Talk:洩

洩 or 泄 as the main form
, Which should we use as the main form (for the single-character entry and for multi-character entries)? The current state of the entry (mostly due to KevinUp's last edit) is absolutely outrageous... etymology 1 and etymology 2 are essentially referring to the same word, pronunciation 1 and 2 in etymology 1 may be etymologically different, and the glyph origin in etymology 2 is outright inaccurate and overly reliant on dictionaries, which are not where glyphs actually come from. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about this. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Wyang (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know these two characters' contemporary popularity in traditional Chinese. I think the one that is used the most often in present age in traditional Chinese should be the main entry. But if they are used equally frequent, then... I don't know. Dokurrat (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC) (modified)
 * Do we list variant form etymologies based on ? If not, feel free to remove the whole section of it. KevinUp (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We call something a variant depending on what we have as the main form. 洩 may be a variant according to 第一批异体字整理表 (or any other source for that matter), but if 洩 is the main form, then it should be obvious that saying 洩 is a variant form is redundant and contradictory. Also, 第一批异体字整理表 sometimes includes forms that are commonly used in traditional Chinese, just like 洩. Etymologies should describe where a word came from (phonetically speaking), and glyph origins should tell you how a glyph was formed. The glyph 洩 is not derivable from the glyph of 𣳘 or 泄, so saying that the glyph origin for 洩 is a variant of 𣳘 is highly misleading. While it may be useful to have some info on first attestations, we generally do not need to say whether a particular glyph is found in some dictionary.
 * I think both 洩 and 泄 are equally as common, but maybe it depends on the word (probably on the sense). Let's look at the google hits: 639,000 >  90,800, but  1,330,000 >  41,100. If we do it case-by-case, it's gonna make a mess. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the solution I can think up is to make both characters as main forms and list each other in zh-forms. Dokurrat (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC) (modified)
 * That's something we want to avoid because we don't want duplication of content. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, before we could think up a better solution, I think I can implement my idea for first... Dokurrat (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, I failed to do so. Some now-obsolete usages seem only exist for one of them... Dokurrat (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC) (modified)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Feel free to edit any of my edits that mentions glyphs being found in a particular dictionary, list, etc., and thanks for notifying me about my mistake. KevinUp (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! Happy editing! — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since both and  are relatively modern phrases, is it possible for this to be a Taiwan only exception? Based on Hong Kong standard,  is the orthodox form with  listed as its variant form. I'm not sure how  or  both came to have two different pronunciations ("yì" and "xiè"), but in Middle Chinese, the phonetic components  and  rhymed with one another, unlike their modern pronunciations  and ., any thoughts on this? KevinUp (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The two pronunciations are related: yì < MC yejH < OC *lat-s, xiè < MC sjet < OC *s-lat, both meaning “leak; ooze”. Wyang (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In the 2016 & 2017年 versions of the 统计用区划代码和城乡划分代码：蓝田县 at http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjbz/tjyqhdmhcxhfdm/2017/61/01/610122.html, is written as if there were no simplified form. If this is a traditional character, then it is the ONLY traditional character I remember ever seeing in that database so far. Therefore I interpret it that they consider this character as the guifan form in context cf http://www.lantian.gov.cn/about_list.aspx?id=10&oid=1&menus=4 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Anyway, is classified as a variant character rather than a traditional character in the 2013 . There are a number of exceptions in that table for placenames, but this one is not listed. Meanwhile, some placenames in mainland China do use nonstandard characters, such as   in . KevinUp (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed that currently sia̍p exist on this page. It seems unusual to me. Dokurrat (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC) (modified)
 * So.... 洩 and 泄 are not homophonic in Banlamgu? 😮 Dokurrat (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Min Nan dictionaries almost never agree on character choice. The following are my findings on 洩 and 泄:
 * siap (Xiamen, Zhangzhou) or sia̍p (Quanzhou, Taiwan) = 洩 (MoE, Taiwan Minnanyu Cidian), 泄 (Xiamen Fanyan Cidian, Minnan Fangyan Da Cidian, Putonghua Minnan Fangyan Changyong Cidian), 涉 (Tai-Ri Da Cidian), [no character] (Gan Zidian).
