User talk:Justinrleung/Archive 38

西安, 海鷗, et al

Hi Justin. I'm currently getting a Lua error at entries like these which use a 隔音符號: Lua error in Module:cmn-pron at line 318: Zhuyin conversion unsuccessful: "xi'a1n1". Are you using a valid Pinyin syllable? Is the text using a breve letter instead of a caron one? Do you know what's going on? ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tooironic This was an error for about 30 seconds due to an issue with apostrophes. Now dealt with. Theknightwho (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Lua modules & Dungan pronunciation

Hi Justin. I'm not sure who else to ask about this and you happen to be a name I recognize who's edited Module:zh-pron. As a heads-up I've edited Module:dng-pron to reflect the pronunciation of retroflex affricates + /u/ as labial, but as you may be able to see from 吹, the /u/ is still there. I would be able to change it myself but it may require a few iterations, which brings me to my problem:

Before I changed the Dungan initials, I tried to set up a test page User:Vampyricon/豬 so that I can test the Dungan pronunciation edits I made, but when I try to link the pronunciation box to Module:User:Vampyricon/zh-pron using {{#invoke:User:Vampyricon/zh-pron|make|..., the module shows up blank. Do you know how I can make it display properly? Thanks! Vampyricon (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Vampyricon: Hi, I don't think these sound changes should be applied here. We are currently only showing Gansu Dungan pronunciation, which doesn't have this sound change AFAIK. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Gansu Dungan does have the change. I'll refer you to 《中亞東干語研究》 by 林濤

Gansu Dungan does have the change. I'll refer you to 《中亞東干語研究》 by 林濤, sections 1.4 發音合作人 and 3.1 聲母。

1.4：穆哈默德・侯賽佐維奇・伊瑪佐夫……祖籍中國甘肅， 1941 年出生。

3.1：漢語中古知系合口字與宕攝莊組字、江攝知莊組字及其他少數字，東干語口語讀音不讀 [tʂ tʂʼ ʂ ʐ] [sic] 聲母，而讀作 [pf pfʼ f v] [sic] 聲母，如「豬出書入錐錘水」諸字，分別讀為 [pfu pfʼu fu vu pfei pfʼei fei] [sic]，但在東干語書面語−−東干文裏標作 [tʂ tʂʼ ʂ ʐ] [sic] 聲母。

As is traditional in Sinolinguistics, I expect [ʼ] to mark aspiration rather than ejection.

Now I know that ancestry is not linguistic history, but the fact that the data provider comes from Gansu and exhibits these changes, and that written Dungan exhibits these changes in (historical) retroflex fricatives, and that Dungan is a Central Plains/Northwest Mandarin variety means we should have a pretty high prior for Gansu Dungan having undergone the changes in affricates as well. The clincher is that the variety described in 《中亞東干語研究》 is tritonal (/²⁴/, /⁵¹/, /⁴⁴/), which is a Gansu Dungan characteristic, whereas Shaanxi Dungan has four tones. Vampyricon (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Vampyricon: Thanks for pointing to this text. However, in more recent work by 林涛, such as 东干语调查研究, he says something different. On page 77, he says "汉语中古知系合口字与宕摄庄组字、江摄知庄组字及其他少数字，在东干语的标准语里仍读[tʂ tʂʼ ʂ ʐ]，而陕西话读作[pf pfʼ f v]声母，如“豬出书入锥锤水”诸字，分别读为[pfu pfʼu fu vu pfei pfʼei fi]。" — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't see how this change can be reversed, especially with ʂu > f being a merger, so I am tempted to think that some data has been recorded incorrectly at some point. Does this mean 水 and other words like it should have their initials changed to /ʂu/, as they are still pronounced as retroflex? Vampyricon (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Vampyricon: No, 水 is still [fi] AFAICT. I'm not sure why he included ʂ in this discussion. The only ʂu- character I can find is 顺. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Then I'll have to admit I'm not sure why he said that they are read as [tʂ tʂʼ ʂ ʐ] in Standard Dungan, given that retroflex sibilants before [u] are at best marginal where the orthography distinguishes them. Vampyricon (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Module error at "in"

There are a lot of things contributing to this, but one is interesting for what it says about our treatment of Chinese lects: there are two identical entries for the same thing on this page. There's a Min Nan entry that uses {{zh-see|𪜶|poj}} to refer to the Han-character entry, saying that it's the POJ spelling for it. There's also a Chinese etymology section that uses exactly the same {{zh-see|𪜶|poj}}. I can understand the Min Nan entry, because Min Nan is its own language and when it's not spelled in Han characters it's not part of the Written Chinese complex. And because Min Nan also uses the Han character to represent the same term, it might make sense to make the Han character spelling the lemma. I'm not sure about the Chinese entry, though, because the character is apparently only used in Min Nan- at least that's what our entry says. Basically, the only independent information conveyed by the Chinese etymology section at "in" is that Min Nan is Chinese.

