Talk:半路師

Quanzhou

@Mlgc1998 What dictionary did you consult for the Quanzhou pronunciation? I'm looking at 闽南方言大词典, and the Quanzhou pronunciation is just pòaⁿ-lō͘-sai. Mar vin kaiser (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser That's not what that book says. it says "〈泉〉puã^5-3 lɔ^5-4 sai¹", which is pòaⁿ-lò͘-sai. if this is one of those cases where that book is mistaken again on Quanzhou's 陰去 ~ 陽去 in regard to running tone, then can swap qz to the other pronunciation.

btw for future-proofing for any possible future edits on the zh-pron module, adding specific dialectal tags early on would be much better than just leaving no dialectal tags to prevent any future editor seeing no dialects tagged to have assumptions if it's attested already for mainland china and taiwan dialects without knowing how to check or bothering to check. Sometimes there are entries unknowingly incomplete and only noticed when it's randomly discussed or thought about, especially some entries were added by other random editors tangentially adding either from whatever taiwanese sources or 闽南方言大词典 at some point in time they randomly encountered or thought to do so. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: What do you think here?

@Mlgc1998: Actually I agree with the last part of what you said. Removing the dialectal tags was a policy started back in 2017 I think when we started having "Xiamen, Quanzhou, Zhangzhou, Kaohsiung, and Taipei" as general pronunciations found for all Hokkien in the pronunciation module without dialectal tags. At that time, we didn't have a lot of tags yet. Now we have more, so I think that can be discussed further. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: Yeah it shows "〈泉〉puã^5-3 lɔ^5-4 sai¹". But isn't the "4" there supposed to be "22" in tone? The one you left in the entry gives it a running tone of "55". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser is that why the 闽南方言大词典 is always mistaken on Quanzhou's 陰去 ~ 陽去 in regard to running tone? Mlgc1998 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: What makes you think it's always mistaken? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser you told me long ago, it was mistaken on that matter, but I never fully understood why that book constantly made the mistake. I surmise cuz it focused on the standing tone too much and confused what was supposed to be on the running tone, which I remember having read another paper which was similarly confused cuz it put both running tones of 陰去 ~ 陽去 as if the writer was not fully sure. Mlgc1998 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: I forgot how I exactly explained it to you long ago, but it's not really mistaken, it's just taking the 去 tone as just one tone for Quanzhou, indicating it with the number 5. Then it differentiates with the running tone with either 6 (falling tone) or 4 (low flat). In this case, since it's "5-4", this would indicate that it's a 陽去 tone. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)