Talk:給

Wow... such authority. What's with the double standard with 正 (zeng3/zing3), 生, 平? "Modern Mandarin pronunciations gěi and jǐ are respectively historically colloquial and literary readings, both ultimately derived from Middle Chinese." - this is 廢話. Why is this not written on all the other characters having literary/colloquial readings? The practice in these cases has always been to split by MC, but somehow it is different if the lit/col readings are in Mandarin? Who is 我行我素 here? 49.180.102.209 23:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the etymology having the literary/colloquial info either. That said, the two sections should not be collapsed since the distinction is made in several varieties. 兩 is another example where we have split based on meaning (and also an example where the same Mandarin reading is used for two sections). For some of those other cases you've mentioned, both readings are okay depending on the context, and the line is not as clear-cut as in this entry. For example, in Cantonese, 生 "to beget" is usually saang1, but in reading Written Chinese, it is also acceptable to read it as sang1 (e.g. here). 平 should probably be split, but at least we have written in the notes what each reading should be used for, so no information is lost. I don't think it's ideal for us to put the definitions in the notes for this entry here because it's not just a few cases here and there, but whole series of definitions. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The current definitions are wrong - there is no dichotomy in meaning for the primary verb sense - when "to give" is used colloquially, it is gei3, and when it is used literarily, it is ji3 (給予). Gei3 is only used for the colloquial layer of "to give" and the 虛詞 (classified here as prepositions) senses, something that is easily covered with annotations and has been traditionally done as such for other varieties. 49.180.102.209 00:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe there is some overlap, but I'd prefer splitting over combining when there are definitions that clearly use one pronunciation rather than the other. The only definition here that seems to overlap between the two pronunciations is the "give" sense. I'd like to see what other editors thinks about this as well. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think they should be split. I understand there is overlap in the "give" sense, but splitting it into two pronunciations allows us to indicate clearly which sense corresponds to which pronunciation. 還 is split into two pronunciations, but the two pronunciations do not have any overlapping senses. I guess when we have one overlapping sense of "to give" we can still split it into two pronunciations? RcAlex36 (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not 废话. Perhaps it is very obvious to some elite linguists, but not to common readers. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)