User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 28

三牲
I have tried to add an example for Penang Hokkien. However, I have failed in adding the example miserably. Please help me. The source for the example is here. If you haven't guessed, I didn't know how to add that either. - Fredrick Campbell (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ ^^ —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks.

carbon steel, 碳鋼
When you get a chance, could you look at the Cantonese readings for these two entries? The former says taan3 gong1 while the latter says taan3 gong3. Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Chinese entry is right. I see has fixed it at the English entry. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

New 方言點 added
Also I've added the remaining 方言點 recorded in 普通话基础方言基本词汇集. Please review the edits I've made at Module:zh/data/dial and feel free to the change the order of the 方言點. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much!, since we've had so many additions from here as well as 's ongoing additions, would you be able to run your bot to add these new dialect points to the old modules? One thing that RcAlex36 has observed is that the bot seems to remove comments - is it possible to preserve them? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

掌
Hey Justin. Do you know what happened here under "Pronunciation"? I'm getting: Lua error in Module:cjy-pron at line 91: Unrecognised final: "ong". ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . Mar vin kaiser made a mistake in the Jin pronunciation. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

儷
Some help with editing the sentence. I don't know what went wrong. - Fredrick Campbell (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting this character? It's normally written as 爾 Please check the main sources for Hokkien, like 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典 before adding Hokkien words. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted. Fredrick Campbell (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

