Talk:𩛩

Definition Inquiry
For the definition "to soak", you put the label "Hokkien" implying that it's also found in Taiwanese sources, but I can't find it. Could you check? I already edited the entry, btw. Thanks. Mar vin kaiser (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mar vin kaiser It's in Ogawa 1932 臺日大辭典, entry "カ́ゥ 𩛩. " the 2nd to the last sample sentence "被海湧_落去=浪に巻込まれる. " ChhoeTaigi simply translates it as "hō͘海湧 ∼ --落去". Mlgc1998 (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be more of "wrap up" though. You can see it in the "巻" in the Japanese word "巻込まれる", being wrapped up in the sea waves. The "to soak" meaning seems to be specific to objects like clothes being soaked. I'd say, not the same definition. So probably it's a Mainland thing. Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser It's the same thing. When water "wraps up" something, it's basically soaking something. All the other definitions stem from these kinds of logic. Mlgc1998 (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should assume definitions that aren't explicitly written. In this case, the Taiwanese sources don't specifically say "soak". So we don't know whether Taiwanese has ever used the word 𩛩 to specifically mean soaking clothes in liquid. We can't assume. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser of course, it doesn't say "soak", we're working with different languages here... Ogawa 1932 臺日大辭典 isn't an Taiwanese Hokkien to English dictionary, although Ogawa did also use Douglas 1873 as one of it's sources. The tag simply says "Hokkien". If some Taiwanese folk don't use it then welcome to the situation we have with Ph. Hokkien as well where not all words tagged with "Hokkien" or "Southern Min"/"Min Nan" are part of our normal vocab as well. It happens in other languages as well like let's say in English, there are a bunch of words people of other English dialects don't necessarily use, yet it's still "English" or that language in general. I don't see why this is worth arguing about. It's not a big dialectal difference. Also, that definition sense isn't necessarily just about clothes. That's why it's just in parenthesis. Mlgc1998 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Zhangzhou sources make it clearer, I would say. The definition there is "用洗滌劑浸泡(衣服等)". The Mainland definition is more specific with soap or detergent, in the sense of washing. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, to add further context to the discussion, for Teochew (Jieyang Teochew), the source says "长时间地浸泡" and the example sentence given is soaking hemp into water to soften it to make it easier to peel.
 * I'd say the reason why it's something worth discussing is because it could be wrong information. We would be listing here that Taiwanese also understand 𩛩 as submerging a material into liquid for a certain amount of time (as I found in Teochew sources and Mainland sources), but if Taiwanese people don't understand it that way (we don't see any evidence of that), then it would be deceptive. It's also an indication that the Taiwanese sources don't list a separate definition of the 海湧 sentence and merely put it under the same "wrap up" definition, because they don't see it as something specific as soaking something into water for a long time. So that's why we shouldn't assume, because it could be wrong. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser That's why it's just "Hokkien". There's nothing telling Taiwanese folk that all the other "Hokkien" here is necessarily what they use and understand too. This applies too to Hokkien speakers in Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia. The only reason we treat Taiwanese importantly here too is cuz of their big population of speakers and the existence of a government regulator there. If somebody from Taiwan hasnt heard of that definition, we too in the Philippines and other countries can say too, yet it's still "Hokkien" that we could expect some other speakers in the above countries to perhaps recognize. If you're iffy on that, we could put "chiefly Mainland China Hokkien" just cuz other countries may not have thought of that definition anymore or whenever that definition ever came up. Mlgc1998 (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If people from Taiwan don't use that definition, and people from the Philippines don't use that definition, then it's not part of our dialect, it's not part of their dialect. Just like if there's a definition that Zhangzhou people use, and Quanzhou people don't use it, it's not part of the Quanzhou dialect. Agree? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser how can you tell tho that it's not part of their dialect? These books and sites might not have recorded all the definitions that some people have heard of. It's like when diksiyonaryo.ph lacks some definitions that are also actually used and some older books also somewhat talk about. If that definition sense is that weak in number of speakers recognizing it, how about tagging it as "Teochew, Hokkien possibly chiefly Mainland China Hokkien" just cuz the taiwanese sources aren't exactly being very clear if they use it too. Mlgc1998 (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, the measure is not whether people have heard of it, but whether people use it (or have used it in the past). If the definition X found in Zhangzhou Hokkien was never used in Quanzhou (past or present), even if Quanzhou people recognize it (as what Zhangzhou people say), it's not part of Quanzhou Hokkien. Of course, being 100% sure that it was never used in Quanzhou is another thing, and it is difficult, and the best thing we can do is to use our sources to show that it's not. That's why definitions found only in Zhangzhou sources are labelled as such, and not labelled with Quanzhou.
