User talk:Wyang/Archive9

I have added a new sense but don't know what's the best context label to describe this usage.--Zcreator (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Made some changes there (hopefully better!). Wyang (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I tried to create these terms (the first word may be found in 现代汉语规范词典) but I can not found the correct English word. The supposed English word valetin seems not exist. Chinese Wiktionary supposes this word is from gaberdine, which is usually translated to 華達呢 (btw I created this term but don't know whether this is from English).--Zcreator (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

凡立丁 looks like a typical Shanghainese loanword, and 凡尔丁 is possibly one too. The source word is obscure; various sources point to valetin, valitin, valitine, but none of them seems to be valid English words (or words in Latin-script European languages in general) as far as I can see. They could be a local Chinese adaptation of some textile technique. With 華達呢, I think it would be pronounced hua2 da2 ni2, not ne. Linking it to gaberdine etymologically sounds unconvincing to me. There is, however, a synonym for it: 軋別丁, which is undoubtedly a Shanghainese loan from gaberdine. Wyang (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've collected uses of English "valetin" on Citations:valetin. It seems to be only used in Chinese contexts / Chinese translations. DTLHS (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ask on Zhihu and see if some crazy internet detective can dig something up 🤔 —suzukaze (t・c) 04:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think we can store pinyin of all words to some modules (like Module:zh/data/àn), which will updated by bot, and automatically generate pinyin entries. Wiktionary:Sandbox is a proof of concept (these modules will eventually replace Module:zh/data/cmn-hom). Also it may also be possible to mass create pinyin entries by bot.

Jyutping entries may also be generated in a similar way, by creating a reverse index of Module:zh/data/yue-pron and Module:zh/data/Jyutping character (PS we should merge these two modules).

By the way, see Wiktionary_talk:About_Chinese#Header_of_non-Chinese_script_entries.--Zcreator (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

This would be very handy. I have the previously extracted Mandarin and Cantonese readings for multisyllabic words on Wiktionary, which I can regenerate or share if we decide to go down this path. @Tooironic Any thoughts? Wyang (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I support any feasible automatic generation of pinyin entries. From what I've seen of the database we use at the moment, though, we are often lacking, especially for literary terms. In many cases, Wenlin is much more inclusive. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have generated a word list with 336972 words from Hanyu Da Cidian. However currently this list have some issues:

1. It use some characters consider variant in Wiktionary, e.g. 裏 instead of 裡. This should be mass-replaced before using.
2. It contains a large number of variant forms (e.g. 龜鑑／龟鉴 and 龜鑒／龟鉴 (guījiàn)).
3. It does not contain pronunciation data, therefore compounds must be filtered manually for characters with more than one pronunciation.
4. Also I have added a "big" paramater to Template:zh-new/der but I think the paramater (and even the word list itself) should be renamed. the word list may also contain some errors.

--Zcreator (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zcreator Thanks!! This is very useful. With regard to the issues, #1 has to be replaced manually and individually (AFAICS); #2 may be partially solvable by having a run through of the list to remove the forms currently described as variants on Wiktionary, and keeping the trimmed list at ...big_trimmed (:)). Wyang (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Any idea why the definition preview for this simplified entry is not showing up? Strange. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic It's due to the target entry having senses wrapped in {{l|en}}. Fixed now. Wyang (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

网游 has a similar problem; the code for preview doesn't seem to recognize {{zh-short-comp}}. --Dine2016 (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016 It has been fixed. Wyang (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

These entries does not appear in Category:Chinese lemmas.--Zcreator (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zcreator Fixed. Wyang (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. 璧流離
2. 牛彔
3. 庵摩勒
4. 特勤
5. 門巴
6. 㲲
7. 林芝
8. 什麼
9. 福祿
10. 柘枝 (http://www.doc88.com/p-2029509925182.html P51 says it is from Persian "chaj"
11. 黑暗 and 白暗 (most obscure case)

--Zcreator (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

... One by one (till I delve into 黑暗) Wyang (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. 檟如樹
2. 馬郎
3. 梭梭
4. 格納庫
5. 哲羅魚
6. 一賜樂業教
7. 僕歐

--Zcreator (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zcreator alt All done. Wyang (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. Would it be possible to display Cantonese or Min Nan transcriptions for a link to a Chinese entry when no Mandarin reading is available? E.g. at 見解 it would be useful if in the Synonyms list 睇法 displayed tai2 faat3 in brackets. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic Hi. For the moment the reading has to be input manually, in the first parameter or the |tr= parameter, as there can be many non-Mandarin readings on the entry (e.g. 食飯). The current default display of Mandarin is not really ideal, and I had envisaged something more like a hover-over box similar to the examples in Cantodict. User:Suzukaze-c had an interesting idea of displaying the readings in many varieties through the template, however it could be quite crowded in some cases... Wyang (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the problem with displaying a reading for the most commonly spoken lect, i.e. Mandarin (935 million speakers). It is, after all, only a reference for the user's convenience - for more information, they can visit the corresponding entry. After Mandarin, Cantonese and Min Nan are the most spoken lects with 59 million and 47 million speakers respectively. They are also the most well-known internationally. Why not display both in brackets? It wouldn't take up much room. Other lects can remain in the main entry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic I guess I meant displaying Mandarin by default, without any annotation, as it is misleading in cases like 睇法. Adding a small default M. before the Mandarin reading could be desirable. I think a hover-over box, or even a pop-up box on clicking, would be a much more aesthetic and cleaner (and more professional) format that the current. The Chinese Wikipedia has pop-up boxes for its regional correspondences (e.g. zh:激光) and the Chinese Wiktionary also used to use them, so they should be feasible, but I'm unsure how to write one similar. Also, Wu has 80 million, and Jin 63 million... if Wikipedia is to be believed, so it could be a bit cluttered for articles like 明白, 愛人, etc. when other varieties are extracted. There are many more features of MediaWiki yet unused in our infrastructure; I think things will (slowly) improve as we become bolder in using and incorporating other formats in our display... I also have other ideas for formatting, such as a trad-simp switch on Chinese entries (to display one type only), but they have been unfortunately bound by my ability (and idleness) so far. Wyang (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

If that means removing all Mandarin readings in brackets, I oppose that strongly. That would be terribly unhelpful for the vast majority of users. Also, a pop-up box would not work for touch screen users, which are a large percentage of visitors on Wiktionary. Wu and Jin may have many users as well, but they are much less known Cantonese and Min Nan, not to mention our coverage for these two are miles ahead of the other lects. A simple feature that displays a Cantonese and Min Nan reading where there is no Mandarin one would be helpful and would not take up too much space. I would also support a simplified reference translation in brackets too (clarify: for See also and Derived terms only), much like how we do for Simplified Chinese entries. In 99% of cases it would be entirely accurate, and it is no less problematic than the hanzi box which often displays misleading information anyway. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

(modified after doing a bit of searching) @Tooironic I did not suggest removing all Mandarin readings in brackets... I was the person who added that function in zh-l before, as such a function would certainly be useful to readers. The above was just some thoughts about how to make the system even better. We undoubtedly should display maximal information that is useful to the readers if we can, since we are not restrained by print space, but more information can come with the cost of decreased aesthetics and decreased understandability, especially if the displayed transcriptions are unfamiliar. Currently we do not distinguish zh-l in different environments: inline, in unfolded lists, or in folded lists, so displaying three lect readings +/- glosses by default will be prone to unintended crowding in some cases. Just realised that Wikipedia actually uses hover-over/pop-up boxes for inline reference previewing: w:User:Yair rand/ReferenceTooltips. I think this is definitely something we should look into for displaying our dialectal readings, definitions, etc., of course if also giving the freedom to disable and switch to another format. The mobile display, using popup windows, can also achieve a similar delivery of content preview: see mw:Mobile design/Reference reveal. Wyang (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Can you please cast your expert eye over these entries at the RFC page. Have they been fixed? If so, we can remove them from RFC. --Pas un coiffeur (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

All done, I believe. Wyang (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. Any idea why, in the hanzi box, 伢 displays the misspelling "child (collequial)"? I don't see this definition at the entry 伢. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic Well-spotted. The glosses for characters are stored at Module:zh/data/glosses, now corrected. Wyang (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I created this, because why not. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but I probably won't be able to check many of these though. Min Dong compounds can be quite unpredictable sometimes. Wyang (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. How should I format the registers (literary, euphemistic, etc.) here? ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic Hi Carl, you can now use a semicolon to separate them: 離世;euphemistic. Please see the page Thesaurus:死亡. Wyang (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perfect! Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Curious if you have any insight into the derivation.

Is this related to 나다 (nada)? If so, there are intriguing sense-development parallels to English nation (as well as interest-piquing phonetic parallels...).

Older form *narak would suggest either that this is not related to 나다 (nada), or that the -rak ending is a different element, or perhaps even that the -k ending is some kind of suffix.

Very interested in any light you could shed on this. TIA! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr Don't recall seeing the proposed derivation of *narak < *na- (“to be born; to come out”) mentioned or discussed previously - and it does appear to have yet to be proposed in the literature - however the proposal and the mention of the English nation are both intriguing ideas. If *narak is indeed related to *na-, the relationship must have been rather ancient, for that it is typically not parsed as so, and that the -rak is obscure and does not seem related to a suffix which could visibly explain the *na- (“to be born; to come out”) ~ *narak relationship, except perhaps as a proposed old locative (see below). -rak (~ -rang) is usually a frequentative adverbial suffix attached to verbs or adjectives (e.g. 들락날락 going in and out frequently), and is highly prolific in Korean ideophones.

