Talk:㫃

A pictogram of what exactly? Tibetologist (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Old Chinese pronunciation

@Wyang, Justinrleung, KevinUp Which section does the Old Chinese datum belong to? Dokurrat (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Hi. Are you referring to the middle Chinese readings? Based on the Kangxi dictionary, both middle Chinese readings 於幰切 and 於蹇切 belong to etymology 1. As for the Baxter-Sagart Old Chinese reading, this belongs to Etymology 1 because of the "fluttering streamer" definition provided with the reading. I don't think the entry needs to be split. You can put the alternative form template into the main pronunciation. KevinUp (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Btw, the ‡ hover-over note doesn't really make sense to me. Wyang (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: Alright, excuse my bad expression in that template. Dokurrat (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's okay... but I still don't understand what the template is for. Is it a distinction worth making? How do we definitively know the character has not appeared and was not used elsewhere? Wyang (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: Oh... Sad sad, I like that template... Alright, since I don't think I would give up using zh-hg for now, at least I think I could make it says less absolute words. Do you think it needs further modification? Dokurrat (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If it is "found in one or more historical dictionaries" ... aren't pretty much all Chinese characters found in one or more historical dictionaries? Also, what are "statemental records"? Wyang (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: How about now? Dokurrat (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It is better, but still doesn't quite make sense. "Historical dictionary-like records" is less awkward, but makes little sense. Sentence #2 would be better written with an impersonal pronoun or in the passive IMO, compared to using a first-person pronoun. I feel the use of the template on this page is inappropriate. Neither Hanyu Da Zidian nor historical dictionaries are meant to be a comprehensive attestation record database of the individual characters. The character has a multitude of historical forms, and must have been used in the ancient scripts, although its exact meaning may be subject to different interpretations. For example, see 甲骨文字典. Wyang (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I've been using the Template:zh-historical-dict template for characters that are found only in historical sources such as 《集韻 (Jíyùn)》、《廣韻 (Guǎngyùn)》、《說文 (Shuōwén)》、《類篇 (Lèipiān)》、《玉篇 (Yùpiān)》 but are not found elsewhere, i.e. the meaning or usage of the character is limited only to these historical dictionaries. By the way, I still think Pronunciation 1 and 2 needs to be merged. KevinUp (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)