Talk:古同

RFD discussion: August–October 2023
Chinese. SoP, and should not be analysed as a noun given it literally means "in ancient times, equivalent to...". Phrases with the same construction that would be considered SoP include 今用, 古用, 古作, 今作. RcAlex36 (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Abstain (as entry author).
 * Fixed PoS. Sorry it was caused by me trying out for the first time
 * Modern Chinese speakers understand terms in groups of 2 characters. The reason the RFDs above passed were because the component characters could also be individually used with high frequency. In your examples, 今, 用, 古, 作 are all high frequency and have one meaning. If you form a compound of two random medium-frequency characters, they won't understand it if they haven't seen it before
 * This is not obvious to even native speakers because people ask questions like https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/186946819.html
 * When I learned about this, it would have saved me time if this was found in a dictionary
 * The first half obviously means "ancient." The second half is not obvious. The sense of "same" is expressed using in Modern Chinese. An actual SoP expression would be 古代同義字, but  is not a clipping of that because of the different meaning. The meaning of  comes from 古代異體字/古字
 * This term is linguistics jargon and needs to be explained to readers. Alternatively, we can move this into a subsense of
 * Daniel.z.tg (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 同 "to be the same as" would be obvious to a native speaker; see the usage examples given in 現代漢語規範詞典: "奖励办法同第四条" and "用法同前", showing that 同 is a free morpheme when used as a transitive verb. Anyhow, a usage example can be added at to demonstrate usage of this expression if you wish. RcAlex36 (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was saying that the 同 used in 古同 does not simply mean "to be the same as." This is exactly why I'm saying it's not obvious. It specifically means the jargon subsense 10 "(linguistics) alternative form" I added. It cannot be described as "in ancient times, equivalent to..." because *美國古同英國 is unnatural. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Somehow I analyze both of your examples as containing 2 noun phrases, and it still makes sense because sometimes in Chinese you can just use juxtaposition to mean "is." 同前 is analogous to 同上. For the first example, I would say "奖励办法是和第四条相同的", but possibly because most of my Mandarin is spoken, not written. I usually see stuff like "奖励办法同第四条" from people who are trying to flex their Chinese / Classical Chinese knowledge online. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also wonder whether the consensus is because you all speak Cantonese, while I speak Mandarin, and Cantonese has less/different homophones than Mandarin. There may be less of a need to avoid homophones, allowing you to use short expressions like this. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing Cantonese into this? I find your speculations about other users rather unnecessary. I've cited 現代漢語規範詞典 which is one of the prescriptive dictionaries for Standard Chinese (Mandarin) as spoken in Mainland China, but then you seem to think that using the language this way implies a flex of one's Chinese knowledge. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Switching to and move to  Daniel.z.tg (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I get why this page could be not SoP but it feels just unnecessary? imo it’s not divergent enough to its SoP definition to warrant a page — 義順 (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete; and I also object strongly to the new additions to . —Fish bowl (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed this based on consensus with my . Does this look better? Daniel.z.tg (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * RFD deleted. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 08:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)