The usual derivation of Middle Korean *nalah in the literature is *na (“soil; earth; land”) + *lah (unclear element), where the *na (“soil; earth; land”) is considered cognate with Tungusic na (Manchu ᠨᠠ (na, “land”)), as in 李基文 (國語語彙史研究, 1991, 67–69), 徐廷範 (國語語源辭典, 2000), 姜吉云 (比較言語學的 語源辭典, 2010), Robbeets (Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic?, 2005, 405), Starling *nālV (“earth; land”), Francis-Ratte (Proto-Korean-Japanese , 2016, 303). Francis-Ratte proposed that the *-lah/-lak/-loh/-lh was an old Korean locative, which possibly also left trace in MK hanolh (“heaven < great-place”). Robbeets suggested that *-ra in Japanese and Korean was a noun suffix (2005, 82–83), while the -h was an MK place suffix. It's interesting how early Japanese sources also attested to a -ku form, which seemed to have fallen out of favour (owing to homophony with 奈落?). Philip Baldi in Relationships of Japanese and Korean (1990):

the word for ‘nation’ is MK na^·lah, so that it is appropriate to transcribe the hyangka citation as NALak. It has been noted that the Japanese place-name Nara was written not only in phonograms that clearly indicated the usual pronunciation of the name but also with the character ‘joy’ carrying the Sino-Japanese reading raku (as in Man’yō-shū 80 and Nihon-Shoki 95), so that a variant Naraku may have existed for this place-name, long suspected of being a borrowing from the Korean word.

Besides this, other theories include: (1) Beckwith (Koguryo: The Language of Japan’s Continental Relatives, 2007)'s hypothesis of OK narak < Ancient Northeastern Chinese 壤 *nraŋ ~ nrak < Old Chinese 壤, inspired by the toponym 平壤 and discussed in the section “Neutralization of Velar Coda Distinctions” (pp. 102–105), citing the J. form 奈良 as supporting evidence; (2) 梁柱東 (增訂 古歌研究, 1965, 340)'s derivation from 내 (nay, 川) << 나리 (nali); (3) 許永鎬 (樂浪語義考(二), 1946)'s derivation from *na- (“sun”) + *ta(ng) (“earth”, modern ttang); (4) 李南德 (韓國語語源研究(III), 1998, 453)'s unusual 圓形語系說; and (5) 東言考略's folk etymology of < 羅羅 (~ 新羅). Wyang (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again for a very interesting deep dive.  :) Many points to touch upon.

• OJP phonetic spellings for the place name

The EN WP article on the city in Japan lists many ancient kanji spellings. Grouping these by the readings, we have:

/nara/: 名良, 奈良, 奈羅, 那良, 那羅, 楢, 儺羅

/naraku/: 那楽, 寧楽

⟨naraki₂⟩ → */narakwi/: 平城 (the -kwi ending could hint at the same -u → -wi vowel shift in 神 (kamu + i → *kamwi → kami), theorized as evolving through fusion with an emphatic nominal particle "i")

⟨no₂ra⟩ → */nora/: 乃羅

⟨no₂raku⟩ → */noraku/: 乃楽

Ambiguous: 常 (man'yōgana for ⟨to₂⟩ → /to/), 諾良 (expected reading of nakura), 諾楽 (expected reading of nakuraku), 寧 (man'yōgana for na)

The evidence for a final /k/ consonant of some form appears to be backed up by ancient Japanese spellings.

• Homophony

The place name has a pitch accent pattern of 1, i.e. with a mid-word downstep. The imported Buddhist term for some version of hell has a pitch accent pattern of 0, i.e. with no downstep. The persistence of homophonic overlap among various terms in Japanese, where pitch accent is the only audible difference, suggests that pitch accent should be (have been?) enough for these two terms to likewise remain distinct. That said, the association with hell would indeed seem to be inauspicious, possibly providing motivation for further differentiation.

• Beckwith's theory of an ancient borrowing from Chinese 壤

I haven't run into any suggestion that this OCH term ended in /k/, with reconstructions instead pointing to final /ŋ/. I'm also not familiar with any phonological mechanism that would devoice final /ŋ/ to /k/. The use of 壤 in Korean to spell the yang in Pyeongyang would also suggest a final /ŋ/ rather than /k/.

Moreover, Japanese very stubbornly maintains most coda consonants, as observable in tons of Middle Chinese borrowings. The exception for velars is quite regular, where the velar nasal coda consonant /ŋ/ disappears in Japanese as in Goguryeo, seen in Japanese 生 (sei) from MCH /ʃˠæŋ/, or Japanese 紅 (kō) from MCH /ɦuŋ/. But this doesn't apply to the velar stop /k/, as in Japanese 壁 (heki, ancient peki) from MCH /pek̚/, or Japanese 悪 (aku) from MCH /ʔɑk̚/.

Beckwith's argument regarding a supposed Northeastern Old Chinese dialect form is unconvincing; we have only the Old Goguryeo, which could just as well be evidence for a /k/ suffix arising internally within Goguryeo. From his writings, we have no actual evidence of Northeastern Old Chinese -- only an inference, which can also be explained by other means.

• Beckwith's theory strikes me as a stretch -- but I'm aware that this is based on my own limited knowledge. What is your view of Beckwith's theory?

• The -rak ending

The -rak ending seen even in the above older spellings for Nara might also appear in the Japanese name for the kingdom of Silla, found as Shiraki, even with the 新羅 spelling, which would have an expected Japanese reading of Shinra. Ancient man'yōgana spellings include 新羅奇 and 志羅紀, phonetically indicating ⟨siraki₂⟩ → */sirakwi/ and pointing to an earlier raku ending.

That said, none of the ancient phonetic renderings listed at w:Silla include any /k/ element at all, and the second consonant varies somewhat between /r/, /y/, and /n/, perhaps suggesting that the suffix in question is -k.

• If OK narak represents nara- + suffix -k, is it possible that the variance in Japanese forms might not be due to Beckwith's vanishing velars (described above as unlikely), and instead point to borrowings of the OK suffixed form narak, and the unsuffixed form nara?

• The proposed connection between the OK na element and Tungusic na meaning "land"

There is Japanese 土, 丹 (ni) as an ancient term referring to soil, dirt. There is also Navajo niʼ also referring to earth, ground, from reconstructed Proto-Athabaskan *nʸənˀ, and with the Dine-Yeniseian hypothesis, the ancestors of Athabaskan speakers would have migrated through northern Asia on the way to North America. Wildly speculative, but interesting.  :)

Speculation aside, there is only one na element surviving in Japanese sources I've encountered that means soil, dirt; earth, ground, and that's in the OJP term nawi, apparently meaning earth, ground but only used in reference to earthquake, and theorized to be a compound of na ("earth") + wi ("being in a place", stem of verb 居る wiru). But 1) there's no other term using this na element that I'm aware of, and 2) the semantics are very strange. I suspect that this may be a borrowing in toto from some other language, and not a native-Japanese compound.

• Robbeets' theories about Japanese ending -ra

While clearly a nominalizing suffix in OJP, this element never appears as rak-. As shown above, the Japanese placename demonstrates clear evidence of a -k- ending element, making the native -ra nominalizing suffix an unlikely etymon. I sincerely hope that Robbeets is not instead suggesting that OJP nara was combined in Japanese with the OK placename suffix -k.

I know that's a lot, I hope it's not too much.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thank you for the great insights above, @Eirikr. Some thoughts:

• Both of the 乃 forms are attested in Nihon Shoki, 乃羅 (1, 葬皇后於乃羅山) and 乃樂 (3, 戮鮪臣於乃樂山 / 後移都于乃樂 / 庚寅、初向乃樂), but the relevant occurrences do not appear to have been kana-annotated in the book. Majtczak's list of man’yōgana Kanji readings indicates that 乃 can also be read as /na/, in addition to ⟨no₂⟩; maybe this would allow us to reconcile the forms containing 乃 with the majority. The forms with 諾 are also relatively easy to explain. 常 is a bit of an outlier. JA Wikipedia 奈良#表記 mentions that the 常 spelling was attested in the Man’yōshū, and I was able to locate it in poem #3236: 空見津 倭國 青丹吉 常山越而(そらみつ やまとのくに あをによし ならやまこえて). Very puzzling, still.
• I was somewhat reserved about the possibility of 奈落 having an influence on 奈良 ― as a Buddhist term transcribed from Sanskrit, the form 奈落 is strangely almost Japanese-specific, only infrequently attested in historical Chinese texts (transcription variants: 捺落迦 那落 那落迦 那羅柯 捺落). Additionally, it is made less convincing as the time of this borrowing likely postdates, or insufficiently predates, the pattern where the form /nara/ predominates over the /-ku/ form, as already seen in the Man’yōshū.
• Beckwith's theory that the ancient Northeastern Chinese showed /-ŋ/ ~ /-k/ confusion is certainly novel to me. The derivation of *narak from 壤 looks far-fetched, and there is no reconstruction that would support an /*nr-/ initial for 壤, the cited Sagart (1999) only discussing OC 孃. 壤 does appear more frequently than anticipated from Sino-Korean in Goguryeo proper names (國壤王, 故國壤王, 西壤王, 中壤王, 東壤王, 好壤王), but I think these should be read with a hun (JP kun) reading /*na(ŋ)/, similar to Beckwith's postulate that the toponym 平壤 (literally “flat land”) had represented a native /*piarna/ (Empires of the Silk Road, 2009, 104). The 壤 in Goguryeo names is often variantly written as 穰.
• Generally speaking, a historical coda /-ŋ/ lenition in dialectal Chinese is not implausible: there have been previous studies showing that the Tang–Five Dynasties-era Northwestern Chinese had extensive loss and weakening of coda consonants, /-ŋ/ in particular (羅常培, 唐五代西北方音, 1933); Maspero (Le dialecte de Tch’ang-Ngan sous les T’ang, 1920, 47) examined external evidence and opined that the /-ŋ/ in the 7^th–9^th-century Chang'an dialect was actually a nasal fricative (/ɣ̃/). The ancient East Coast dialect of Old Chinese did have certain sound changes that set it apart from the rest (Baxter and Sagart, Old Chinese: a new reconstruction, 2014, 319–320), for example /*-r/ > /*-j/, but theories about a similar nasal coda process in ancient Eastern or Northeastern Chinese are absent apart from Beckwith's AFAIK.
  • There is certainly a possibility for a peripheral dialect in contact with non-natives to develop peculiar sound changes (cf. the intriguing change of /-t/ > /-l/ in Sino-Korean), and I am also reminded of the few examples of man'yōgana showing velar stop-nasal correspondences: 當 ⟨tagi₁⟩, 英 ⟨aga⟩, 望 ⟨maga⟩, ⟨magu⟩, 相 ⟨saga⟩, ⟨sagu⟩. And, as another mechanism, Sagart (1991, “Chinese tones from Austronesian final consonants”, and subsequent publications) believes that Old Chinese word-final nasal-glottal clusters developed from an old series of voiced stop endings: /*-mʔ, -nʔ, -ŋʔ/ < /**-b, -d, -ɡ/, which would make 壤 /*naŋʔ/ go back to an earlier /**naɡ/. At any rate, while theoretically not improbable, the evidence presented in his Koguryo (2007, 102–105) and “The Sino-Tibetan problem” (2002, 145–146), for either this particular etymology or the proposed phenomenon in archaic Northeastern Chinese at large, is still rather insufficient.
• Francis-Ratte (2016) cites the MK form Sillah (실랗?, “Silla”), and proposes that it could be another example of the *-lah/-lak/-loh/-lh old Korean locative (that also gave rise to *nalak). I cannot yet verify the form (cf. 劉昌惇, 李朝語辭典, 1968, 499), however, if attested, this form could be an example of a word with the OK place suffix *-k, surfacing as final -k, -h or final aspiration in MK, e.g. in 곁 (kyeth, “side”), 녘 (nyekh, “side; vicinity”), 겇 (kech, “front; side”), 앒 (alph, “front”), 뒿 (twūyh, “back”), 웋 (wuh, “above”), 밑 (mith, “below”), 않 (anh, “inside”), 바ᇧ (pask, “outside”), 밭 (path, “field”), ᄯᅡᇂ (stah, “ground”), 바다ㅎ (patah, “sea”), etc. (Robbeets, 2005; Francis-Ratte, 2016, 308). The Japanese comparanda are OJ -ko, in ここ (koko, “this place”), そこ (soko, “that place”) (Francis-Ratte, 2016, 308), and the schwa-loss variant -ka, in umika “oceanside”, すみか (sumika, “dwelling”), ありか (arika, “place where one is”) (Robbeets, 2005, 85; Francis-Ratte, 2016, 308). So yes, it is possible the *-k was a suffix. :) Robbeets also discussed nawi, listing nae, suna (plain-earth) as other reflexes of the *na- (97).

