Talk:軁鑽
Latest comment: 10 months ago by Mar vin kaiser in topic Words per Dialect
Words per Dialect
[edit]@Mlgc1998 In this word, did you verify that all the definitions are found in each: Quanzhou, Xiamen, Zhangzhou, and Taiwan? Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Mlgc1998: Also, the label should be "verb", not "definition". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser i usually put the part of speech but sometimes another editor changes them to Definition especially if there's multiple parts of speech. I think that must've confused me before what their convention was, so I just put Definition to be safe. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser the sources are listed in the edit history Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Mlgc1998: How do you access 1931 臺日新辭書, 1932 臺日大辭典, 1957 台灣語常用語彙, 2002⁺ 台華線頂辭典? Also, it seems like all the sources are for Taiwan, except for 闽南方言大词典, which lists only two definitions for the Mainland. Then why'd you put four definitions even for the Mainland? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser the taiwanese sources can be found in ChhoeTaigi (chhoe.taigi.info), which u can enter the POJ on the first text box with 白話字 selected on no. 2, and Kāng款--ê for no. 1. or can also enter the chinese characters on the 漢羅台文 textbox with Kāng款--ê selected for no. 1. There are many taiwanese sources since taiwan historically always wanted to distinguish itself and record the language over there. In the mainland, I do not know much sources for the key hokkien speaking cities or counties, besides 闽南方言大词典 (2006), Douglas (1873/1899), Barclay (1923), Macgowan (1883), and Medhurst (1832). Douglas (1873) also has some pages in its introduction showing a legend to guide how Medhurst spelled terms. Also Douglas also labels his entries with C. = Zhangzhou/Chang-chew, Cn. = Quanzhou/Chin-chew, A. = Amoy, An. = Anxi/Ankoi/An-khoe, E. = Yongchun/Eńg-chhun/Yung-chun, F. = Taiwanese/Formosa, H. = Hui'an/Hūi-an/Hūi-oaⁿ, K. / Kk. = Guankou/Kwan-kow/Koàn-kháu, L. = Nan'an/Nan-an/Lâm-oaⁿ, P. = Zhangpu/Chang-poo/Chiuⁿ-phó, T. = Tong'an/Tung-an/Tâng-oaⁿ, Tt. = Chang-tai/Tiô-thoà, X. = Christian terminologies, Bud. = Buddhist terminologies, etc. There is also some Dutch sources like Francken & Grijs (1882) but they wrote that they get much of their data as well from Douglas (1873) who published his book in Batavia (Jakarta) before. Also 闽南方言大词典 (2006) put 2 pronunciations for 3 tags of 廈,泉,漳, with supposedly 2 definitions. If I put more than that, it's likely from the japanese 臺日 1931 & 1932 sources that I manually translated the Japanese and Taiwanese Kana text after viewing the actual page (sometimes ChhoeTaigi transcribes and translates it wrong or couldn't render the kyujitai sinograph it was using (one can remedy this by using zi.tools)), because the 臺日 despite calling the language "臺", it often has 《泉》and《漳》labels as well which sometimes I'm not too sure to interpret it as QZ and ZZ or TWQ and TWZ or idk if even Taipei and Tainan or Kaohsiung, but back then I just put TW, but now TWQ and TWZ might be safer. The ones it does not label are likely general taiwanese and/or the Amoy/Xiamen pronunciations. It would often have more definition entries that matches 闽南方言大词典's definitions and sometimes even more that sometimes might be a taiwanese thing or seems like it applies to Hokkien in general because 闽南方言大词典 decided to word their Mandarin definition in a sort of combined definition or defined the word via sort of redirecting to whatever definitions of the mandarin equivalent, but 臺日 instead is doing it with the japanese equivalent, especially funnily with food. Also 闽南方言大词典 sometimes includes more recent mainland definitions that doesn't seem to be in the traditional definition reflected in 臺日 and how people in ph seem to understand it. Mlgc1998 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Mlgc1998: Yeah, don't interpret the《泉》and《漳》in 臺日 as QZ or ZZ, since it would mix with the modern QZ and ZZ. It's also a historical source, so as far as I understand it, it's describing the language of the Taiwanese living in Taiwan in the early 20th century, whose ancestors mostly immigrated hundreds of years ago, the way I understand it is that most of the immigrations happened before the 1800's.
- Anyway, I guess my only point is that if the definition isn't found in 闽南方言大词典, put "Taiwan Hokkien" as a label on the definition, to indicate that it's not a modern Mandarin definition.
- Oh yeah, I'd appreciate btw if you try to split your message into parts like these. It's easier to read, and I can understand better the separation of different points of what you're talking about. If it's a long reply, it's harder to read if everything is lumped into one paragraph. Thanks! --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser the taiwanese sources can be found in ChhoeTaigi (chhoe.taigi.info), which u can enter the POJ on the first text box with 白話字 selected on no. 2, and Kāng款--ê for no. 1. or can also enter the chinese characters on the 漢羅台文 textbox with Kāng款--ê selected for no. 1. There are many taiwanese sources since taiwan historically always wanted to distinguish itself and record the language over there. In the mainland, I do not know much sources for the key hokkien speaking cities or counties, besides 闽南方言大词典 (2006), Douglas (1873/1899), Barclay (1923), Macgowan (1883), and Medhurst (1832). Douglas (1873) also has some pages in its introduction showing a legend to guide how Medhurst spelled terms. Also Douglas also labels his entries with C. = Zhangzhou/Chang-chew, Cn. = Quanzhou/Chin-chew, A. = Amoy, An. = Anxi/Ankoi/An-khoe, E. = Yongchun/Eńg-chhun/Yung-chun, F. = Taiwanese/Formosa, H. = Hui'an/Hūi-an/Hūi-oaⁿ, K. / Kk. = Guankou/Kwan-kow/Koàn-kháu, L. = Nan'an/Nan-an/Lâm-oaⁿ, P. = Zhangpu/Chang-poo/Chiuⁿ-phó, T. = Tong'an/Tung-an/Tâng-oaⁿ, Tt. = Chang-tai/Tiô-thoà, X. = Christian terminologies, Bud. = Buddhist terminologies, etc. There is also some Dutch sources like Francken & Grijs (1882) but they wrote that they get much of their data as well from Douglas (1873) who published his book in Batavia (Jakarta) before. Also 闽南方言大词典 (2006) put 2 pronunciations for 3 tags of 廈,泉,漳, with supposedly 2 definitions. If I put more than that, it's likely from the japanese 臺日 1931 & 1932 sources that I manually translated the Japanese and Taiwanese Kana text after viewing the actual page (sometimes ChhoeTaigi transcribes and translates it wrong or couldn't render the kyujitai sinograph it was using (one can remedy this by using zi.tools)), because the 臺日 despite calling the language "臺", it often has 《泉》and《漳》labels as well which sometimes I'm not too sure to interpret it as QZ and ZZ or TWQ and TWZ or idk if even Taipei and Tainan or Kaohsiung, but back then I just put TW, but now TWQ and TWZ might be safer. The ones it does not label are likely general taiwanese and/or the Amoy/Xiamen pronunciations. It would often have more definition entries that matches 闽南方言大词典's definitions and sometimes even more that sometimes might be a taiwanese thing or seems like it applies to Hokkien in general because 闽南方言大词典 decided to word their Mandarin definition in a sort of combined definition or defined the word via sort of redirecting to whatever definitions of the mandarin equivalent, but 臺日 instead is doing it with the japanese equivalent, especially funnily with food. Also 闽南方言大词典 sometimes includes more recent mainland definitions that doesn't seem to be in the traditional definition reflected in 臺日 and how people in ph seem to understand it. Mlgc1998 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Mlgc1998: How do you access 1931 臺日新辭書, 1932 臺日大辭典, 1957 台灣語常用語彙, 2002⁺ 台華線頂辭典? Also, it seems like all the sources are for Taiwan, except for 闽南方言大词典, which lists only two definitions for the Mainland. Then why'd you put four definitions even for the Mainland? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)