Talk:婂媤
Add topicLatest comment: 4 years ago by Justinrleung in topic RFV discussion: March–December 2020
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Seems to be only used by Penang Hokkien Podcast (and probably the Hokkien Language Association of Penang). — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 04:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, this is in regards to the character spelling of "婂媤"? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 01:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Suzukaze-c: Yes. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 02:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
bi̍t-su and bi̍t-si? Is this from 新加坡闽南话词典? In the dictionary it is written as 密司 bit8 su(si) but any proof that bi̍t-su and bi̍t-si is actually used in Singapore? It's strange because "mî-si" is not recorded by that dictionary.
- mî-si in Singapore Hokkien is citable at 06:22 of Happy Can Already! Episode 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIrZqUKGhYU
- mî-si for Penang Hokkien is citable at 05:42 of Penang Hokkien Podcast #690 Kóo-tsá-láu-mî-si-kuí (古早婂媤鬼) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWH1MEx-nE
- Why use 婂媤 as the main spelling for this entry? 婂 or its component 帛 is not related with "mî". Maybe 密司 is more suitable. https://baike.baidu.com/item/密司
- One last thing, any citation for Singapore Teochew and Cantonese? Are there dictionaries for Singapore Teochew and Cantonese to support this? Why add labels but no pronunciation? User talk:iambluemon 08:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- (re: 婂 or its component 帛 ...: 棉 (mî), probably —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC))
- As these Chinese varieties are no longer considered well-documented, we can probably keep 婂媤 for Penang Hokkien with the one attestation from Penang Hokkien Podcast. However, we should probably unify the entry at 密司 (even though it's kind of Mandarin-centric). Yes, bi̍t-su and bi̍t-si are from 新加坡闽南话词典. I have serious doubts about these pronunciations as well; perhaps they're just inaccurate transcriptions of mî-si. For Singaporean Teochew and Cantonese, we'd have to ask @The dog2 for evidence. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 10:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know about the characters, but for the pronunciations, see [1] (39:51) for Singaporean Cantonese and [2] (17:37) for Singaporean Teochew. The dog2 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- As these Chinese varieties are no longer considered well-documented, we can probably keep 婂媤 for Penang Hokkien with the one attestation from Penang Hokkien Podcast. However, we should probably unify the entry at 密司 (even though it's kind of Mandarin-centric). Yes, bi̍t-su and bi̍t-si are from 新加坡闽南话词典. I have serious doubts about these pronunciations as well; perhaps they're just inaccurate transcriptions of mî-si. For Singaporean Teochew and Cantonese, we'd have to ask @The dog2 for evidence. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 10:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- RFV passed. Changed to a Hokkien alternative form of 密司, which will house all the varieties of Chinese that use this word. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 09:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)