User talk:KYPark/2012

April 2012

Copy from mor #Old English 

Old English

Etymology

Proto-Germanic *mōraz. Cognate with Old Saxon mōr (Dutch moer), Middle Low German mōr (German Moor), Old High German muor, Old Norse mǫr.

Pronunciation

• IPA^(key): /moːr/

Noun

mōr m

1. moor
2. mountain

Derived terms

• mōrberiġe

Descendants

• English: moor

Copy end

Transclusion from Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/mor 

Transclusion end

Transclusion from Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/Vienna 

Transclusion end

Transclusion from Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/Ordinal suffix 

Transclusion end

May 2012

Transclusion from Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/tug 

Transclusion end

Transclusion from Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/duke 

Transclusion end

June 2012

Transclusion from Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/Copenhagen 

Transclusion end

July 2012

城

See : 城

Transclusion from User talk:KYPark/城 

Long lists of synonyms -- help differentiating

Hello KYPark --

I've noticed your changes to the 城 entry, thank you for your work there! One request I'd like to make of you is, when adding a list of synonyms where there is more than one synonym for a single sense, that you add a gloss after the term to help differentiate. For instance, I can tell from the list you gave that 堡 (보, bo), 壘 (루, ru), 堡壘 (보루, boru), 塞 (새, sae), 要塞 (요새, yosae), and 砦 (채, chae) all mean fort, but I have no way of telling these terms apart without clicking through to each individual page. This is not terribly difficult, but it is less than optimal for usability. Something like the following would be very helpful. I'm not sure if I have the meanings correct, but hopefully this illustrates the format:

• (fort): 堡 (보, bo): a fortified town
• (fort): 壘 (루, ru): a military wall

-- TIA (thanks in advance), Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eirikr! In principle, I agree on your "request" for the semantic as well as genetic (e.g., "Derived" and "Related") relations to be "optimal for usability" or for the cross-references to be as informative as possible. In practice, however, such may not be the case here in general, I fear.

• The idea of {{sense}} sounds plausible and well founded according to the senses enumerated in the Definition.
• Hanja has lots of synonyms which are mostly hard to be made different. I at least have little idea how to explicate them, say, 堡 and 壘 in 堡壘 and 宇 and 宙 in 宇宙 in preciser terms than "fort" and "house" respectively.
• Such compounds as 堡壘 and 宇宙 are done so often tautologically in synonymic pair perhaps to avoid homonymic rather than synonymic confusions, I suspect.
• English serves as a metalanguage here in explaining and making different the hanja ideograms. Thus, such numerous synonymous ideograms for "moat" as 垓, 垓字, 壕, 濠, 城濠, 池, 城池, 城下池, etc., could be done so in no better than English terms of moat, ditch and fosse, which in turn make little difference, however different the former may be.

--KYPark (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Perhaps you could mark the most common Korean term for the listed sense, then?

For instance, English fosse is only very rarely used, and in fact I'd never heard the word before; meanwhile, moat is restricted to meaning "a wide and deeply dug barrier, usually filled with water, that surrounds a fortification", and ditch generally means something smaller than a moat, and could be something dug by a single person and only 30cm across.

So for an entry related to castles and fortifications, the moat entry would be the most commonly used term, and should probably come first; the fosse entry would be possibly the least commonly used term, and should probably come last.

Would it be possible to reorder the KO synonyms in a similar fashion? -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your so-called first things first principle, though views may diverge diverse as to which come first and next. In the beginning, I followed my dictionary's order of senses in Definition as "1. inner wall..., 2. outer wall...," etc.

1. Then I've reordered them so as to begin with the generic perspective or overview, say, "defensive wall" which serves as the core or common factor among the many senses that follows.
2. The second one may not accord with the Korean but Western and Japanese perspective!
3. The third may be worth the second in Korea, but ...

Priority ordering of terms within a sense in Synonyms and the like appears so complicated and perplexing, at least to me. I'm not so finely tuned, I'm afraid. It varies from case to case anyway, as suggested there from section to section. I'd say it's art! (^^)

BTW, I do wonder how well the three Etymologies of wall are founded and ordered from the first things first perspective. For me, the last be the first, and the three may better merge into one or two from the Occam's razor perspective. Please take care of it.

BTW again, do you like or mind me sandboxing 屯#Korean on the subpage Talk:屯/Korean?