(Congratulations you have reached the end :)) Wyang (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re-reading this, and belatedly found myself wondering if the OK locative -loh gave rise to modern 로 (ro)? And if so, are only some of the senses at 로 (ro) from the locative? The instrumental senses seem odd in that context. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please move the right to the current account as I forgot the old account's password. You can see here to prove it's my former account.--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, see the Etymology needed section above.--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, the gloss 1 of 千里馬 is displayed incorrectly.--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zcreator alt Welcome back! You may wish to ask on Wiktionary:Changing username to usurp your old account, but I've given your alternative account autopatrol rights for now. Please make sure you wikify the entries as you create them: link to the main words in the glosses, enclose explanatory definitions in {{n-g}} (e.g. 開題是一個國家 ≠ 'The name of an ancient state is a country'), and add {{lb|zh|literary}} to any sense not used in the modern language. That way we can focus our efforts (精力) on other things. 千里馬 fixed. I will take a look at those etyms whenever I have time. Wyang (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Excellent work on the synonyms display change. Would there be a way to make it collapsible like the Derived terms? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic Thanks, I made it auto-collapse when there are >10 items, and also collapsible like {{zh-der}} with |fold=1. Wyang (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perfect! ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Any idea what happened here? "Lua error in Module:cmn-pron at line 321: Zhuyin conversion unsuccessful: "xie液3". Are you using a valid Pinyin syllable? Is the text using a breve letter instead of a caron one?". ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: Fixed. Not all combinations of the pronunciations of 血 and 液 should be used here, so we need to specify them manually. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It seems a loanword but I don't know what the original word is.--Zcreator alt (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zcreator alt It's نشادر (nošâdor). I added it to the entry. Wyang (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank, do you know what's wrong with the gloss extraction there? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung Yeah, it extracted everything from the second param onwards. Fixed. Wyang (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you find the original word? The Hanyu Da Cidian and Cihai seems to contradict and the English term does not have an etymology either.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, check 扁桃 and 偏桃.--Zcreator alt (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also the etymology of 西藏 is incomplete.--Zcreator alt (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zcreator alt Sorry it took a while. All done. Wyang (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank, I have two questions regarding the etymology for 川:

• Do you know why Baxter (1992) suggests that it had originally had a velar initial, but changed to a /t/ in his reconstruction with Sagart?
• Should y in Proto-Kuki-Chin *tuy be changed to j?

— justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung Hi Justin. The first one is discussed in Sagart (1999)'s The Roots of Old Chinese, pp. 157–158 (let me know if you need a copy). I haven't added any PKC content, so don't really have a strong opinion on the second. It may be good to keep it consistent with PST. Wyang (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I've added some info from Sagart (1999) to the entry and changed the PKC y to a j. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

• saggards, poignado, ferlied, cortins, polyaxon, swankey, eumerisms, coinfer, dorper, mylodonts

Equinox ◑ 00:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. The automatic synonyms header is displaying as "Derived terms" e.g. at 死亡. Could you help? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic Oops... Fixed. Wyang (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. One more thing: how can I get antonyms to display in the entry? E.g. at 了解 which has a few antonyms listed. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic This will require some new templates. Please see my changes to 了解 and Thesaurus:了解. Wyang (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. Thanks, I will follow that in the future. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. When you get time could you help me look at the synonyms/antonyms display here? Still seems off. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic This is confusing... when syn is ant and ant is syn lol. I added a |name= parameter to the templates for these cases, and it should be better now. Maybe we should collapse these boxes by default? (I think we should look into alternative modes of formatting/display for syn/ant, preferably under the defs, collapsed by default, like .) Wyang (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why not just have Thesaurus:了解 and Thesaurus:不懂? —suzukaze (t・c) 03:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't that double the amount of work required? It would be best if we could house all the relevant terms at one main entry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

(I'll reply later to the thread above about nara / narak.  :) )

I just ran across the Academia.edu site, and have been reading some of Vovin's presentations there. In this one in particular (sign-up might be required), he seems to be saying that MK and OK for water was 믈 (meul), whereas our entry lists this as deriving from 밀 (mil, “water”), from earlier Proto-Koreanic *mɨ́r.

Is our entry wrong? Or is he barking up the wrong tree?

I've found his analyses of OJP occasionally off base, as in Out of Southern China, wherein he makes an interesting case for some JA cognates with proto-Tai-Kadai. Some of his OJP parsing misses the mark (he seems to mis-analyze a suffixing 連用形 as instead a prefix for the following verb), but other pieces seem potentially on-target. I know he's published quite a bit, and I'm finally getting around to reading his stuff. Trying to figure out what to make of it.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr: Shh... Yeah it should be 믈. I loved the disclaimers in his Out of Southern China. The actual comparisons he gave are unconvincing though, especially towards the end. But it is an interesting read, as long as one takes it with a grain of salt. Wyang (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I finally realized you had a link there in the Shh.  :) So the barred-i is supposed to be ㅡ, not ㅣ? Where the heck did that convention come from? Oofda. I really wish folks could settle on a clear and consistent transcription system. <...sigh.../> Thanks for clarifying! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello,I'm Jun hyeok Lee.And my ID is Sbc212. The Sea of Japan is not true,and the the Korean East sea is true! On a basis of Dokdo is korean area. The The King Sejong's Recorders 50th page 3rd line has the contents of Dokdo is Korean area. And The Chronicles of the Three States,History of the Three Kingdoms,Donggukyeojiseungnam etc. But it's Korean data.But 1894years Japanese New South Korean national map has dokdo in Korea. And 1880years Japanese Officer map doesn't have Dokdo. So the Korean East sea is true and Sea of Japan is false. Please lift my account and delete the Relevant of Sea of Japan. Please!I want to tell the true contents Sbc212 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sbc212: We have no interest in those here on Wiktionary. The common English name is "the Sea of Japan". You can go to Wikipedia to argue further. Wyang (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Sea of Japan is not real English name! And the Korean East Sea is real name! The reason is lots of! It’s a Japanese ambition! Please!I want to tell the true contents!Please think about it ,and find it please! Please it’s my hope.

@Sbc212 The burden of proof is on you. A simple Google search shows close to 2 million results, so you can't say it's not a "real" English name. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Look at ជន. The second km-noun cannot override with cɔɔn. Please have a solution in this case. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80 We can use |phon=ជន like in Thai: diff. Wyang (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I forgot the phon parameter already. :P --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why ច័ក become caʔ? It is not equivalent to cak. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80 Please see:

• Khmer alphabet: "In final position, letters representing a sound (k-, kh-) are pronounced as a glottal stop after the vowels , , , , , , , , ."
• Cambodian System of Writing and Beginning Reader: images.
• Research report on phonetic and phonological analysis of Khmer: rule #11 on pp. 29.