 * Same thing in this case. If no one in Taiwan (past or present) has ever used the word 𩛩 in the sense of soaking a certain object in liquid, soap, detergent, water, etc. for a certain amount of time, then this definition isn't in Taiwanese Hokkien. As to the question of how we know it was never used (or isn't still used), yes, again, that's difficult, and the best thing we can do is to use our sources to show that it is or that it is not. Given that it's not shown in any Taiwan sources (just like a Zhangzhou definition not being shown in Quanzhou sources), we do not say that Taiwanese Hokkien uses this definition (again not about recognizing a meaning or not. American speakers recognize British people say "loo" or "bruv" or "flat" to mean apartment, but that doesn't mean that it's part of their dialect). --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser To be clear, I'm not talking about people just hearing usage from another country. I'm talking about people hearing usage from their fellow speaker of their dialect. And it seems the crux of the issue here lies in the word "soak" since Ogawa 1932's example showed usage anyways and there is iffiness about the assumptions that come with the word "soak", due to its added permeation sense. Mlgc1998 (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, so when you say "people hearing usage from their fellow speaker of their dialect" then that would mean that it's used within the dialect, and that would be what I'm talking about. No, I don't think Ogawa showed usage. A wave wrapping over is not the same as soaking an object for a certain amount of time. For example, I can say in English "the waves enveloped the man as he swam desperately to shore", but I can't say "the soapy water enveloped the shirt that I'm washing", because the word "envelop" doesn't have the definition of "soaking". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw your edits, and again, Ogawa doesn't demonstrate that definition. He never even says that the sentence means "immersing in water". He says "wrapping over". More than that would be reading into the text a definition that the editor never put in there. Similar to someone thinking that "envelop" also means "immersing in water" just because of the example I gave above. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser In "the soapy water enveloped the shirt that I'm washing", it applies as well, just without the added further time with the word. Is the one that has to have added time, specifically Zhangzhou Hokkien and Teochew? cuz this is just a matter of using more accurate words. Mlgc1998 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So will you now add a new definition in the English entry of envelop? Of "immersing in water"? No, right? Same thing here. That's why we won't add Taiwanese Hokkien. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser The point of the added sense is about the main definition's dealings with liquids. If you wanna add envelope, it'll still necessitate "with liquid" after. "wrap with liquid" would function the same if you used envelope, so of course, "to envelope" won't do. Mlgc1998 (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So Ogawa's example necessitates 海湧 there. Just like "envelop" necessitates "with liquid". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser because it's talking about what type of liquid. Mlgc1998 (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. I'm just making this analogy.
 * The word "envelop" means "to surround or enclose". But I can say the sentence "the waves enveloped the man as he swam desperately to shore", because the waves are enclosing the man inside it. However, does that mean I can add into the English entry a new definition that says "to be washed and soaked in water" just from this example? No, right?