 * chhōa = 泄 (MoE), 拽 (Xiamen Fanyan Cidian, Minnan Fangyan Da Cidian, Putonghua Minnan Fangyan Changyong Cidian), 疶 (Taiwan Minnanyu Cidian), 𤆬 (Tai-Ri Da Cidian)
 * chhoah = 疶 (MoE, Taiwan Minnanyu Cidian), 泄 (Minnan Fangyan Da Cidian, Putonghua Minnan Fangyan Changyong Cidian, Tai-Ri Da Cidian), 掣 (Xiamen Fanyan Cidian), [no character] (Gan Zidian)
 * choah = 泏 (MoE, Tai-Ri Da Cidian), [no character] (Xiamen Fanyan Cidian), 𤁢 (Minnan Fangyan Da Cidian), 㵶 (Minnan Fangyan Da Cidian), 泄 (Putonghua Minnan Fangyan Changyong Cidian, Minnan Fangyan Da Cidian?)
 * siat = 泄 (MoE, Minnan Fangyan Da Cidian, Putonghua Minnan Fangyan Changyong Cidian, Gan Zidian), 洩 (Gan Zidian)
 * sè = 洒 (MoE), 泄 (Tai-Ri Da Cidian)
 * è = 洩 (Gan Zidian), 泄 (Gan Zidian) — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merci pour votre investigation! Dokurrat (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If it helps, and  are commonly heard in Taiwan Min Nan shows but I've never heard of ., do you have any idea about the difference between "siap" and "siat" in Old Chinese perhaps? KevinUp (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * siat is a literary reading, so it's likely that it has not made it into common speech. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If the siap readings are indeed descended from Old Chinese 泄/洩, not resulting from contamination or substitution, then they are a much older layer compared to siat. OC *lat-s, *s-lat in these characters came from older *lap-s, *s-lap-s, since they have graphical connections to 世 which has an established *ap-s OC rhyme. Wyang (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternative theory: →  →  [compare, , ] KevinUp (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the Kangxi Dictionary (Middle Chinese), the second reading of is the same as the first reading of.
 * Referring back to (Old Chinese),  was not recorded,  means the name of a river while  means "to remove" (除去也).
 * Then I looked at 《漢語大字典》 as well as 《漢語多功能字庫》 for the definition and glyph origin of  and noticed that the meaning of  in certain pre-Han dynasty texts is the same as
 * On the other hand, I noticed that 《金石文字辨異》 mentions  as the original form (通作洩) found in  蜀刻詩經殘本「泄泄其羽」 and  was inferred as an inherited form from Tang dynasty  that came about due to the naming taboo.
 * Could it be possible for to be the original character which has the meaning of "to leak" and that this character was later substituted by  (similar to how  was interchangeable with  in certain pre-Han dynasty texts) and this character eventually became  around the time of the  to avoid using  which is part of the personal name  (李世民) of ?
 * This might explain an anomaly recorded in 's commentary of 《春秋左传·襄公》: “漏泄君命，罪之重”：「泄」字唯宋本作「洩」，此外諸本皆作「泄」. Additional evidence can be found in 《經典文字辨證書》, which states the following: 「渫正，泄省，洩别. 」 KevinUp (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Although the transformation of →  →  (or  →  → ) is not well attested, I found evidence of  →  →  via another homonymous character  that has a variant form  recorded in  (紲或从枼). So here we have an example of the  component being interchangeable with  in Old Chinese. In addition,  lists only the Old Chinese reading for.
 * Furthermore, in Middle Chinese, ）, and  are listed as variant forms of  and has the following definition: “《說文》系也. 引《春秋傳》：「臣負羈紲」. 或从枼从曳. ”. Another example of the  component being interchangeable with  in Middle Chinese can be found in , ）, where  is listed as a variant form of  with the definition: “衣长皃. 一曰袖也. 或从曳，亦作絏. ”. Here, we can see that a split between 私列切 (, modern reading "xiè") and 以制切 (, modern reading "yì") has occurred for characters that have the component  or . See also  for other examples such as /， /, etc.
 * Finally, the Qing dynasty has the following statement (some nonstandard characters are used): “：本文從廿，縁廟諱偏傍，今經典並准式例變. ”, so the use of the  component to replace the  component due to the  seems to be likely. (See also statement above regarding / in 《金石文字辨異》).
 * TLDR: →  →  is a possible glyph origin. KevinUp (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Was this ever resolved? I was wondering what to do with words that use 洩 such as, I was thinking of doing what was done in , to make 洩 as the main traditional form and 泄 as both the variant traditional form and simplified form. That would mean I would remove the form from  which put 洩 as a variant simplified form. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was ever resolved., any thoughts on this? As I've said above, 洩 and 泄 seem to be about equally common in usage in traditional Chinese, so it's hard to decide which to make the main form. AFAIK, 洩愤 is not a standard form in simplified Chinese; we might need to RFV simplified forms like this that use 洩. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)