Talk:傾偈

Etymology
, I think the 謦欬 theory is kinda controversial. Any good evidence to support this? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are:
 * 香港教育局 粵語通古今（粵語和古詩文誦讀） (@2:10, quite slow, a faster but less clear version is here)
 * 粵音正讀 第814集 謦欬(一)第815集 謦欬(二)
 * 曾焯文：傾偈、傾蓋定謦欬？
 * Not that they are super-rigorous and academic sources... but these for now. Wyang (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's not convincing, unless we say that 傾偈 is somehow reanalysed into two independent morphemes 傾 ("to chat") and 偈 ("words; conversation"), e.g. 傾心事, 傾生意, 傾閒偈, 唔同你傾咁耐, 咁多偈傾. 謦欬 also has phonological issues. 傾偈 should already be 本字, cf. 傾談, 傾訴, 傾吐. Even 白宛如's 廣州方言詞典 (known for using obscure 本字) uses 傾偈. I think we can put the 謦欬 theory as an alternative theory. What do you think? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as it's mentioned. IMO 謦欬 is a much better etymology still... 傾 meaning "to chat" is limited to Cantonese, and "偈" meaning "words" is also Cantonese-only - there is a high chance those uses were influenced by a reanalysis as "to talk, to chat + words". 天 in 聊天 in Mandarin is also reanalysed to mean "words" in certain situations, e.g. "有很多天可以聊", "聊闲天". Wyang (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)