Talk:ဗနိက်

RFV discussion: September–October 2022
I request to delete the ဗနိက် page, there is no serious discussion about deleting the ဗနိက် page because it is completely wrong, so I think the wiki officials will perceive that I am an expert in the Mon language, thanks.--咽頭べさ (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This should be moved to WT:RFVN. Theknightwho (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a lot wrong with this request.
 * Firstly, this page is for the deletion of things other than lexical entries; rather it is for the deletion of things like templates, modules, categories and user pages. For a page like ဗနိက်, one should rather use WT:RFDN, but see below.
 * Taking "there is no serious discussion..." literally, the reason for the current lack of such discussion is that you should have inserted a notice in the entry to alert people that it's deletion had been requested.
 * The next is a problem with English idiom. What I presume you intended people to understand is "there is no need for serious discussion about deleting the ဗနိက် page because it is completely wrong".
 * However, such a claim is wrong. Indeed, when I search Google for the word, I find evidence of the existence of a word with that spelling.  Therefore, as has already been stated, your request for deletion should be changed to a 'request for verification', appearing on WT:RFVN - and a notice is needed in the page for the term itself.
 * There is no logic to "so I think". I think you have misunderstood the word so.
 * 'Wiki officials' may perceive that you have at least a vaguely academic interest in Mon language. Whether you are an expert is another matter.  You might be an expert in some matters concerning it, but that does not make you enough of an expert for us always to believe what you say. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Possible we should just dismiss the request now, for I have found the word at Revelations 18:11, and have recorded the quotation. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, okay, I've told on this English Wiktionary that I'm still inexperienced with wikis, so how many times do I have to say it later?, I'm still working on making my wiki the best it can be, sometimes I've made some mistakes on the wiki without any bad intentions, so the reason is that no one has ever taught me how to use a wiki, so I haven't been taught how to use a wiki, but I've been doing it on my own.--咽頭べさ (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You also make mistakes here. I will sometimes explain them here, as the processes are not always obvious.  This may help with ideas on how to run the Mon Wiktionary, but applying them to a one-man Wiktionary may be difficult.  --RichardW57 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me ask you some questions. 1. What qualifications do you define as an expert in Mon literature?, Do you consider a person who can copy everything written in a book without understanding the Mon vocabulary to be an expert in Mon literature?.--咽頭べさ (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I suspect that you and I understand different things by 'Mon literature'. For example, this discussion would not be considered English literature, but, excluding my peculiarities, my errors and quotations from Mon, what I write is part of the subject matter of the English Wiktionary.

2. Did you know that many Mon people can speak Mon fluently, but they have very poor knowledge of Mon literature? --咽頭べさ (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think a great many native English speakers have a poor knowledge of English literature, so it does not surprise me in the least. If you mean that they have poor spelling, that is an argument for labels like 'misspelling', 'deprecated' and 'non-standard' to be applied in labels or definitions of the Mon lemmas recorded.  Of course, some objective criteria for such labels would be helpful.

3. Mon Wiktionary currently has only one daily author, do you know who that person is? --咽頭べさ (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You make it sound like a failed project.

4. Is it possible that someone who writes daily on Mon Wiktionary doesn't know Mon vocabulary?,...--咽頭べさ (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I thought I had a large English vocabulary, but there are plenty of English words on Wiktionary that I don't know. I'm also aware that 'Literary Mon' had variable spelling, though I can't quantify it. How does what you accept compare to Literary Mon? I've seen reference to simplified spelling being used to make texts comprehensible. How does that relate to what you accept?

... for practice, check out the functions on Mon Wiktionary (take a look at this mnw:حول page as an example) if you are really a Mon vocabulary expert, please read this ဗနိက် vocabulary to me with your own audio file(example Intobesa's own audio files), I have requested that the ဗနိက် page be deleted, it is up to you to delete that page or not, thanks.--咽頭べさ (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a Mon vocabulary expert. How much else of the translation of Revelations 18:11-12 do you object to?