 * Same thing with 𩛩. The definition is "to wrap up, to roll, to stuff inside". But I can say the sentence "人予海湧𩛩落去" in Taiwanese, because the waves wrapped up the man inside it. However, does that mean I can add into the Hokkien entry a new definition in Taiwanese that says "to be washed and soaked in water" just from this example? No. Same thing. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser "to envelope" is one of the definitions that can be added in the no. 1. definition beside "to wrap up". One can use "to enclose" as well or other fitting synonyms. In this case, it can and should of course make sense to interpret "予海湧𩛩落去" as "allow (it) to be wrapped/enveloped/enclosed by the sea waves" because in the first place all the other definitions stem from that definition in the first place. That is the essence where these other definitions branch off of. One can say the same for the other definitions, given the context that allowed them to semantically branch off and be interpreted in their ways in the first place. In this definition sense that we are talking about, it has to do with what happens when specifically a liquid wraps/envelopes/encloses something. In the hokkien and teochew sources from mainland china, they have decided to be more detailed and more explicit, hence they have expanded on that definition in certain scenarios of different contexts. The taiwanese hokkien sources have done so as well with the other definitions but were vague on the scenario about liquids, besides the fact that they too also exhibit usage of applying the word to liquids. Now, what is missing is that you mentioned before that the teochew and zhangzhou hokkien sources from mainland china talk about their being added sense about a length of time for when the something is wrapped/enveloped/enclosed in a liquid. Specifically, the Jieyang Teochew source explicitly states that the immersion in water takes a long period of time, while the Zhangzhou Hokkien source also mentions 洗滌劑 and 闽南方言大词典 labels its def in general and all those sources rely on mainly 浸泡 to define it, then in that case given all that, there should be both a def for "# (Hokkien, Teochew) to immerse; to wet; to envelope in a liquid, such as water" and another def for "# (Teochew, Mainland China Hokkien) to steep; to soak; to suffuse; to permeate with a liquid (e.g. clothes for washing, etc.)", unless of course, someone from taiwan or another s.e.a. country later clarifies outside of our sources that they too use the word for suffusing stuff with liquids or what really is the reality outside what these sources all try to paint a picture of. Mlgc1998 (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, a semantic extension is precisely what the Mainland definition has. From just "wrapping up", it as extended to "soaking or immersing something in liquid". As I said, that's different from "being enclosed by sea waves". Conceptually different. Why? Because "immersing in liquid" is a direct action by an individual. "Being enclosed in sea waves" is not. This scenario would be more akin to 軋, being run over by a car. I have a solution for you. See my edits. I split it into a separate definition. Because one is an active definition (action done by a person) and the other is a passive definition (being affected by something else).--Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser alright then, a taiwanese person I managed to get a hold of was not too sure as well, but he said for him, the "hō͘ hái-éng kauh lo̍h-khì" means "getting pulled away & under by the waves" and he noted that kauh has a "pretty sweet usage — highlights the rolling, barreling, tubular motion of the waves." tho I'd just note that for "immerse", doesn't have to be a direct action by an individual, there's also say "a meteor fell and was immersed in water" or "a flood came after the dam broke and sooner or later, the statue was immersed with water" and stuff like that Mlgc1998 (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that "immerse" can't be a direct action. I meant that the example given by Ogawa was a passive usage (of being enveloped by sea waves) together with another passive usage (being run over by a car), while the "soaking" definition found in all the Mainland sources are all of an active usage of an object soaked by someone, whether in water, soap, detergent, etc. So conceptually it's not the same usage, ergo, not the same definition. I was initially pointing that the "sea wave" sentence fall under the principal definition of "to roll up", but anyway, I placed it in its own definition instead. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser btw, I recently got to talk to another taiwanese dude on discord, which I explained to him what we found in the mainland china hokkien and teochew sources like a screenshot of 闽南方言大词典 definition writing the sample sentence "衫褲kauh雪文" and that we weren't sure if it's used in taiwan as well. At first he said:
 * "yes we do 😄"
 * then later I asked him further if he thinks it means "to soak" or "to steep"? he said:
 * "i personally don't use it that way 😅"
 * then I asked him "have u heard other taiwanese speakers use it that way?" then he said:
 * "yea"
 * then some mins later after talking about other stuff he said:
 * "@ so i asked my mom about this sentence, she said kauh means 沾染/浸潤"
 * "does that translate to "soak"? perhaps 😛"
 * then I asked "does she mean the liquid really gets in the thing that is being kauh?" he said:
 * "yep"
 * "i was surprised too"
 * "lol"
 * Mlgc1998 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll reask this in the Taiwanese language FB group. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I just saw your recent edits. As far as I know, the word "kauh" generally in Hokkien is used the same way as the Tagalog "palaman". So you can "kauh" mayonnaise, peanut butter, tuna, bacon, etc. into bread. I don't think it necessarily implies spreading it onto bread, as long as it's a "palaman". Basically you're putting it between the two pieces of bread. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mar vin kaiser yeah I've heard of it, but wasn't sure if it was only taiwanese, but I remember having heard of this, I was also telling that taiwanese dude. I think I just wasn't sure if I was thinking of adding ingredients to a sandwich or taco or something similar. The taiwanese dude told me:
 * "another observation, kauh is used for not just mixing anything, it's used for mixing wet stuff"
 * "thick, wet stuff"
 * "sauce"
 * "but it's an example of putting jam on toast"
 * "is kauh as well 🙂"

Mlgc1998 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it's definitely not just "wet stuff". For example, pork floss, meat, vegetables. All can be "kauh" into bread. Gonna update you when my post in the FB group gets approved and I get some replies. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)