Talk:毋
Add topicLatest comment: 4 years ago by Tooironic in topic also read as móu
too prescriptive
[edit]@Justinrleung What about Cantonese at 虼蚻? —suzukaze (t・c) 05:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Suzukaze-c: honestly, I don't really know what's the best way to deal with these. They're clearly cognate, but certain spellings are restricted to certain dialects. @Wyang, could you take a look at this (along with the etymologies)? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 06:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- My opinion is that this would be better presented as a single etymology. The various words are apparently derived from the same source ultimately, and I would be happy leaving the Min Nan and Hakka readings simply as 'coll.' without discussing their etymology. It is likely that no source has or will diachronically investigate the origin of m̄ or m̀ (like people have done for Mandarin 的), so much of the now-proposed Min Nan or Hakka etymology from various sources would remain synchronic speculation. I think the written form of a word has to be actually in use in topolect A before we can assign the reading in topolect A to it, unless there is absolutely no other way to write it other than using empty squares. Of course we have to aim for minimal entropy as well, by using identical words as lemmas when the prerequisite before is satisfied. Min is an example of this conflict - Min Dong and Min Nan often have differing written form preferences, although there is practically no standard or consensus in Min Dong writing, compared to Min Nan. Wyang (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Wyang: thanks for your reply! The thing with Min is that the Mainland sources for Hokkien tend to agree with Min Dong, e.g. they use 伓 for m̄ and 骹 for kha (instead of Taiwan's 毋 and 跤). Which should we follow then? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 20:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I'm good with having Min Dong align as much as possible to Min Nan, such as using 跤 for 'leg'. We probably need to consider all the major Min Nan sources and decide on a case-by-case basis, not just the Taiwan standard - although it is handy to simply use the Taiwan standard. Wyang (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Wyang: thanks for your reply! The thing with Min is that the Mainland sources for Hokkien tend to agree with Min Dong, e.g. they use 伓 for m̄ and 骹 for kha (instead of Taiwan's 毋 and 跤). Which should we follow then? — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 20:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- My opinion is that this would be better presented as a single etymology. The various words are apparently derived from the same source ultimately, and I would be happy leaving the Min Nan and Hakka readings simply as 'coll.' without discussing their etymology. It is likely that no source has or will diachronically investigate the origin of m̄ or m̀ (like people have done for Mandarin 的), so much of the now-proposed Min Nan or Hakka etymology from various sources would remain synchronic speculation. I think the written form of a word has to be actually in use in topolect A before we can assign the reading in topolect A to it, unless there is absolutely no other way to write it other than using empty squares. Of course we have to aim for minimal entropy as well, by using identical words as lemmas when the prerequisite before is satisfied. Min is an example of this conflict - Min Dong and Min Nan often have differing written form preferences, although there is practically no standard or consensus in Min Dong writing, compared to Min Nan. Wyang (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
also read as móu
[edit]《中華字海》第1009頁：毋（二）móu音謀（~追duī）。古代的一種黑布帽子。《禮記‧郊特牲》：“~追，夏后氏之道也。” ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)