Talk:恁

Mandarin readings

Can it be added in which contexts the two different Mandarin readings are used? 173.89.236.187 14:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dokurrat Hey. Would you mind taking a look at this edit? [1] We had a discussion recently at Talk:擁 over different readings used in Taiwan and mainland China. KevinUp (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I think I've had enough somewhat unhappy discussions at that page. I come here to kill time and have fun, not to quarrel. Dokurrat (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Cheers to you. Here's some beer for you. 🍺 Have fun and keep up the good work. KevinUp (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Merci. Dokurrat (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"Variant" for Cantonese

@KevinUp 漢語多功能字庫 is by no means binding; it is only giving suggested readings. For a character like 恁, which is not used in common everyday speech in Cantonese, I don't see why we need to follow 漢語多功能字庫 (or its predecessor 粵語審音配詞字庫). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I did a check on 《漢語方言大詞典》 and the 粤语 pronunciation is given as /jɐm³⁵/ (jam2) for the regions of 廣州／广州 (Guǎngzhōu) and 信宜 (Xìnyí). The definition given is as follows: KevinUp (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

<動> 想; 考慮。 – 等我～下先。 讓我先想一想。 ～計仔。 思謀計劃。 ～嘢。 想事情。

Yes, 《漢語多功能字庫》 is just a guideline, but it's better to follow these readings then to follow readings provided by IP users based on purported native usage. I noticed that the readings in 《漢語多功能字庫》 are compiled from up to six different sources and the "variant reading" (異讀字) is usually inferred from the least popular reading. For example, in the case of 恁, there are 3 reference sources for jam6 and only one for jam5. KevinUp (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, just want to mention that if you append a {{ping}} or {{reply}} to a previous discussion, the end user will not be alerted. You need to send the ping to a new line, as in:

@Justinrleung so that the user can receive it. KevinUp (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@KevinUp: I'm just saying that we don't need to follow 漢語多功能字庫 on saying that jam5 is a "variant" (or "alternative" to be more precise) pronunciation. If we look in more dictionaries, we can see that jam5 is not just listed in one source. For such a rare word in Cantonese (when used as a pronoun), I don't see the reason for calling it a variant just because of the dictionaries we have access to. We are still listing all the pronunciations per 漢語多功能字庫, just not labelling them, which would not have anything to do with "IP users based on purported native usage", although native usage is not an unreliable source in Wiktionary, which is descriptive and not necessarily following other dictionaries/sources.

Now about the other reading, I believe you have misread 漢語方言大詞典. It says [nɐm³⁵] (nam2) for the "to think" sense. While some people believe 恁 to be the 本字 of nam2, most people write it as 諗 nowadays. We can probably still add nam2 to etymology 1. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Thanks for providing the jyut.net link. Prior to this I wasn't aware of its existence. Anyway, although both jam6 and jam5 are represented by an equal number of reference sources, I noticed that references for jam5 are somewhat dated (1914, 1931, 1939) compared to jam6 (1971, 2004, 2007) and that the 粵語同音字典 (1996, 1974) lists jam5 as 習讀 and jam6 as 本讀. Does that mean colloquial and literary? Alternatively, would it be fair to indicate jam5 as a dated reading? KevinUp (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

As for the readings obtained from 《漢語多功能字庫》, yes I have indeed mistaken the letter n for j. Thanks for noticing my mistake. If possible, can you add nam2 to etymology 1 as an example? The classical Chinese usage found in 《漢語大字典》 seems to be related to the sense of "to miss" (思念) rather than the dialectal usage of "to think; to consider" (考慮). KevinUp (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

And merci mille fois for creating the entries for the cooking appliances that are being requested. KevinUp (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@KevinUp: 習讀 means "usual/common pronunciation (different from the expected reflex from rime dictionaries)" and 本讀 means "original pronunciation (according to rime dictionaries)". I don't think it's a literary-colloquial distinction. I wouldn't say jam5 is dated either, just as having a longer history in Cantonese record.

I'm not sure if the 思念 definition refers to "miss". From the quotes listed in Hanyu Da Zidian, I think it's mostly "to think of; to remember". It is indeed slightly different from the Cantonese usage, so I wonder if we should just have a {{zh-see|諗}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I checked the entry for 諗 in 《漢語方言大詞典》 and found the definition to be the same: <動> 想; 考慮; 思索。 (思索 is appended to the definition). In addition, the compound 諗計仔 is listed under that entry. It seems likely that 恁 (when pronounced as nam2) is a variant form of 諗 used in Guangzhou or mainland China. I have made amendments to the entry, feel free to check on it. KevinUp (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, the Shuowen seal script form for 恁 and that of the ancient form of 飪 are not identical. The latter form is ⿰亻⿱壬心 rather than ⿱任心. Nevertheless, ancient writings are not as standardized as modern writings. Perhaps worth taking note of. KevinUp (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@KevinUp: That's the seal script form, which I don't think we really need to worry about. There are plenty of characters where the regular script form is restructured. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)