Talk:𮭡
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
@Octahedron80, this form is not found in 古壮字字典. Any other source? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 06:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- [1] (from official page [2]). To open .xbm, you need GIMP. I also compare with [3] that some characters may be missing. (You will see corresponding codes between them.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80: How reliable is that project? It seems like it's derived from 古壮字字典, but some forms, like 𮭡, are not found in 古壮字字典. Also, it doesn't give definitions, so how do we know which word it's referring to? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 07:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know how reliable, but it's true that it's derived from 古壮字字典 (AKA Sawndip Sawdenj). I don't have more source than this.
- Definition group can be assumed by a character's code. For example gaeq01010: 'gaeq' is the word (or pronunciation). The next 01 is definition group. And the next 01 is the number of variant. The last number tells if it is traditional (0) of simplified (1) (or sub-variant?). The actual definition must be looked up on another source (that we know gaeq01 means chicken). Glyphwiki have a leading asterisk for every definition group. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80: In case you don't have a copy of 古壮字字典, here's the relevant page. It's clear that the person who prepared the data has deliberately inferred simplified forms - which is made abundantly clear when they try to classify characters as traditional or simplified. While there are general patterns of using traditional or simplified components, the distinction seems to be arbitrary because there are plenty of "vulgar" forms that don't fit nicely, and Sawndip has never been standardized, which means trad/simp isn't quite relevant. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 07:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80: Okay, I've checked its documentation, and it says things that are not "type 0" (last number = 0) are not actually found in the dictionary. It doesn't say where they got it from so it's kind of fishy. Unless we can find another source that supports these non-type-0 forms, I'd say we should remove them. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 08:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- All right. I will also check my recent Zhuang edits too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80: Great, thanks! — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 08:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I just know that 古壮字字典 is the same name of two different books: Sawndip Sawdenj (green) →ISBN and Sawndip Sawloih (gray) →ISBN. I guess the green book is what we are talking about. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80: I think there's not much difference between the two editions, at most just some minor copyediting. See this Zhihu post. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 08:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- RFV failed. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 20:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)