Wyang (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. Could you check the recently added etymology of 哪? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung Hi Justin. It looks good to me. It's discussed in 二十世纪的近代汉语研究 (pp. 317–318); an excerpt is here. Wyang (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late reply. I've fixed the etymology based on 二十世纪的近代汉语研究. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung Very well done! Thanks. Wyang (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

😄 — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I cannot respell ប្លា to get /plaː/, it result in /pʰlaː/ which is incorrect. Please help. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

PS There are many words with ប្ល that read /pl/ and few /bl/. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80 It should in fact be /pʰlaː/ (there are audios on this site). Theoretically, /bl/ is not possible in Standard Khmer, as /b/ at the start of an initial cluster is automatically devoiced to /p/ (rule 3, pp. 27), and the /p/ becomes aspirated when it is followed by /l/ (rule 4), to yield /pʰl/. /bl/ is only found in dialects and maybe loans. Wyang (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Did you check this? I wonder why it uses pl instead of pʰl. Also, we can search SEALang with pl.* in IPA. The result includes ប្ល. But pʰl.* returns nothing.--Octahedron80 (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80 Yes, Headley's dictionaries consistently write the cluster /pʰl/ as /pl/, although the /p/ is aspirated. There are no words with /pʰl/ in their IPA on Sealang, as far as I can see. Wyang (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

About /bl/, I see them at ប្លុក on tovnah and bl.* at sealang either. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes. But if you click on the Headley entry, you can see that it is also plok. The Modern Khmer-English Dictionary doesn't have this word at all, only includes the native homograph pronounced /plok/. This and បាឡាត់ (baalat) were the only words I found on Sealang that could have /bl/ in the Standard language, although I don't find the distinction between /bl/ and /pl/ very convincing: cases including /bl/ are too rare, and in the two examples, the first appears to be a pronunciation imitating the original French pronunciation, and the second is an abbreviated reading. Wyang (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Frank, I was hoping you could have a look and fix whatever's broken in the MC reading lookup feature of Template:ltc-l, as currently viewable at 嘲笑#Japanese. It's pulling the reading for 嘲, but not 笑. I now see this:

(MC ʈˠau)

TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr Weird as it seems, 笑 was written as 𥬇 in Guangyun, explaining the absence of 笑. I have moved the reading there. (𥬇) Wyang (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is this word a phono-semantic matching?--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Arabic word does seem to be, although the connection with “olives” is not entirely clear (Kauz, Aspects of the Maritime Silk Road). Wyang (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Wyang. Do you have a reason for protecting your talk page? In general, I think that anons should be able to contact admins freely. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: This. Wyang (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

What on earth is the objective of that weirdo at this point? I am legitimately baffled. —suzukaze (t・c) 02:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

It’s a “catch me” game for him. Apparently he’s enjoying it. I’ve protected my talk page for the same reason - diff. @Chuck Entz: I think we could use a mass revert tool similar to the “nuke” admin tool. Was a range block applied? —Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

My read on this is that he's trying to push our buttons and see if he can goad us into doing stupid things so he can feel superior. The best way to deal with him is to quietly revert his edits, revdel the talk-page melodrama, give the IP he's using a relatively short-term block, and ignore him.

Range-blocks are rarely a good idea because they also block non-related anonymous contributors. In this case, they're pointless because he knows how to use proxies (if I suspect they're anonymous proxies, I may do a long-term block, though I may have to rethink that). Also, just ignore the lists- I would expect him to be throwing in lots of unrelated IPs and accounts to waste our time and to try to trick us into blocking innocent third parties.

As for mass reverts: I don't know any way to do that, but just opening all his current edits in separate tabs and reverting them assembly-line style comes pretty close. I would check the edit histories, though, to be safe in case there's more than one IP involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: I was talking about Special:Nuke, just in case - it allows to mass delete page creations by pesky editors. Opening individual edits will still require quite a few clicks and time. If a rogue editor is identified as hostile, then his/her edits should be reverted wholesale before they are overwritten with subsequent edits. It works quite discouragingly too, the vandals quickly will realise they hardly waste anybody else's time but theirs! I know we don't have such a tool ready but maybe we should request it? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, I think this is what we should do at this point. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)}

Is it the time that this category to be cleared?--Zcreator alt (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'm running that now: Special:Contributions/Wyangbot. Wyang (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if it should be removed from entries that don't have {{rfdef|zh}}, like 𫠡. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

They are tracked in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:tracking/zh-han/translingual-only_character. The translingual section is not suitable for new definitions - they should be added to appropriate languae section.--Zcreator alt (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zcreator alt: Ah ok, thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The category is now emptied by we should modify Template:rfdef to show a error message when using the parameter.--Zcreator alt (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Han isn't a normal language code so if we remove it it should not work properly anyway. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Deleted now. Wyang (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please check the etymology. Wikipedia says “雪茄”这中文译名为徐志摩所译，音译之余，也取其灰白如雪，因以为名。 But it seems the term is coined much earlier.--Zcreator alt (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zcreator alt  Done. Wyang (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

How are kembali and balik related, as suggested by your edit on https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/kembali? Were "k" and "bali" once meaningful morphemes (bound or unbound)? (I'm not questioning your sources/edit, but I am really interested in their relationship and etymologies) — This unsigned comment was added by Chieuleheng (talk • contribs) at 04:35, 14 March 2018‎.

@Chieuleheng Hello, please see Note #14 of Blust's Notes on Proto-Malayo-Polynesian Phratry Dualism (1980), pp. 243. Wyang (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any paper on the uôi, ươi, iêp, yêu in Central Vietnamese (particularly the Huế dialct). Are they still fully pronounced or reduced into ui, ưi, ip, iu as in Southern Vietnamese? PhanAnh123 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@PhanAnh123

Thompson's A Vietnamese Reference Grammar (1987), pp. 82–84 briefly discussed the Huế dialect's phonology. According to him, ‹uôi›, ‹ươi› and ‹yêu› are pronounced the same as ‹ui›, ‹ưi› and ‹iu›. ‹iêp› is more reduced (“/iip/”) than ‹iêt›, ‹iêc›, but it is still not equivalent to ‹ip›.

Nguyen Dinh-Hoa's Vietnamese-English Dictionary (1966, red-covered) has a “Northern-Central-Southern” three-dialect phonology comparison, and its values agree with Thompson's. Images for reduced ‹uôi›, ‹ươi› and ‹yêu›. ‹iêp› is /iəp/, same as Hanoi.

By the way, final tables for different dialects can be found in Tiếng Sài Gòn: Vận mẫu phương ngữ Quảng Nam and Vận mẫu phương ngữ Nghệ Tĩnh. Wyang (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you think we should add some more rows to {{vi-IPA}} for these and other dialects besides the three that are currently listed? – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mxn: I'm interested in the idea. There's not a lot of detailed research on the phonology of other dialects though; even with Hue, there are certain parts I was not very certain about. Can I ask what resources you used for the other dialects shown in the template over at the Vietnamese Wiktionary? Wyang (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

vi:Bản mẫu:vie-pron is based in part on vi:Bản mẫu:VieIPA, which showed only one "compromise" dialect and was developed in a pretty ad-hoc manner, but I tried to reorient vi:Bản mẫu:vie-pron towards charts at w:Vietnamese phonology, ngônngữ.net, and w:vi:Phương ngữ tiếng Việt (which has since been rewritten), particularly when it comes to the three north-central dialects that haven't been added to Template:vi-IPA. There's some additional discussion and links to relevant resources in vi:Thảo luận Bản mẫu:VieIPA and vi:Thảo luận Bản mẫu:vie-pron. I think this may have been the resource I used for Huế. vi:Mô đun:ViePron/dialects contains the actual logic mapping to IPA. As you can see at vi:Thảo luận Mô đun:ViePron, I experimented with conditionally showing more dialects where they might differ from more well-known ones. If we don't feel confident enough about showing additional dialects for all entries, perhaps we can still indicate how the tones might differ in the north-central dialects. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 06:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mxn: Thanks. vi:Thảo luận Mô đun:ViePron looks interesting and is very informative.

The best comparative study I've found so far is Laurence Thompson's A Vietnamese reference grammar (1965, republished 1987, available on Sealang), which has a section on the correspondences (section 4.3, pp. 97–104) of the Hà Nội, Vinh, Huế, Đà Nẵng, Sài Gòn and Trà Vinh dialects. It uses a phonetic spelling based on the Vietnamese alphabet to indicate dialectal realisations, which is close enough for IPA, though it's a bit broader than we would like, especially in the rhymes. There are some differences between the book and vi:Module:ViePron, such as the realisation of ‹d› in Vinh (/z/ vs. /ɟ/).

Hoàng Thị Châu's Tiếng Việt trên các miền đất nước: Phương ngữ học (1989) and Phương ngữ học tiếng Việt (2004) are relevant too, but they don't have a detailed comparative study like Thompson.

Thompson's study can be incorporated into the module here IMO, but it will require a bit of readjustment of the current notations. The current IPA is much narrower compared to Thompson. Pinging @PhanAnh123 too. Wyang (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

In southern Vietnamese there's a dialectal term pronounced as , with the meaning "to hide", while seems to be related to giấu, I couldn't decide how it should be spelled (should it be "dú" or "giú"?), and there's not much on the webs about this word too. Is it related to giú/dú which means "to make fruits ripe"? Do you get any idea? PhanAnh123 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@PhanAnh123 This is an interesting case. Vietnamese dialect dictionaries seem to have differing opinions:

---

• Nguyễn Như Ý (1999), Từ điển đối chiếu từ địa phương, pp. 166 and pp. 217:

dú (T(rung).)　đgt. Giấu. Hấn dú ở mô mà nỏ tìm thấy. (Hắn giấu ở đâu mà không tìm thấy.)

dú giếm (T.)　đgt. Giấu giếm. Có dú giếm ngài ta cụng biết. (Có giấu giếm người ta cũng biết.)

giú (N(am).)　đgt. Rấm trái cây cho chín. Chuối non giú ép chát ngầm, Trai tơ đòi vợ khóc thầm thâu đêm. (cd.)

---

• Bùi Minh Đức (2004), Từ điển tiếng Huế, pp. 286 and pp. 394:

dú　dấu, che, cất (Dú tiền trong bao gạo. Dú dú đút đút như tụi ăn trộm).

dú đút (giấu đút)　che dấu (Anh có vợ rồi nên dú đút cô vợ hầu chỗ khác. Dú dú đút đút).

dú diếm　dấu diếm.

giú　dấu (Giú vợ).

giú quá kỹ　dấu đồ kỹ quá nên quên mất chỗ cất, tìm không ra (Giú quá kỹ miếng bánh khi thúi mới biết).

