Talk:哇

"your link describes sense 4 'sentence-final particle', which is indeed a particle, while sense 1 'wow!' is clearly an interjection, no?"I get the impression that the “interjection” definition here actually uses a sentence‐final particle that just so happens to look like an interjection since there is nothing else in the sentence. (For the three remaining parts of speech listed (at a different location) at http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?o=dcbdic&searchid=W00000011334, no interjection sense is described.)

The Wiktionary article at 好哇 describes the term as an “interjection” even though the source I cited (http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?o=dcbdic&searchid=W00000011351) clearly describes it as a particle, so I’m fairly confident that the link I cited refers to the same sense.

That means that the fourth Wiktionary definition (which I didn’t notice) is actually redundant and should be merged.

I’m not going to revert your revert in this case, but I think it should be reconsidered. Patrick Dark (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hm, I think that is different from .   doesn't seem to be the same as.
 * As for dict.revised.moe.edu.tw, it is entirely possible that was overlooked.
 * As for, the whole unit is an interjection, composed of + , no?
 * —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 04:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)