落空
Hiya. Could you please check the Min Nan sense at 落空 I just added from the synonyms list at 抽空? Thank you. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for checking it out with me. It seems like you were mistaken and it's actually Wu. I've made the corrections. Next time, I think it's best that you leave it to other editors who are a little more familiar. Also, it's better to have rather than thesaurus entries when the synonyms are mostly topolectal. I know you aren't too familiar with how the modules work and probably aren't too comfortable with the specifics of the dialect points, so maybe you can just keep them as is. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Dialectal tables
Just so you know, I recently recreated the dialect table for 緊. I was wondering if we should merge the Hokkien 絚 and Teochew 縆? I am not absolutely sure, but it's certainly possible that they are etymologically related given that it fits the characteristic pronunciation shift from Hokkien to Teochew. And on a side note, I also created the dialectal table for 跌倒. I know that both 跌親 and 跌低 are Cantonese equivalents, but I'm not sure if there are differences between those two. The dog2 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, 絚 and 縆 are the same word. There are many ways to write it, so we should just settle on 絚 following Taiwan's MoE.
 * As for 跌倒, I'd say both are almost the same, but 跌親 additionally involves getting hurt. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And just so you know, I created the dialect tables for 罰款, 最後 and 曬, if you want to add to them. The dog2 (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Simplified form of 嗰
Hello. I am not aware of any misjudgment of the applicability of simplification rules. According to official standard 简化字总表, 個 is not an analogizable component, hence 嗰 should not be simplified. In addition, considering CJK Extension B isn't widely supported, and the non-standard simplified form is rarely used outside dictionaries, there is little reason to keep 𠮶 in relevant words' Simplified Chinese entries. 您好. 我認為我對類推簡化規則的適用範圍沒有誤判. 根據官方標準《简化字总表》，「個」不可用作類推，因此「嗰」不能類推簡化. 此外，CKJ擴展B區尚未得到廣泛支援，且非規範簡化字「𠮶」在字典外鮮有使用，因此並無很好的理由在相關詞條簡體中文入口保留「𠮶」. --H2NCH2COOH (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edits may be in accordance with 简化字总表, but they need to be discussed further because I think there are other entries that may violate 简化字总表 in our current practice, which means what we may call "simplified" here at Wiktionary may need to be revisited. While use of 𠮶 is not quite as widespread, a factor being technical issues such as the one you pointed out, there are some sources that use it, including 广东省志‧方言志, 广州话正音字典 and 广州话、客家话、潮汕话与普通话对照词典. Also, since 简化字总表 has been superseded by 通用规范汉字表, we don't really know if 類推簡化 (regardless if it follows the principles in 简化字总表) is disallowed by 通用规范汉字表. That said, since 嗰 is probably more widespread among simplified Chinese users who speak Cantonese, I guess we should put 嗰 as s and 𠮶 as s2, but we should also ask other editors for their opinion., what are your thoughts? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm probably not the right person to ask since I hardly ever write Cantonese, and Cantonese is hardly ever written in Singapore. But I've personally never seen 𠮶 before. Usually, Cantonese speakers in Singapore who are literate will just write things out in standard Chinese. And moreover, because of the government's continuing efforts to eradicate dialects in favour of Mandarin, most Cantonese people in Singapore who were born after 1980 cannot speak Cantonese unless they were raised by their grandparents who did not speak anything else, or they came from very poor family backgrounds with parents that never went to school. I've only seen 嗰 in magazines and tabloids from Hong Kong. The dog2 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 類推簡化 (hereafter "analogized simplification"), even using Table 2 rules, is discouraged according to the official handbook 《通用规范汉字表》解读, but its wording suggests that it is not totally disallowed. AFAIK there were objections from chemistry communities because they would need new Chinese characters for newly discovered elements, and this was probably taken into consideration by policymakers since they remove the statement of discouraging analogized simplification from the standard and put it in a handbook. Still, the handbook stipulates that the scope of analogized simplification is strictly restricted to rules in Table 2 of 简化字总表, though the document is supposed to be "obsolete". And 個-个 is not even in Table 2. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 17:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How "official" is 《通用规范汉字表》解读? Is it meant to be the only interpretation of 通用规范汉字表? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 19:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a bit complicated. The handbook was compiled by 教育部语言文字信息管理司 (Language Information Management Division, MOE) and published by the Commercial Press. The author, Wang Ning, led the codification of 通用规范汉字表 (See the Commercial Press' website). Therefore, it is very official. However, the thing is, unlike 常用漢字 in Japan which almost everyone knows and follows despite it is not even a mandatory standard, 通用规范汉字表 is supposed to be "mandatory" but not quite known in China, let alone its handbook. I think the unfamiliarity to national standards has long been the reason of incorrect analogized simplification. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 03:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, speaking of 通用规范汉字表 and 常用漢字, I think it may be helpful to mark if a Chinese character is listed in the national standard and what level it is on. Since there is already a digitalized 通用规范汉字表 on Wikisource, this could perhaps be done by a bot. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 03:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue I see in putting 嗰 as "standard" and 𠮶 as "nonstandard" is that neither is completely true. 通用规范汉字表 doesn't have much to say about 嗰, so 嗰 isn't "standard" in the sense that it's not in 通用规范汉字表, while 𠮶 is just slightly more "nonstandard" in that it doesn't comply with 简化字总表. That's why it might be better to include 嗰 in s and 𠮶 in s2. What do you think? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As for 通用规范汉字表 levels, yes, I think that's useful information, and I vaguely remember discussing it somewhere, though nothing came out of it., do you think it's implementable? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We should also include this info for the ROC standard. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no official attempt to standardize written colloquial Cantonese, so indeed it is hard to choose a "standard" beyond 通用规范汉字表. Still, I believe 𠮶 was not a thing before the simplification, so I would say that it exists because it is a wrong analogized simplification. I agree that Chinese standards in different places should all be considered -- Hong Kong variant too, if possible; though I know there are some technical issues on displaying HK variant. Another issue would be the availability of digital sources of these standards. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 05:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do see your point, but I still think 嗰 in s and 𠮶 in s2 is a little better. I've brought this discussion to WT:BP to let other editors chime in. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 08:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

高一, 高二
In the Singapore education system, we have 4 years of secondary school (junior high school) and 2 years of junior college (senior high school), so 高一 in Singapore refers to 11th grade, while 高二 refers to 12th grade. We don't use the term 中六 at all, while 中五 refers to an extra year of secondary school that is attended by people who are academically weaker (and these people typically do not make it to junior college, and will typically go to a vocational institute instead). How should we handle this? The dog2 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably separate senses? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes, but how should we treat the synonyms then, because the way they're formatted now can be confusing? The dog2 (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits. Does that look good to you? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Thanks. The dog2 (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

taxlinks in Chinese entries
I have been converting to  or  so that I can get a count of entries that refer to missing vernacular and taxonomic names. The ones with the highest number of entries are usually the next ones added. Metaknowledge has reverted the most recent of such changes, with a reference to broken links. I have not yet gotten a reply from him/her about the nature of the broken links. 爱玉, 愛玉凍, 愛玉冰, and 愛玉 are the entries in question. Is there are thing about the use of these templates in Chinese entries that causes trouble? I was under the impression that special efforts were made to make some or all Chinese language templates compatible with and.