---

• Huỳnh Công Tín (2007), Từ điển từ ngữ Nam Bộ, pp. 565:

giú /zuː⁵/, 　(vt) rấm, ủ trái cây cho chín. Ba cái chuối già này chỉ cần giú hai ngày là chín rục hết thôi.

giú ép /zuː⁵ ɛːp⁵/, 　(vt) ủ trái cây non chưa già để có trái chín sớm bán. Chuối non giú ép chát ngầm. Trai tơ đòi vợ khóc thầm thâu đêm. (cd)

giú khí đá /zuː⁵ xiː⁵ daː⁵/, 　(vn) ủ trái cây bằng đất đèn cho mau chín. Thường mấy trái cây non, bọn buôn nó hay giú khí đá cho mau chín, nên ăn mấy trái cây ấy có ra gì đâu.

---

• Vũ Đức Sao Biển (2010), Phương ngữ Quảng Nam (kỳ 1), Báo Quảng Nam:

giú:　Giấu. Che giấu. Đứa mô giú quyển sách của em X thì đưa ra. Cái chuyện động trời như rứa tại răng mi giú cho hắn?

---

• Trần Ngọc Bảo, Từ Điển Phương Ngữ Huế, pp. 77:

giú (+N)　đgt. 1. Nh chú, rấm (B): Bỏ chuối trong lu gạo mà giú cho mau chín. 2. dấu: Cụ mi thi đậu thì phải đãi anh em một bữa, cha răng mà giú kỹ rứa?

---

---

It's basically a hotchpotch of forms and orthographies. Amongst the above, Bùi (2004)'s inclusion of both dú and giú is puzzling. It is most likely an oversight, considering the use of non-orthographical forms such as dấu, dấu diếm, but there is a slim chance that it was intentional.

I think the two senses above are related, and are related to giấu, as well as a further Central Vietnamese form chú (same as sense #2 below). Giú is the etymological (and hence orthographical) form for the dialectal words, and should have two senses:

1. (Central Vietnam, Southern Vietnam) to hide; to cover; to conceal
2. (Central Vietnam, Southern Vietnam, specifically) to cover fruits to make them ripe artificially

The giú form is archaic, and the ‹âu› – ‹u› variation of Standard vs. (originally regional) Central Vietnamese parallels that in trâu – tru (“buffalo”), trầu – trù (“betel”), sâu – su (“deep”), bầu – bù (“gourd”), gấu – gụ (“bear”), etc.

The reconstructed Proto-Vietic form is conceivably *p-cuːʔ; Mường has chủ (“to hide”), and Rục cuː³ (“to cover seeds”, Ferlus), pacoːh³ (?, “to hide; to conceal”, Russian field rec.). Wyang (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your research! PhanAnh123 (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong at ប្រេង when using km-x two times? I think it is about unpaired tags. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80 The zero-width space messed it up. I will make the template spit out an error when the char is present. Wyang (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Assuming you have no use for any of these, would you mind deleting them all? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge Sure, all deleted. Wyang (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. Could you help me check if the variant pronunciations of 紮 are handled correctly at the entries 紮腳, 捆扎 and 紮住? Not sure when we should display zā. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: I've taken a look at these entries and made the necessary changes. I've also made 紮 clearer for when zā, zhā and zhá should be used. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Justin! ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is the translit for Matthew 23:38 supposed to look like

duu tə̀ət · ‘’‘’ bâan-mʉʉang kɔ̌ɔng jâo jà tùuk lá-tíng hâi rók-ráang gɛ̀ɛ jâo ‘

? —suzukaze (t・c) 04:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@suzukaze-c Fixed. Wyang (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that homophones in th-pron is missing. Please bring them back. See กัน. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80 My bad, Fixed. Wyang (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Will {{lo-pron}} be next on our agenda? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, I don't have a lot of resources on Lao pronunciations though at this stage. Wyang (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wonder what Octahedron80 has to say about the potential for the template. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

If this gets started, I'll take part in it, إِنْ شَاءَ ٱللَٰه (ʔin šāʔa llāh) :). There are less resources but Lao spelling is simpler than Thai, Khmer and Burmese, much more phonetic. We will still need respellings in some cases as well and a way to identify syllable boundaries (-) and consonant clusters, cf Thai ฺ. The current automated transliteration module makes much less mistakes even without these measures, if these are introduced and with some fixes, it may get nearly perfect, IMO but I am not sure if there are too many irregularities in terms of tones in Lao. We can use only terms available in Sealang to be safe, which gives IPA with tones. Unfortunately, there are no respellings in the Internet, so there will be some learning curve and initial struggle. Potential problems may be caused by words spelled the Thai way (=traditional, not phonetically). Modern Lao is like simplified Thai, really, many rules are similar, including the tone rules (what's the Lao equivalent of Thai ห (hɔ̌ɔ) to convert to high class?), and less exceptions, less complex clusters. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is is just me or is ctext.org now blocked in the PRC? ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic Indeed it seems to be: “This URL appears to be blocked in China”. I'm not sure about the reason though, seems strange for a site like ctext. Wyang (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed! How sad. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are there any other sites that allow for the searching of words in a guwen database? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic Not to my knowledge, unfortunately. You can try climb over the wall instead ... Wyang (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK no worries. Cheers! ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: 搜韻 (mostly poetry) and Kanseki Repository are good resources for guwen. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, thanks Justin! ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: No problem :D — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm in Wuhan and typically ctext.org doesn't load for the first time but does after a few refreshes. ctext.cn works, though --Dine2016 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. I can use ctext.cn from now on. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

...which now redirects to ctext.org which opens no problem. Looks like going through ctext.cn first circumvents the ban. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

• wireways, mesia, seselis, hairsted, emendals, metresse, recusance, gytes, pouping, gammatia

Equinox ◑ 21:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank, is the lüánshēng reading correct here? Just wanted to confirm. I've never heard lüán before. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic It is very weird in the Mainland, but it is an alternative reading in Taiwan: 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本. Wyang (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see, thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. Should we have a translingual section in WTO and cookie? e.g. Danish and Swedish seems using the initialism WTO directly.
2. Should we add Chinese citations to the English entries of WTO?
3. Should we add a English entry in Cookie mentioning it is mainly used in Chinese context? like this.

--Zcreator alt (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zcreator alt: Good question! I’m all ears. We need a language policy on this sort of things. I believe in votes, though. We need to do some work on it. -- Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

2, 3: Yes. Cookie is not mainly used in a Chinese context; it is mainly used by non-native speakers who are unfamiliar with English capitalisation rules. There is way too little non-native English information (sense, pronunciation) here on Wiktionary. Wyang (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

What's your opinion?--Zcreator alt (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know enough to comment on this. I just ordered a Nüshu dictionary and will need to research a bit more, but tentatively I think merger in a model similar to Dungan is reasonable. Wyang (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. Are these edits legit? They look a little dodgy to me. 車房 西京 汴京 中京 南京 北京 鞦韆 ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes :( —Suzukaze-c◆◆ 01:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Heya, I saw your recent update to the ZH etym at 大津 (Dàjīn), and was surprised to see you adding furigana. I've long been concerned that furigana could be confusing in any non-Japanese entry. For readers unfamiliar with furigana, these appear to be additional parts of the glyphs. (I've done informal surveys among acquaintances.) My own sense from a usability perspective is that we should not be using furigana except in Japanese entries. Do you have strong feelings about proactively using furigana in non-Japanese entries? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr: I remember we've agreed upon not using furigana in non-Japanese entries before, but I think Wyang (and I as well) think it's not that confusing in Chinese entries since it is quite obvious which parts are kanji if you know Chinese characters. It's currently still used in many etymologies and definitely in {{CJKV}} used under the descendants section. I also like the fact that it's autogenerating the romanization, which would minimize that error. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Autogenerating romanization is a plus. I also get your point about Chinese readers being less confused about glyphs.

However, for Chinese learners, introducing confusion about glyph shapes still strikes me as a usability issue, and kana are not anything either Chinese readers or English readers are likely to understand, much less so outside of Japanese contexts. It leaves me uneasy. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I’m also of the opinion that it’s not that confusing to Chinese readers or learners, since they are already familiar with the Chinese characters, and in cases like 大津 the Chinese characters are the same as the Japanese, and furigana acts as a guide for the pronunciation, much like in Chinese-language Japanese textbooks. A lot of Chinese speakers have an active or at least passive knowledge of some Japanese; I would suspect that Japanese is the most popular second language after English, in Mainland China, Taiwan, etc., so furigana is not really that foreign and confusing to someone who knows Chinese. I also think that it should be the default link format for Japanese texts in Japanese entries, especially in etymologies, where the links tend to be furigana-less currently. Wyang (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please be careful updating the Module:etymology code ... you introduced an extra parameter in format_borrowing without fixing all the callers, which reintroduced a bug that I just fixed a few days before (see спекулировать (spekulirovatʹ) for an example). Also, the documentation you added to {{learned borrowing}} and {{orthographic borrowing}} mentions the |nocap= parameter without mentioning the much more important |notext= parameter, which doesn't exist in {{borrowing}} because it's the default. Note that the {{orthographic borrowing}} template you introduced is incompatible in this respect with {{borrowing}}. (I'm personally of the opinion that |notext= should be the default for all of these templates, and you should need to specify |withtext= to get the extra text.) Benwing2 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I fixed this. Benwing2 (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I don't think the template {{affix}} should be used like this though; it is too disorderly. It should just be {{bor|ru|de|spekulieren}} + {{affix|ru|-овать}}. The element 1 can come from language 1, element 2 from itself, element 3 from language 2, suffix 1 from ... all types of weirdness. By the way, the text on the template output is discussed at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/April#Removing text on learned borrowing and doublet. I don't think the text should be removed either, at least on {{orthographic borrowing}}. 'Orthograhpic' should almost always be displayed on pages that call the template: 'borrowing' on Wiktionary refers to phonetic borrowing by default, and a reader who reads that Chinese 取消 (qǔxiāo) is borrowed from Japanese torikesu is likely to have a 黑人問號臉 than be enlightened. Wyang (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: FWIW, I agree with Wyang on the first point; {{af}} is doing too many things at the same time, and splitting it in {{bor}} + {{af}} works just fine. This reminds me of the old version of {{clq}}; it was awful. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

In response to Wyang ... interesting idea to split between {{bor}} and {{affix}}. I am OK with keeping the text for the {{orthographic borrowing}} template. For {{affix|langN=...}}, it again doesn't work if langN isn't lang1, so I think it's fine the way it (now) is, where the text is always suppressed; but you may well be right that it should instead be split into multiple templates. Benwing2 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

consists almost entirely of Chinese entries. "Radix aucklandiae" is a name of something used in traditional herbal medicine, which I have assumed is Aucklandia lappa, which is now taxonomically Saussurea costus.