Normally, this would be a trivial philosophical issue, but {{zh-see|𪜶|poj}} in isolation uses 3.2 MB, and commenting out the Chinese use of it in preview brings the entry down just below the 50-MB limit to 49.7 MB. As I said, it's only part of the problem- but it's the easiest way I can see to fix this. There may also be some other way to link to the Han character entry that could be used instead of one of the two uses of {{zh-see|𪜶|poj}} in order to save memory. I'm not qualified to say what, if anything, should be done, so I'm bringing it to your attention. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: The ==Chinese== section was added by an IP in 2017 (diff) after removing the Min Nan section. The ==Min Nan== secion was readded in 2019, which should be the standard practice, i.e. Min Nan POJ entries are not listed under Chinese. In this case I would remove the {{zh-see|𪜶|poj}} under Chinese L2. This also allows me to consolidate the pronunciation sections into one, which saves up even more memory. – Wpi (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Periplus Pocket Cantonese Dictionary: Cantonese-English English-Cantonese (Fully Revised & Expanded, Fully Romanized)

Hello, Justinrleung Have you ever been uploaded "Periplus Pocket Cantonese Dictionary: Cantonese-English English-Cantonese (Fully Revised & Expanded, Fully Romanized)" by Martha Lam and Lee Hoi Ming to Internet Archive (archive.org)? Yuliadhi (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yuliadhi: I have never uploaded anything to archive.org. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Need your input on a policy impacting gadgets and UserJS

Dear interface administrator,

This is Samuel from the Security team and I hope my message finds you well.

There is an ongoing discussion on a proposed policy governing the use of external resources in gadgets and UserJS. The proposed Third-party resources policy aims at making the UserJS and Gadgets landscape a bit safer by encouraging best practices around external resources. After an initial non-public conversation with a small number of interface admins and staff, we've launched a much larger, public consultation to get a wider pool of feedback for improving the policy proposal. Based on the ideas received so far, the proposed policy now includes some of the risks related to user scripts and gadgets loading third-party resources, best practices for gadgets and UserJS developers, and exemptions requirements such as code transparency and inspectability.

As an interface administrator, your feedback and suggestions are warmly welcome until July 17, 2023 on the policy talk page.

Have a great day!

Samuel (WMF), on behalf of the Foundation's Security team 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Need your help with translating a Classical Chinese quote

Earliest extant attestations of 蠟 (OC *k.rˤap, “wax”) I've found so far are in Wang Fu's Qianfu Lun, which has been translated only partially by Margaret J. Pearson (1989), Anne Behnke (1986), & Lily Hwa (1981). This quote from chapter 3 遏利 "On Repressing (Self-)Interest" is easy to translate for the most parts tho' I'm struggling with Wang Fu's usage of Classical Chinese particle 之:

知脂蠟之可明燈也，而不知其甚多則冥之。知利之可娛己也，不知其稱而必有也。 [Classical Chinese, trad.]

---

知脂蜡之可明灯也，而不知其甚多则冥之。知利之可娱己也，不知其称而必有也。 [Classical Chinese, simp.]

From: Wang Fu, Comments of a Recluse, c. 2^nd century CE

Zhī zhīlà zhī kě míng dēng yě, ér bùzhī qí shènduō zé míng zhī. Zhī lì zhī kě yújǐ yě, bùzhī qí chèng ér bì yǒu yě. [Pinyin]

People know that fat and wax can make lamps brighter, yet know not that too much shall certainly create darkness (owing to too much smoke); they know that (self-)interest shall profit/benefit themselves, yet know not that the offsets indeed exist.

Thanks in advance! Erminwin (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Reality check

I just reverted a couple of edits by an IP because they didn't seem to make sense (the fact that they geolocate to Louisiana wasn't exactly reassuring, either) At 𦧄, my count of the total strokes matched the value they replaced (49) and they had a 6-stroke radical + 54 AS with 58 total strokes. That said, a year of beginning Mandarin 36 years ago isn't enough for me to be sure that I know what I'm doing, so I'm double-checking with you just in case I misunderstood something. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I honestly don't know how this character is written, but I've changed it to follow how the Kangxi Dictionary counts the strokes. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

長槍

Hi Justin. Could you please check which of the senses (or both) this Min Nan synonym applies to? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Sorry for the late reply. I've cleared it up at the entry. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B134:F689:0:8:1F5C:CB01/44

I think I know who this is. Anything to worry about with their editing so far?. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Yeah, looks familiar, but looks alright generally. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

以爲

Hi, 例句: "以前佢知道舊朋友叫Jason, 而家佢以爲佢叫Jackson", 即係記錯咗? 205.237.30.147 15:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

轆地

Clumsy officer tumbled onto the ground | 表演轆地沙, Football player rolls on the ground to buy time | 講到球場「轆地沙」嘅佼佼者
If you care to check the links above, you'll see 轆地沙 is almost equivalent to 轆地. In addition, 轆地沙 is commonly used in sport journalism. So I had worded the example that way. -- Ywhy (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ywhy: "Equivalence" doesn't mean it should be the same entry. They are different in form even if they are similar in function. This is a dictionary, so form is important. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm simply micmicking what usage notes or synonyms dissection is commonly seen in paper dictionaries. While it can be arguably cut short to 轆地, this is not its usual form. Where could I include the sentence as is authentically spoken? If I create 轆地沙, would it be exempted SoP deletion? Also, what is wrong with the definition of the entry? One must fall before rolling on the ground, and this phrase does not stipulate a strict duration or degree of rolling. -- Ywhy (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ywhy: I think 轆地沙 should be its own entry. To me, 轆地沙 does not involve falling and 轆地 doesn't necessarily involve falling either. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Module:zh/data/dial-syn/鱷梨

Hi Justin. Are you sure that 牛油果 is restricted to Cantonese? That's the term for avocado I hear almost exclusively among the mainland Chinese I know. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tooironic: There basically is no data for the other individual 方言點 (given that this fruit is not native to Mainland China). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, so the data is incomplete then? Because, as far as I can tell, 牛油果 is the term most common term for avocado on the mainland. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Always assume the data is incomplete. The table only says 牛油果 is used in Cantonese; it makes no claims on whether it’s only Cantonese. I also think there might be some regional differences within Mainland China but I’m not sure. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for clarifying. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Lack of specificity in Chinese entries on usage

Hey! I just wanted to discuss with you something I find that's most problematic in Chinese entries here in Wiktionary, which is that it's often hard to determine whether a word, a character, or a particular definition thereof, can be used colloquially in the specific lect (whether Standard Mandarin, Hong Kong Cantonese, Taiwanese, Shanghainese, etc.). Because we tend to compile all the pronunciations into one section, and compile the definitions into one list, it's hard to determine for example in Hong Kong Cantonese, which ones are OK to say colloquially, which definitions are formal in meaning, not really understood as such in daily life? I guess that was the sacrifice that was made when Wiktionary combined all the Chinese languages/dialects into one, but there should be a solution for this. What do you think of being able to add a label in each definition indicating that this definition for this word can be used colloquially? As in in daily speech. Or something similar to that. Mar vin kaiser (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: Labels or usage notes. It will have to take the knowledge of different editors to determine the best labels for a particular entry, but basically, I think we are good at labelling entries that are specific to regional/dialectal languages but terrible with labelling words that are used in Standard Mandarin but not used colloquially in say Cantonese. Adding something like (chiefly Mandarin) when there's both Mandarin and Cantonese pronunciations but not really colloquial usage in Cantonese should do the trick. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: To explain, as a speaker of Philippine Hokkien, for example, the issue I have is that there are word entries that have multiple definitions, but in Philippine Hokkien we only use, let's say, the first definition out of six. Yet, I don't think I can just put in the first definition, the label that, we only use the first definition for PH Hokkien, and not the rest. If I put the label "chiefly Mandarin" on the latter five definitions, maybe the other definitions are used in Cantonese too. I wouldn't know. So I think there needs to be a system wherein I can indicate that this definition is used in PH Hokkien, and not the latter 5 definitions, without me relying on the knowledge of speakers of other Chinese languages telling me which definitions are used in their particular language, in order to indicate the info in my language. So I don't think just writing "chiefly Mandarin" would be a fix here. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: I see your concern. I don't know if I have a good system other than discussing with other editors or checking more sources. One way this can also be mitigated is by the use of the dialectal synonyms tables. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: Also, do you have a particular entry in mind? It might be easier if I could see what's happening exactly. And actually, I think it is sometimes okay to underspecify, e.g. a label that should be there gets left out. This happens all the time with English entries (e.g. terms used in both the US and Canada just labelled with US), and other editors can go in and make changes based on their expertise. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I think I could find various entries similar to this, but here's one for starters. In the entry 姑婆 (gūpó), we only use the word in Philippine Hokkien for the second definition (paternal grandfather's sister), and we don't use it for the first nor the third (even though the third says chiefly Min Nan). So the trouble here is how to indicate this in the entry (and other similar entries). --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: I have tentatively set up dialectal tables, which give us a clearer picture of which senses might be used where. The senses might need to be labelled more carefully, but it seems a little difficult to list the dialects directly with labels. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Patrolling

@Justinrleung Just wondering, how do you find entries like 卡加延德奧羅／卡加延德奥罗 (Kǎjiāyán dé Àoluó) created back in March? Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: I was going through the huge list of entries still in Category:Min Nan terms needing pronunciation attention. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"POJ of" entries

User:Wikijb has created a new template, {{poj of}}, and has been creating bare romanization entries for Min Nan just like the pinyin romanizations for Mandarin. These have no headwords, POS headers or anything else that WT:ELE specifies for a normal entry. Judging from the previously existing Min Nan entries that I've looked at so far, this seems to be a completely new approach. I don't edit in Min Nan, however, so I don't know what- if anything- should be said or done about this. I just figured that you and others who are familiar with how Min Nan is done here would want to know. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Thanks for letting me know. I've sent this template to rfd since it clashes with current practice. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Cantonese term for referring to ethnic Vietnamese

If you watch this video at around 4:15, did the noodle stall owner just use 河南人 to mean "ethnic Vietnamese"? The dog2 (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@The dog2: The tone doesn't sound right. I suspect it's 安南人, but I'm not 100% sure. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Appendix:Unicode/CJK Unified Ideographs Extension F list formatting

I noticed the formatting at Appendix:Unicode/CJK Unified Ideographs Extension F points forward to the Extension I list rather than Extension G list (which, in turn, doesn't point back to Extension F). The formatting is part of a template, it seems and can't be directly formatted. I know it's not super-high priority but it'd be nice to get the formatting fixed. Bumm13 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bumm13: I think it's because by Unicode codepoint, Extension I comes right after Extension F. I'm not sure if there are ways to link from F to G or from G to F. @Erutuon, any thoughts on this? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If you look at Appendix:Unicode, you can see that the arrow links are by Unicode code point, and the Unicode maintainers put CJK Unified Ideographs Extension I between CJK Unified Ideographs Extension F and CJK Compatibility Ideographs Supplement (which is followed by CJK Unified Ideographs Extension G) for whatever reason. The module doesn't look at the letter at the end of the CJK Unified Ideographs Extension blocks, and it would be difficult to come up with an order that would put the letters in order because the CJK Unified Ideographs Extension blocks are interspersed with other blocks. (Extension A comes wayy before the others, for instance.) But you could add a "see also" section at the bottom of the pages with a link to the previous and next CJK Unified Ideographs Extension blocks when the arrow links don't link to them. — Eru·tuon 23:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Update Teochew pronunciation module

I was wondering if the Teochew pronunciation module can be updated to be more like the Hokkien one, where we can enter different pronunciations for different dialects of Teochew. And there's also a complication that like Singapore Hokkien, Singapore Teochew can have multiple pronunciations, though I'll say it's mostly a mix of Chaozhou, Shantou and Chenghai pronunciations. For instance, I've heard both ug8 and ngh8 being used for the verb "to sleep" in Singapore Teochew. The dog2 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@The dog2: Yes, it’s more of a technical issue that we haven’t exactly worked out but would definitely want to implement. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

龍樹

Since you added Min Nan readings to 禱文／祷文 (dǎowén) and other entries, how about 龍樹／龙树 (Lóngshù)? -- Apisite (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Apisite: Can't help you there. I can't find it in my sources. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser, can you? --Apisite (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Apisite: We would have to guess, and it's not good to guess. Probably read as a literary reading. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Terms for the PRC and ROC militaries

How do you think we should write the notes to cover this adequately? In mainland China, the CPC uses 解放軍 to refer to the PRC military, and 臺軍 to refer to the ROC military, while in Taiwan, the KMT uses 國軍 to refer to the ROC military, and 共軍 to refer to the PRC military. This is one rare instance where CPC and DPP usage converges, since the DPP also uses 臺軍, as they consider Taiwan to be an independent country separate from China. I'm not sure what the DPP calls the PRC military, but I won't be surprise if they use 中軍 since they consider China to be a separate country from Taiwan. The dog2 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Potentially 中共解放軍 or 解放軍 as here [1] [2] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added some notes to the pages, if anyone wants to check an edit them. The dog2 (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@The dog2: 解放軍 is not exclusively used by the CPC. It's also used in Hong Kong and since it's an autonym, I feel that it's not necessarily "marked" (in a linguistic sense), so I don't feel that it needs too much labelling. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

From my observation, the KMT and its supporters in Taiwan generally avoid using 解放軍 as a matter of principle. These days it's no longer offensive, and they won't correct you if you use the term, but they will always use 共軍 themselves. Based on the pages that Geographyinitiative have cited, it appears that the DPP uses 中共軍 or 中共解放軍 to emphasise that it is a Chinese military and Taiwan is a separate country. The dog2 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@The dog2: Yes, but I think saying CPC specifically is not quite right. It's probably better as a usage note rather than a label. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've made some changes. Have a look. If you can please shorten. I don't know how to make it shorter while sufficiently covering all the nuances. The dog2 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)