User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 13

working with plural forms

Hi Justin. What do you think is the best way to present plural forms in Chinese? For example, we currently do not display any information for 孩子們 at 孩子, while the entry at 孩子們 does not have a "plural forms" category. I think this is something we could improve on, and as you know, the number of plural forms in Chinese is relatively limited to people-words. More examples: 老師 and 老師們 同志 and 同志們 朋友 and 朋友們 女士 and 女士們 先生 and 先生們 ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I don't really know how it would be done either. Putting it in the headword template (like in {{zh-noun}}) is one way to do it, but the 們 suffix doesn't apply to all lects (Cantonese borrowed this from Mandarin but uses it to a lesser extent, and Min Nan doesn't use it AFAIK). Perhaps something like {{zh-mw}} would be good, but we also don't want to clutter the definition line. @Wyang, Dokurrat, Suzukaze-c, KevinUp, any thoughts on this? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I think most of these non-pronoun 們 words are SoP (excl. 哥們, 姐們, 爺們, etc.). 們 can be applied to any people-word: 好人們, 客人們, 救星們, 遊客們, ... Wyang (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: That depends on how we want to analyse 們. Is it a suffix (a bound morpheme) or a word (a free morpheme) on its own? Another thought: if we do want to treat these as plurals, then they should not be treated as lemmas. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is a plural suffix, but the words it forms do not belong in a dictionary. Wyang (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: Well, we have non-lemma entries for plural forms for various other languages, and it's not like print dictionaries for English or French usually have entries for plurals. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That is because people are likely to look up a 'word' that they see in English or French. We don't want tens of thousands of 'Chinese plural terms': 檢察官們, 宅男們, 太上皇們, 皇后娘娘們, ... that is just ridiculous. Wyang (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not necessarily ridiculous, though. I think it'd be nice to let people know if -們 can be added to a particular noun. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's a waste of time and effort, and makes us look like a joke. Wyang (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have an opinion (yet?) for now. @Wyang I want to say that -們 is not restricted for "people-word" when personification is used. Dokurrat (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. There are also 小狗們, 小豬們, 貓咪們, 星星們, etc. Wyang (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang, Dokurrat: I'm not necessarily into making entries with -們, but I do see some value in this kind of information. If we don't want to including all these entries with -們, we should probably send them to RFD or bring this up at WT:BP. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The usage of 們 should be handled on the entry itself IMO. It is actually quite complex; apart from personification uses it should also be noted that 們 plural words can usually not be preceded by a modifying phrase, e.g. one cannot say 我們的同學們 or 五個朋友們. Wyang (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Wyang that it's a bit ridiculous to have tens of thousands of Chinese plural terms, but then again, it would be useful to let people know if 們／们 (men) could be added to a particular noun as a Mandarin suffix. I think we could have an inline definition template (similar to what we have for {{zh-syn}} or {{zh-alt-inline}}) that is called 'Mandarin plural' but the default output would be displayed as a sum of parts with an optional parameter to make it link to a full lemma form (if it qualifies as a lemma). KevinUp (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, I think that we need to have a rule for Mandarin plural lemmas: The plural form lemma is created only if the singular form, e.g. 寶貝／宝贝 (bǎobèi) has multiple senses while the plural form, e.g. 寶貝們／宝贝们 (“kids or babies, term of endearment for treasure”) only refers to one or more specific senses. KevinUp (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

(寶貝們 may also mean the other senses) Wyang (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I support adding 們#Usage notes, and perhaps entries for only the most overwhelmingly common ones. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

孑孓

I apologize for adding the RFE template to this page in error. I meant to add the template that read "(Can this etymology be sourced?)" or something like that. But I'm not sure what the name of this template is. Please help? Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: You're looking for {{rfv-etymology|zh}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Johnny Shiz (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: No problem, and welcome back! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy between two Chinese characters

On 越, it tells me to "see 戉 for more on the etymology." But on the 戉 page, no etymology is listed. In fact, there is a RFE template! What shall I make of this? Should I remove that line from 越 altogether, or would it be best to wait for an etymology to be added on 戉? Johnny Shiz (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: I've added an etymology at 戉. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

These characters do not have etymology either: 蠆 (<萬), 凡 (<法), 運 (<暈), 注 (<鬥), 張 (<長), in each case the latter terms mentions "see ... for more".--2001:DA8:201:3032:64DD:1AAF:8B70:8914 01:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The relationship between the Mainland dictionaries and the use of "1nb=standard in Mainland" on Wiktionary

A few months ago, we had a discussion here about whether 现代汉语词典第7版 or 现代汉语规范词典第3版 was the standard for Putonghua. After months of comparison and consultation of these dictionaries (and after writing a stub for Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian as part of Asian Month-- please edit it if interested), I have basically come to the conclusion that both dictionaries are subjective attempts to describe Mandarin within their respective interpretations of the standards for Putonghua. Even 辞海第6版 might be construed conform to the standards for Putonghua according to their interpretation. There are many divergent opinions about the interpretation of standards like Putonghua Shenyinbiao, The First Series of Standardized Forms of Words with Non-standardized Variant Forms, etc. When judging what the 'standard' for 'Putonghua' is, we can't rely on these or any dictionaries- we are supposed to look at the official documents which put forth the standard. The dictionaries are not the standard, the documents that describe the standard are the standard. Correct interpretation is an opinion.