Do you have a source that indicates the taxonomic name (preferably current) of the plant "radix aucklandiae" derives from?

I'd like to have entries for all the names of such ingredients that are attestable in Engish as well as for the the taxon names of the source plants. Is there a reasonably good English-language source that has the Latin names of Chinese herbal medicines and the taxonomic names of the plants (or other organisms) from which the medical ingredients are derived. DCDuring (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, I would like to make sure that there is agreement on the proper links for the various Hyponyms and Derived terms in Chinese entries. Should the link be from the Chinese entry to the Latin ingredient name, directly to the taxonomic name, or both? I'd be willing to make it both. DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring I'm not really familiar with traditional Chinese medicine, but Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China is probably what you are looking for. There's an English version, but I'm not sure if there's an online English version. The most recent edition is the 2015 one, consisting of four volumes, covering both traditional Chinese medicines and western medicines. Per the Chinese version of that edition, the medicinal material 木香 (Radix aucklandiae) is the dried root of the plant Aucklandia lappa Decne., which would be the same as Saussurea costus. Let me know if you need more information on that. I don't have strong opinions on whether to include the Latin ingredient names. Most of the articles containing "aucklandiae" are sum of parts IMO. Wyang (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

In Latin, per + se is SoP IMHO (though we have per se#Latin; in English per se is not. Arguably all the Latinate terms for medical ingredients that appear in contemporary publications in Chinese or English are candidates for inclusion, possibly in both languages and probably others. An option is to declare such terms Translingual.

I believe that there are some errors in the Latin names in the Chinese pharmacopoeia. These errors have been repeated in other works. I view that as evidence that the terms are not really being used as Latin. Other evidence is that a term like radix aucklandia apparently only refers to the prepared root of the plant, ie, the medical ingredient.

I tried to create model Derived terms sections in Chinese entries, but gave up because User:EncycloPetey said that he was going to work in this arena. AFAICT, he has not. Without some kind of agreement among interested parties, I am not willing to work further on this, even if there are no interested parties. Do you know of anyone who cares to work on this in any way? DCDuring (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring Sorry, I meant that the Chinese entries containing "aucklandiae" are mostly sum of parts IMO - they are names of TCM prescriptions and medicinal products. Only person I could think of is User:Psoup, who created these entries, but has been inactive for several years now. Wyang (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll look to see if there are any respectable on-line dictionaries that cover such terms, taking that as an indication that they may me dictionary-worthy. DCDuring (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's really quite obnoxious and rather amazingly rude of you to delete an entire talk page just because your own personal opinions differ from what was expressed there. I have a book which clearly states that 姦 "is the character most widely recognized as discriminatory", and that as far back as the 1980s Japanese feminists disliked it, but I guess your approach to the whole matter would be to want to burn that book! AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I also have a news article titled “Enduring Prejudices of Gender Woven Into Chinese Language” published in the New York Times, by their reporter from China who is supposedly delivering “unbiased news”. Have a read of the comments to that article to see how idiotic and insulting this kind of article is. Now, your talk page comment is not only unhelpful, but also ignorant and inflammatory. Western writers' conduct of cherrypicking so-called evidence from Oriental languages to satisfy a particular viewpoint and criticise their language and people without understanding the languages at all is just incredibly rude and typical, and this conduct prevails in the West because it appeals to the Western audience, in that there is immense satisfaction derived from reading insinuating, derogatory comments directed towards the Orient. The character has been in use for thousands of years in the exact same form, and the native users feel no offence when using it ― ask yourself, has there been any movement to abolish or modify this character in areas where it is actually used? Instead, Western feminists feel butthurt and claim it's 'notorious' (notorious where? in the west?), and write articles like the one above to remind the Western audience that ancient societies have always been sexist. Surprise surprise! But who are you to judge and criticise? Why not protest on man, husband and wife instead? Just another example of people whose sole purpose of quoting words in Oriental languages is to deride, disparage and denounce, rather than appreciate. Wyang (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. Any idea why there are only two "A" entries showing up here? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The sortkeys generated by T:zh-pron are incorrect... this needs to be fixed in M:zh-pron (by calling other modules to process/convert raw romanisations into sortkeys). The infrastructure is long due for an overhaul. :( Wyang (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

On 2017年2月24日 (五) 07:44, you made the page for 南河. But it was only today, more than a year later, that 南河 was added to the list of compounds including 南 on the 南 page. I manually added 南河 to the 南 compound list. I have no knowledge of computer programming, but I think that there should be some way to automatically 'grab' all the pages with a given character and add them to the compounds lists. (Discussion topic at Beer Parlor: Compounds lists: 南 南河） --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could you have a look at the changes I made here re etymology when you get time? Are they accurate? I read that 文明 when used in 易經 in the passage I quoted means 光明有文采. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic I tweaked it a little- "being civilised and cultured"; the quote is translated by James Legge as "elegance and brightness". Wyang (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

缻 does not belong there; it should be 𬎩. As 𬎩 is an alternative glyph of 缸 (), I don't see the meaning of including 𬎩. But I couldn't figure out how to remove 缻 from phonetic series 工... Would you like to help? Sorry for not being tech-savvy. Dokurrat (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sure, removed. (They are on Module:zh-glyph/phonetic and Module:zh-glyph/phonetic/list). Wyang (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Merci! Dokurrat (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Currently have an error, please fix it.--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done. Wyang (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you (or perhaps @Mahagaja) read Burmese script well enough to figure out how to type the Aiton word for "water; river", here? If so, then the entry can be moved. - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@-sche It's ꩫံ. The letter ꩫ is currently displayed as joined (for me), as in the Phake style, but it's the same Unicode codepoint for the Aiton consonant (Unicode Khamti proposal). Wyang (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Aha! Thank you. That explains why I couldn't figure it out. - -sche (discuss) 04:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you were able to answer that, Wyang, because I wouldn't have known. I know nothing at all about the Khamti letters. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 07:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I love the category you made called Category:Triplicated Chinese characters. I added a bunch this morning. Also- I spoke with Chuck Entze about making a Category:zh:Communities for the 社区 of mainland China. I already made the page, but it doesn't automatically collect the new villages I add like Category:zh:Villages does. How can I make it go? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. There are also Duplicated and Quadruplicated character categories, if you are interested. With communities, I believe you also have to add it to Module:place/data. Wyang (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I will check out the other categories. I save this information and figure this out later. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Should this be categorized in Category:Triplicated Chinese characters? This is not its glyph origin.--Zcreator alt (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

And also 㐂, 𠄕.--Zcreator alt (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also 𬻄, 𫡤 (not used in Chinese).--Zcreator alt (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also 𠓪 (Triplication of a non-existant character).--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was going by 三疊字 (sāndiézì), which seems to class by (superficial) modern forms. I'm not quite sure. Wyang (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. I was wondering if you could add the other senses for this term when you get the time? E.g. 發過來, 醒過來, 轉過來, 照顧不過來, etc. I'm really not very good at grammatical definitions. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is not easy... I had to have a think about the different uses. :) I added some senses and examples now. Wyang (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Brilliant. I asked for your help as it seemed pretty urgent. Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I am planning create a module that distinguishes each "Hanja" (with "Kanji" and "trad/simp") morpheme on Korean Wiktionary, like Template:zh-forms with Module:zh-forms you made: e.g. 朝鮮民主主義人民共和國#Chinese. But now I know little about computer programming language. So, if you would, could you help me craete the module? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Garam Hi. I made a draft on ko:Template:zh-forms. I've removed a couple of features in the original module that seem unnecessary on the Korean Wiktionary, and partially translated the module and template. I'm not sure whether the gloss extraction is desirable; you and other Korean editors can further modify the module as you guys see fit. Let me know if you need more help with this. Wyang (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot. For now, I will try to retouch it on my own. And I will visit here again, if I need your help. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello- first of all, my user name is 'Geographyinitiative', so I understand I have a bias toward including some geographical information that may be seen as total junk. I completely understand your point about the communities not really worthy enough to be listed.

I will respect whatever decisions the community makes about the 社区 that I have added to wiktionary. But I have to completely disagree with the viewpoint that 中南财经政务大学南湖社区 is not really worthy enough to be listed under the compounds section on the 中, 南, 财, 经 etc. pages. The article Loving includes mention of an area that has less than fifty human beings populating it: 'An unincorporated community and a county in Texas'. 中南财经政务大学南湖社区 has thousands of people living in it, way way more worthy than many other location names with fewer people. Yeah, maybe an awkward naming (it's not two or four characters, and maybe the ping-ze is not pretty enough), but I have two reliable sources which say that this is a real shequ. National Bureau of Stats in China and the xzqh (xingzhengquhua) website. From my personal perspective, it's a real shequ, and it is thereby inherently worthy enough to be listed.