These entries all involve the same organism, so it may be that the objection is that there is no entry at Wikispecies. This is a novel objection to a frequent occurrence with these templates, which serve two main purposes, first, to enable counting of links to the organism names and, second to provide a link to a WP or Species entry if there is one. If there isn't one at WP, I usually add a redirect there. If there isn't one at Species, the users can search from the page that they land on and almost always find an entry that provides some further information. To me this seems to give adequate value to the link, especially in addition to the link counting function. DCDuring (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's the latter issue that there's no entry at Wikispecies. I don't think it's an issue specific to Chinese. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 23:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are at least hundreds of such. I'd never heard of such things being called "broken links". I thought that was reserved for "404s". Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If I remember, I'll add 4 to the count for, only linked from one non-Chinese entry. DCDuring (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

孖
Some time ago, I added a definition that it is used to indicate a double portion of food. I listed it as Singapore Cantonese, because that's where I heard it used in that sense, but I'm just double checking with you to be sure that this sense does not exist in Hong Kong and Guangzhou. The dog2 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've heard of this usage., have you? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 03:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. RcAlex36 (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but I haven't heard of a lot of words. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks!, I think we can just say it's Singapore Cantonese for now. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 08:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

歇後語
Do you think we have enough data to create a dialectal synonym table for this? We can use this (5:05) as a source for Xiamen Hokkien, though I don't know what the characters are. The dog2 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Created. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Module error at [:Module:zh-dial-syn/check-presence/documentation]]
Periodically, this has module errors from using too much processor time, but today's error is different. I'm not at all sure what's causing it, but after looking through the transclusion list I have a hunch it's somehow connected to. I could be wrong, but I wonder if there could be some kind of interaction between the square brackets you added and those in "term = term:match("([^:]+)")" 3 lines above the error or "find(term, "[一-龯㐀-䶵]")" (the line before the error). I don't know Lua or regexes well enough to step through the logic and figure it out that way, so this kind of wild guess based on loose circumstantial evidence is the best I can manage (Perhaps might have some insight). I hope this helps. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It should be fixed now. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

please update Module:zh-pron
I've created the en:Module:cmn-pron-Jianghuai and updated https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Module:zh-pron/sandbox to add pronunciation of Nanjing Pinyin. But I have no right to modify en:Module:zh-pron. Could you copy the codes from sanbox to it? --柳漫 (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for making the module. Is the romanization based on 老派 or 新派? Is it compatible with dictionaries of Nanjing dialect, like 南京方言詞典? There needs to be a little more discussion, probably at Template talk:zh-pron, before actually adding it to - like the choice of "m-l" for the name of the parameter is potentially confusing. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 15:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Dialectal grammar.
I noticed you put the sense I added up for deletion as SoP. I was just wondering if there is a better way than dialectal tables to reflect grammatical equivalents of different Chinese dialects. For instance, as you know, "我找不到. " in Mandarin becomes "我搵唔到. " in Cantonese, and "我揣無. " in Hokkien and Teochew. The dog2 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seem 揣無 and 揣袂著 in Hokkien. I'm not sure if there's a difference. I also think 不到 is SoP, like 得到. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * At least the way I use it, there's a slight difference. If you've been searching for something for a long time and can't find it, I will say "揣袂著". But if I want to say you can't find a particular thing in some place, I will say "揣無". But this might just be a case of word choice instead of a genuine grammatical difference. The dog2 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm just not sure if Mandarin 得到/不到 = Hokkien 有/無. To me, they're syntactically different, which makes it tricky for us to deal with using the dialectal tables. The tables aren't great for things that are more variable syntactically. Like there's no way to show that in Mandarin, you'd say 我到北京去, while in Cantonese, you'd say 我去北京. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

