’s note on Korean, they looks at first glance to be cognate, or perhaps a borrowing from one to the other; I think it’s safe and helpful to write “perhaps related to Korean 아귀 (agwi, “anglerfish”)” on the 鮟鱇 page. For 安康 I think we can just write something like “Edo-period ateji, replaced by 鮟鱇, see latter for details.” and tag as “obsolete”, as it’s not otherwise of independent interest. How does this sound?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, good ideas. I've added a JA entry to the 安康 page incorporating your suggestions. It's late here though and I have to crash, so feel free to update the etym at 鮟鱇.  :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

お疲れ様！

I’ve written an etymology at 鮟鱇 in this edit – hopefully ok.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nils: A couple of months ago there were external links to Richard Sears and a geocities page. Yesterday, I noticed the links are gone. Checking the History, I was surprised to find no record of the deletion. Do you (the sole editor noted in the History) happen to have any information in this regard? Thanks. Lawrence J. Howell (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lawrence,

I think you must be remembering things incorrectly; checking the history of Category:Han ideogrammic compounds indicates that there were never external links to Richard Sears on that page.

Category pages are generally a poor place for references or external links. Using Advanced Search, the main hits for “Richard Sears” are:

• Wiktionary:About Chinese characters#References
• {{liushu}}

…where:

• {{Han etyl}}
• {{Han compound}}

…would also be appropriate.

If you’re looking for such links, or where to put them, Wiktionary:About Chinese characters#References is definitely the best place: it’s where general links about Chinese characters should go.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the reply. Considering how I find it challenging on any given day to recall the previous evening's dinner menu, it's entirely possible that with the passage of two months I'm misremembering the page on which I saw those links. Before I had a chance to follow up at that time another matter engaged my Wiktionary energies: In the meanwhile I assumed the links would be waiting when I returned or, in the event they had been removed in the interim, would be discoverable in the page's History. I can say for sure that the links were presented in the context of categorization of Chinese characters, something that greatly restricts the number of pages on which they might have appeared. Attempting to run them down, the other day I searched Wiktionary for all references to Sears' site by his name, by chineseetymology.org, and by internationalscientific.org. I also went through the 130 links returned by a Wiktionary search for geocities, looking for the other external link that had been offered. Alas, none of the search return pages are concerned with sourcing/citing vis-à-vis categorization of Chinese characters. Perhaps one day I'll become adept enough in sifting through Wiktionary metadata to sleuth things out. Thank you again. Lawrence J. Howell (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nils: Thank you for the welcoming message left on my talk page. I'm not sure if you noticed I was involved in two threads in the BP. I added material in good faith based on the feedback received in the first one, where I specifically requested both permission to rework material of mine that had been added by others as well as guidance about where and how to upload it; I certainly did not change form without discussion. As for the thread you intend to create on BP, I'm burned out on policy matters, so I'm afraid I won't be contributing to or even following it. With regards to cleaning up after myself, I hope this doesn't sound too prickly, but given the circumstances under which I added the material in the first place (explained above), I'm just the teeniest bit resistant to the idea that I made mistakes and have created a need for cleaning up. If the result of your BP thread is consensus for removal of the material I added, please have someone notify me to that effect. Much as I'd like to be collegial, I won't commit to removing the material before examining the contents of the notification. Hope you understand. Thanks again. Lawrence J. Howell (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lawrence,

I did see the earlier thread as well (BP: Etymologies of Chinese Characters), thank you for pointing it out.

I understand that you acted in good faith, and got some provisional “ok”s from other editors. However, once more editors, particularly those with expertise in Chinese, took a look at your contributions, it became clear that they were not ok with everyone, and indeed strenuously opposed by some. This happens, and entails discussion; in the event it does not appear that any of your content is acceptable in its current form.

In practical terms, I have accordingly reverted your edits: I hereby notify you that, in my judgment, based on the concerns raised in the Beer Parlour discussion, there are sufficient grounds for removal of this material.

For the avoidance of doubt: please do not add them again, or you are likely to be blocked temporarily.

If you are interested in adding this or similar content in future, please work with the editors who have raised concerns about your previous contributions and make suitable modifications to find something that everyone agrees on, or at least is not strongly opposed to. You can do this on your talk page (or BP) or in user space (making a private copy of an existing page and adjusting that to your heart’s content), rather than on the entry itself.

In terms of consensus, we have a strong bias against questionable content, regardless of the merits – we need consensus to add, but only reasonable doubt to remove. As your edits are questionable (strong criticisms and questions have been raised as to correctness), they are not appropriate at this time: concerns must be addressed before material is added, with the burden on the contributor.

I understand that you are currently rather worn out, and I’m sure you must be disappointed to find that your recent efforts have come to naught. When everyone’s rested (and tended to the rest of their lives!), if you are still interested in contributing to Wiktionary, I would be happy to help as best I may to make your future editing go more smoothly!

Best wishes.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your exposition belongs in the BP thread: It's a pity you weren't aware of it, or chose not to participate. At this point the issue is scorched earth, but let's have a go at it anyway, for the possible benefit of other current or future editors.

・However, once more editors, particularly those with expertise in Chinese, took a look at your contributions, it became clear ... Please don't distort the issue by padding numbers. Only one of the editors who took exception to my contributions has expertise in Chinese.