(PS: But there can be no doubt about the overwhelming dominance of Xiandai Hanyu Cidian: The 2014 printing of the 普通话水平测试实施纲要 (originally published in 2004; the 2014 printing has some corrections) still cites the 3rd edition of 现代汉语词典 (from 1996) as the source of the pronunciations for the list of 12,000 words that could appear on the second part of that test. Note that they didn't use the 4th edition of 现代汉语词典 (from 2002). It seems like almost all educational materials in Mainland China use the definitions, pronunciations and examples from some edition of Xiandai Hanyu Cidian.)

As for Jianbian and Chongbian, I got the impression that Jianbian was 'standard'- is it really "the standard" or is it a subjective opinion based upon the published standards for Guoyu? Is Jianbian just 'dominant' or is it 'standard'?

How does this influence Wiktionary? I think that writing '1nb=standard in Mainland' should be restricted to cases where there is specific evidence that an official document that describes the standard (aka: not a dictionary) has put forth the pronunciation in question as the Mainland standard. '1nb=Mainland' may be more appropriate in cases where there is a divergence between Xiandai Hanyu Cidian/Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian/Cihai and Jianbian Guoyu Cidian/Chongbian Guoyu Cidian that is not found in a non-dictionary official document that is supposed to be a standard.

I believe this point was brought up before by @Suzukaze-c on the talk page of some word. This issue is important because Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian can by no means be considered 'the standard'- it is just an opinion, just like 'Xiandai Hanyu Cidian' is just an opinion- albeit an opinion which is functionally treated as if it were the standard in many cases.

Just a thought.

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Tooironic, Dokurrat, KevinUp Here is an example of an edit that meets my new standard for writing "standard in Mainland" and "standard in Taiwan": [1]. Here is an example that does not meet my criteria for using "standard in Mainland" and "standard in Taiwan", but previously would have: [2]. I now believe that any differences that arise based solely on the comparison of dictionaries do not rise to the level of a difference in the standards of Mainland and Taiwan. The word 'standard' should only be associated with the pronunciations given in specific government standards. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think we could use Taiwan's 《國語一字多音審訂表》 and mainland China's 《普通话异读词审音表》 as our main reference for standard/variant pronunciation pairs. Then again, these documents are constantly being updated over the years, so it wouldn't be wise to use these as our only source of reference in case it becomes outdated in the future. Pronunciations listed in major dictionaries published in mainland China such as 《现代汉语词典》 and 《现代汉语规范词典》 are acceptable as well, as long as you're using the latest edition (2014 onwards) and not an outdated one. KevinUp (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I agree with @KevinUp on this. The main problem is that neither 國語一字多音審訂表 nor 普通话异读词审音表 provides pronunciation standards for 詞, and this is especially tricky with neutral tone pronunciations. I think it would be more helpful if we have a page detailing what we call "standard" (perhaps at WT:About Chinese/Mandarin) and link the word "standard" to that page. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

紅毛人

Would you mind adding the non-Mandarin 'lects for this when you have the time? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I've added an entry for Min Nan only. Different sources seem to say different things about who the 紅毛人 refer to - should we say it's British, Dutch or Westerner (in general)? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

虹

May I ask where did you get gàng? Dokurrat (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: It's found in 汉语方言词汇 and 汉语方言字汇. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Merci! Dokurrat (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Translation of 汉语大字典

I guess I wasn't awaken then😂. Thanks for your correction! Dokurrat (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Haha, no problem! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

May I ask, what's this word?

In this video, 01:26, what is the word after "幾乎全部"? Dokurrat (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I just realized it is "GG". LOL! Dokurrat (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Haha! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for citation

The etymology for 乒乓 reads:

"A similar-sounding onomatopoeia to the source character 兵 (bīng, “soldier”). First attested in Ming Dynasty and referred to the sound of collisions (during a fight). Later used as a translation of English ping pong."

May I ask, where? Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: I didn't add the etymology, so I'm not sure. @Wyang isn't around, but I'll see if he can tell me to where he got this. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Didn't Wyang quit? — This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talk • contribs) at 01:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC).

