Talk:犬

Boxes

At the moment I am on a computer that can only see thsoe boxes :-), but why is japanese here? shorely it should be in its own page? -fonzy

Ok nwo i am on a pc that can se them, i an se why so ignore my comment above :-). -fonzy

Difference

What is the difference between quan and gou? 24.29.228.33 20:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is marked as literary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's only used in compounds should it have a "noun" entry as well as a hanzi entry?

If it's only used in compounds should it have a "noun" entry as well as a hanzi entry? — hippietrail (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As a noun this sense is somewhat dated in Mandarin but it's still a noun in dated and regional Mandarin, for consistency with dialects there should be a noun entry. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's dated does it get a dated tag? Are you talking about dialects in the way China uses them to cover varieties that are not mutually comprehensible? Or only about dialects of Mandarin? — hippietrail (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It should get a dated tag, yes. No need for the sarcasm. I'm talking about both written varieties if Chinese, which are almost identical to Mandarin and the topolects, you are referring to. How do you separate nouns, which are used attributively or as compounds? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Labels

@Wyang I think we need to do something about dialectal/regional, etc. + Wu, Cantonese, etc. labels, so that they get categorised. I'm not sure how. Also, I think we need to keep adding Min, Min Dong, etc. to labels, categories.

Similar to

labels["Min Nan"] = {
	plain_categories = {"Min Nan Chinese"} }

in Module:labels/data. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I added a bunch of dialectal and regional labels there. It's probably more than what we need now. :) Wyang (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I was hoping there is a trick to make regional/dialectal to work like "chiefly", e.g. chiefly|Cantonese because someone may rewrite the module to use it differently. Potentially each language may want "dialectal LANGUAGE" label. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've changed to ...dialectal|_|Wu... as suggested on Module talk:labels. I'll remove new labels. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have replied there. Wyang (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Usage notes

Is it necessary to say it is not used in Modern Standard Chinese explicitly? The etymology already mentions it twice, and the context tag, and the synonym section... Wyang (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I just felt like, no strong opinion about it. We had a bit of bickering above with Hippietrail whether in Mandarin it is a component or a noun. You can never be 100% sure. It's categorised as a Mandarin noun, has a Noun label, not component. I have similar doubts when a topolect has a reading for a term but not necessarily the same sense, usage and PoS. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Component isn't really a valid designation for PoS under the current framework. It can only be a noun under the system here - a noun that is archaic. If we say that it is not used in Mandarin again in the notes, why not say the same for Cantonese, Min Nan, Hakka, and most Wu dialects? -

"Not used as a separate word in modern standard Chinese, only as a component."

"Not used as a separate word in Cantonese, only as a component."

"Not used as a separate word in Min Nan, only as a component."

"Not used as a separate word in Hakka, only as a component."

or

"Not used as a separate word in modern standard Chinese, Cantonese, Min Nan, Hakka, Jin and most Wu dialects, only as a component. Only used in Min Dong and some Wu dialects."

which is basically the idea that the etymology and context tags are trying to convey. Wyang (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've taken it out :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've recently created Template:zh-no-solo for Chinese characters with senses that are not used as a standalone character in modern standard Chinese but may be preserved in compounds or idiomatic expressions. This template may be useful. KevinUp (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@KevinUp: What's the difference between that and {{zh-obsolete}}? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: It's a more refined form of {{zh-obsolete}} to indicate that a particular sense is no longer used on its own. I've updated the documentation page of {{zh-no-solo}} to highlight the differences between the two templates. Also, {{zh-no-solo}} is limited to single character entries only. Currently, both templates categorize into Category:Chinese terms with obsolete senses. KevinUp (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

RFC discussion: January 2013–February 2021

See Template talk:ko-hanja/old#RFC discussion: January 2013–February 2021.