倒轉
Could you look at the non-Mandarin 'lects when you get a chance? Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. It should be okay now, except I'm not sure if "to be contrary to reason" is right., where did you get this definition? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the sense is from Pleco (and maybe elsewhere). I think it makes more sense to treat it as an adverb, as done in 现代汉语词典. It's synonymous to 反倒 and 反而. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This sense is in Pleco. You can see if you install it. I might add a quotation from the dictionary in the next couple of days. Busy ATM, sorry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've checked Pleco, but the example seems more like an adverbial usage rather than a verb. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 08:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. I have added the citation under the new adverb section. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Standard spoken vs written Chinese
I was thinking if maybe we should split the "formal" into "formal spoken" and "formal written", since that would allow us to account for non-regional putonghua. And while they are very similar, there are subtle differences between formal spoken and written Chinese. For instance, when telling time, 點 is usually used to indicate the hour, but when writing formal letters we use 時 instead. However, 時 is not used at all in speech, not even in formal speech. Even if you watch the news, they will still use 點. The dog2 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think your observations are entirely true. I think I've heard 時 in formal speech before. The formal-informal continuum is a fuzzy line, and it's not entirely easy to make distinctions. I think we'll need to think about it, but it is true that the current setup doesn't capture colloquial Putonghua well. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 19:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I ask. Did you hear that in an actual speech, or was it someone reading a written document verbatim? The dog2 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it was actual speech, but in Cantonese in a formal context (news, I think). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 21:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if I were wrong, I think it's still a sweeping statement to say that it's absolutely not used in speech. We have not heard everything that everyone says, and not everything is categorical. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 21:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

開玩笑
Just so you know, I created the dialectal synonym page for this, in case you have any more data points to add. The dog2 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, thanks. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 17:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

曜輪 - Citations for Verification
Hey, I'm totally new to wiktionary's functions, and I had created the page for 曜輪 without even an account. I'm having trouble responding with a comment on the Non-English Request for Verification page, so I thought I would leave you the information here, until I figure out how to leave my comment on there.

In brief, you will find that this name, 曜輪, appears as one of the Syriac-Chinese bilingual inscriptions inscribed on the famous Xi'an Steele, which was written for or by "Nestorian" (Church of the East) Christians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi%27an_Stele

One of the Syriac names on that steele is transcribed as ܝܘܚܢܢ‎ (Yūḥanon), which is a Syriac name for the Apostle John, and whose Chinese equivalent is also etched into that steele as 曜輪. You can find substantiation for this if you see the bottom of Page 233 and the beginning of Page 234 for this article:

Lieu, S. N. C. (2009). Epigraphica nestoriana serica. In W. Sundermann, A. Hintze, & F. de Blois (Eds.), Exegisti monumenta: festschrift in honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams (pp. 227-246). (Iranica; Vol. 17). Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz.

The article can be found here:

https://www.mq.edu.au/pubstatic/public/download.jsp?id=51269

IohannesAndreas (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to Wiktionary! I understand that this is for the apostle John, but is it attested elsewhere to refer to another John or "Yūḥanon"? If not, then we probably should not have such a definition separate from the first sense. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 19:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! Thank you.  :)  Yes, the name ܝܘܚܢܢ (Yūḥanon) refers both to John the Apostle, as well as John the Baptist, who are different biblical figures. Syriac Christians may use this name to refer to either one, which is why I had it as a separate sense.  However, as RcAlex36 reminded me on the talk page for my IP address (which was before I made this account - User talk:2607:FEA8:5BE1:1A20:7D03:6A0A:3E67:13D0), the Chinese name 曜輪 could technically refer to either the Apostle or the Baptist as well, since we do not know who the historical "Bishop John" (大德曜輪, Dàdé Yàolún) was named after, the Apostle or the Baptist.  --IohannesAndreas (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

想念
Just so you know, I created the dialectal table for this. Also, I previously posted a message for you in the dialectal table talk page for 厲害. Did you get it? The dog2 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I got the other one for 厲害, but I forgot to respond. Sorry. I'll check when I have more time. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)