I want to abide by the spirit of the community, so I will definitely not add back any words that are deleted from the compounds section, and I will not fight for it. If all the words I add to compounds sections/ new shequ pages/etc minor start being deleted, then I will stop doing them too. There's lots to do on wikipedia and wiktionary; this is just one tiny part of it. It's a fun hobby I've developed. Don't let me cause any problems- I only want to help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative It's a harsh statement but the average user who looks up, or bumps into the entries 財經, 大學, 中, 南, 财, 经 is not going to be interested in 中南财经政法大学南湖社区. The entry itself may pass inclusion, but listing it under those pages would be 喧賓奪主. The name is parsed as 中南财经政法大学 + 南湖 as well. Btw, it is 中南财经政法大学南湖社区, not 中南财经政务大学南湖社区. Wyang (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I 100% understand the concerns you presented here. I changed the parsing on the 中南财经政法大学南湖 page. If any other entries are similarly not acceptable, let me know. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @Geographyinitiative I was going to contact you about the 社區 entries as well. Why don't you work on User:Tooironic/Chinese_cities instead? They would be much more useful and easily pass Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. By the way, the listing of some senses on Loving, a one-word entry, is not really comparable to adding an new entry like 中南财经政法大学南湖社区. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." (WP:GEOLAND) You want me to create entries based on usefulness, but I am creating entries based on notability. If this doesn't satisfy wiktionary's policies of criteria for inclusion, then I will quit making these articles. In my ideal, all the village-level divisions, including 社区, would appear on wikipedia, wiktionary etc. The name of 中南财经政法大学南湖社区 doesn't look as pretty as the two-character names of many other 社区, but I found it in two sources, and it seems reasonable enough. No question that it administers thousands of people. To avoid including 中南财经政法大学南湖社区 is to say that Loving, where there are less than 100 people, is more important than this 社区, where there are thousands of people. The way I see it, all minor geography is minor and could be considered less useful than other work. But in fact, I'm setting down a foundation for a wiki world in which Chinese minor geography is more 完善. I have added some cities too. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

But Wiktionary is not Wikipedia: we include terms based on their lexicalness, not notability. Even a term like QQ failed Wiktionary's inclusion processes on more than one occasion if memory serves me right. Why don't you take this to a vote or discussion to get a consensus before you continue with this project? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic I agree that the cities are definitely high-priority. All created now. Wyang (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well that was quick! Great work as always! ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why would 包包 be a "see also"? It's not an alternative form. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: Exactly because they're not alt forms. They're visually, phonetically and structurally similar, so it'd be good to go under "see also". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

So does that mean for every 提手旁-character we have to include its non-提手旁 equivalent in the see-also box? What about other characters and their 偏旁部首? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: I think this needs to be judged case-by-case. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I got your notice about the problem with 搅屎棍 and have made a note on my page to refer to this category page for new page templates in the future. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. Is this a legitimate variant form? If so, surely we should use the usual redirection? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: This is the standard form in Hong Kong. I've made it a soft redirect. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see. I see you've made it a soft redirect. That makes sense I think and keeps consistency across the entries. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Wyang, I noticed that you have blocked four IPs indefinitely due to disruptive edits from Badagnani. Can we modify those blocks to be long but not indefinite and adjust them to exempt logged-in users so that the collateral damage is minimized? The WHOIS info on the four IPs is also strange, I wonder if there are alternative paths to disciplining this user. Thanks - TheDaveRoss 14:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I changed them to five years. Wyang (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Would the idea of creating a soft redirection template for Japanese (in a similar way to {{zh-see}} for Chinese) work? The idea of soft redirection without POS headers had been brought up in this revision of 貴方, which was created as an experiment format by @Eirikr. By contrast, the current page layout for sub-entries requires copying the POS headers from the main entry and manually adding glosses, which may become out of date if the main entry changes later.

By the way, the code layout of User:Wyang/zh-def looks really good and I think it might be more beneficial for Japanese than Chinese, given the current status of layout standardization. --Dine2016 (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016 Thanks! I agree with the points about Japanese soft-redirects. It's feasible and I think something that should be done. That revision of 貴方 looks good overall, though I would probably prefer a soft-redirect format that is more eye-catching, like {{zh-see}}.

The separation of senses and their respective synonyms/antonyms/dialectal equivalents/... in Chinese and Japanese entries is inefficient and difficult to maintain; the synonyms etc. should be moved to their senses, though the default {{syn}}, {{ant}}, etc. templates provide no support for Japanese ruby and Chinese as usual. The usage examples for Japanese and Chinese are also too long vertically, and this often discourages including more examples for learners, out of fear of distraction from the senses themselves. Wyang (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just created {{ja-see}} and updated 貴方 as an example. Does it need a discussion or vote to be accepted?

If it is turned into a module some day, we can have more functions such as fetching the appropriate romaji (using kana spelling is not sufficient: {{ja-see|よう}} may be either yō or you), glosses with POS information, and relevant categories from the target page. We might also want to group Sino-Japanese homonyms like {{ja-see|完成|感性|閑静|...}} to save space. --Dine2016 (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I like it. I noticed it 'clears' the margin at the bottom - very smart. It may need to be raised in BP or some Japanese page to have the attention of more relevant editors, but I do hope it (as well as the Japanese format change proposal not long ago) can pass. Wyang (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me too. Mostly.  :) One qualm -- why is it formatted as: (This term, XXX, is a kanji spelling of YYY.) I feel like "a kanji" shouldn't be italicized. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Do you have any interest in implementing additional functionality for {{ja-see}}, such as category synchronization? Also, for wago terms, do you think if kanjitab information should be on the lemma entry (e.g. まっとう) or on the respective kanji entries (全う, 真っ当)? Not sure when we can start using {{ja-see}} on actual entries -- discussions on Japanese entry layout seems to be defeated by silence often... --Dine2016 (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016 Hi. I think most people who are interested (and can be bothered) have already expressed their opinions, so feel free to go ahead. :) Just let me know if there is anything you would like me to help with. I don't have a strong preference for kanjitab, but IMO the layout with the least code duplication is the best layout. If ja-see can generate the categories and/or the tab from the lemma page, that would be the optimal solution. Wyang (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree that the layout with the least code duplication is the best. One good thing about the current Chinese layout is that due to unified Chinese, there is no need to repeat the pinyin or simplified form in every headword template, which makes entries easy to maintain. Would it be possible to apply the format to Japanese? My attempt here still requires manually copying pronunciation information to the "Inflection" section. (Also the kanjitabs may take too much space for some wago.) --Dine2016 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016: It's quite a novel layout. Of course these templates should be gradually refined, and it would be good to change the colour schemes of the templates to avoid confusion - for me the page was immediately reminiscent of the Chinese structure :). That said, I think moving the pronunciation info all to the Pronunciation section is a very good idea. Wyang (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia says it's ueo 🤷 —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 08:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c Did you mean Revised Romanization of Hangeul? The "RR transliteration" in the template (Wiktionary:About Korean/Romanization#RR transliteration) is different- it refers to the official variant of the current RR standard in South Korea, not that superseded system. Wyang (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I see. It sounded like they were the same thing orz —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 09:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it looks like revised 1, revised 2, revised 3, ... Wyang (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

A recent change to 같다 (gatda) prompted me to re-read the discussion page there, and then to re-read chunks of your Archive5 page.

From there, I stumbled across Tibetan ཐུག་པ (thug pa), and from there, the verb ཐུག (thug) -- and I was struck by the similarities to JA つく (tsuku).

In the past, I'd dug into the etymology of 飯 (ii, ancient ipi), and explored the oddities of borrowed reading ritsu for 立, where the Middle Chinese ends in /p/. I hypothesize that 飯 (ancient ipi, original meaning “cooked grain”) is actually a nativized ancient prehistorical borrowing from Middle Chinese 粒 (MC lip, “grain”): initial /l/ or /r/ was not part of the phoneme inventory for stages earlier than OJP, so that falls out, while the pre-OJP maintains the final /p/ that was mangled in odd ways in later borrowings.

• For 立 (ritsu), do you have any information on why the final /p/ in Middle Chinese was re-interpreted instead as a /t/? Granted, this only manifests in the 慣用音 (kan'yōon), rather than as the directly-borrowed reading, but the kan'yōon is also the most common reading for this kanji now.
• Have you ever run into anyone suggesting that supposed native reading ipi for 飯 might represent an ancient nativized borrowing?
• Is there any likelihood that JA verb つく (tsuku) might be another ancient nativized borrowing? The similarities between JA つく (tsuku) and BO ཐུག (thug) really jumped out at me. This could be purely coincidental.
• Are there any similar likely-nativized borrowings that you're aware of in KO?

Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr The kan’yōon confusion of -p also happened in 接(せつ) (setsu), 執(しつ) (shitsu), 摂(せつ) (setsu), 圧力(あつりょく) (atsuryoku) and so on. You may be interested to read 「日本字音における唇内入声韻尾の促音化と舌内入声音への合流過程」 (1956) by 小松英雄, who proposed that it may be due to analogy from the sokuon reduction. It was further discussed in 舘野由香理's 「現代日本漢語における唇内入声音の促音化について」 (2012), who called these 促音化する唇内入声字.

I'm not aware of ipi being proposed to be an ancient borrowing, but the loss of l- is an interesting theory. I'm reminded of Iwo Jima, where there could be a similar loss: 硫黄(いおう) (iō). Robbeets thinks it may be a deverbal of *ip (?) “to eat” ― similar to OC 飯 (OC *bons, “food”) < 飯 (OC *bonʔ, “to eat”). In Korean there is 벼 (pye, “rice plant”).

Starostin separates the two kinds of tsuku: “to touch; to reach; to be attached” and “to hit; to knock”, and comments that the former was “a secure common Altaic root”. *tVk is also a fairly common ST root. I think this may be due to coincidence or onomatopoeia.

Ik-sang Eom has done some interesting research on Old Sino-Korean contact and I'm sure you will enjoy his works. :) A special kind of correspondence is between OC cluster initials and disyllabic Korean words, e.g. 街 (OC *kreː, *kreː) ~ 거리 (geori), 器 (OC *kʰrɯds) ~ 그릇 (geureut), 畫 (OC *ɡʷreːɡs, *ɡʷreːɡ) ~ 그리— (geuri-), 風 (OC *plum, *plums) ~ 바람 (baram)... More in his “2,200 Years of Language Contact between Korean and Chinese” in the Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics (2015). Wyang (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Much food for thought (ha!), thank you!