@Johnny Shiz: Yes, but I've contacted him off Wiktionary. He pointed me to this, which includes passages from Journey to the West from the Ming dynasty. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

𠀫𠀪

Do you happen to know what's up with these to characters? What they mean, their pronunciations, etc. Johnny Shiz (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: These are Vietnamese Chu Nom characters. I'm not so familiar with Vietnamese, so that's all I can tell you, I guess. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: I found 𠀫𠀪 read as khề khà "to have a drunken drawl". They always come together. [3] --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

May I ask?

Are four examples for adv. usage of 雞巴 a little too much? Dokurrat (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: It is a little excessive, but I think it's ok. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the more, the better~ —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Well, I think if additional example sentences don't show anything new, I don't see the point in having more... — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I like how usage examples elucidate the types of situations in which a word can be used. Sometimes just a part of speech + gloss isn't enough, IMO. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Yup, I completely agree. That's what I meant by "show anything new". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, oops. But I think that the current sentences at 雞巴 are fairly diverse. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 08:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Fair enough :) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 09:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

bubblegum

Hi, seems that I come here frequently recently. (XD). Would you like to check the Mandarin translation in this entry? I think 吹波糖 and 吹波膠 sound like Cantonese to me, but I don't speak Cantonese so I'm not sure. Dokurrat (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Yes, they're Cantonese. The latter can also refer to some kind of plastic(?) in a tube that can be blown into a bubble, like in this video. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Merci beaucoup! Dokurrat (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Bienvenue! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's français québécois 😂! Dokurrat (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Chinese words in Roman letters, Wyang and Chinese CFI

Hi Justin,

I think it's very disappointing that Frank left again and the last straw this time was the inclusion of APP#Chinese. I'm also frustrated about this inclusion (well, no serious Chinese printed dictionary includes them) but I've developed some stamina about things that don't go the way I want. Also, I believe in consensus and think we should seek compromise, discuss and vote. In any case, I think such words should not be welcome, would require good citations and, more importantly, I think Chinese may require language-specific CFI, not only because of such colloquial borrowings but also to define what represents a Chinese word, which is allowed to be kept here. One major reason being that Chinese belongs to "scriptio continua" and sometimes it's not to clear of some 的 collocations are words or SoP's. What do you think? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I agree we do need to have a language-specific CFI for Chinese, but I don't where we should start. Did you have any ideas of what we should be including in the CFI? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Frank = Wyang, am I right? Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: Yes. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Justin, sorry for getting back late. I think we need to start preparing a draught for Chinese CFI. I will take part in it and throw some ideas, if nobody does. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Peer review

Would you like to check my current draft for the rfdef sense in 你媽 at User:Dokurrat/Sandbox_2? CC: @Tooironic. Dokurrat (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a good start to me. What in particular were you concerned about? The English expression can be improved later on. (It is hard to translate.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I've no specific concern; I'm just not confident with my English, and, as I unwillingly ended up flooded entry 你媽's edit history, I think I'd better have more eyes check the draft. Dokurrat (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. Most editors on Wiktionary are native speakers (or high-level speakers) of English, so any problems with expression will be fixed eventually. Your contributions are much appreciated regardless. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: I agree with Tooironic that it looks good for the most part. I'd probably translate first example with "Late your a**", and use "rush" instead of "urge" for the second example. The third example could be "Your mom's good". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Okay! But I would publish my draft first, then you can edit things you'd like to edit in your credit (I zhòngshì this). Dokurrat (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Alright :D — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

synonyms problem

Are the synonyms coming up correctly for you e.g. at 幫助? They're not displaying for me right now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC) (And neither are Derived terms.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: It should be fixed now. (See WT:GP#zh-der and zh-syn-saurus.) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

🎄Sing3 daan3 faai3 lok6! Joyeux Noël! Dokurrat (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Shèngdàn kuàilè! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Christmas and Yule! Here's my contribution to the list of tasks for Chinese entries. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And to you, @Dokurrat! May my exploration of traditional Chinese culture help me explore traditional Europid culture (歐裔傳統文化). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lo Ximiendo: Merry Christmas to you too! I'd like for those varieties to be covered in {{zh-pron}} too, but using PFS for Sixian Hakka seems to make it odd for us to use the MoE system (Hakka Romanization System) for other varieties. We'll have to figure out a better solution for Hakka eventually - we probably should split it into multiple parameters rather than putting everything under |h=. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe "ha"/"hk" for Meixian, "ha-s"/"hk-s" for Sixian, and "ha-h"/"hk-h" for Hailu Hakka (if the Sixian dialect gets to be represented using the plain "ha"/"hk" parameter, then "ha-m"/"hk-m" could be used for Meixian);
as for the Wuhua, Dabu, and Xingning dialects, I'm not sure. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I forgot: my reason for my renaming the parameter for Hakka to "ha"/"hk" is on account of giving Huizhou Chinese either the parameter "hu" or "hz". --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lo Ximiendo: I don't think we need to change |h= to a different name since |hu= or |hz= wouldn't conflict with it anyway. If we are splitting |h= into two parameters, I think |h= should be for Meixian since that's usually considered the prestige dialect. I'm tempted to lump all the Taiwanese dialects into one |h-tw= and then specify dialects like it's done with |mn=, but that might mean we want to change all PFS into the MoE system. @Suzukaze-c, Dokurrat, KevinUp, do you have any opinions on this? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the current system is generally too restrictive; I have tentatively created User:Suzukaze-c/sandbox/zh#t:zh-pron_c based on thoughts that I've had for a while. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 02:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: I does seem like that system would be more flexible, but it would take away from the simplicity of the current version (everything under one template). Also, is parsing parameter names like h:ml,tw possible? The layout of t:zh-pron a is potentially problematic - stacking vertically would probably be better. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The current version is simple, but perhaps it is too simple; I don't think that continuously creating codes like mn-t and c-t is feasible... I've thought for a long time that combining h=pfs and h=gd is also very ugly.

I haven't tested if the parameter names can be parsed.

Consideration of a vertical design is absolutely possible. "t:zh-pron a" came first and was linked to "t:zh-pron c" later on. I also thought of the possibility of creating another template that somehow wraps around everything in "t:zh-pron c", in order to create an appearance similar to the current version of {{zh-pron}}. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 02:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

掉環兒

May I ask you? Should it be labeled as "dialectal Mandarin" or "colloquial Mandarin"? Dokurrat (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: I'm not quite sure since I don't know this word. I'll defer this to your judgment since you're more familiar with Mandarin. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Actually, as for this case, I think being a dialectal Mandarin speaker doesn't really help; to me, colloquiality and dialectality are sometimes hard to differentiate. I think I'm not alone; some words labelled "dialectal" in 現代漢語詞典 (e.g. 敢情) are labelled "colloquial" in 現代漢語規範詞典. Dokurrat (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: I think I would use "colloquial" if it's generally understood by most people when you're speaking in Putonghua, and it's "dialectal" or "regional" if it's understood only by people in a particular lect or region. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Yes, and that's the problem - I don't think I really know if 掉環兒 is understood universally or dialectally. Dokurrat (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This may be a personal experience, but on the other hand, I'm a dialectal Mandarin speaker and I don't understand sense "to dillydally" and "to pester" of 蘑菇 before I learned these two senses as a linguistical hobbyist. Yet these two sense are seen in 現代漢語詞典 and 現代漢語規範詞典, without any label. So, to me, the labelling are more tricky. I think I'm not alone because I remember when I watch the plot 紫薇被蓉嬤嬤關進小黑屋兒 of 還珠格格II on bilibili.com, there are quite some 彈幕 asking what does 蘑菇 as in 娘娘沒有時間在這兒跟你蘑菇！ mean. Dokurrat (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC) (modified)

@Dokurrat: Well, so far, I can only find 掉環兒 in 哈爾濱方言詞典, so perhaps it's dialectal (or even Northeastern Mandarin). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: As for 掉環兒, I'm okay with either colloquial Mandarin or dialectal Mandarin label. Please edit as you see necessarily. Dokurrat (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC) (modified)

And I don't speak Northeastern Mandarin. Dokurrat (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC) (modified)

@Dokurrat: Ok, I've changed it to dialectal Mandarin for now. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

攆

May I ask where did you see 搌 and 趝? Dokurrat (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Both are from 四川方言词典. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Merci! Dokurrat (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Tone sandhi as written in Bopomofo

@Wyang, Dokurrat, KevinUp, Tooironic Hello! I would like to point out that the tone sandhi that produces 'qíngbùzìjīn [Phonetic: qíngbúzìjīn]' in the pronunciation box for 情不自禁 should also produce 'ㄑㄧㄥˊ ㄅㄨˋ ㄗˋ ㄐㄧㄣ' [Phonetic: ㄑㄧㄥˊ　ㄅㄨˊ　ㄗˋ　ㄐㄧㄣ]' for Bopomofo. Jianbian Guoyu Cidian does this:'ㄑㄧㄥˊ　ㄅㄨˋ　ㄗˋ　ㄐㄧㄣ　（變）ㄑㄧㄥˊ　ㄅㄨˊ　ㄗˋ　ㄐㄧㄣ' (from:[4]) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: That's probably a good idea, but it's not that easily done. I've put on the list of tasks. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Etymology section for 絕屄

May I ask? Do you think it would be benifitial or redudant to write an etymology section like this (please ingore unrelated things there) for entry 絕屄? Dokurrat (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I decide to put this in the entry, thinking it may be helpful. But thank you anyway XD. Dokurrat (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Sorry for the late reply. I think that etymology looks ok :D — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)