--KYPark (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• No trouble at all with transcluding this thread. Though I suspect you mean that you've transcluded onto Talk:城? The Talk:屯/Korean page doesn't seem to exist. Also, I changed the technical details of partial transclusion to use mw:Extension:Labeled_Section_Transclusion instead -- using <onlyinclude> breaks subsection editing, so the only way to edit this "Long list of syns" section was by editing the preceding "x-templates" section. And one last issue, if you ever archive your Talk page, it would probably be best if you simply copied (i.e. copy-paste, not transclude) this thread directly onto the Talk:城 page. Otherwise, the link on the Talk:城 page won't work anymore, and this thread will seem to vanish.
• I'll have a look at wall#English, though I confess I'm less certain about lexicographic standards for English entries here at EN WT, simply because I've spent most of my time so far working with and on JA entries.
• And understood about how you're ordering the KO syns. Thank you for the explanation.

-- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your extra trouble with the sectional transclusion. Yet your change strangely doesn't work. To avoid such transclusion along with the links likely broken by archiving, I'd get this section transcluded from the steady, stationary, archival subpage User talk:KYPark/城. Quite happily, I've tested this way of getting the section Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium #Copenhagen and many others transcluded from the steady subpage Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/Copenhagen. (BTW, I miss your talks there, for the agenda yet to be agreed or concluded!) How glad I am that everything is a holon, that is, part-cum-whole, 一部兼全部, confusingly, concurrently, cooccurrently! This is also where I wish to use the stationary subpage Talk:屯/Korean "camp, station" as the sandbox-cum-source (of transclusion) for Talk:屯#Korean. Lastly, thank you for taking my reasons for the synonymic disorder for granted.

Cheers --KYPark (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am utterly baffled by what's going on with labeled-section transclusion (LST) on your Talk page. It worked just fine earlier today when I made the change, and then checked at Talk:城, but it's not working now.

I quite like the idea of using sub-pages for more stable linking and to obviate the need for archiving. If you do use sub-pages of entry Talk pages, I only request that you transclude the subpages into the main Talk page, a bit like how Wiktionary:Requested_entries:Japanese transcludes sub-pages. That way, everyone can see the sub-page content (and edit it) on the regular Talk page. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

PS -- I may chime in at Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/Copenhagen later; I'm a bit busy with other things at the moment.  :)

Agreed. Cheers! --KYPark (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion end 

屯

See : 屯

Talk:屯/Korean

Copied and pasted (before re-deletion) as follows:

Transclusion from User:KYPark/屯 

Hanja

屯 (hangeul 둔, 준, revised dun, jun, McCune-Reischauer tun, chun)

1. military base, camp, deploy, fort, fortress, front, frontier, garrison, march, mark, outport, outpost, station, stronghold
2. frontier farm, military colony or settlement

   w: Le Thanh Tong #The conquest of Champa
   The conquest of the Cham kingdoms started a rapid period of expansion by the Vietnamese southwards into this newly conquered land. The government used a system of land settlement called [don dien] (屯田).

   Under this system, military colonies were established in which soldiers and landless peasants cleared a new area, began rice production on the new land, established a village, and served as a militia to defend it. After three years, the village was incorporated into the Vietnamese administrative system, a communal village meeting house (dinh) was built, and the workers were given an opportunity to share in the communal lands given by the state to each village. The remainder of the land belonged to the state. As each area was cleared and a village established, the soldiers of the don dien would move on to clear more land. U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies - Vietnam

3. crowd, flock, heap, horde, throng, troop
4. dean (in Sussex), heap, hill

   

5. thick
6. hard, struggling
7. the third of the 64 hexagrams of I Ching (易經), composed of the bagua or trigrams (坎上) and (震下).

Synonyms

Synonyms

• (camp): 堡壘 (보루, boru)
• (camp): 塞 (새, sae)
• (camp): 要塞 (요새, yosae)
• (camp): 邊塞 (변새, byeonsae)
• (camp): 陣 (진, jin)
• (camp): 營 (영, yeong)
• (camp): 陣營 (진영, jinyeong)
• (farm): 屯田 (둔전, dunjeon)
• (farm): 屯土 (둔토, dunto)
• (flock): 聚 (취, chwi)
• (flock): 聚落 (취락, chwirak)
• (hill): 丘 (구, gu)
• (hill): 墩 (돈, don)
• (thick): 敦 (돈, don)
• (thick): 厚 (후, hu)
• (hard): 困 (곤, gon)
• (hexagram): 屯卦 (둔괘, dunqwae)
• (hexagram): 水雷屯 (수뢰둔, suroedun)

Compounds

Compounds

• 屯監 (둔감, dungam): earl of march, marcher lord, margrave, marquess
• 屯土 (둔토, dunto): frontier farm
• 屯畓 (둔답, dundap): frontier farm (wet field)
• 屯田 (둔전, dunjeon): frontier farm (dry field)
• 屯田畓 (둔전답, dunjeondap): frontier farm
• 屯田兵 (둔전병, dunjeonbyeong): frontier farmer-cum-soldier
• 屯兵 (둔병, dunbyeong): frontier farmer-cum-soldier
• 屯營 (둔영, dunyeong): base, camp, fort, outpost
• 屯集 (둔집, dunjip): to throng
• 屯聚 (둔취, dunchwi): to throng
• 屯치다 (둔치다, dun-chida): to deploy, encamp, station
• 屯卦 (둔괘, dunqwae): the third of the 64 hexagrams of I Ching (易經).
• 駐屯 (주둔, judun): to station
• 臨屯 (임둔, imdun): Lintun, one of the Four Commanderies of Han
• 水雷屯 (수뢰둔, suroedun): the third of the 64 hexagrams of I Ching (易經).

Usage notes

See also

• 城 (성, seong): fort, wall
• 坉 (둔, dun): balk (the unplowed ridge of farm land for walking and hedging or bordering), cf. walk, causeway
• 沌 (돈, don): chaos, confusion, dull, dark, folly, wave, rotation
• 混沌 (혼돈, hondon): confusion, cf. w: Hundun

Transclusion end 

User talk:Chuck Entz#Talk:屯/Korean

Please undelete this many-day hard work. This way of sandboxing on the Talk subpage was agreed with User:Eirikr at the end of Talk:城 #Long lists of synonyms -- help differentiating. BTW, are you an admin. concerning Hanja edits? --KYPark (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion from User talk:KYPark/屯

Location of sandboxed entries for creating / editing draft versions

Hello again --

I apologize for my previous confusion about Talk:屯/Korean, I didn't understand at the time what you intended. Now that I see that page, I think the content is mostly good, but that kind of drafting would be better done on a subpage of your own. I suggest using a page such as User:KYPark/Sandbox. I've set up my own group of sandbox pages, such as User:Eirikr/Sandbox, User:Eirikr/Sandbox2, User:Eirikr/Sandbox3, and even User:Eirikr/Scratchpad, for just such drafting and testing. Once I have finished creating or editing the content, I copy the source from my sandbox page and paste it into the intended destination page. Then (when I'm being smart) I delete the content from my sandbox page.

Recycling one's own user sandbox this way requires less resources on the server, and doesn't clutter up the server history and page indexing.

If you don't mind, I will move the Talk:屯/Korean page to User:KYPark/Sandbox. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's always very hard in practice to give (you) all the background information. In retrospect, I felt a little guilty when I overcrowded the revision history of 城. So I wanted to draft or sandbox 屯#Korean on the Talk:屯/Korean which as a sandbox could be deleted someday. I could feel free to do it on my User:KYPark/屯 from the beginning. (No need to move it on User:KYPark/Sandbox.) But I just wanted it to be more public and talked to you. It should be alright, I guess!
• Wikis like users experimenting with new ways. Thus it would be unjust and even rude for Chuck Entz and Ruakh to have deleted Talk:屯/Korean of a provisional sandbox kind and Talk:屯, respectively, immediately without the RfD or Talk to me. On such occasions, I feel like being (treated like) a ruthless vandal. Don't you?
• Most vital and fatal, however, is Chuck Entz's reason for deletion reading "encyclopedic, better kept on user subpage" contrary to your view "the content is mostly good," hence an unbearable prejudice of his! He should talk how improperly "encyclopedic" it is at all. It's his duty of honor, I guess.
• BTW, to delete the used-up sandbox at last is more economical storage than to keep all the entry revision history as usual, isn't it?
• BTW again, from the quotation of Definition #2 of Talk:屯/Korean, I wonder if you have noted the "communal village meeting house (dinh)" perhaps worth comparison with thing and Ding. This might annoy some people!

--KYPark (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• For my part, I do think that folks here sometimes rush to action without talking to others first, which is probably the biggest failing of the Wiktionary community in general. I can sympathize to some extent, as we are generally all quite particular about things (one must be particular, in order to enjoy working on a dictionary ^_^ ), and when we see something out of place, our first instinct is generally to fix it, to the best of our understanding of what "fix" means for that situation. However, impatience and haste can lead to unfortunate results; I know I've been hasty in the past, and it's something I must be aware of and careful of in my own actions.
• Thinking about Chuck's comment about "encyclopedic", I think that arose not because of any strong prejudice on his part, but probably for two other reasons -- 1) I don't think he's spent much time working with CJK language entries, and so is not familiar with the large numbers of synonyms, compounds, and senses that such entries often have; and 2) the quote about "The conquest of Champa" is out of place, as a) this is a quote in English, not Korean (example quotes must generally be in the language of the entry term), and b) this quote describes use of the term 屯 in Vietnamese. The quote is also quite long, and it does come across as a short encyclopedic entry about Vietnamese don dien.

To fix these issues, I would strongly suggest that you find a quote that is 1) in Korean, 2) shorter, and 3) uses the term 屯 in context, rather than just describing how the term is used. If you cannot find a suitable quote, it would be better to have no quote instead of the quote in English about usage in Vietnamese.

• About deleting sandboxes, once a page is created, that revision history and data is kept by the server, even if the page is deleted. I think deleting a page might also entail a heavier server load than just emptying the content. I'm no expert, but what I've read suggests that keeping one or a couple of sandbox pages and recycling them is less resource-intensive (for the server) than using individual sandbox pages and deleting them.
• About "crowded" revision histories, no worries -- I really don't think that's a problem.  :) If it still concerns you, one thing that I have sometimes done is to use a separate text editor on my PC to compose pages, and then I will copy from the text editor window into the Wiktionary edit screen.
• About Vietnamese dinh and German Ding and English thing, that's certainly interesting, but without knowing more about the etymologies of all three words and more about historical sound shifts in all three languages, I'm not sure how significant this is -- the human mouth can only make so many sounds, so it is inevitable that there will be some overlap.

Sometimes the overlap is for historical reasons of sound shift or word composition: for instance, modern Korean 팥소 (patso, “bean paste”) seems similar to modern English paste. However, 팥소 (patso) is a compound of 팥 (pat, “red bean”) + 소 (so, “stuffing?”), while paste ultimately derives from Greek παστός (pastós, “sprinkled with salt, salted”).

Sometimes the overlap is for biological reasons: for instance, a number of speech researchers have put forward the hypothesis that the physical constraints of a baby's mouth and the physical motions of a baby's mouth are a large part of why sounds like ma / mama / ama / ba / baba / aba / pa / papa / apa etc. are so common in words referring to mother and/or father or some other parental relation in various languages around the world.

Sometimes there is no overlap in the sounds of words in modern languages, even when the words come from the same original root. For instance, modern English wheel is cognate with (i.e. has the same ancient root as) the modern Greek κύκλος (kýklos) and the modern Hindi चक्र (cakra).

To put it another way, similarities in the sounds of modern languages can obscure different roots, or origins in biological processes. Meanwhile, differences in the sounds of modern languages can obscure identical roots. Without knowing the history of sound changes in a language, and without knowing more about the ancient forms of a word, the sound shifts involved, and the semantic history, we cannot tell whether a word in one language is related to a word in another language.

So for Vietnamese dinh and German Ding and English thing, that's interesting, and merits further research, but the resemblance alone is not enough to say anything definitive.

-- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to move leftmost...

"the biggest failing of the Wiktionary community"

Absolutely! It breaks the community and "drives out the good." Five years ago, I stopped contributing in Korean, as some pages I created were even deleted without any Talk. Who were "the bad money"? Conservatives of invested interests, I suspect. Those, if any, who blamed me for making my edits a "laughing stock" are to blame for making many Korean entries and translations afterwards as such in effect, I fear.

"Chuck's comment about "encyclopedic""

I wait for Chuck making clear "encyclopedic" comment for himself rather than any speculation. You see this is a mere draft, and if the very quotaion is not worth a proper quotation, it could be included either in Usage notes or Footnotes, and that in the Vietnamese entry. It is another matter of formality to add Korean quotations proper. I wonder why such a mere matter of formality matters seriously enough for a rude deletion.

I would respect whether your or Wiktionary's urge of formalism such that the quotation be in the entry language. In turn, I would ask you to respect my urge such that my edits be more informative anyway than as usual and the very Viet case in English be included either in Usage notes or Footnotes, if proper as a quotation in neither Korean nor Vietnamese entry. You see this information is for English readers as likely strangers to the historical oriental "frontier farm" (屯田).

Above all, to put another way, this quotation is vital or critical enough for English readers to understand 屯 well, definitely centering around the frontier farm (屯田) on the one hand and the rarely-documented assembly ("dinh") on the other. It is an assembly, colony, community, flock, folk, horde, troop or the like in itself!

"About deleting sandboxes"

Understood.

"About "crowded" revision histories, no worries"

Understood.

"About Vietnamese dinh and German Ding and English thing"

Now this has become an open question. Meanwhile, there appears an absolutely resolute will to deny all the open questions, say, all the East-West coincidences. Such appears absolutely overdone and ill done, I regret most. What looks like a tiger is likely to be a tiger, hence an open question that should remains so until fully falsified, whether in theory or in practice. This is a way to science proper!

English cycle and perhaps wheel via OE hweogol likely derived from Greek via Latin is said to be a frequentative such as Japanese ころころ from ころがる cognate to くるま and Korean 구르다 as well so that part if not all of these East-West words may be cognate, that is to say, worth an open doubt, no doubt!

What if it is or were not a frequentative at all? Then it may be seriously suspected of kinship to Korean (珥#Korean) that was so widespread in ancient Korea.

Honestly, I take 屯 specially seriously as likely cognate to:

• ang: dun "hill, mountain"
• eng: dune "hill, sand-dune"
• eng: down "hill"
• eng: town "fortified settlement"
• deu: Zaun "fence, hedge"
• dut: tuin "garden"
• non: tun "enclosure," etc., etc., ...

All these European senses happen to be those of 屯. The thing adds up to all these, hence such a great statistical consilience, as specially noted since Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge in 1998 after Sociobiology: The New Synthesis in 1975, the very year of World Brain Revolution, as it were, believe me or not! You'd better take it very seriously!

--KYPark (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC) --KYPark (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I do take it seriously: I take it seriously enough to look at the histories of Vietnamese dinh and Chinese-derived 屯 and PIE-derived town / Zaun / tuin etc.

In looking into those histories, I see evidence of convergent semantic evolution, but divergent origins:

• I do not know any Vietnamese, and I do not know what diacritics might be needed to find the version of dinh that means "communal village meeting house". I do see that Vietnamese dinh is notably not listed as a reading for 屯, suggesting that these two words are unrelated. I also see that the EN WT is missing any Vietnamese noun entry with spelling similar to dinh (see Category:Vietnamese_nouns), whereas the ZH WT has a zh:dĩnh entry, linking to several different possible hanzi, none of which seem to have a meaning similar to "communal village meeting house".
• Chinese 屯 as a character was apparently composed from two elements, radical 屮 with a single additional stroke across the top. 屮 means sprout, and if I understand it correctly, the explanation at zh:𡳾 suggests that the character 屯 arose from the idea of sprouting together, perhaps from there leading to ideas of groups and grouping.
• European-language terms town / Zaun / tuin etc. apparently derive from the common root of Proto-Indo-European *dheuh₂, *dhuh₂ (“to finish, come full circle”), strongly implying the idea of "finished" rather than "sprouting > beginning".

Consequently, in the absence of new discoveries of older linguistic data, I am left with the conclusion that Chinese 屯 only resembles European-language terms town / Zaun / tuin etc. as the result of historical accident. -- Kind regards, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Communal house in the village" is đình, Sino-Vietnamese of 廷 ("court") and 庭 ("yard"), as in 조정(朝廷), 법정(法庭). Both go back to Old Chinese liquid consonant initials: *l̥ˁeŋ, *l̥ˁeŋs, not *d/t/tʰ-. 60.240.101.246 22:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion end

Transclusion from Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/yellow yolk

Transclusion end 

Transclusion from Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/cane

Transclusion end

August 2012

Transclusion from Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/sugar cane

Transclusion end

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012