User talk:Gdbf137

Your addition to the "Derived characters" section of the 古 page
Hello, I've reverted your addition to the 古: page. The ===Derived characters=== section is reserved for characters actually derived from the headword character. The modern form of 舌: might seem to contain the same graphical elements of the modern 古: character, but as clearly described in the 舌 section, the 舌: character is not actually derived from 古: at all.

-- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What??


 * Gdbf137 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the 舌 section. It says quite clearly that the character 舌: is derived from a pictogram of a forked tongue emerging from a mouth.  I.e., this character is not derived as a variation of or composition using the 古: character.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, I'd like to explain that derived in Wiktionary headings is generally reserved for etymologically derived -- i.e., one word or character slowly turning into another, or being composed using another, or being borrowed into or from another. While 舌: is visually just 古: plus an extra stroke, the histories of the two characters are distinct and unrelated.  Meanwhile, both characters are derived from 口:, as 口: is historically and semantically part of how these two other characters were composed.  Cheers, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism on the 封 page
I've reverted your addition to the 封: page. This character does not mean "feudal complaint" by any resource I've looked at. Incorrect additions are indistinguishable from vandalism. So far, every edit you've made that I've looked at has been incorrect. Please check with reputable sources before adding or changing entries in Wiktionary. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My edit to definition 2, Feudal --> Feudal comment/assessment/complaint, is based on the implicit significance of the 木 in the Canjie input, and the definition in the Unihan Database at Unicode.org, which defines it as "letter, envelope, feudal".
 * Gdbf137 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the additional explanation. I don't believe that Cangjie input has any bearing on meanings, as the input method is derived solely based on glyph shapes.  As noted in the WP article, the input method “is in fact a simple geometric decomposition.”  Moreover,  has a basic meaning of, and I fail to see any way in which that might lead to meanings of , , or , even if the Cangjie input method implied meaning.
 * I also note that the Unihan database can be misleading in its terseness. The Unihan entry itself lists the definition as “letter, envelope; feudal” -- note especially the semicolon, as this is used to split unrelated meanings.  So one set of meanings for this character is "letter, envelope", and the other, separate, meaning is "feudal".  This separation means that  does not signify "a feudal letter".
 * I hope that helps clarify things for you. Please feel free to ping me if you have any questions.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

必
Ditto the above comment, only this time for the 必: page. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

magis
Ditto. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The definition on this page is incorrect -- it is not etymologically related to magnus, which does have semantics of size.


 * Gdbf137 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you a source stating as much?  throws up a number of sites, such as this one, that state quite clearly that  is derived from .  There are also dead-tree references like this one that clearly state that  is an adverb meaning .  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

dolus
Ditto. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

magus
Note that the ===Related terms=== section is reserved for words that are related etymologically. Words that happen to have similar meanings do not go in this section. If the meaning is similar enough, they might go in a ===Synonyms=== section. is decidedly unrelated to, and thus should not go in the ===Related terms===</tt> section. I have reverted your edit. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 16:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Legislate, Relegate, Legō, Λέγω
etymology 2 concurs with  (English appearances of it), but there is some discrepancy as to whether the Ancient Greek definition is to say or to rest.

Gdbf137 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Temporary block
Hello Gdbf137, I've placed a temporary block on this account out of concern that it might have been hacked. You should still be able to post here on your Talk page. Please reply and confirm: seem a bit suspicious. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I changed my bio, and language proficiencies. Gdbf137 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)