・(Of my contributions): (I)t became clear that they were not ok with everyone, and indeed strenuously opposed by some. First: Quite obviously, but so what? A cursory glance at Wiktionary discussion rooms and a check of the present contents of the pages in discussion enables us to determine that Wiktionary contains plenty of material that is ... not ok with everyone, and indeed strenuously opposed by some. Besides which, later in your post, you dilute the importance of not being ok with everyone by appending the modifying clause ... or at least is not strongly opposed to. Second: You are placing weight on vehemence, when you should be concerned with accuracy. Yes, a number of editors were strongly opposed. One among them returned much later to reiterate his original point; another went on to make informed objections. The remainder expressed strenuous opposition even though ignorant of the subject, and failed to defend their positions when evidence for phonesthemic tendencies in Old Chinese was presented. The strenuous opposition of editors who refuse to take responsibility for their own ill-considered remarks is, with apologies to the Bard, only so much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

・(I)t does not appear that any of your content is acceptable in its current form ... I have accordingly reverted your edits: I hereby notify you that, in my judgment, based on the concerns raised in the Beer Parlour discussion, there are sufficient grounds for removal of this material. Based on the tenor of the BP discussion, had you or any other editor proposed removal of the contributions, I suppose there would not have been the least amount of trouble obtaining consensus for it. Meanwhile, there may be sufficient grounds for the removal, perfectly in line with Wikipedia policies and practices, but then again there may not; unless you detail your grounds, we'll never know. In any case, you have helped demonstrate how little consensus is valued in Wiktionary, while simultaneously furnishing yet another illustration of how contributions are liable to removal for reasons that are capricious, poorly explained and/or illogical. Or, as in your case, explained as stemming from the individual editor's judgment, which is no explanation at all.

・In terms of consensus, we have a strong bias against questionable content, regardless of the merits – we need consensus to add, but only reasonable doubt to remove. As your edits are questionable (strong criticisms and questions have been raised as to correctness), they are not appropriate at this time: concerns must be addressed before material is added, with the burden on the contributor. My contributions were intended to arrange pre-existing data in a more rational fashion. Emphasis on pre-existing. That data was added by some other editor, and was on Wiktionary for years. If the presence of the material is a problem now, Wikipedia has to answer for why it wasn't a problem when it was originally added, why it wasn't a problem at any time in the subsequent years before I came along, and why it did not become a problem at the time I purposely called attention to it in the BP thread I originated.

As for contributing to Wiktionary in other ways, yes, there are certainly many things that can/need be done. But I will not be adding Baxter/Sagart readings, as you proposed earlier. I noted in the BP thread how susceptible Baxter is to reworking his material, and I see that here, at http://crlao.ehess.fr/document.php?id=1217

the documents have been removed, accompanied by the following notice:

‼ An up-to-date version of the Baxter-Sagart reconstruction is in preparation and will be available soon

There may be someone who will gladly rework the B/S readings every time the guys change their minds, but that someone isn't me.

If I do contribute, the list of alleged ideogrammic compounds is an obvious target; it's astounding to find obviously phono-semantic characters such as 便 健 字 寂 導 御 忍 意 and 時 presented there. (And that's even before getting into the whole question of whether there are actually any ideogrammic compounds stemming from Old Chinese at all.) I hate to see unsuspecting users subject to this kind of misinformation, but you may understand that events, including the manner in which you removed my contributions, has rendered me intensely skeptical about the merits of editing Wiktionary in any way. Lawrence J. Howell (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Renamed section; was “Hi”. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The etymology at tea is great. There is, however, a small part which I may not be so sure. Proto-Min itself split from other Chinese at an earlier date than Middle Chinese, but a large part of the modern lexicon results from later layers of influence from other Chinese varieties. The possibility that Amoy Min Nan tê is a descendant from a Middle Chinese layer cannot be excluded; the correspondence seems fairly regular - retroflex in MC 茶 ɖɣa would regularly become Amoy t. There is a paragraph discussing this at w:Historical Chinese phonology#Branching off of the modern varieties. Cheers, Wyang (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I should add that it really is one of our most complete etymology sections, although I wonder what some of the reconstructed forms along the way (like Proto-Min would be). But I dispute a minor part of your 'Cognates' section; I believe that, with the exception of secondary borrowings, East African languages' words for tea are from chá (e.g. Swahili chai) via Indian languages. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind words! (Agreed, it does more detailed reconstructions of earlier forms.) To your points:

• Wyang, I don’t know much about historical Chinese linguistics. From my reading of the WP article, it states that Min is not descended from Middle Chinese. Specifically it states:

Min Chinese, on the other hand, is known to have branched off even before Early Middle Chinese (EMC) of c. 600 AD.

Thus, while it is possible that a word in Min is a borrowing from Middle Chinese (or later) at some point, regular correspondences seem more likely to simply be cognates. That’s why I’m placing the tê/chá split as happening at Proto-Min/Middle Chinese, since that’s my understanding of the history. Perhaps the WP article as written is too strong, and some of Min is descended from a layer of MC, while other parts are from an earlier branching (or perhaps it’s possible that Min is descended completely from MC, but that seems clearly rejected).

Beyond what’s correct for the case of tea, there’s also the question of what to write on the policy page (Wiktionary:About Sinitic languages#Historical languages) so it’s clear and consistent.

• Meta, your point about ocean trade from India is well-taken; I’ve revised the etymology. Regarding the use of tê in Africa, the reference gives a map Map 138A. Tea, which shows lots of use of tê around Africa, mostly south and west, but also some in the east. In East Africa the Indian words from chá are presumably older, though I don’t know how far they spread, and whether tê is just a secondary borrowing or has displaced them. Hope current form is better – please feel free to correct!

So beyond revisions per your suggestions and details:

• Wyang, what do we want to say about the origins of Min, both at tea and on policy page?

Thanks again!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I note that tê forms in Africa are generally clustered around Anglophone (and Afrikaans-speaking) areas, and thus suspect they may be colonial borrowings; East Africans conducted their own trade with the East or via Arab merchants, so they didn't succumb to as many English borrowings. In any case, it's all good now. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yup, that sounds like what happened!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply