User talk:Wyang/Archive5

Anon possibly spreading bogosity --
I just reverted this anon's at  -- JA  is by extension from, which apparently started out as a compound of  +.

I'm going through this anon's contributions and vetting as best I can, but you're much more knowledgeable when it comes to Korean. It'd be great if you could vet their edits to Korean entries. I'll block them in a moment as a possible vandal; at a bare minimum, they appear to be dangerously misinformed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems most of the assertions are perhaps based on James Tyrone's 1978 thesis, which we really should have a read (when there is time) to see if it is inclusion-worthy. I guess it could be included in and the various assertions discreetly included in etymology if there is no evidence pointing to potential falsehood. Wyang (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm slowly going through this. I see numerous places where Tyrone's cognate choices have serious problems.
 * Confusion about compounds:
 * Ainu is supposed to be a reflex for Altaic cognates that all have to do with wrists or armbands, but there is some evidence that the Ainu term is a compound of uncertain element sir- +, with the latter element also appearing in.
 * Ainu is given as a reflex of Altaic cognates all starting with si- or sü-, but sirotke here is clearly a compound of sir- again +, also found in verbs  and.
 * Confusion about possible borrowings:
 * Ainu is given as a reflex of Altaic cognates about swimming, which is reasonable enough, but there is also no reason to suspect this wasn't a borrowing, given the lack of any Ainu terms related to swimming that have similar phonetics.  (FWIW,  in Ainu is .)
 * Excessively loose semantics:
 * Ainu is equated with Altaic cognates meaning variously  or, demonstrating a worrying semantic breadth.
 * Ainu is somehow equated with Altaic cognates meaning, , , and.
 * Mistaken ancient forms of supposed Altaic cognates:
 * Ainu is equated with OJP mi "flesh, fruit" -- which must be, which is cognate with , which was realized as mu in its oldest form.  (Incidentally, a possible cognate for KO ?)
 * Ainu is recognized as a compound of mo- +, with this mo- hypothesized to be cognate with KO , which is traced back to older form mör.  This disagrees with other sources I've read, that trace mul back to older form mil.
 * The mistakes in ancient forms raise questions about the accuracy of Tyrone's other phonetic correlations. The confusion surrounding compound terms is also quite troubling.  Add in the loose semantic equivalents for some purported cognates, and I find myself not quite convinced.  That said, I haven't gotten all the way through chapter 2, all about supposed phonetic matches.  Chapter 3 starts going into morphological and lexical evidence for a possible Ainu-Altaic relationship.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for carefully reviewing the article. I cannot help much on Ainu etymology, but will try to have a read of its analysis of Korean forms when I have some time. From your critique so far it seems there are fundamental methodological flaws in the etymological comparisons done in the article. I'm not sure if the user is still around - I would suggest barring the inclusion of etymologies referencing this thesis for the moment, and presenting the above to ask for his/her opinions on the reliability of cognacy claims therein first, if the user continues adding these etymologies. Wyang (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello（そこの方々）? I'm the anon user（私がその人ですが）. Why you two talking without me(当事者抜きのコソコソ話は水臭いですよ)? I'm waiting for Eirikr's reply for longtime.(お話ししたかったのですがいけませんか？) At least I can understand somewhat English, please talk to me(少なくともあなた方の書いていることは読めます). Now I'm bewildering on silent block and revert during my act to wish to go well with spending long hours(何時間もかけ良かれと思ってやった事を無言で無にされて非常に困惑しました). Because I'm a newbie on this wiki and didn't know how to cite the sources here(私は右も左も分からない初心者であるために資料参照の作法を知りませんでした). I'm saying sorry about my submitting without sources(論拠を示さずに投稿したことは謝ります). Very sorry about I hadn't become along your policy (貴サイトの方針に沿えなくまことに申し訳ない). Simply just (ただ), I truely wouldn't like to be blocked and rollbacked as like trampling small insect without any mercy(虫を潰すみたいな何の警告や対話もないブロックは本当によして欲しかった), because I wanted to have talks(対話を待っていたというのに). I'm very wrecked and got hurt my heart(本当に傷ついています). I'm asking you please tell me what is good for here and what is bad at first(まず何が良くて、何が駄目なのかをどうか教えて下さい). Introducing hypothesis based on secondary sources in objective way is ok or not?(二次資料に基づく仮説の客観的な紹介は有りですか？禁止ですか？) If some doctrines are not afford to include, who decide that and what is requirement?(もしある学説を投稿すべきでないというのなら、それは誰が判断してどんな条件になりますか？) I pray you.(どうか宜しくお願いします) --荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. We do get a lot of anonymous editors who add suspicious info. We are volunteers here and don't have enough people and time to check in every detail any edits, which may look suspicious. The etymological theories you use don't seem to be well-known and popular (it doesn't mean they are wrong). Besides, you didn't provide references in your original edits and you didn't use a registered account then. Let's see also User:Eirikr has anything to say on this. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello --
 * I am sorry for the delay in replying to you. I had written up the following on my own Talk page last night, but I forgot to hit Save page.


 * I apologize for the inconvenience of blocking you. Please understand that Wiktionary has much fewer editors than Wikipedia, making it much more difficult to respond to edits that appear doubtful.
 * Thank you for writing here, and for creating an account. Communication is much easier with named accounts.
 * Regarding etymologies, sources can help. One additional consideration is how mainstream a theory is.  I could say that Japanese  is possibly cognate with Hebrew, but this is not a mainstream theory, and thus other editors would be correct to remove such content.
 * I noticed that you added a link to James Patrie's paper on "The Genetic Relationship of the Ainu Language". I am now reading through that paper.  I have run into a number of troubling issues with the paper; please see here for a discussion of some of them.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As Anatoli noted, we have very few editors here at the English Wiktionary, and we also have a lot of content added by anonymous editors who are sometimes very clever vandals. If editors see questionable content, we often use the Rollback feature to quickly restore the previous version.  We simply do not have the time and manpower required to carefully consider every edit.  I wish we did, but we don't.  I apologize for the inconvenience of rolling back your edits.  Please understand that 1) this was not meant as any kind of insult or injury -- it was simply an administrative response to questionable content, added by an unknown anonymous user; and 2) I greatly appreciate that you have created a named login, and that you are engaging us in conversation.  I hope that we can all gain a clearer understanding of these etymologies.  I also hope that you continue editing.  Now that you have a named account, we can communicate more easily.
 * Regarding the specific etymologies from James Patrie's paper, we are now in the process of evaluating both the paper, and the etymologies you added previously. In specific:
 * KO -- Very unlikely to be related to either Japanese  for the reasons stated at the top of this thread.  Also unlikely to be related to Ainu, due to the dubious phonetic shifts required: where did the initial vowel in Ainu come from?  how can we correlate final  in Ainu with initial  or  in Korean?  how can we correlate a final  diphthong in Korean with an initial  monopthong in Ainu?
 * KO -- Various problems here.
 * Etym 1: JA is a compound of  +  +, and as a compound that includes the core term ,  is irrelevant.  The possible connections to JA ,  are interesting, as this is a match between one Japanese root (with two spellings) that has two senses, and one Korean root that has the same two senses.  This suggests a possible semantic cluster.  However, the phonetic changes are a little odd: how can we correlate initial  in Korean with initial  in Japanese?  I do not think that this is not a regular sound correspondence.  Also, how can we correlate final  in Korean with nothing in Japanese?
 * Etym 2: Too many disparate terms, with too many disparate phonetic differences. If JA  is related to KO, then neither JA  nor JA  can be related.  Alternatively, if JA  and JA  are related to KO , then JA  cannot be.  Also, JA  is another compound, of either  + , or of  +  with a required (and unlikely) phonetic shift of naru → noru.
 * Etym 3: Too many disparate phonetic differences. Unless there are multiple authors listing this same set of cognates, with accepted reasoning for the phonetic correlations, this seems too unlikely.  How can we correlate Korean monosyllablic  with Manchu nimanggi and Oroqen ɪmana?
 * KO -- The current linguistic consensus for Old Chinese means that the Old Chinese root  cannot be related as anything but a borrowing.  Furthermore, the core Old Chinese meaning seems to have been, , rather than , while the core Japanese meaning of root tom- appears to be ;.
 * KO -- While the meanings and phonetics of the Japanese and Manchu terms seem like good potential matches, the phonetics of the Ainu term seem quite unlikely: how do we correlate initial  in Ainu with no initial vowel in any of the others?  And while the KO, MNC, and JA all have an interstitial, the Ainu has none.
 * KO -- Patrie's paper itself suggests that Ainu  is "apparently the regular development of the proto-Altaic first person singular pronoun ... and thus it would not be expected to be in correspondence with the Korean form" (page 116).
 * KO, -- Why does one Ainu term start with  while the other starts with just the consonant?  What happened to the final consonants in Ainu?  How does Ainu initial  correspond to Korean initial ?  Patrie's paper attempts to show that Ainu initial  correlates to Altaic initial  (starting from page 55).  Then later, Patrie states that "Ainu  clearly corresponds to Japanese  <  and Korean " (page 132).  At the bottom of that same page, he acknowledges that this incongruity is a problem.  However, he does not show that Ainu  corresponds to Korean Ainu.
 * JA -- I removed the mention of 🇨🇬 as the phonetics are extremely unlikely: the final  does not match anything known in the Korean or Japanese terms.  I removed the ====Related terms==== as this section is restricted to terms that are etymologically related.   has an ancient form of ho, raising the distant possibility that this might be related to .  However, the others are not.   and  are probably related to each other, but they are unlikely to be related to .   is likely a compound of  + some other element taru, but again, this is unlikely to be related to.
 * I have run out of time for today. I hope the above helps explain why some of your additions were reverted.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

彝器 vs 彞器
彝器 is the simplified form of 彞器, no? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see here. Wyang (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So 彞器 is a variant then? We should keep it thus. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, restored now. Wyang (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Chinese terms derived from English
None of the entries here are transliterations of English words. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nor here. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * They should be 'transcription's and probably best handled by . Btw, a for phono-semantic matchings is long overdue. Wyang (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Problem is, the term "transliteration" is misused almost everywhere in this Wiktionary, not only Chinese. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tooironic likes to use it in Chinese entries. I'd just make those "derived from English" or "English borrowings" using standard templates. Methods of borrowing can be added optionally. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of your comments. Wyang (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Is "transliteration" not the correct translation of 音译? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just confuses people. It may not be always correct to use the word "transliteration" in regards to borrowings into Chinese when it's a phonosemantic translation or other methods. If you use standard or other templates used with loanwords with other languages you don't get these problems. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I will use that template from now on. In my defence, I started adding those transliterations six-ish years ago. You're right that "borrowing" is an easier to understand term than "transliteration", but how do we convey the meaning of the 音 in 音译? Because these are not just meaning-based translations. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You probably want to contrast 音译 to "calque of" (purely semantic borrowing) or a mixture of both. remotely resembles "Pizza Hut" but it has semantics. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Transliteration (letter-to-letter conversion of scripts) is different from transcription (conversion of scripts by pronunciation in original language), and ideally these should be reworded to use the template. It's not a high-priority task for now in my opinion, and it is quite easily automatable. Wyang (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If we transliterated English words into Chinese, "egg" would become 衣機機/衣机机. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I see. So I have been misinformed all these years by dictionaries which translate 音译 as "transliterate". Is "transcribe" the correct translation then? As a noun it would be "sound borrowing", I guess, or something to that effect? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I tried using the template you suggested at 夾克, could someone please check that I used it correctly? Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems good! Wyang (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * One question: is our usage of "transliteration" for the pinyin pages correct? E.g. píngguǒ comes up as: Pinyin transliteration of 蘋果, 苹果. Should this be transliteration or transcription or something else?---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Good point. I changed it to transcription. Wyang (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Module:hu-pron - mf, mv nasal assimilation
Hi Wyang, I've just discovered that due to my fault the mf, mv nasal assmilations are not covered in Module:hu-pron. The other two (nf, nv) are included. The [m] becomes [ɱ] in these combinations. I added two test cases to Module:hu-pron/testcases2 (baromfi, elhamvaszt). When you have a chance, could you please make this change? This is not urgent. I'm really sorry about this. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Panda10, it's not your fault mate. I added the change m[fv] → ɱ[fv] in, and the testcases are working. Let me know if there are other cases that need to be covered. Thanks! Wyang (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for fixing it so quickly! --Panda10 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Large seal script
I think the so-called "large seal script" in isn't actually large seal script. The forms come from Liushutong, which is a collection of seal script characters for use in seals published in the Qing dynasty. Although some forms may be large seal script, not all are. We might need to sift through them to check which are actually large seal script. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 13:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. It may be better to specify the source rather than label it as 'large seal script'. Wyang (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

QQ

 * I would say that the term QQ is separate from just a singular Q. Why do you think it's better to have it as a redirect? Also the definition is not as detailed as it could be for this sense. 2WR1 (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reduplication of monosyllabic adjectives is a regular process. Wyang (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

激凸
I'm not saying that 激凸 can't be used as an adjective, but from multiple sources I've seen it used as a noun. Perhaps the page would be better if it showed both of these uses. 2WR1 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Any Chinese word labelled as a certain part of speech could be used in a wide variety of parts of speech in reality, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed as such. An example is 給力, which is labelled as an adjective, but can be used verbally ("to be awesome; to empower"), nominally ("awesomeness, coolness"), adverbially ("in an awesome/powerful way") or interjectionally ("Awesome! Cool!"). To me the primary meaning of 激凸 is adjectival, and perhaps verbal secondarily. Wyang (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

A couple of module errors from Module:zh-forms
冬瓜藤 & 矮冬瓜

Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, they have been fixed. Wyang (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

敬詞 and 客套話
Could you help us create a category for 敬詞? Like 光臨, 拜託, 蒞臨, etc.? I suppose we should translate 敬詞 as honorific or polite terms? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, we should probably have a separate category for 客套話, like 勞駕, 借光, 留步, etc. We could call it something like "polite expressions". ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There is already Category:Chinese honorific terms created by the label honorific. There is also the label polite, although it does not lead to categorisation. Sometimes I also use respectful., what do you think? Wyang (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * (I'm just a humble ABC, I don't have opinions on this... —suzukaze (t・c) 08:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC))

身上
When you get time could you help me take a look at the third definition I wrote here? I have no idea how to word this grammatical function. Thanks! ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I added some examples and tweaked the wording slightly, but I'm not 100% sure either. Wyang (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Lovely, thanks! ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Korean endings은
Do you think we should include them as separate entries? For example, it would be helpful to know that -(은)니까 means "because". --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. / need to be created. Wyang (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe there are still a thousand endings neither listed nor created... --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverts
Your reverts were in error. Please explain why you made them. —CodeCat 22:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is your actual input at Beer_parlour/2016/June? Wyang (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All you gave there is straw men. There's nothing to argue or input. Thai code belongs in Thai modules, I have said this then and I say this now. —CodeCat 22:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Transcriptions and transliterations are different things and support of the appropriate mode of romanisation should be given at a higher level. In the absence of such central support, language-specific accommodation should be adopted, as Module:translations. You refuse to address this issue and engage in discussion, but rather you choose to blindly revert to your versions. Wyang (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a straw man. Transliteration, as provided by Module:th-translit, is what all general-purpose modules use to provide romanization. We just call it transliteration, just as we always have done. When a module or template needs to romanize a term, it uses the transliteration module. That's what it's for, as defined by longstanding Wiktionary practice. Your own views on the matter are irrelevant, you must follow the consensus and use terms, templates and modules as they are intended by the Wiktionary community. —CodeCat 22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. It's longstanding "practice", because it's longstanding Eurocentrism. I have argued in length in the Beer Parlour discussion the bias in place in the Wiktionary infrastructure against languages which distinguish between transcription and transliteration on a romanisation level, citing examples in many of such languages. You did not respond to this at all (or other arguments in my posts), and only reverted. The relevant pages should be restored to the versions before your reversions since there is an unwillingness to participate in discussions. Wyang (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What discussion? I have never once seen a discussion where you proposed changing this longstanding practice. In fact, your reply here seems to imply that, since the current practice and consensus is Eurocentric, you're free to ignore it and do whatever you like. That's not how it works. When you want to change something big like this, you propose, discuss, get a consensus, and only then do you apply your proposed changes. If you're not willing to work with the community, don't be surprised if it works against you instead. —CodeCat 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, you are making personal accusations and ignoring the question at hand. The issue here is support should be given to languages which distinguish between transcription and transliteration on a romanisation level, as I have said ad nauseum in the discussion. You did not respond to this and have been deliberately avoiding providing any input regarding this issue. There is no consensus - there is only what people who work on European languages have come up step by step to support their work on European languages, which fails to provide support to other languages. Wyang (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where have you proposed distinguishing transcription and transliteration? Unless there is a proposal that was accepted by consensus, the point is moot. Your dislike for "Eurocentric" editors doesn't preclude the fact that you have to come to a consensus with those same editors. —CodeCat 23:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The distinction between transliteration and transcription and why the support for the distinction should be provided in Module:links was discussed ad nauseum In the Beer Parlour discussion, which you apparently did not care to respond to. There is no consensus for the Eurocentric equivalence of romanisation = transliteration, and the lack of genuine participation in the discussion of the topic at hand was disappointing. Wyang (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because the discussion was overwhelmed by the two of us bickering. Nobody could get a word in and it got ignored. Furthermore, I think that this is such a big shift in the paradigms we use on Wiktionary, it would require a vote anyway. —CodeCat 23:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's as simple as a couple of lines in Module:links to at least acknowledge that such difference exists, instead of ignoring it outright and insisting Module:th-translit should be used as a misnomer (i.e. transcription). There was a subsequent discussion at Beer_parlour/2016/June which you again barely participated in, apart from the unhelpful line ignoring all the discussions. I argued in length in those discussions why the change needs to be done at the central level. Wyang (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a misnomer, but that's the way it is. You argued at length, but that alone doesn't make for an agreement or consensus. Maybe you should argue some more in the BP if you think it'll help. —CodeCat 00:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Why would you rather have modules in other languages behaving as misnomers just so that you get to keep your revisions at the central modules? Isn't that a bit unthoughtful, showing your indifference to how non-European languages make a distinction between something that is rarely distinguished in European languages? Lack of argument from you regarding the issue at hand indicates you are short of arguments - that is the simple rule in debating. Wyang (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I'd rather have it that way. I'm saying that's the way it is, and to change such a big part of how countless templates and modules work, and requiring everyone to adapt, requires a lot of discussion and a clear consensus in favour of the change. So far, there is no such thing. And even then, if the change were accepted, it would be implemented quite differently from your ad-hoc workaround. We'd develop a proper infrastructure for it, very similar to what we have now for transliterations (which you don't call transliterations, but everyone else still does). —CodeCat 00:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, by eliminating and continuously reverting edits which use the modules as they are intended and removing the support in the central modules which takes into account the need by some languages to have a separate romanisation, you are implying that you would rather have modules in languages you do not work with behaving suboptimally (i.e. you would rather have modules in other languages behaving as misnomers just so that you get to keep your revisions at the central modules). By showing hostility to my suggestion and showing a genuine lack of participation in discussion of the issue in the Beer Parlour, you are also implying that you are indifferent to the need to deal with this issue at the core level. By reverting my edits at Module:links, Module:th and Module:th-translit, you are again implying that you would rather have languages which make a distinction between transcription and transliteration use a flawed system of infrastructure, by having modules which do not even describe what they are doing, simply so that you get to protect your central modules even though the consideration to these languages could be given with a simple few lines of code. You are throwing the word 'consensus' around too much - could you show me where the vote for the treating romanisation and transliteration as equivalent in Module:links was? If there is no such clear and thorough discussion leading to the factually incorrect equivalence of the two, why are you so unreceptive to any change to your central module? Wyang (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So now when you don't get things your way, you start edit warring again rather than come to a consensus. I have already said that you need an agreement among Wiktionary editors to change the way we treat transliterations. Instead you refuse to do so, and since you think you must absolutely be right, if anyone disagrees with you then they can be dismissed and edit warring is warranted to force your position? —CodeCat 01:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything of substance to say about the issue at all? Again and again, it is evasion, evasion, evasion. Unreceptive to suggestion, poor participation in discussions at the Beer Parlour, blocking wilfully, replying with completely irrelevant comments, and impetuous reverts without any input to the topic at hand. These are the perfect manifestations of bullying. I have asked repeatedly for your opinions on why you are insisting on treating romanisation as equivalent to transliteration, and why you are even willing to destroy infrastructures of other languages at the expense of this absurdity. You would rather render Thai modules not describe their actual functions than provide any real input to the discussion, and is always prepared to abuse your power to defend the stupidity. I asked for consensus for treating romanisation and transliteration as equivalent in Module:links - where is it? Wyang (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not going to argue this any further. I have said what I need to. You cannot make such big changes without coming to a consensus on them. The current status quo is that transliterations are romanizations. This is not written down anywhere, it's codified in the current practice of our transliteration modules and the transliteration parameters on templates. To change this would be a big change that you can't just force through when you feel like it. I am completely unreceptive to any suggestion because you're skirting the issue. The issue is not the merit of your changes, but the method. This discussion isn't about convincing me that transliteration and romanization should be separate things, because it's not just me you have to convince, it's everyone else too. I am just trying to preserve the status quo and stop you messing with things you shouldn't be. As long as you refuse to discuss this properly in the BP and craft up a vote, there is nothing more I can do. —CodeCat 02:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can refuse to discuss this any further. Quite simply, that is a sign that you do not have arguments for your position to contribute to the discussion. Whoever is unwilling to discuss should stay out of the issue at hand, and stop all involvements in the issue, as it will quite evidently become bullying. As I said, there is no consensus for your position, therefore edits to Module:links to include support for languages with transcription-transliteration distinctions are improvements to the infrastructure and any revert of such edits is vandalistic and unjustified. It is particularly poor form if one refuses to participate in discussion. Wyang (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I really thought that this wasn't going to come up again in exactly the same way... Anyway, there's really no consensus, merely inertia, and it takes two to edit-war. Instead of arguing, why don't you draft a vote on whatever change in structure is proposed so we can see what the community really thinks? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do that CodeCat, we need a consensus on the treatment of romanisation as equivalent to transliteration. Without that to begin with, there is no rule barring using transliteration and/or transcription as romanisations. Wyang (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It was never resolved the first time. The edit war stopped because Wyang had the last word, not because he was in any way right to make his changes. I had hoped that Wyang would be more sensible this time and not continue the edit war, but apparently my hopes were too high. Since Wyang is an admin, I am not able to lock any of the modules to protect them, so reverting his changes over and over while trying to bring the point across in this discussion is the best I can do. Not reverting him is not an option, as the past experience has shown: once he gets his way (i.e. when I get fed up reverting him all the time), he loses any interest in coming to an agreement, so reverting is all I can do to motivate him to discuss. —CodeCat 02:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit war was stopped because there is no input of substance from User:CodeCat to the discussions at the Beer Parlour (Automatic_transliteration_for_Thai_has_been_disabled_for_now, Thai_Transliteration_Debate_Explained_.28I_think.29). I posted in length explaining the rationales for the implementation of support for languages which make a transcription-transliteration distinction, and the response from User:CodeCat regarding my arguments? Nil. If you had been less of a bully, you would have realised that lack of participation in discussions of the topic at hand and impetuous reversions are perfect manifestations of bullying. Wyang (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would I have to respond? The whole point was to come to a consensus with all editors, and I do not clearly see editors agreeing that separating transliterations from romanizations is a good thing. It's not me you have to convince, it's everyone. I'll be convinced once there is a clear agreement to allow this, sealed with a vote. Your efforts to convince me personally of the merit of your changes are futile and miss the point. —CodeCat 02:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't have to respond if you don't have any arguments; response in a debate is only required if you actually find your position worth arguing for. Again, where is the consensus with all editors you keep citing? You are citing a nonexistent consensus and use this to illogically illegitimatise any counterarguments. This only makes your argument much less credible as it is a sign of lack of arguments. From the discussion: "You make some good points. I'll need to think about this for a bit." (WikiTiki89), " I don't see a huge reason for Module:links not to take some of the work (language-specific customisations) and/or accommodate handling of complex scripts with various levels of possible transliteration/transcription." (Atitarev), and "Do you have any constructive suggestions?" (DCDuring in response to your call for further edit warring). Are these signs of agreement with your edits? Wyang (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , or really anyone else: a vote sounds like a good plan, and evidently neither of them wants to do the work. I know from the linked discussion that you know the issue, but I don't want to make you feel obliged to do it for them. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would welcome it if someone else could make the vote, especially Wyang himself. I have no idea what Wyang actually wants to change, I mostly just know what he doesn't want. "Separating transliteration from transcription modules" is not a good enough proposal IMO because it doesn't address any further steps, like what the modules would be used for, what would be displayed by templates, what happens when a language has both kinds of module, etc. —CodeCat 12:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "I have no idea what Wyang actually wants to change" – you would have been less ignorant if you actually wished to participate in discussions. Time and again, you failed to respond to my request for the consensus showing that romanisation should be treated as equivalent to transliteration in Module:links. The basis for your edits is the mindset that languages should use transliteration to describe whatever the romanisation is (as evident in your edits to ), even though the language uses transcription for romanisation. Without the core evidence for your claim that your edit is consensus, stop reverting, as reverting is unjustified - it is factually incorrect and hence vandalistic. I am proposing that romanisation be properly recognised as transliteration + transcription, and that there be acknowledgement in the core module infrastructure for languages which make a distinction between these two modes of romanisation . Wyang (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not good at crafting votes, and I don't have time to address this properly this morning. I'll see what I can do- probably this evening (it's about 6:30 a.m. here and I have to get ready for work). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Tibetan
Any resources you would recommend for learning Tibetan? I recently made a Tibetan friend and he said he's happy to help me learn if I'm up for it. I'm curious but wouldn't know where to start. Cheers. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be learning soon as well (although I already have resources lined up). Just thought I'd mention it, because once I get going and make sure I can create good entries I'll probably want to add some. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, what resources have you found so far? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, speakers are the main thing. Colloquial Tibetan: a textbook of the Lhasa dialect with reference grammar and exercises is the main book I'll be using for reference. It's a pity you asked this right after Wyang raqequitted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is he gone for good???? But he's one of the most useful contributors we have on here! ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I really hope not. He is very upset about community's attitude to his edit war with CodeCat over Thai modules. One latest discussion is here: []. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He's talking, which is a good sign. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's hoping! Wyang is brilliant. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. His mixture of hard work, technical adeptness, and linguistic knowledge is matched by very few editors. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Tibetan was... way more difficult than I initially imagined. It confused the hell out of me when I learned it - the spelling (including the various styles), the pronunciation, the grammar (especially conjugation), and the level of internal variation. On the other hand, it is an incredibly interesting and beautiful language with a very rich linguistic and religious history. It is perhaps the living epitome of phonetically-spelt languages which had fixed their written forms; most of its spelling faithfully reflects the pronunciation more than a millennium ago, and this is the concept (how to systemically convert spelling to modern pronunciation) I had most difficulty with. I loved the green book The Classical Tibetan Language by Beyer; it is a good introduction to the Tibetan language. Chinese books for learning written Tibetan include 《實用藏文文法教程》 and 《藏文閱讀入門》. If you would like to learn the colloquial language, 《藏文拼音教材》 and 《藏漢對照口語詞典》 will be useful.


 * In terms of dictionaries, I used 《藏漢詞典》 (a blue pocketbook, which I summarised here) and 《藏漢大詞典》 (red two-volumed series). The Tibetan & Himalayan Library and Rangjung Yeshe Wiki are super-helpful comprehensive Tibetan-English dictionaries online. Monlam has developed many easy-to-use dictionaries for computers and mobile devices, including Tb-Tb/Tb-En/En-Tb Mac dictionaries, although their site address seems to change every now and then.


 * In terms of script utilities, Rishida is an awesome site regarding exotic scripts in general; it has Unicode script pickers (Tibetan) and script notes (Tibetan), as well as other utilities. I haven't read the Tibetan notes at Rishida, but notes for the other scripts have been fantastic. Alternatively, you can use this site to convert from Wylie to the Tibetan script (settings: Wylie + single line + Unicode); their transliteration function (Tibetan script --> Wylie) is more buggy than ours (ha).


 * Hope this helps, Wyang (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed and helpful reply. In the end I decided not to go ahead with learning Tibetan and go back to Korean instead. But I hope someone else can benefit from this response. Cheers. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah well. I do appreciate the reply, though I can't use the Chinese-language resources. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Shanghainese Lord's Prayer
Hi Wyang Is there a translation of the Lord's Prayer in the Shanghainese dialect. I have to do this for an assignment I have and any help is much appreciated. AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 10:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I found a clip here. The transcript is below:
 * 0:19: 㑚禱告個辰光要講 - you need to say this when you pray
 * 0:21: 我伲在天個父 - Our Father in Heaven
 * 0:22: 願人們儕尊儂個名為聖 - Hallowed be Your name
 * 0:24: 願儂個國降臨 - Your kingdom come
 * 0:27: 願儂個意旨行於地浪 - Your will be done
 * 0:29: 儕像行勒天浪 - On Earth as in Heaven
 * 0:32: 天天賜撥我伲日用個飲食 - Give us today our daily bread
 * 0:34: 赦免我伲個債 - Forgive us our sins
 * 0:36: 因為我伲也赦免虧欠我伲個人 - As we forgive those who sin against us
 * 0:38: 覅叫我伲碰著淫慾(?) - Save us from the time of trial
 * 0:41: 解救我伲脫離兇惡 - And deliver us from evil.
 * Wyang (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! You saved me from lots of trouble :-) AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 12:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help! Wyang (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

About your proposal
I'd like to help in creating a vote or editing the current vote. I know you discussed your idea in various places. But I'd like to ask anyway: Can you explain your idea for me again, in a way that people might choose to vote Support/Oppose/Abstain?

For example:

"Proposal: Do this thing with the Thai entries. (Support/Oppose/Abstain)"

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Mate, votes are silly. Using votes as a means to “solve an issue” should be very low on the priority list of a community aiming to make wise prospective decisions. If most decision-making takes place via votes not discussions, or if issues are still solved by being relayed to votes when one side is not even slightly interested in explaining the rationales for the stance, alarm bells should be ringing. Wyang (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When you say "votes are silly", you sound like you would not be interested in having votes concerning any issue. The burden of proof is on you. Is "the other side" any people who don't agree with your views? These are the people who need to be convinced by you. You said: "If most decision-making takes place via votes ...", but in fact this is not about most decisions -- this is a specific issue in which a vote seems appropriate; as I said, to let other people judge the proposal and be on the same page as you. The fact that you think an idea is very good is really not enough.
 * In particular, I said in two separate discussions that I support restoring sysop rights to both you and CodeCat. But, it seems you have failed to answer questions in the vote talk page and hear what others have to say, which is the same as trying to unilaterally do things your way. (not that I and other people are immune to any behavior that is unbecoming of a sysop) I and other people even tried to make it easier for you to create a vote and write what exactly the proposal is. I guess you are probably going to have your sysop rights restored sooner or later regardless of what I think, but at least I prefer not supporting it anymore that you have your sysop rights restored. Let's say I abstain as to whether you should have the tools back. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The premise is that all the eligible voters are sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to produce opinions that are intelligent and appropriate. This premise is, sadly, not true in most cases, especially when the topic is unfamiliar to the majority, as here. A very small percentage of eligible voters work with languages with a high degree of script-pronunciation discordance, and likewise a small percentage of editors here deal with the module infrastructure. The intersection of these two subsets is even smaller, and the vast majority of eligible voters will have no prior experience or thought on the issue. This is exactly why discussions are so important and relying on votes is inappropriate in cases not affecting the majority. Human nature is aversion to the unfamiliar and affinity to the familiar. This and many other factors also come into play when people cast their votes, which is why we need to have thorough discussion to attempt to reach consensus to tease out these other factors. People also mix their emotions into their votes, which is inevitable. One can only try to keep their opinions directed towards things, not people. Wyang (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In Beer parlour/2016/August, there is a message timestamped "12:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)", concerning whether you seem to underestimate the ability of other people to understand your ideas. You say: "Human nature is aversion to the unfamiliar and affinity to the familiar". Basically, you believe that people don't have what it takes to vote just right ... but only you know better? Please don't make assumptions about other people as if you are able to read our minds. (Also, within the broad subject of analyzing the human psyche, I disagree with your view. Generally speaking, unfamiliar things sound more interesting and compelling than familiar things.) There is one music by Legião Urbana that goes like this: it's nice of you to explain to me, with so much determination, exactly how I feel, how I think, and what I am; I did not know that I thought like that.
 * If all of us, Wiktionarians, can treat each others as competent adults, is there any other reason not to create a vote? In my message above, from "12:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)", I gave some reasons to proceed with the vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not about treating each other as competent adults. This is about allowing the members of the community who are knowledgeable and intimately involved in the topic to explain the rationales of why they believe their opinion is justified and having a well-informed argumentation if opposing views exist. This is about valuing using collective intelligence to arrive at a consensus, over competitions of numbers. Voting on issues not familiar to and not concerning the majority is imprudent. I should not be given a platform where I can voice my ill-formed opinion on Arabic merger and expect the opinion to be counted the same as everyone else. Wyang (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Foochow Romanized
Hi Wyang, Sorry to interrupt you again. This is just to talk about a Min Dong based bible called Foochow Romanized. Have you by any change got Matthew 6:9-13 (the lord's prayer)? This is for a general enquiry, as I'm interested with the orthography of this script. AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 04:01, 13 September 2016


 * Hi Awesomemeeos, I don't have a Fuzhounese Bible unfortunately - I know it has been digitalised and was held on the Cornell University site, but it seems to have been removed. I do, however, have some Fuzhou dialect resources in the BUC scheme that I can share: An Alphabetic Dictionary of the Chinese languages in the Foochow Dialect (83.3 Mb), Dictionary of the Foochow Dialect (270.3 Mb). Let me know if you are interested. Wyang (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * (Alternatively you could settle for a different part of Matthew or part of Genesis. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC))


 * Actually, it's here. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There's also a Chinese character version, which seems to be the same version as the BUC. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you everyone! AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 06:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sanskrit
A good source for Sanskrit --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) Wyang (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Japanese and Korean na
Discussion moved over from [[Talk:같다]]:

I believe na- in Korean and Japanese are unmistakably cognate. &lt;... snip ... /&gt; Wyang (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't delved much into Altaic research. That page is interesting, and reminds me of the intriguing similarities I've noted in Japanese and, of all things, Navajo.  Navajo has an element ni that appears as both a verbal prefix / infix, and apparently as a fused suffix, in both cases used as a terminal marker.  At least one author I've read (though now I forget whom) suggested that this is cognate with standalone noun, with the terminative semantics and the ground sense implying  or .  Interestingly, Japanese also has similar terms related to , particularly  and .  There's also a cluster of verbs and auxiliary verbs related to this sound stem that have to do with being and state, such as , probably the directional and adverbial particle , and the  and  verbs mentioned earlier.  Some authors (I believe including Bjarke Frellesvig) suggest the existence of a copular n- element in Ancient and/or Proto-Japanese.
 * (It bears noting that I've been told that Frellesvig might dispute the very existence of an incomplete verb form in ancient JA. That said, it's already firmly established in OJP and appears to even form the basis of the realis forms ending in -e [through apparent diphthongization as -a becomes -ai through possible fusion with an element -i, as suggested by phonetic spellings consistently using Middle Chinese characters with this diphthong, and then -ai flattening to just -e], leaving me wondering how he could argue that this incomplete form is an innovation.  I really need to / want to read his stuff, but ... time.)
 * Navajo also has a verb often glossed as to be, with underlying semantics that could be glossed more closely as to be as a result of becoming, from terminative prefix ni-, and verb stem (I think) -lí "to become" fused with the terminative ni suffix (the ogonek under the final "į́" in  indicates nasalization).  This same lí element as a suffix forms the future tense in many verb stems, not too far away from the final -l forming the future tense in Korean verbs -- though I have zero insight into the ultimate derivation of the Korean suffixing element.
 * Are you aware of any copular element n- or -n in Middle or older Korean?
 * Are you aware of any terms in Middle or older Korean relating to or, or even termination, that resemble ni?
 * Are you aware of any other -l element in Korean related to future, or becoming?
 * ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Aha, interesting. I remember trying to order The Dene-Yeniseian Connection over email before, though I didn't receive a reply and didn't get to have a read. :( I tried to reorder just then. It would be interesting to see whether there is any similarity to the common Sino-Tibetan lexicon, per the proposed.
 * Korean has a topic-contrast particle /, which was written as 隱 in  , and was hypothesised to be related to Mongolian -ni (third-person possessive suffix). There is also a past relativiser/determiner suffix ㄴ|-n, hypothesised to be a reflex of Proto-Altaic predicate nominaliser *-n in the same book. What is intriguing is how the modern declarative ending  was consistently written as 如 in Old Korean (e.g. 如加 for ). Perhaps the meaning of 如 in Chinese influenced this character choice, or alternatively, maybe this was a different ending belonging to the *n- class? :)
 * With regard to “earth, ground”, my first instinct was and Manchu na (“earth”). Starling treats them as cognate. Aside from this, there is also Korean  ~ . I can't think of any other -l elements denoting the future. The prospective ending  is quite ancient; it was found as 尸 in Old Korean, so probably pronounced something like -l or voiceless -l̥. Wyang (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Japanese and Korean na- / no- verb clusters
Discussion moved over from [[Talk:같다]]:

I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the Japanese cluster, but the Korean ones are definitely related and one can also add to the cluster. I've always been under the impression that Japanese had lots of vowel alternations in word formation. &lt;... snip ... /&gt; Wyang (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In the Japanese, the ones ending in -ru are intransitive / spontaneous / passive, and the ones ending in -su are transitive / active / causative. The verbs with a in the stem seem to have a sense of "outward, off of"" while the verbs with o in the stem have demonstrative senses of "onto" (though apparently not "inward, into" in this particular verb cluster; that said, I note that Latin conflated some ideas of "into" and "onto").
 * I'm also interested in the apparent match between the Japanese active/transitive ending -su, basis of the modern verb, and the -h- infix in the Korean verbs, which seems potentially cognate with modern Korean verb.
 * Are you aware of any other Korean verb couplets where one form has this -h- infix that appears to denote transitivity of causativity?
 * ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Korean ha- and Japanese su- are cognate. This was discussed in this dissertation (pg. 95). According to Starling (discussed below), the reflexes of Proto-Altaic *s- in Proto-Korean (= Middle Korean) are s- and h- (if *s- was followed by *i̯a or *i̯o). This *s- > h- change is quite interesting and not all Korean dialects underwent the change in the same way. There are some instances in the standard language where a s- ~ h- variation is clearly visible, such as and  (via the dialectal form ), and  and  (cf. Japanese ).
 * Not many Korean verbs have stems ending in -h; I went through Category:Korean verbs and the nV(h)- cluster seems to be the only case where the stem-final -h can be reliably derived from the auxiliary verbs ha-, and the -h in the stems of those verbs apparently had a causative function. I feel that h in any non-initial position in Korean is very unstable and prone to loss. Sometimes even word-initial h-. For example, the modern aspirated kʰ-words (e.g. ) resulted from elision of Old Korean hVk-. The verb hada is one of the main ways of forming (syntactic, as opposed to morphological) causatives, and there are some examples on the page showing this, e.g. the following:
 * Wyang (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wyang (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The usefulness of that Altaic database
I was curious and poked around more in that Altaic roots database, and found some disturbing indications that the compilers had no clarity into what they were looking at.

Case in point: the proto-Altaic entry baka, "to look, to watch", which conflates Japanese wakar- (listed as bakar-, but this particular B → W shift is improbable and unsupported by any historical sources I'm aware of) and Korean po-. Strange phonetic contortions aside, this completely misses the fact that Japanese "root" wakar- "to understand" is actually a conjugated form of real root wak- "to split something; to become split". A better Japanese root would be, , , probably paka in the ancient language, a noun in OJP that referred to "amount, degree; progress" from the idea of the visible amount of something, and this formed the basis for modern JA verb , , , but they link that instead to a different proto-Altaic root meaning just to wish. Clumsy.

Do you have any sense for who compiled this database? I'm inclined to ignore it as misguided and unreliable. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have this as a printed copy. It is essentially the vocabulary comparison part of the three-volume series Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages (2003), by, Anna Dybo and Oleg Mudrak. Some people love it, and some hate it, such as Vovin (as shown by his review titled “The End of the Altaic Controversy”). The book has an introduction part in Volume 1, which explains the notation conventions, gives background on each of the Proto-Altaic phonemes and an overview of each languages group subsumed under Altaic. I scanned two pages from the book, the first is explanation of the outcomes of Proto-Altaic initial *b- and justification of the notation of Proto-Japanese *b- (instead of *w-), and the second is the phonological history of Japanese and outcomes of Proto-Japanese consonants. The *b- seems to be a notation preference of theirs.
 * I'm probably not qualified to comment on the methodology used in the book and their comparisons. There are some examples which seem incorrectly analysed, such as wakaru, but there are comparisons that seem acceptable. I thought about Korean and  before and had wondered about their relationship. They seem so close, and yet seem so distant. The mystery was, which looks like a compound of the two verbs, but surprisingly Korean dictionaries think the first two syllables are unanalysable... Wyang (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Tibetan honorific nouns, verbs, etc
How should we handle these? I've seen some entries with them listed as synonyms (with qualifiers), but I imagine it would be preferable to have that in the headword-line to make it clearer. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Something like this in the headword line?
 * Or a box on right like ?
 * The data can be stored at e.g. Module:bo-registers/data (below):
 * Or a synonym section-only template similar to in, which would say “‘To come’ in various speech registers” (or something better-worded)?
 * A complexity is that a honorific word can often correspond to multiple plain words. Wyang (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Having only started studying Tibetan recently, I really only know the difference between words I use to describe myself and words used for another person of equal or somewhat greater rank. I am vaguely aware of other complexities, like words only used for lamas etc, and I don't know a good way to handle them. I also don't know how many of them there are, and thus which way of storing the data is best.
 * I was imagining it on the headword line, but the fa-regional layout is actually very enticing. I would prefer either of those to what we do now (or the zh-dial layout, which is just a better-organised version of the same thing). Given that it'll be on you to execute this, I defer to your judgement. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem Meta. The box seems to be a good format; the only envisageable downside is cluttering when there are multiple boxes, e.g. at phebs pa where it corresponds to both yong ba (“to come”) and 'gro ba (“to go”). It's not that much of a concern to me. I will work on this when I have a bit more free time, probably early next week. In the meantime, I ordered a Tibetan honorifics dictionary and I hope it is useful as there is not much information online. :) Wyang (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that will really be of great use around here! Another resource that makes me regretful I can't read Chinese. I look forward to improving the state of Tibetan coverage around here. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, since these terms aren't necessarily intuitive, we'll need the labels on the box to link to a place where they're explained, probably Appendix:Tibetan honorifics (which will then have to be created). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Frank. Could you share with me and Meta the pdf file with the Tibetan pinyin and some instructions if needed? What language is it in? There is very little in English on the topic. If it's all in Chinese, it might be difficult for him.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, since these terms aren't necessarily intuitive, we'll need the labels on the box to link to a place where they're explained, probably Appendix:Tibetan honorifics (which will then have to be created). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Frank. Could you share with me and Meta the pdf file with the Tibetan pinyin and some instructions if needed? What language is it in? There is very little in English on the topic. If it's all in Chinese, it might be difficult for him.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi and, here is the/a Tibetan-Chinese dictionary which has Tibetan Pinyin for all of its entries. Sorry it is in Chinese, but getting the Tibetan Pinyin for words should be quite straightforward. Note that verbs are not listed under -pa or -ba as in other dictionaries; they are listed under the present tenses. Let me know if there is any issue. I will try to get the honorific utility done soon. Thanks, Wyang (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. This is off-topic but thanks very much for the file. It looks very interesting and comprehensive but the document is not searchable, unfortunately. So one would need to know the Tibetan script well before being able to use. It seems there is a lot of difference between the actual spelling and Tibetan pinyin + tones, which are not rendered in the native script(?), like Thai or Burmese. I haven't decided to learn a bit of Tibetan yet but I saved it for future. Thanks again! --07:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries Anatoli! Wyang (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * is now ready for use. Wyang (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Does every single word have its own set of honorifics? Is any of the register data going to be shared between words, or only on one page? I'm just wondering about the usefulness of storing the data in a module. DTLHS (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Each of the stored entries at Module:bo-registers/data will be used on at least two pages, some three and possibly more. Honorifics are extensive in Tibetan - not all words have honorifics but many commonly used words do. Wyang (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I still don't know exactly what your three-way distinction is, and I think we need a brief appendix to describe it; my book normally gives a two-way distinction, but describes five levels of honorifics for "food", for example. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I copied the example from Philip Denwood's Tibetan. Section 8.6 has “Respectful Verbs”, which are verbs where deference is shown to the object, not the subject. The module should be quite flexible; the qualifier tags in the data module can be any customised text. Wyang (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Contrast pages XXI-XXII. The only levels given in that book for most verbs are the ones he calls "Non-honorific" and "Honorific", which seem to map to your "Ordinary" and "Respectful". Do I have that right? I really want to be sure before I go adding things. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "honorific" in that book seems to correspond to both "honorific" and "respectful" in Denwood's book. phul would be "respectful", and sprad gnang "honorific", and phul gnang "respectful + honorific". Wyang (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very confusing; should I add them as "honorific" if called thus in that book? (I guess I'd better get my hands on a copy of Denwood, either way.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest we use the categorisation in Colloquial Tibetan (low/high/highest), but split their "honorific" category and keep the definitions of "honorific" (subject) and "respectful" (object) the same as Denwood's, and use "honorific + respectful" for words showing deference to both the subject and object, such as phul gnang. i.e. "to give" would be bster (lower non-honorific), sprad (non-honorific), sprad gnang (honorific), phul (respectful), phul gnang (honorific and respectful), gnang (highest honorific), and "food" would be lto/lto chas (lower non-honorific), kha lag (non-honorific), zhal lag (honorific), gsol tshig (high honorific), ljags smin (highest honorific). Wyang (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought of another expansion when I was looking at all the nouns to add, and I was wondering whether there was a way to handle those other than adding them all to bo-registers/data. For example, will predictably have the honorific form  — is it too expensive or problematic to have the module analyse it to figure that out based on the data it already has? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this may be difficult. zhal is the honorific for the "concepts" of “face” and “mouth”, and it's not a simple replacement of kha → zhal. i.e. although corresponds to, and  corresponds to , other words relating to “face” or “mouth” are not as regular, such as  ~ , and  ~ . Other honorifics are not very straightforward either. Wyang (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know there's no way around the weird semantic association ones. I merely meant examples exactly like the one I gave, where the ordinary form is already in the compound and just gets swapped out for its honorific. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, why not... I added this function, so when the gloss is not present in /data or if there is no gloss, it will first try to see if there is a component that has a plain/honorific counterpart (e.g. kha vs. zhal), only if that is impossible will an error message be displayed. Wyang (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I guess that's it as far as the module goes; the rest will be a whole lot of hard work. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Having both phonetic and phonemic transcriptions in zh-pron
Do you think we should show both phonetic and phonemic transcriptions in zh-pron? Two of the most common phonological rules are palatalization and tone sandhi, e.g. Cantonese 張 read as ; Meixian Hakka 今晡日  read as. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Kind of related. Please don't forget Talk:你好.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I like this, though as with most improvements, it requires extra work. :) The tone symbols 1-5 can systematically retire (with IPA symbols taking over) if we have phonetic + phonemic applied to all Chinese pronunciations. Min Dong would benefit a lot too, with all the lenition notations probably more likely to be understood by readers. Not much would change in Mandarin, aside from the limited 214 > 21/21(4) and 51 > 53 tone sandhi rules and voicing of toneless syllables, and maybe 一/不 tone changes. Wu would only have phonemic since we decided to not include their original tones. Only concern is potential clumsiness if the pronunciation is too long, or if there are multiple phonetic pronunciations on one line, or if the phonetic and phonemic outputs are the same. Wyang (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

หอย
Please check IPA for "ห็อย". Trans. is correct but IPA is wrong at tone marks. It must be "rising" like "หอย". --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Octahedron, I fixed the module so that the transcription and IPA are now consistent. Wyang (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

이쁘다 and 예쁘다
Are they related? Also, could you provide the etymology of the former? Thank you. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say. The former has always come across as the dialectal or slang version of the latter, and was only recognised as standard Korean last year. Seo Jeongbeom considers it possible that both could have the same origin, coming from as discussed at, perhaps via dialectal developments. Wyang (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fascinating semantic development parallels between Korean and Japanese, which originally meant  or , shifting to , and now the primary modern sense of ,.
 * I'm also interested in that -s- that appears in the MK form, suggesting that the initial eoyeo- might be a term of its own. Any relation between the eoyeo- in  and ?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The reservedness of Asian cultures - someone being shy or coy is beautiful. There is also, which is the direct adjectivisation of the same root . The original meaning of this root may have been “proper, decent, good, moderate”, which then developed into “pretty, beautiful, cute” (cf. the “fitting, proper” sense of ); adding an adjective -p- suffix produces “behaving moderately, pitiable” , which also developed into “beautiful, pretty” . The change from Middle Korean to Modern Korean  is unsurprising phonologically. The -s in Middle Korean eoyeos- could be a suffixed form of the root eoyeo-, and more words containing this eoyeo- (“proper”) root include  and its contraction  (compare the change eoyeo- > ye-).  may be originally from a different root , also with the adjectival -p- suffix, but may have conflated with  due to a similarity in meaning and sound, after the coalescence eoyeo- > ye- of the latter.
 * With regard to, it looks like it is from a different root. 뜻도 모르고 자주 쓰는 우리말의 어원 says the first component is a dialectal form of “to put around; to surround” . The standard modern equivalent may be . I searched (增補)韓國方言辭典 and couldn't find this  as a dialectal word for  or . Perhaps it was an obsolete dialect. The obsolete word  (= Modern ) would corroborate this hypothesis. Wyang (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have a few questions:
 * How does /əjə/ develop into /jəj/ > /je/ in 어엿브다 > 예쁘다? I find /əjə/ > /əj/ > /e/ in 어연간하다 > 엔간하다 more credible.
 * Are there other words containing the adjective infix -p-?
 * Are there other words containing the root 읻—?
 * I propose that the first part of 어여머리 comes from /əjwə/. The first verb would be formed like this: /əjwəta/ > /əjuta/ > /euda/. The 어여 part of 어여머기 would be formed like this: /əjwə/ > /əjə/ > /ɔjɔ/. The first part of the second verb would be formed like this: /əjwə/ > /ɔjwɔ/. Is this hypothesis probable at all?
 * Thank you in advance. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Either /əjə/ > /ɪjɪ/ > /je/, or /əjə/ developed into /je/ influenced by /i-/ in 이쁘다. /je/ is unstable in Korean, see for example 계시다.
 * Numerous. It was a very productive suffix in Middle Korean, used to form adjectives from verbs. Most of the words in Category:Korean p-irregular adjectives probably contain this suffix.
 * In Middle Korean there was 읻다, meaning "good, beautiful". I can't find anything else derived from this.
 * The first two look probable. <에워> /ewʌ/ in the compound verb is from <에우> /eu/ + the connecting suffix <어> /ʌ/. Bear in mind that <어여> /ʌjʌ/ in <어여머리> was probably from a stem related to <에우-> /eu-/, plus a suffix. Wyang (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't know of the infix 어. Do you have other words with this infix? Renewed hypothesis:
 * 어여머리: /əju-ə-mət-i/ (/mat/ > /mət/ because of vowel harmony) > /əjəməri/ > /ɔjɔmɔri/ (I insist that 어 is pronounced /ɔ/)
 * 에우다: /əju-ta/ > /əjuta/ > /euda/
 * 에워가다: /əju-ə-ka-ta/ > /əjwəkata/ > /ewɔgada/
 * --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 어 is the infinitive suffix and the cluster 아/어 is used to link two verbs to form a compound verb (turns the first into the infinitive). Special:WhatLinksHere/어 has many verbs formed by this. Wyang (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

zh-forms
Why doesn't link to the Chinese section of the component entries? --WikiTiki89 19:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't see why not; I made it do so. Wyang (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The alternatives of the full word on the left side of the template still don't link to the Chinese section (for example at 僱傭兵). --WikiTiki89 13:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * : Fixed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

短
Could you check the etymology, especially considering the Min colloquial forms? STEDT lists 短 in the Chinese comparandum in both *t(y)u(ŋ/n) and *dəw, so I'm not very sure. Also, the Min Dong pronunciation doesn't look right. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's my error. I expanded on the etymology a bit. Wyang (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not all your fault. You just overlooked what Atitarev put. Thanks for expanding on the etymology! — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of pure Korean numbers
From the above table, it seems that the single-digit numbers and the multiples of ten often share a common root. Do you have any idea about their evolution? Also, do you have their attestations in the Old Korean / Middle Korean passages? 정말 고맙습니다. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Kenny, here is Karl Krippes' The Phonetic History of Korean Numerals. It discusses the phonological development of the numerals in detail, and the second latter talks about the common suffix in the tens. Hope it is helpful! Wyang (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The file you gave me was quite messy, in the sense that it kept refuting others at the beginning and did not provide a conclusive chart of the evolution... I might need to clean it up. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

How plausible is this theory of the formation of 아홉? /bVlbVlbVl/ > /babobi/ > /ahobi/ > /ahob/. I might have misunderstood because I cannot read Korean well... --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the same author:

2 dVl-bVl > dulbɯl > dubɯl > duɯl > dul 3 dVl-bVl > debul > dzehul > sehul > se-h 4 dVl-bVl > debul > nehul > ne-h 5 dVl-dVl > dadeol > dajeol > daseol > daseot 6 bVl-dVl > deot > ?? > neuiseot > nyeoseot > yeoseot 7 dVl-gVl-bVl > dilgobi > nilgop > ilgop 8 dVl-dVl-bVl > deodeolbi > neodeolp > yeodeol(p) 9 bVl-bVl-bVl > babobi > ahobi > ahop

Maybe I have given the author too much attention... Obviously this hypothesis is not even consistent to begin with. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as pure tosh... Wyang (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But this is from the website you love recommend... --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is not the part of the website I recommended. :) That is in 오픈사전 (open dictionary), where people can post things freely. Make sure you are in the (kr/en/cn)dic.naver.com site. The etymologies are in the Korean-Korean Naver dictionary. Wyang (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there an idiom for this situation, where something dirty is found inside something bright? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (when there is nothing good inside really)? "worm in an apple"? These are the ones I could think of right now. Wyang (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

맛 and 마시다
Are they related? --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe. Seo Jeongbeom thinks they are. According to him, they are both derived from the root *mVt (“mouth”), also the source of, , and  (I have serious doubts about this). Wyang (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe also derives from the same root. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seo's theory here seems too far-fetched to me... Wyang (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have the Middle Korean etyma of the words mentioned here? --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion on siphta and silhta below. Wyang (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Phonemic transcription of 의
In the mainstream Korean studies, this is transcribed as /ɯi/, which cannot be farther from the reality. For example, in 00:28 of this song, 너의 is romanized as "noye" and pronounced as /noje/. So, how is this vowel actually pronounced? What about in other environment such as when the consonant is different? --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is pronounced /e/. It is written in Article 5 of the Pronunciation Standard: . — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the possessive particle 의 is commonly pronounced /e/. Otherwise the syllable 의 can be pronounced as /ɰi/ or /i/. ㅢ occurring in after non-null initials is generally only pronounced /i/. Wyang (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But in 03:00 of the same song, 기적의 is pronounced /kidzoge/, the ㄱ was carried over but the ㅢ is still pronounced /e/. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, 의 is pronounced [e]. 기적 /gid͡ʑʌk/ [kid͡ʑʌg-] + 의 /ɰi/ [-e]. Wyang (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we add that to the Korean pronunciation module? --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an old phenomenon. ᄒᆞᆫᄢᅴ /hɑnpskɰi/ > 함께 /hamk͈e/. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. 'ui' is unstable after consonants. has the parameter |ui=, which says the the vowel 'ui' can also be pronounced as 'i' in the word. If the vowel 'ui' occurs and is not following a null-initial, it is automatically converted to 'i'. The possessive particle rarely occurs in titles. In cases where it appears, I think [에] can be specified as a phonetic spelling. Wyang (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Should the phonetic Hangul of be [주:이]? Also, where is the sense of -ism? --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been added... 주의(主義) is [주:의/주:이], and 주의(注意) [주의/주이]. Wyang (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Frank, Kenny and Shinji. Please see my latest edit on 의 (particle). I made the phonetic hangeul "에" but it also changed the transliteration in the pronunciation section. RR normally transliterates it as "ui", doesn't it?. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also read somewhere, correct me if I'm wrong, the pronunciation "e" is common and currently standard but "ui" is also OK.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, both are okay. I added a new parameter "ui-e" in (의). Wyang (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation ui is official but in reality almost no one uses it, except for clear and slow pronunciation to avoid any confusion with 에. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I added usage notes to the pronunciation. Wyang (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

무지개
This strange word seems to have no etymon... or does it? --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It does... I added it. Wyang (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The /e/ > /ɛ/ shift in the orthography is weird enough... --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

잠깐, 잠꼬대, 자꾸
Could these three words be related in any way? --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. 잠깐 is from 暫間, 잠꼬대 from and 자꾸 from . Wyang (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the second elements of 잠꼬대 and 자꾸? --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 자꾸: 고[接辭]. 잠꼬대: not sure. Wyang (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

처음 and 잠
Would they share a common -m nominalization suffix? --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 처음 is from + suffix  (probably not the same as the nominalisation suffix -m), and 잠 is from  + nominalisation suffix -m. Wyang (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe 다음 also? --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably. Wyang (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And, of course, 마음. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure, maybe not. It was mozom in MK. Wyang (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Added incomplete etymology... looks very ugly. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the book in which it was attested. Wyang (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

싶다 and 싫다
Do you have their etymologies? They obviously share a 하다 root... Surface etymology: 싶다 = 십 + 하다, 싫다 = 실 + 하다. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * siphta is from sikputa, sitputa, sipputa, not sip + -hada. -pu- may be a suffix. silhta is from sulhta, not sure if the -h- is from ho-. (all romanisations in Yale) Wyang (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have the Hangul forms? Also, would the -ㅎ- in 좋다 and 싫다 be the same? Also, what are the first elements of the three verbs mentioned? --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 싶다: ➙식브다(月印 132)＞싣브다(飜小學 8:1) / 십브다(飜小學 7:18)＞시프다(家禮 5:6) / 시브다(三綱重 烈 13)＞시부다(捷蒙 2:5)＞ 싶다
 * 싫다: ➙슳다(法華 1:83)＞싫다
 * The -h- in cwohta and silhta are potentially the same; both were attested in a form that ended in -hota (Yale). Not sure what the first three elements are. Korean etymologies are often uncertain due to lack of attestations before the 14th century. Many of the Middle Korean etymologies can be found at Naver or Da-um. :) Wyang (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

助聽器
How is 助聽 used as a stand alone word? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 助聽 is used as an attributive adjective, e.g. 助聽裝置, 助聽耳機, 助聽設備, 助聽接收器, 助聽系統, 助聽科技, etc. (google:助聽 -助聽器 -助听器) Wyang (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. I've had a try at creating an entry. Seems we don't have an equivalent attributive in English. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems good. I may have defined it more like an adjective, perhaps "assisting hearing", but I'm not too fussed. Wyang (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

苴
If it's not too much trouble, could you look over+revise 苴? Thanks. —suzukaze (t・c) 09:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's a very confusing character, but I tried my best. Wyang (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Chemical elements in Chinese
Hi Wyang, I was just curious as to how much knowledge you have about the names of specific chemical elements in Chinese topolects other than Mandarin. I tried the "periodic table" article at Min Nan wikipedia but its links to specific chemical element articles don't show the names in romanized Min Nan at all. A specific example I was trying to source is for argon (18) -- one source shows just "à" (a3) but that is (slightly) inconsistent with the pronunciation of the 氬 character's phonetic component, which apparently (regularly?) is "a" (a1) but can supposedly also be "à". *confusion* Anyway, let me know if you can help with these rather-technical terms. Bumm13 (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Bumm13, the etymological pronunciation of 亞 is Min Nan is ‹à›, and ‹a› is a common colloquial variant. Hence for 氬, ‹à› is the expected pronunciation in Min Nan. Here is an audio online showing this pronunciation: . Wyang (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a periodic table in Taiwanese. If you're interested, there are also dialectal variations here (don't worry about the difference between ing/ik and eng/ek). — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

家族
This is the first time I've added Descendants information, please check my edit when you get time. Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Wyang (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at 구성원 and 구성 as well. These are my first edits on Korean entries. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * seems good. Please see to . Thanks, Wyang (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Indicating Classical Chinese
I'm surprised that there isn't some sort of method of indicating which entries are Classical Chinese or at least have classical meanings. Is there a reason for this, or am I missing something? Wiki Winters ☯ 韦安智  23:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We usually use the "literary" label for that. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 23:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed that 此 and 却 don't have those labels. Also, I left a comment on your talk page. Wiki  Winters ☯ 韦安智  00:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I added labels to those senses. Wyang (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

zh-pron in mobile view
Hi, I've noticed that the Chinese pronunciation section is not collapsible in Mobile view. It's always open. Do you know if it's because mw-collapsible is not working in mobile view? Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Half of our JS/CSS stuff doesn't work in mobile view. It's a huge problem that is underemphasized and should be addressed. --WikiTiki89 19:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Should be addressed by us or by the Wikimedia Foundation? --Panda10 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Both. They need to be more transparent about why some things work and some things don't, and then we would both need to work on fixing things depending on what we find out. --WikiTiki89 19:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to go about this. Should we open a bugzilla ticket about mw-collapsible? --Panda10 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not just mw-collapsible. It's a much bigger issue. What we need is for developers to engage in dialog with us. --WikiTiki89 19:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've noticed, but I'm not sure how to go about this either. Wyang (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

More archaic Chinese fun (汯)
I was just wondering if you could give some insight into this phrase (it's about some sort of river):

"泓汯"（水流）回旋的样子.

Is it describing a whirlpool, specifically, or just some kind of circling water? The passage seems a bit brief (as many of the old dictionary passages are). Thanks again for your help! Bumm13 (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That's quite correct. It means when it is used in the compound 泓汯, it describes the swirling appearance of currents. If this is the only sense, we can use . Wyang (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Tibetan Pronunciation is So Different from its spelling
Hi Wyang, Awesomemeeos again. Where do you get your Tibetan pronunciation dictionary from? Like བཀྲ་ཤིས for example, transliterated as bkra shis but pronounced like ? How do you get this pronunciation? Looks like, unlike English, follows those "zen" rules to create the pronunciation. AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 22:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi : here is a Tibetan-Chinese dictionary which has Tibetan Pinyin for all of its entries. Yes, Tibetan is badass, it keeps the spellings of Old Tibetan in the 8-9th centuries. The development from Old Tibetan to Lhasa Tibetan is fairly regular though, and something like bkra shis in Old Chinese would probably be pronounced quite similar to . For example, the made-up word 家師 (師 with a falling tone), pronounced in Old Chinese, would be pronounced as  in Beijing Mandarin. Wyang (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm curious. When children learn to read and write, what do they learn as the value of each grapheme? Or do they simply learn whole syllables without decomposing them (like that བཀྲ is [ʈ͡ʂə⁵⁵] and ཤིས is [ɕi⁵¹])? --WikiTiki89 17:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Learning pronunciations of whole syllables (basic vocabulary) would be the first step. They do learn how to decompose and build complex syllables and words, but it is not pronounced as in Old Tibetan. བཀྲ will be learnt as (note the vowel) and ཤིས as  in Lhasa, not really pronounced as bkra shis. Wyang (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Learning to read in Thai, Burmese or Tibetan should be very similar to learning to read in English. They are phonetic but only partially for historical, etymological reasons. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a nonsense sentence I made up which even I am not quite sure how to pronounce:
 * I apologize for any distress I may have caused to unsuspecting second-language speakers who read this unawares ... Chuck Entz (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I like it but I don't know how to read it :)
 * Methods of teaching/learning to read languages with semi- or non-phonetic scripts always interested me. Surprisingly, Japanese kids stick to furigana (ruby) much longer than Chinese kids using pinyin or zhuyin, even if learning to read in Chinese is supposedly harder than Japanese. Arabs would do much better in promoting their language if they published more popular books with a full vowelisation. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not so surprised. Japanese writing represents the collision of two mutually-incompatible languages at several stages of their development, so you have all the readings to learn. Yes, there are fewer characters to learn, but there's more information to learn about each one, and it's much less organized. With Chinese, there are radicals and other common semantic or phonetic elements that let you apply what you learned about one character to other characters. Japanese has that to some extent, but with all kinds of bizarrely unpredictable random stuff thoroughly mixed in. It's surprising that they can absorb all that while they're still kids. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Touché. Phonetic symbols are a great help when learning one's native language or a second language, but they are not essential. I feel that the ancient Chinese literati were immensely more literate than the authors nowadays, although they are not as phonologically aware. The characters were remembered with minimal phonetic help, until the sound changes reduced everything to shi ... Wyang (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I recently came across The Chaos, which is essentially a longer version of your sentence. --WikiTiki89 14:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One example I found out on the internet: Minimal spelling pairs like གྲོགས grogs pronunced as (no tones) and གྲགས grags as ? Oh my God! AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 23:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, theoretically these two should be fairly similar: grogs (“friend”) and grags (“fame”) . What Meyer meant was perhaps using grogs to pronounce its variant rogs, which is . Wyang (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

zh-dial for cheese
I was thinking of making a page for cheese, but I don't know which Chinese word to choose as the page name. Any suggestions? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Justin, I think would be a good main name to use. Wyang (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've made it, so feel free to modify it. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 03:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

沝
Hi Wyang, here's another archaic character that I'm not quite positive of its three meanings. zhui3 is 1. 二水. 2. 水 (not sure if this is "river" specifically or just any definition for that character). zi3 is: 滩碛聚集的地方, which seems to be talking about somewhere (place) where rocks gather by a river bank or shore, not entirely sure though. It'd be nice to have this one just because of how the character looks with its two "water" components. Again, thanks for all your help on these pesky archaic characters! =^) Bumm13 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a cool one. It's the descendant of an unprefixed Old Chinese variant of :, and is probably the origin of the affricate initial in the colloquial Min readings of 水. I expanded on the entry a bit. The second sense may need to be reworded so that it makes more sense. Wyang (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

thukpa
Do you know the Tibetan word this was borrowed from? DTLHS (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is from . I created the entry. Wyang (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Entries like དཀར
I feel like we need a specialised template for this sort of thing; as it is, the page is misleading, since it can't be used to mean "white" on its own. Maybe it should have something like this: Stem of. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I had the same problem at back in 2013. I would prefer some kind of  definition template, just saying “See ...”, with an optional gloss and an optional second word. “Stem” may be misinterpreted by speakers of other languages. Wyang (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'm fine with that; do you know how we could easily find the relevant entries to change them once the template is made? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there is no way to get a full list. We will have to go through the categories, and Category:Tibetan nouns and Category:Tibetan adjectives are probably the high-yield ones. Wyang (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could generate a list of monosyllabic noun and adjective entries, and work from those? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, here we go:

. Wyang (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I tried to create bo-see, but being quite crappy at such things, I couldn't get it work. If you can create, I'll do my best to add it to all the relevant entries. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries! I've made . Wyang (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and as always, thank you for looking over my edits. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem! Wyang (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Korean questions
What does 만날 / 만날까 mean in this sentence: 내일 서로 만날까요? We don't seem to have it on Wiktionary. 50languages says the sentence means Shall we see each other tomorrow? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the meaning is correct. 만날까요 is from + . Wyang (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hiya Carl, a bit on the Korean future tense (one method) is here. This resource is good, I couldn't find a good grammar book on Korean but self-study books and some sites have bits and pieces on the Korean grammar. Tuttle's Korean learner's dictionary covers a lot of basic suffixes but examples may not be so easy to understand at first. Please also note that lists future "만날" in the conjugation table. ~ㄹ/을 can be followed by other endings, e.g. ~ㄹ/을 거예요 --Anatoli T. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I'm enjoying learning Korean but I'm finding the grammar quite difficult. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Korean has inflections. Like Japanese, verbs and adjectives are difficult + levels of speech, honorific and plain styles all have cause some difficulties. Once these difficulties are overcome, everything else is relatively simple. Both Japanese and Korean are better learned by grammar patterns, e.g, how do you express various modality (must, may, will, etc.).The future tense is one of the patterns and there are a few ways to express it. There are some great playlists to learn the Korean grammar when you get more confidence with the vocabulary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

man
Would appreciate your input re changes I just made here in the Mandarin heading. Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ignore that, I didn't realise it was already covered under the Chinese heading! ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, no worries mate! Wyang (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wu romanisation
Hi, for the Wu romanisation guide, would you be able to put some examples of words with that specific sound? Like for 行 you could use it for hh. It would be great for a lot of Wu speakers including me, a native speaker. Opacitatic (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! Of course. I will add some now. Wyang (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added example characters to About Chinese/Wu. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thanks! Wyang (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks lots! I will start to write them now. Opacitatic (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I really appreciate your edits. "3xxi" for is correct. For, the vernacular pronunciation is "3hho", and the literary pronunciation is "2xia" per 《上海市区方言志》 and 《简明吴方言词典》. You can write it as:


 * w=3hho,2xia
 * w_note=3hho - vernacular; 2xia - literary
 * You can use 吴音小字典 to cross-check the pronunciations, although that dictionary is not 100% accurate. Let me know if there are any questions. Thanks! Wyang (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I really wanna learn more about the Wu language itself including its history etc.
 * Hi, is it possible to do compound words in Chinese using the Wu coding notation? And if so, how would you do it? Opacitatic (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good job at ! Regarding compounds, there are two types of sandhi for compound words in Shanghainese and they are discussed at About Chinese/Wu. In short, the first type is when the compound acts as a whole, in which the tone pattern can be predicted by the tonal category of the first character. For example, we can write |w=1seu zan for without specifying the tonal category of '3' for the second character, since the tone values for disyllabic words starting with a first-tone character are always 55 + 21, irrespective of the tonal category of the second character (e.g.  (1+1),  (1+2),  (1+3),  (1+4) etc. are all 55 + 21). The second type is when the compound is visibly composed of different components, and tone sandhi reflects the tonal categories of the different components. In these cases the tonal categories of the different components have to be specified. This is less common, and examples include  (which is 3non+2hau) and  (4faq+5nyiq). 《上海话大词典》 is a great resource which uses IPA notation throughout, and I would highly recommend getting that book to familiarise oneself with the IPA of Shanghainese. This website has various Shanghainese books and dictionaries, and is probably helpful. Let me know how you go. Wyang (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! I'll keep that in mind. I just remembered my grandpa always using 3hho when saying 下, as in 下面!

Burmese IPA Module
Hi Wyang, I wonder if you are planning to do a Burmese IPA module soon? Just curious. – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 02:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be keen, if I have a Burmese dictionary that shows respellings or some sort of transcription for words, and explains how they work, haha. Wyang (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

賺
唔該你寫埋個賺字嘅中古中文發音. 206.180.244.235 20:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 加咗啦. Wyang (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 唔該. 206.180.244.235 21:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Phrase meaning
I was just wondering what the phrase "特指用土立的标志" refers to. It's used as an additional note for the meaning of the archaic character 墂 (which is the same as 標). Thanks again! Bumm13 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind another phrase, this one says: "古书上说的一种树，用其荆条占卜" for 菙. It seems to be saying something about strips of a type of tree (chaste tree) used for divination. Would "strip" imply bark? Not quite sure myself. Again, thanks for all your help! Bumm13 (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! "特指用土立的标志" means "a sign made of (a pile of) earth". "古书上说的一种树，用其荆条占卜" means it is "a type of tree (possibly chaste tree) mentioned in ancient books, whose twigs are used for divination. 荆条 refers to the twigs of the chaste tree, which are traditionally used for punishment or torture. Wyang (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

方丈
Could you help me take a look at this tricky entry when you get the time? Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, please see my edit there. Wyang (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks! ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

火車
Are the Japanese and Korean terms descendants as well as the Vietnamese one? At the moment it's not clear. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. I think there is a possibility that they are not descendants, which is why Justin put them in "see also" instead. Wyang (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks! ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes that native people make themselves
Hi, I wonder if there are any mistakes that native Chinese speakers make when speaking their own topolect (in terms of grammar, spelling, word usage etc.). For example, native English speakers may use gone and went incorrectly. Thanks! — AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 08:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are lots. In terms of spelling, close-sounding characters are often used to substitute for characters one does not know how to write. There is even a term for such character replacements in Classical Chinese: tongjiazi (meaning “borrowed characters”), and when teens learn Classical Chinese, they have to learn to appreciate how certain characters often act as borrowed characters for others. Grammar-wise, there are quite strict grammar rules that students learn in school, such as conjunction combinations, logical correctness, figure of speech structures. However, failure to abide by those rules is common in colloquial speech, and this is termed, or “faulty wording”. Wyang (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Like English speakers mix up "its" and "it's". Chinese learners and native speakers (Mandarin) mix up similar sounding particles 的, 得 and 地, all pronounced "de" in standard Chinese. That's probably the most obvious mistake in the written language. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Another phrase meaning
Hi, Wyang, just wondering if you could look at the following phrase: 铺在房屋椽上瓦下的席. It seems to be referring to a place to sleep in the rafters of a house. One thing throwing me a bit is its use of "席", which means "seat". Thanks for the help as always! Bumm13 (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Bumm13. Were you referring to ? More definitions suggest that it is a screen or curtain made of bamboo or reed (竹薄或葦薄) placed on the rafters but underneath the tiles (鋪在椽上屋瓦下). I think 席 here means a mat - probably not something for people to sit on or sleep on. Wyang (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to 筄. I'll make sure to mention the specific character in the future. Your explanation makes a lot more sense after I went back and "re-read" the text passage. Thanks! Bumm13 (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I took another look at 筄 and now realize that I'm not completely certain of the meaning of 屋棟, as I'm not used to dealing with Chinese classifiers. Is it simply "house" or "house; room"? Thanks again for your help! Bumm13 (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The ancient dictionaries seem to suggest that this is 屋危 (roof) or 笮 (bamboo panel on the roof on which tiles are placed). It's not clear what 棟 means - it could be "ridge pole" as well. Wyang (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Automatic anagrams
Good work on the automatic anagrams feature. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wyang (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how this works? Is it possible to do it for other languages? DTLHS (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * At the moment it is detecting whether the reverse combination for a two-character compound exists and has a Chinese section; if so, it will display it in . An example is . The algorithm will be much more complicated if we want to list all the anagrams, especially for alphabetic languages where the words are typically longer. Wyang (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh... I wonder if it would be possible to generate an invisible link to the sorted characters of a word, then retrieve the list of pages that link to the canonical form to get a list of anagrams. DTLHS (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same (if Special:WhatLinksHere can be Lua-extracted). Wyang (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

橫
你好，「橫」字係「胡盲切」. 206.180.244.235 21:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 係. Wyang (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

「捱」字係唔係「五佳切」呀？206.180.244.235 15:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 係. Wyang (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about plant name
I have the word "刺木" as the second definition of "梌". Based on my google research, I think it might mean "" (which is spelled 刺桐 in modern Chinese). I found a different species in genus Erythrina (Erythrina arborescens) which is spelled "刺木通" and is more like the word in question. Thanks for your help as always! Bumm13 (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, the definition "刺木" is from : "吳人謂刺木曰梌", which means "the (ancient) Wu word for 'thorny plant'". It is more likely a general name for any thorny plant, not a specific plant name. Wyang (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

zh/data/dial-pron modules in uncategorized modules
Your bot has bloated this category rendering it useless. Make a dedicated category for them and have Category:Data modules as their parent cat. Thanks. --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I have done it myself. By updating module:documentation to automatically handle specified data modules. --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Chinese phonetic series page question
Hi Wyang, just a question for the content at Wiktionary:About Chinese/phonetic series (which is really great work, by the way!). Would it be okay to use the character 䜌 at  in place of the private use area character/codepoint  <U+E864> for the first section of the list? I was just wondering. Bumm13 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yeah  was definitely undesired. I changed it to 䜌. I'm terrible with Unicode, so (anyone) please help fix any char issues that you see. Wyang (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Speakers of Gan
Hi Wyang, do you know of anybody who can speak some kind of Gan? I'm interested with this group of languages. – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 10:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Awesomemeeos, there is probably no active user on the English Wiktionary who can speak Gan. I'd suggest you approach some active users on the Gan Wikipedia, for example w:gan:User:Symane, who is very active there. Wyang (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

亞
你好，中古中文同粵語嘅「亞」字都係冇聲母，點解國語偏要加個/j/聲母呀？206.180.244.235 21:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 中古二等開口舌根音字皆有此現象，如「江」、「甲」等. Wyang (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Vietnamese IPA transcriptions
Hello Wyang, is it Wyangbot adding the Vietnamese IPA transcriptions (Hanoi, Hue and Saigon)? Or maybe somebody else? I would like to know the linguistic source(s), references works of the transcriptions applied here. Thank you. ImreK (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi ImreK. Yes, Wyangbot added many templated Vietnamese pronunciations some time ago. The backend for the pronunciation template is Module:vi-pron, and many other users have also worked on that module to improve it. Reference works used for this include:
 * Thompson, "Saigon Phonemics", Language, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1959)
 * Thompson's A Vietnamese Reference Grammar
 * Nguyen Dinh-Hoa's Vietnamese-English Dictionary (there is a three-dialect IPA table in the appendix)
 * Andrea Hoa Pham's The Non-Issue of Dialect in Teaching Vietnamese
 * Wikipedia Vietnamese phonology and the references therein.
 * Wyang (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, there is a lot of confusion about IPA transcription among Vietnamese phonological studies (especially regard vowels). I will try to find these works. ImreK (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Singing in Hokkien
Hi Wyang, do tones really matter when singing in any Hokkien dialect or variety? Or does context take over? – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 07:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think they matter in any variety of Chinese. The tone-pitch relationship in songs is complex, but it is probably universal in Chinese. Wyang (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Shanghainese translations
Hi again. Can you please translate these in Shanghainese? Thanks! (I've actually asked in WT:Translation requests.)
 * 1) My favourite colour is blue.
 * 2) My eye colour is blue.
 * 3) My hair colour is brown.

– AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 21:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, here they are:
 * 我最歡喜個顏色是藍色.
 * 我個眼睛是藍色個.
 * 我個頭髮是棕色個.


 * Wyang (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

粵語h音
你好，粵語嘅「休」字唔可以讀hau1，「型」字唔可以讀hing4，「旭」字唔可以讀huk1等. 206.180.244.235 02:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 不能. 「華」亦不讀hwaa4. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 你好，「嫌」可以讀「him4」. 206.180.244.235 00:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 粵語審音配詞字庫沒有記載此讀音. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 「嫌：下廉」（即him4）—初學粵音切要（1855）. —suzukaze (t・c) 12:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 語言日新月異，1855年的書豈可作準？--kc_kennylau (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 大家好，家下真係有人讀「him4」㗎. 206.180.244.235 12:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 邊度嘅人？你點知？--kc_kennylau (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 呢度講him4係廣州舊文讀音. Wyang (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * （我都未講咩將成為咩準，只係想指出唔係亂咁噏. —suzukaze (t・c) 12:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)）
 * 我媽咪讀「him4」. 206.180.244.235 23:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverting DerbethBot
Hi. Why have you done this? Please see point 1 in User:DerbethBot. --Derbeth talk 05:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thai audio files are handled by Module:th-pron/files via, which determines whether or not there is a sound file based on the phonetic respelling(s) of a word. So please remove Thai from the bot's articles to edit. Thanks. Wyang (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this an official Wiktionary policy that this template is the only way to add pronunciation to Thai entries? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you have to 'register' every Thai pronunciation on this single page. Will newcomers know how to do it? How would it work if someone starts uploading 100 files a day? I don't think they would be delighted to be forced to update this page afterwards. Dutch has 400.000 pronunciation files, do you think this page would work well if you had as many files? --Derbeth talk 10:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

พีพี
What does mangrove-class mean in the Etymology? Loranthaceae is family (not a class) of mistletoe-like plants. Do they mostly grow on mangrove trees (specific genus), on any of the trees that are usually found in mangrove forests, or ....?
 * Here is the full def of Malay api-api:
 * Api-api: a mangrove-class (Loranthaceae); Avicenna [sic?] spp., esp. A. officinalis; very bright-coloured, almost fiery amid darker neighbours.
 * A.-a. bĕrbulu: A. lanata.
 * A.-a. daun bulat: A. officinalis.
 * A.-a. hitam: A. alba.
 * A.-a. merah: A. intermedia.
 * Mĕdang a.-a.: Adinandra dumosa.
 * In, it says it's referring to pokok api-api (Avicennia marina, grey mangrove), but I don't know how reliable that is. Please help change the taxonomic description in the way you think would be the best. Thanks as always! Wyang (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Trees in the genus Avicennia are an important part of mangrove forests worldwide, so the above makes sense if you remove the "(Loranthaceae)", though I'm not so sure about the "-class", either. I don't know much about Adinandra dumosa, but it's not a mangrove. I'm sure it got its name from some kind of superficial resemblance.
 * I would guess the above is trying to say that api-api are a type of mangrove made up of species of Avicennia, especially Avicennia officinalis. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. If nobody gets to it before me, I will try to make sense out of the helpful, but still a bit confusing, information. In particular, I wonder about "Loranthaceae", which had something close to its current definition in Century 1911, which reduces the likelihood that the common problem of changing definitions is what has led to the definition given. I will assume that "class" is being used in a way that has nothing to with contemporary taxonomic use of the word and is used in the definition as a general term for a grouping of taxonomic entities. DCDuring TALK 14:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Not expected pinyin in Template:zh-l
How to fix it?
 * instead of "de"
 * instead of "de"


 * You can use : . Wyang (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Middle Chinese
Hello Mr. Wyang! In Middle Chinese, 數 is pronounced /ʃɨo/, is there another which is pronounced /ʃɨo/ too? 64.18.87.172 18:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * . Wyang (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

唔該你喺「Reconstructions」嗰度加埋Expected Cantonese Reflex，例如「所矩切」變咗「syu2」. 206.180.244.235 21:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 加Mandarin Reflex嗰陣時，用嘅係呢兩張圖，不過我冇對應嘅粵語﹣中古漢語關係表. Wyang (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

这合儿/这儿合儿
I've asked about five people, two of whom are from Beijing, about these terms (listed in the regional variant chart for "here"), and none of them had any idea what I was talking about. If you search "这合" on Baidu, you'll find few, if any, relevant results. What gives? Wiki Winters ☯ 韦安智  00:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hits of "这合" are mostly not relevant. There are many examples if you search for "这(儿)合儿" (zher4her, zhei4her) or "这(儿)哈儿" (zhe4har, zhei4har; more common in Northeastern Mandarin than Beijing dialect), such as . The stress falls on 这 and the he/ar part is very weak. This word is extremely colloquial and usually unwritten, but "Beijing Aborigines" (北京土著) should be able to tell the meaning when they hear it. Wyang (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

蝽
I rarely edit hanzi entries, so I'd appreciate it if you could check my edits here. Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great job - it looks good. I only did some minor tweaks, mostly adjusting header levels. Wyang (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

玫瑰
Could you please fix the formatting of the etymology when you get the time? I don't know how to do it. Many thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. Fixed now. Wyang (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

停／完
Wyang叔你好，停同完嘅意思差唔多，停雨同落完雨嘅意思一模一樣嗎？206.180.244.235 13:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 差唔多，我覺得停雨係一種事件嘅陳述，而落完雨係描述一種狀態. Wyang (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

如果未做晒都停止可以講「完」嗎？206.180.244.235 22:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 應該唔可以. Wyang (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 「做完之後」就未必做晒？206.180.244.235 23:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

showing Old Tibetan
Hi Wyang, I want to know what module makes up the Old Tibetan pronunciations and how to make it create any Old Tibetan pronunciation just by adding a parameter to ? – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 21:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Old Tibetan pronunciation is generated automatically by unless the feature is suppressed. Please see  for an example. Wyang (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:zh-der
A couple of single-character entries have shown up in CAT:E with "too many expensive function calls" errors after a template was added. It's not really the template, though: judging by the stats at 工, every argument in zh-der adds to the expensive function count (492 arguments, 492 expensive function calls), and only 500 expensive function calls are allowed per page. I think we need to rethink how we're using zh-der on these pages- quite a few could exceed 500 derived terms.

I'm sure we can hard-wire the content on problem pages to reduce template load, or move it to appendices, but it would be nice not to require ad-hoc fixes. If we can't, we should at least warn in the documentation against too many arguments, if not setting a limit in the module.

It's also probably a sign of things to come, because too many of any templates with expensive function calls will do the same. I know your philosophy is to use any means available to enable content, but it looks like that philosophy is on a collision course with the limits of the system. Of course, it's easier to bring attention to a problem than to actually fix it, but we need to at least be aware. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * They were triggered by recent additions of the character info templates - looks like that made them just tip over the edge. is generated by, which has a   parameter limiting the maximum number of characters in the output words. There are two ways to reduce this for the moment: the first is to remove all the "compound compounds" (which is what I did on 工) - this should remove a large chunk of calls; the second is to make zh-der not read the pages - this is less ideal but can be considered when the first solution can't bring the load down. The good thing is that once the zh-der template is there, it is a very automatable job when there are new changes that we wish to make in that section. I am optimistic - when new stuff or features come around, we can expand the word lists more fully. Wyang (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I for one support removing instead since Translingual > References already has the Unicode hex number. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

楚
Wyang叔好，如果「楚」字讀cyu2仲好. 206.180.244.235 23:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 點解？--kc_kennylau (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 我諗因為《廣韻》話「創舉切」啩，但係應該讀ceoi2. 何文匯嘅《粵音正讀字彙》話呢個讀法只係本讀，而家一定讀co2. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 韻母係「魚」嘅有呢啲字，其中以/k/同/g/等做聲母嘅會變做"eoi"/ɵy̯/韻，/tʃʰ/同/tʃ/之類做聲聲母嘅會變做"o"/ɔ/韻，其他嘅變成"yu"/y/韻，所以「楚」字讀co2係冇問題嘅. （疽係反例. ）--kc_kennylau (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 似乎 z、c、s 只有小部分配 o（初、鉏、詛、所、楚、阻、助），其如都配返 yu（書、蜍、佇、暑、杵、貯、楮、紓、署、恕、著、飫、箸、處）或 eoi（胥、疽、徐、除、且、菹、蜍、諝、齟、咀、敘、苴、絮、怚）㗎喎. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 07:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 啱嘅，淨係莊組魚韻字配o（因捲舌塞擦音唇化？），其他組都讀yu或者eoi. Wyang (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick question about 夨
Would it be safe to say that, based on both the modern (matching) Cantonese and Mandarin readings for 夨 and its Old Chinese and Middle Chinese data, that (as with 仄) the Min Nan reading for 夨 would be "cheh"? Both characters show /t͡ʃɨk̚/ for MC and /*[ts]rək/ ; /*ʔsrɯɡ/ for OC. Thanks! Bumm13 (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, this could be risky. This is how Chinese phonologists would derive the “proper” readings, but I would prefer if we are only recording the readings that others had already recorded / proposed, especially for Min, which is a bit erratic sometimes. Wyang (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Chinese lemmas
Would there be any way to have a detailed index for Category:Chinese lemmas like there is at Category:English lemmas? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Suzukaze-c wrote something before for this, and it . At the moment there are some sort key issues still unresolved, but the table can be put in place once the sortkeys are sorted. Wyang (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the index to be more Mandarin-centric for now. —suzukaze (t・c) 10:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"言急" quick question
I was just wondering if "言急" was an actual compound word or if (using wiktionary terminology) it was merely "sum of parts"? I can't find "言急" in any online dictionaries but Google Translate says it means "expressive". If it's sum of parts, what would be the best way to translate the combination of the characters? Thanks! Bumm13 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. It is a sum of parts and can be interpreted in two ways, either “speaking hurriedly” or “(a word) refers to ‘rash; hurried’”. In the case of 謥, the compound 謥詷 is used in the former sense (形容說話急促， 內容夸誕). Wyang (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Translation word question (棠棗汁)
I was just wondering what exactly to make of this word: 棠棗汁. It seems to literally translate as "wild plum and date jujube juice". Perhaps some strange concoction of yesteryear (or for "clearing one's digestive tract out")? It's the definition for 浾 (and 泟). ;) All kidding aside, your help on this one would be greatly appreciated (as always). Bumm13 (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. 棠棗汁 is the juice of 棠棗, which is a type of 棗 (jujubes or dates). I'm not sure what the significance of 棠 is here; 棠棗 is one the several types of jujubes (here and here). The juice was probably red (hence 赤 in the character) and was used as a dye in ancient times. Wyang (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Another quick one: Here's what I got for the second translation of Etymology 2 at 觜: "the horn-shaped feathers on the head of an owl". Bumm13 (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, this is correct. Wyang (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

星孛
Hi, Wyang. Someone asked me about 星孛 (xīng bó), which refers to a comet that has lost its tail. Someone asked if 孛星 (bó xīng) could be used instead. —Stephen (Talk) 01:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Stephen. Both 星孛 and 孛星 refer to comets, where 孛 describes the radiant appearance of a comet, per . I created the first two entries, and expanded the entry 孛. Hope this helps! Wyang (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Thanks! —Stephen (Talk) 05:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Japanese entries created by your bot Wjcdbot with problem on Chinese Wiktionary
我在中文词典的茶室，挂了我搜到的有问题的词条，请问是否可以统一修复一下呢？尤其是像 这类型的，有很多（但不是全部）.

另外，当年机器人建条目的数据来源是哪里？因为如也使用了这个数据库，想了解一下. --Alexander Misel (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 您好，不好意思新建了这些条目. 不过我已经不在中文维基词典编辑了，请您联系那边的管理员删除吧. 来源我记不太清了，不过是一个网上的数据库. Wyang (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

滎 part of speech question
Hi Wyang, I was just wondering if the "the rising and dashing of waves" (yíng) definition should be a verb or a noun? The Chinese text is "波浪回旋涌起的样子". The definition seems to be specific to the manner in which the waves are moving, which makes me think it's a noun but I'm just not sure. Thanks again! Bumm13 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I haven't checked the character in detail, but judging from the Chinese text 波浪回旋涌起的样子, this is quite typical of the (ideophone) category of words in Chinese. The part of speech is varied - some dictionaries treat them as adverbs, some adjectives, some verbs, and some nouns... Wyang (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Etymologies of possessive particles in various dialects of Chinese
的 lists several such particles. However, their respective etymologies are lacking on the entries. Could you add them? Thanks. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Kenny. I'd be happy to help but I'm a bit short of time recently. Maybe Justin could help in the meantime? Thanks! Wyang (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably won't be of much help here. The etymologies of these particles are hard for me to find. I've put something down for, but that's about it. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 21:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

🇨🇬
Hey, could you please translate this Santa dictionary entry for me? It seems to appear in texts a lot with variable transcription. Crom daba (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Crom daba, do you need the text typed out from that scan or do you already have it in text form? If not, I could type it out for you and post it here. Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I only have it in image form, typing it out would be very kind of you, but of limited use to myself as I have no ability to read Chinese outside of checking simple glosses - and this seems like a non-gloss definition. Crom daba (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here you go:
 * jian adv.
 * Indicates that a behaviour, action or situation occurred recently, equivalent to “just now”.
 * Indicates that a behaviour or action only reaches a certain limit, equivalent to “merely”, “only”.
 * Indicates that something reaches a certain level exactly, equivalent to “just right”.
 * Indicates two consecutive events. (In Chinese, this would be a two-clause sentence with 就 in the second clause.)
 * Indicates that something reaches a certain level exactly, equivalent to “just right”.
 * Indicates two consecutive events. (In Chinese, this would be a two-clause sentence with 就 in the second clause.)
 * Indicates two consecutive events. (In Chinese, this would be a two-clause sentence with 就 in the second clause.)

Sichuanese
Prisencolin has been adding some Sichuanese entries that have some serious formatting issues; among other things, they're filling up Category:Language code invalid/IPA. I don't know if there's a standard for how to format these that the user is unaware of, or whether a new standard needs to be created. Either way this needs looking at. (Note: As Wyang is on holiday, if someone else who works on Chinese topolects wants to go for it, be my guest.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Suzukaze-c has added the code for it (well done!). I haven't looked into the scheme and the code in detail yet, but I would prefer the syllables to be separated by spaces and have Sichuanese nested under Mandarin (eventually). Wyang (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Since we already modified it, my preference is not to use capitalisations either. It looks weird on numbered pinyin. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 19:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Module:mnc-Latn-translit&Module:mnc-translit
Hi, Wyang. 请问我能否在其他维基项目中使用您在Module:mnc-Latn-translit、Module:mnc-translit中的代码，例如用在中文维基词典、中文维基百科，维基孵育场中的满文维基百科、满文维基词典或是其他. --Араси (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 没有问题，欢迎使用，如果注明源于英文维基词典的相应版本就最好了. :) Wyang (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 非常感谢！我会注明来源. Араси (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

«完»
你好, 我唔知點解«完»字讀«jyun4», 如果讀«wun4»重好. 206.180.244.235 15:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

a question about CJKV Descendants
In some cases it is obvious that words in Japanese and Korean are descendants from Chinese, but in other cases, not so much. For example, how do we know for certain whether 予約 in Japanese and 豫約 in Korean are descendants from Chinese 預約? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't say for sure, with 100% certainty, without checking dictionaries. In case of Japanese the reading must also be on'yomi.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Shanghainese 了
Hi Wyang, do you know the Shanghainese equivalent for the perfective particle 了? Thanks – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 02:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is 仔 . Wyang (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

A proposal on splitting Monguor into Mangghuer and Mongghul
Hey, a proposal I've made at Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits seems to be stuck for a long time now, could you perhaps take a look at it, share your thoughts and vote? Crom daba (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

//NOTE: This message was crossposted to multiple talk pages. Crom daba (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Module:ms-derivations
I see your Module:ms-derivations and Template:ms-der that might be useful. Is it better to use affixes directly instead of numbers? Common users certainly won't know those numbers mean. And add one more POS parameter like "n", "v", "adv" to condition their result. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And... if you could make Jawi version into it? --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It may be more convenient to use affixes themselves, disambiguated with parts of speech when necessary. The number system is from the book mentioned on the template documentation page, which conveniently contains comprehensive lists of nearly all Malay root words and their derivation properties. I don't know enough about Malay morphology or Jawi to be able to make the changes myself - but I'm happy to assist with the technical part. Wyang (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of 癆
Hi, could you take a look at the etymologies of when you have time? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Justin. The etymologies look good to me. Happy New Year! Wyang (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year! How about etymology 1? Any thoughts on that? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 14:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is correct per Wang (1982). I expanded the entry a bit. I'm afraid a lot of our "Sichuan" tags would need to be revised to at least "Southwestern Mandarin" after some research. :( Wyang (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

洰 question
Hi Wyang, I've examined the given definition for 洰 and I can't quite seem to be able to parse it. Both "水中物多. " and "水中物㚌曰洰. " (Kangxi) are given but I can't quite make out the intended meaning. Thanks! Bumm13 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Kangxi has 水中物㚌曰洰, where 㚌 means 多 (many), i.e. (the appearance of) water having many things (algae?) in it. Wyang (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Mandarin pronunciation of 正經
Could you check the Mandarin pronunciations of 正經? I feel like the third tone for 經 is actually the toneless version. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the pronunciation zheng4jing3 is more common than zheng4jing1 or zheng4jing in Mainland China. (I almost always say jing3.) jing1 to me suggests a non-native Mandarin speaker. Wyang (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

listing compounds for individual 字
Would it possible to automate the lists of compounds at the entries for individual 字? This would save us a lot of time. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hiya. Yes, explains how to do it. The generated list is from 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Etymology for 烕/滅
Could you take a look at the etymology for 烕/滅? Schuessler suggests that perhaps *hmet comes from derivation of 墮 (*hmai) + t, so would that mean 滅 (*met) comes from 烕 (*hmet)? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 23:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From Kangxi, I suspect mie4 < *met originally referred to “to be extinguished; to perish”, and xue4 < *hmet referred to “to cause to perish; to destroy”. I mentioned the link to 墮 in the etymology of 滅, although I'm not very convinced. The two senses seemed to have conflated in Old Chinese already in 滅. Wyang (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! — justin(r)leung { (t...) 03:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Min Dong
This is Samir! I emailed you earlier about resources on Min Linguistics - thanks for your response and I'll be sure to check out what you sent me once I'm back at school. I'm not really too sure about how messaging or discussion on Wiktionary works actually - so apologies if this isn't the right way to go about things. I really don't have much research to my name, as I'm only a second year undergrad, although I'm looking at exploring the Tone-Vowel Interaction and Consonant Assimilation in Min Dong. Thanks again :) Bluetowel (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Samir! Thanks for the message - you've done it correctly. Good luck with your research and let me know if I can be of help further. :) Wyang (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wyang, how smart are you? And how fast are you, at creating and editing pages, modules and templates? Please take this as a serious compliment! – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 09:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. Wyang (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)