Talk:-이며

Re: Changing this article to just 며.

Hello. I am new to wiktionary so I am not sure about the protocol for changing things, but I do not think there should be an article for 이며, just an article for 며 with 이며 as a derivation. Also, I think when coming after a verb ending in a consonant, it should be 으며, and not 이며.

Sorry if I cause any problems! Winged eel 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for dropping by. You're right that the current setup isn't quite right... I think the ideal title would be -며, since it is a suffix. We'll want -이며 too, though, since generally we try to have separate entries for each written form. As things stand, our treatment of Korean suffixes (and of Korean as a whole) is still in its infancy; any help you can provide is much appreciated. Cheers, -- Visviva 00:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I understand that there is a need for articles for every form, however should we duplicate data contained in each, or can we put (see ___) and only put full information in one article? I am okay with either way, I just want to be clear before I screw anything up. I modified 는 but not 은 because of this. Basically I am wondering to what extent duplication is accepted.Winged eel 01:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In principle, we want each entry to be as complete as possible, furnishing the user with all necessary lexical information on a single page, and we want a separate complete entry for every distinct form of every word (including particles and affixes). However, in the name of sanity and carpal tunnel, it's generally best to focus on one form and allow the other to remain an "alternative form of..." entry (what we usually call a 'soft redirect') until such time as we can find a way of setting up semi-automated duplication. Cheers, -- Visviva 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, I mean, we should have -며 and -으며 as suffixes. We should still have this (이며) as a form of 이다, just as we should have 하며, 되며, et al.; but not as a suffix, because of course it isn't one. I really shouldn't post before breakfast. -- Visviva 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will just make duplicates of everything needed and make sure that I link everything up properly for now. Thanks! Oh does this mean we can take this out of the particle category?Winged eel 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that it's recognized as a particle in the 표준국어사전, which is as close as we get to an official national dictionary in the ROK, I would say that we should keep the Particle section & category. And it is difficult to explain uses such as the one given (ㄱ이며 ㄴ이며) in terms of an ordinary be-form. -- Visviva 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well dictionary beats eel! (Eel beats rock and scissors though ;) ). It's just that it is more of an ending which in this one case can act like a particle. It does not say that 며 itself is a particle, and 이면 is not even listen in the dictionary even though it is similar. I just think it is odd, but as I said dictionary beats eel at the moment!Winged eel 02:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)