Re: Robbeets, I'm quite confused by her assertion of a Middle Japanese verb stem if- meaning “to eat” -- the only verb with that phonemic shape that I've ever encountered in Japanese is 言う (iu, “to say”), ancient reading ipu, with an MJ verb stem of if-. A deverbalized noun from this would indeed be ipi, evolving to modern ii, but that means “saying”, not “eating” or “cooked grain”. Odd.

Re: initial l- in OJP and earlier, Unger talks about that some in his etymologies for 昼 (hiru, “daytime”) and 夜 (yoru, “nighttime”), explaining that these cannot be simply compounds, since the -ru here cannot be an independent morpheme as words at that stage of the language's history couldn't start with r- (by extension, l-). Sure enough, there's a notable dearth of words even in modern Japanese that start with r-, and those are primarily kango or other borrowings.

Anyway, thanks again! Back to the grindstone with me for a bit longer yet. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Is there any way to expand the templates in the returning text of a module? I encountered this problem when trying to make {{ja-see}} transclude appropriate sections. --Dine2016 (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016 The clumsy method is frame:expandTemplate() (mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual#frame:expandTemplate), which is also used by Module:zh-see to generate the categories on Simplified Chinese entries. Wyang (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, although Suzukaze-c hinted at frame:preprocess. I just encountered another problem: is ther any way to get the frame of the lemma entry (the entry to fetch content from), so that headword templates will expand with the correct PAGENAME? Otherwise, it might only be possible to solve the problem by making headword templates accept one more parameter to override the default PAGENAME obtained with mw.title.getCurrentTitle().text. --Dine2016 (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016 Hmm, this is tricky. I haven't used frame:preprocess() before, and I'm not quite sure either. Wyang (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

What should be do about this recent anon and his/her contributions? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: I've fixed all of their entries. I guess if they continue to make problematic edits, we can leave them a message about it. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Justin. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: No problem! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. There is an entry MCH suaX for 溑 in the Module:ltc-pron, but link to 溑 page is absent from the ltc-pron index returned by api.php with action=query & list=categorymembers. Is there a way to obtain correct index of ltc-pron entries? Wdawus (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wdawus That's strange, I can replicate this bug. To get the correct list, you can try using the database scanner of AutoWikiBrowser to return a list of pages matching that prefix. Wyang (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I didn't know about the AWB tool and I've tried to avoid downloading the dump because of my weak computer. May I also point out couple minor och-pron typos: entries 鳏,啴, 鱽, 鲘, 横, 硁, 缞, 鲖, 锽, 鳚, 瑶, 謡 use simplified glyphs, they should be replaced with traditional glyphs 鰥, 嘽, 魛, 鮜, 橫, 硜, 縗, 鮦, 鍠, 䲁, 瑤, 謠. Wdawus (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also OCH 丼 *kloːmʔ should be *kl'oːmʔ (> MC tomX). Although it's the only occurrence of *kl'- in the Zhengzhang system.

@Wdawus Thank you! I have corrected the ones above (the last two have already been fixed by User:KevinUp). Please let me know if there are more, or if you'd like me to generate a list of ltc-pron pages. Feel free to correct any mistakes you see as well. Great to have you on board. Wyang (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

By the way, there is a list of all page titles on the dump page for enwikt. It's fairly easy to grep to get a ltc-pron list: here it is. It has 19,707 entries, slightly more than the 19,678 on Category:Middle Chinese pronunciation data modules. Wyang (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. I noticed that the Mandarin reading here (appears) to be in error - surely it is ài not āi, at least in compounds like 狹隘 et al. Any thoughts? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic I'm seeing ài (fourth tone). Is it the font misdisplay issue again? I thought it was fixed after Justin changed the font? Wyang (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It was āi before I fixed it in diff. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Justin. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: Not a problem :D — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is this really Sino-Korean? "New Gauze" seems a very unlikely name for a kingdom.

Was this meant to be "New La", where La was a native tribe name or place name, and 羅 was only used phonetically? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

(apologies for spastic editing today) -- or was this 羅 some kind of locative as discussed above? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr {{ko-etym-sino}} is inappropriate; the term is a Sino-Korean reading (of a Hanja transcription of the native name), not a "Sino-Korean word". It is likely that both characters were used phonetically. I believe this is User:Liturgy's concern when creating that entry too. I've created a similar template {{ko-sino-reading}} for these entries. Wyang (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It could do with some actual detail on the Old Korean word, though. I'm also a bit bothered by claims made at Japanese 新羅, which seem to make some far-reaching claims that contradict the ety at 奈良, among other things. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Μετάknowledge, the etym at Japanese 奈良 is underdeveloped. I've been banging on this (i.e. sorting through ideas and research) for a while, and just haven't gotten around to building it out, in part as I haven't pulled together a bibliography, and Fumiko has been quite aggressive in past about uncited etym claims. (Japanese 新羅 could use sources too, for that matter.)

See the thread above, ], for relevant details. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

PS: The etym at Japanese 奈良 has also been excessively pruned, perhaps in a POV way -- see the last version touched by Bendono here, I've learned to trust his edits in most cases. (I disagree with some formatting, but content-wise, he's been quite good.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I strongly dislike the "grasping at threads" style of Altaic linguistics, and there's a hint of it there. The traditional explanation might well be a folk etymology, but if we're going to present wide-ranging comparisons to Korean with little semantic justification, references are a bare minimum. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Μετάknowledge: Duly noted. FWIW, I'm not that up on Altaicism. What I've read in general of folks like Dogopolsky, Starostin, et al makes me dubious of many of the "lumpers"; see Thread:User talk:Rua/Unexplained deletions: continuing what appears to be a common theme/reply (9) for a few examples where "lumpers" have gotten things very wrong with regard to Japanese roots. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to override the simplified form.--Zcreator alt (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, in 馬體會 the simplified form should probably be removed.--Zcreator alt (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also 皇馬 currently have a module error.--Zcreator alt (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's probably easier to manually supply trad and simp with zh-l in that case. I've removed the requirement for an argument in that template. Wyang (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent expansion of that entry. I'm curious if the 말 (mal) portion is more about the “big” sense than the “horse” sense? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr Hmm, different dictionaries seem to give different etymologies. The Yale Dictionary (1975) interprets it as "horse-bee", while The Daum Dictionary says mal is a prefix ("big"). I will tweak the etymology. The two senses of "horse" and "big" are probably related; the "big" sense of mal may be a calque from Chinese 馬 (or some other language). Wyang (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Compare also English horse with a sense of big, huge: horse pill, I could eat a horse, big as a horse, etc.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Consider also horse laugh, horseradish, horse chestnut, horse ant, horsefly, horsenettle, horseplay, and horseweed- all of which are associated with bigness, coarseness and sometimes harshness. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. I was just wondering whether you knew of a list that compiled the various "simplified" characters that have been in use since ancient times? Characters like 尔, 灾, 万, etc. Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic Hey. 《宋元以來俗字譜》 is probably what you are looking for. Wyang (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

this edit caused a module error. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, fixed. Wyang (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Further details added by an IPv6 anon seem ... dubious at best. I might be open to some kind of connection between ZH and KO + JA, but the Ainu is clearly the same term as kamuy “god”, which is probably related to JA 神 (kami, standalone form, and kamu, bound form), where kami is probably a phonetic development from kamu + i, reflected in the Ainu.

Pure bunkum? Or is there something cromulent hiding in the dross? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr It's comparing the wrong things... There are good Sino-Tibetan cognates that should be mentioned instead. I will rewrite it. Wyang (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

How can I mark the reading of 挑起 in this synonyms list as tiǎoqǐ, not tiāoqǐ? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic You can use 挑起:tiǎoqǐ in {{zh-syn-list}} as well, same as {{zh-der}}. Wyang (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I just noticed that an IP removed from the etymology of phản ảnh the Chinese origin of the word. As I am not conversant with Vietnamese at all, I refrained from reverting, but I would like to notify you of this change, in case that edit is misleading and worth reverting. Greetings, The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Bogorm Hi Bogorm, thanks for letting me know. Those edits have a point, and I'm fine with the changes. Wyang (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello- sorry to bother you, but on the 堤 page, right now we see "alt. forms 隄／堤". 堤 obviously shouldn't be in the alt. forms box of 堤. Same with the 绱 in the alt. forms box on the 緔 page. I imagine there is some way to suppress the superfluous 堤 and 绱, but I can't imagine how to do it and I can't think of an analogous page which might give me the information would need to fix the problem. Can you give me any suggestions??? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative Yes, please see my edits there. Wyang (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

These entries does not mention whether they are Sino-Vietnamese readings. They should be fixed.--Zcreator alt (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Wyang (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank. Would it be possible to display the relevant sense when listing synonyms? This would be particulary useful in entries like 咧咧 which have more than one synonym list for more than one sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic Good idea, I added |title=, which could help clarify the sense. Wyang (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

One more question, sorry, how can I get rid of the pinyin display for Hakka 故所 at Thesaurus:因此? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: Same as zh-l... with an asterisk in front of the word to suppress it. Wyang (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

What exactly is * for? since it also disables conversion to simplified. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 01:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just the word by itself, without any added functionality like conversion and pronunciation. Wyang (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

If it does disable conversation to simplified this could be a problem in the future for words that have simplified counterparts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps another functionality is needed in conjunction with *, akin to {{zh-usex}} and its various tricks... Wyang (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I see that you're one of the admins who dealt with the problematic user IvanScrooge98 and blocked him in en.wiktionary. Lately he's been creating troubles in en.wikipedia too, always about phonetic transcriptions and especially by adding non-consensual and useless text inside "<nowiki>"... May you do anything to stop him there too? Even just reporting him to Wikipedian sysops and reverting his edits would be useful! Thank you in advance :-)

@37.140.192.50 Hi. Sorry I rarely edit on Wikipedia, so I can't really help you there. Someone on Wikipedia would probably be more helpful. Wyang (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think something went wrong with your edit to Module:och-pron- Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:och-pron and CAT:E are rapidly approaching unity...Chuck Entz (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Thanks! Fixed. Bot-clearing... Wyang (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, my example is indeed weird. Hahaha! Dokurrat (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply