Template talk:za-etym-sino

Two types of Sino-Xenic borrowing
Should this template be accommodating the two types of borrowing from Chinese, namely, the earlier borrowing from Middle Chinese and the newer borrowings based on Mandarin (with Southwestern Mandarin phonology)? Things like and  are definitely not from Middle Chinese. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the wording "Sino-xenic" should be used at all in Chinese loans in Zhuang - specifically says Zhuang has a non-Sinoxenic system of pronunciations. If there isn't a source on what pronunciations are Sinoxenic (unlike JKV), the template would need to be reworded. Wyang (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there's any source that uses the term "Sinoxenic" for Zhuang borrowings from Chinese. I know there are systematic transcriptions from Mandarin for new borrowings (cf. 新汉借词语音转写表). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 09:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

, I've removed all uses of this template and changed it all to. I don't think we should consider Zhuang as Sino-Xenic, despite its abundant borrowings from Chinese, unless there is any other source that explicitly says Zhuang has Sino-Xenic borrowings. , I think that would mean we should remove Zhuang from as well. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do that bro. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wyang (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: July–September 2017
There does not seem to be any sources that call Zhuang borrowings from Chinese "Sinoxenic". All transclusions have been removed. See the talk page for more details. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 03:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * RFDO failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)