Talk:田蛤仔

Min Nan Character Usage

@Justinrleung I remember asking you this before. You said that we base it by etymology. Well, the original character is 塍. Shouldn't we use 塍? I thought that was the reason we can "掌" instead of "指", even though "指" is more common in writing Min Nan? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: Even though most of the Chinese scholarly literature say 塍 is the original character, there are other theories out there. Take a look at 田#Etymology 2. Also, 田蛤仔 is more readily attestable (2330 hits on Google, as opposed to 163 hits for 塍蛤仔). I don't know if this is enough to justify what the main form should be. @Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Atitarev, Hongthay, do you guys have any comments? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. I think it's a slippery slope. What about 人/儂 or 毋/唔/伓 or 佮/甲? (Or 噉/咁?)

Maybe we should make a list at WT:AZH or something listing what characters we use (including things like 爲/為), along with general rationale. —suzukaze (t・c) 00:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Justin re this word - we should aim to use the most common variants of words, while maintaining a relative consistency of the character choice. Having an appendix-like resource for recommendations on character use for lemmas would be very helpful, where we can list how this is treated in different sources and the usage frequencies on the net. Wyang (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)