Do you understand the word ဗနိက်? Why do you object to it? Why do you consider it 'completely wrong'? Your answers may be helpful, though I am quite sure it meets the rules for inclusion in Wiktionary.--RichardW57 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Our Mon literature is divided into reading writing and speaking writing (take a look at this ဒူရေန် audio file as an example). I have often found that some Mon people write their own Mon vocabulary incorrectly(as an example, check out this photo on Facebook), no one but Mon scholars can know what is right or wrong in Mon terms, and sometimes some Mon scholars make mistakes by accident, so I personally check the wiki many times to make sure I don't write Mon vocabulary mistakes, I came to this wiki only to protect Mon literature. I have found many mistakes in Mon vocabulary in Mon-Japanese Dictionary and Mon-Thai Dictionary, so even genuine Mon people write Mon vocabulary incorrectly, is it possible that non-Mon people can write Mon vocabulary correctly?. I have personally researched and checked the Mon vocabulary I wrote on the wiki many times, thanks.--咽頭べさ (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't actually answer my question.
 * shows an example of what Mathias Jenny calls 'reading pronunciation' (RP) and what he would call 'Spoken Mon' (SM), which for this word seems to have a fairly uniform pronunciation.
 * I couldn't work out what was going on in the photograph. I can only guess that the two words (or expressions) have the same meaning, and one is preferred in some contexts.  Remember that common spelling errors are recorded by Wiktionary - the usual example given is seperate.  That is currently complicated by the citation of a 16th century use of the spelling, from when English spelling was very variable.  One technique that some dictionary writers have used is to check spellings with Mon-speaking consultants.
 * How do you find out whether a Mon spelling is correct? --RichardW57 (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ,sorry, I don't think it's necessary to answer your questions at length, so I'm not going to answer them, the reason is that your questions seem to be mocking my knowledge, so I am not replying. think about it, is it possible that a writer like me with knowledge of eight languages can't read (ဗနိက်) vocabulary?, the word ဗနိက် is spelled phonetically, so I'm asking you to delete the ဗနိက် page. the ဗနိက် vocabulary writing style is likely to be harmful to future Mon literature, so the ဗနိက် page has been requested to be deleted. I think people can come to Wiktionary and learn about vocabulary words they don't know, so I don't really want people to learn vocabulary mistakes on Wiktionary, so at Wiktionary, we want people to learn only the correct vocabulary. in the future, I don't want people learning Mon vocabulary mistakes on this Wiktionary after I'm dead, I am not a healthy person and I do not know when I will die, so before I die, I want to do a lot of work on Mon on the wiki, my actions on the wiki are only for future Mon literature and Mon history. I am an expert in understanding Mon literature of all ages, I have also done ancient research work, thanks.-- 𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪  18:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There might have have been a very useful answer to that question. As deleting the word may make it harder to understand the Bible in Mon, I utterly refuse to support the deletion of that spelling. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two things you can do to this spelling so as to 'protect Mon literature'.
 * You can follow the advice of and tag the article with  and explain at WT:RFVN why it should not be included in Wiktionary.  As I have made clear above, I think the word will be upheld as meriting inclusion.  If you find the task too difficult, tell me the reason the spelling should not be included and I will enter it on your behalf (unless the text would be counted as misbehaviour).  You can provide both a short explanation for the article and a longer one for WT:RFVN.
 * You can tag the word as 'deprecated' or similar. For example, you could insert deprecated or nonstandard at the start of the definition.  Another method would be to replace mnw by mnw.
 * You could do both. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * okay, I am very tired of having to edit or discuss Mon vocabulary mistakes, after I died, I was very worried that this kind of mistake would still exist.😥😥 𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪  11:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The reason for this request for deletion is invalid. All attested spellings except for typos (!= misspellings) should be included on Wiktionary per WT:CFI. 沈澄心✉ 15:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that you might have a bad intention to defend and talk like this, even though it is not your mother tongue,, so as long as you keep interrupting this discussion, I won't come back to discuss it. 𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪 |𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 05:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh. I guess you still haven't read WT:CFI. --沈澄心✉ 06:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The word's even got an attested derived term, ! I haven't worked out the interpretation of at wikt:mnw:ဗၞိက် - it hinges on what may be an obscure use of. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't want to say anything more about this matter, I'm really disappointed that I have to continue using English Wiktionary because of the Mon vocabulary error, so it is very hateful to argue with native language experts without being able to understand the Mon language themselves. 𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪 |𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 10:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)