Talk:wo

Mandarin
Using pinyin as terms is not proper. Pinyin should be collected to be indexes. e.g. Pinyin 'wo' without tone marks would be 'me'(我), 'lie'(臥), 'nest'(窩) or 'hold'(握) in daily communication in Mandarin. All in all, pinyin just one type of phonetic notations, and it is also designed to represent the other divisions of the Chinese languages in the north of China. - a freshman


 * I personally agree with you, but the community has long ago decided to include those phonetic notations / romanizations, romaji of Japanese and pinyin of Chinese languages, as terms of those languages, mainly to make this dictionary helpful to beginners. (And you can add other words you mentioned here.) –Tohru 15:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, there are two standard sets of Chinese characters (Traditional and Simplified) in Chinese and there are two types of phonetic notations (zhuyin and pinyin) which are neither romanization(ISO 7098) in Mandarin. In writing, Traditional Chinese characters is as same as old Han characters which is used in Japan, Korea and China. In meaning, Traditional and Simplified are same. So if I want to define a Chinese word, I have to edit the same word in Traditional, Simplified and pinyin. Therefore, I suggest that 1. link the Simplified to his Traditional 2. and make most of pinyin just indexes(existent indexes are not good enough).   - a freshman


 * That might certainly have been one of logically possible solutions, but we've already come a long way under a different policy. The Chinese entry's style guide might be interesting to you (I myself am just an introductory/intermediate Chinese learner, but this policy has been written by a highly knowledgeable contributor). If you have a further question, you can post it on our main forum and start a discussion anytime. ― Tohru 17:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2020
German. Tagged by Slablo on 9 June 2019, not listed:

“"dialectal and widely ... Alemannic" means it's Alemannic and something else (Swabian or Bavarian?) but not Standard High German.”

Sense:

who, whom, which, that
 * J3133 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly widespread use. In the colloquial way of speaking Standard German in those areas this is used for all relative pronouns, and this is very present even for someone like me or IP who long cited it coming from the North. As, by the way, in Early New High German . The RFV tag is illogical, implying that only “Standard High German” could appear only German headings, excluding non-standard language. Fay Freak (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Earlier the usage notes had this: "This use is dialectal and widely restricted to Alemannic areas". That is: It's only dialectal, like Alemannic (gsw) and whatever dialects. Now it's this: "This use is restricted to dialectally influenced vernaculars (Regiolekte) and chiefly to Alemannic areas". That is: It's (nonstandard) Standard High German. There's a difference. --15:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * “Only dialectal” could still mean it may appear in normal German (which it does). It may mean a dialectality without being that dialectal. You’ll overinterpret the labels. They are open-ended and people are unsure when to write “dialectal”, ”regional”, “non-standard”, “proscribed”, as with “pejorative”, “derogatory”, “dysphemistic” etc. Fay Freak (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)