User talk:Fish bowl

🗄

Using Japanese linguistic terminology for Korean etymologies?

For the Korean word 아이, it said that the spelling 兒孩 is ateji (wikt:en:Special:Permalink/78438710). I removed the ateji description, and replaced it with saying that the character 兒 is a hundokja (훈독자 / 訓讀字) in the current version. I feel like it is better to use Korean linguistic terminology rather than Japanese linguistic terminology to describe a Korean word. Is this correct? FunnyMath (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah honestly I felt the same way, although I'm not sure that in this case 훈독자 is the right word either? 훈독자 would be 串 = 곶 (got), right? —Fish bowl (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I think this is what happened: originally, the 아 was not written with 兒. This is because none of the Sino-Korean readings of 兒 were even remotely similar to the 아 sound in Middle Korean 아ᄒᆡ〮 (àhóy) from which 아이 originates. Over time, one of the Sino-Korean readings for 兒 got corrupted into 아, and only then did people start using the spelling 兒孩. This spelling was used until the "h" sound disappeared (from 아해 (ahae) to 아이 (ai)), where there is no longer a confusion that 아이 is a Sino-Korean word, as 이 does not sound like 孩. So I think you're right; it is more accurate to describe the use of 兒 as a phono-semantic matching. I think the person who initially wrote the etymology for 아이 got confused, and thought that the spelling 兒孩 was used before the "a" reading for 兒 developed. I then built on that mistake by thinking that 兒 is a hundokja (훈독자 / 訓讀字). FunnyMath (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(also, regarding the wording "Yeah honestly I felt the same way": I got confused with other Korean entries that also use the word "ateji", actually —Fish bowl (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC))

I suspected that the word "ateji" is used in several other Korean entries. I think this is a problem for two reasons: (1) it is vague, as it could refer to the hanja being used phonetically or semantically, and (2) it might be culturally insensitive to place so much focus on Japanese terminologies instead of Korean ones; it's great that people are thinking of the differences and similarities between Korean and Japanese, but I'm not sure if Koreans would be happy to see that people are using Japanese terms to describe their language, given the history of colonialism and such. Should we go ahead and systematically get rid of all mentions of ateji and replace them with more precise terms? FunnyMath (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

(@Saranamd —Fish bowl (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC))

کمد edit added to "Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls"

Hello there. I recently received a notification that you added the کمد page to a Category called "Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls". I am still relatively a novice at Wikipedia editing and hence, I do not know what that Catagory is, or if the page getting added to it suggests that I have a responsibility to fulfill (e.g. fix/change my edit, or something like that, etc...). It would be great if you could let me know if there is anything I must do, or if it is unrelated to me. Thanks in advance.MarkParker1221 (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@MarkParker1221 Your edit had "qq2=" twice, which added the entry to the maintenance category Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls (and "qq3=" for the 4th item?), which I corrected in that edit. I notified you in case my correction (changing "qq2"/"qq2"/"qq3" to "qq2"/"qq3"/"qq4") was wrong. (Also, don't worry too much about it, because it is definitely easy to lose track of the numbers or make a typo; there's an alternative syntax without numbers now, too, if you prefer: Template:syn#Inline modifiers) —Fish bowl (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks for letting me know. Yes, that was a mistake on my end. MarkParker1221 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Are all North Korean entries already stubbified?

I noticed that you once stubbified the entry 령도자 and subsequently transferred the content to the main entry 영도자, thus I'm wondering if every North Korean entry must remain a stub without exceptions as an unspoken rule. Another thing is I feel inclined to re-gloss the word 자욱 which has been glossed as proscribed, sometimes literary or poetic while being the standard spelling form in Munhwaŏ is currently not demonstrated at all so if it would be a clearer and more straightforward way to impose {{ko-regional} template on the term just like any other entry does? Maraschino Cherry (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Maraschino Cherry: For practical reasons, we treat SK Korean as the standard: Wiktionary:AKO#North_vs._South_Korea. As for 자욱, based on your decsription, I would add {{ko-regional}} and probably "|or|North Korea" to {{label}}. —Fish bowl (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

nihon kokugo daijiten

@Fish bowl Is the version you're using for etymologies, actually the second edition (第二版)?

(I am curious because back then, I used to have access to JapanKnowledge, via a NINJAL VPN account a professor there created for me, but as the professor retired, I no longer have access to something I find crucial (particularly NKD2 and Nihon Hogen Daijiten), and my local town had suffered from a cyberattack last month and only sometime this month the library systems went up, and even there, the interlibrary loan system is not working, so I can't ILL any books.) Chuterix (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

(To e-mail me any information, you can use the "Email this user" feature, which is available in my profile.) Chuterix (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

For a similar situation in which successfully, @Kwamikagami e-mailed me some PDFs of the books in possession that I have requested, see User talk:Kwamikagami#Hirayama (1966)

IIRC, s/he did email me several research books, including one dictionary of the Nakijin dialect. I know that Kwami only had the Hirayama 1964, 1966, and 1967, but I don't know what other Japonic/Ryukyuan stuff Kwamikagami may have. Chuterix (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

A note is that it is perfectly fine if you do not have materials to give me. Chuterix (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chuterix: I use Kotobank and Weblio and don't have any PDFs; sorry. —Fish bowl (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The person who added the etymology at はず was actually @Cnilep, who is still an active WT user; I asked you since I didn't look thoroughly and you just moved the etymology he added ;)

Thank you. Chuterix (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I think the addition is question is this edit that I did at 筈, right? If memory serves, I would have consulted NKD in Japan Knowledge Lib from my university's library system. Currently that is 「日本国語大辞典 第二版」 (so, NKD2, I guess). I'm not 100% certain what it was in February 2022. I think there were some changes to Japan Knowledge in March 2024, but I'm not quite clear on what they were. Sorry if I didn't pay sufficient attention to the citation template! Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cnilep Indeed, that was your edit ;)

For the JapanKnowledge NKD2 template, you can use {{R:Nihon Kokugo Daijiten 2 Online}} (made back when a Japonic linguist at NINJAL from Japan gave me JapanKnowledge access via a FortiClient VPN account, but she had left NINJAL, so the account no longer works, which means I no longer have JK access :( Chuterix (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:ja-kanjitab, jukujikun, and CAT:E

I don't know if you're aware, but @Theknightwho changed Module:kanjitab a while back so that it throws an error if any variant of the jukujikun label is applied without specifying 2 or more kanji that it applies to. After more than a week, the number of affected entries in CAT:E has been reduced from about 90 to 35, but the pace has been slow lately. Could you take a look? After checking some of the revision histories, a high proportion of them seem to be from folks like YukaSilvie or a certain Vietnamese IP whom we all know and love- so it may just be a simple matter of replacing mental mojibake with actual information. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz I'm going to change these to tracking and then re-enable the errors again once they're all fixed, because some of them are awkward and it's been slow going. Theknightwho (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

叩

Hello! Thank you for reverting me on 達, I in what was probably sleepiness managed to miss that it was a する verb and not a missing reading. However, I'm curious why you reverted my edit to 叩. Why should there be historical orthography for the two on readings if the historical orthography is exactly the same as that used at present? From what I've seen on other pages, the historical orthography is only shown if it's different than the current spelling, or sometimes if it's pronounced differently. I'd like to hear your side of things before I restore my edit. Thanks! Ookap (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ookap Apparently we always show the historical orthography, even if it's the same: see Template:ja-readings#Format. Regardless, it doesn't seem helpful to remove that kind of thing in the first place, even if you might not bother adding it yourself. Theknightwho (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up! In that case, there are quite a lot of pages that need historical readings.

I removed these because it seemed like redundant information and wasn't really in line with what I'd seen before. However, I now know that the custom is to show them; I'll leave them on in the future. Ookap (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

TBH I wrote that documentation and it's just my opinion. My rationale is that it's helpful to distinguish こう<こう from こう<かう or こう<かふ or whatnot, especially when the absence of such data otherwise cannot be reliably parsed as "current orthography = old orthography". —Fish bowl (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree it’s helpful since we can’t rely on no reading meaning it’s the same. That being said, we might want to think about displaying them in a different way, since they’re quite densely packed and therefore hard to parse. Theknightwho (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

newhzmul

I noticed that Module:User:Suzukaze-c/02 contains the function newhzmul which generates a "new hanzi translingual entry [...] from a copy-paste of the unihan page". This seems quite useful for characters in the CJK extensions that don't have an entry yet, such as 𥤛 (view history). Do you think we should bring this out of the userpage "namespace"? --kc_kennylau (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

not really because it's kind of gross and hacky lol. i'd rather see a gadget or toolforge assistant that works from the actual raw unihan data —Fish bowl (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)