User talk:Mlgc1998/Archive 1

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
• If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

女的 and 男的

Hi Mlgc1998, I'm just wondering if these two terms are actually used as "woman" and "man" in Philippine Hokkien. Can you say something like 伊是一個女的/男的? Also, I'm wondering if the tones are correct - in other varieties of Hokkien, 的 would usually be --ê (neutral tone) in cases like these. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: We use it more specifically to distinguish between male and female, which doesn't necessarily have to be an adult man or woman, but you could use it to call a female/girl/woman, male/guy/boy/man regardless of age in general, so I can say something like 你是男的抑是女的嗎? 若是男的,許個女的說你著買男的的衫,了去男的的廁所穿衫。(dí sī lâm--ê á-sǐ dú--ê ba? nǎ-sǐ lâm--ê, hi-gê dú--ê seh dí tio̍h bóe lâm--ê ê saⁿ, diáu khì lâm--ê ê chhè-só͘ chhng saⁿ.) (Are you a boy or a girl? If you are a boy, that lady said you should buy guy's clothes, then go to the male's comfort room to change clothes.) I think 伊是一個女的/男的? can do too. I'm not sure about tones since I'm not quite good at hearing them right and I've only been taught the 4 tones they taught for mandarin at school besides what I've always heard hokkien words that somewhat echo in my mind when I remember them to be said but the way we say 女的 is kind of like doo-weh so maybe that's like dú--ê, and 男的 is kind of like laa-meh so I guess that's like lâm--ê. I guess the two 的 in 男的的衫 sounds different like laa-meh ê saa, where the 男 in 男的 has more emphasis and its 的 is a bit overshadowed, then the following 的衫 picks up the emphasis again.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

(Perhaps you could add some Philippine Hokkien usage examples to entries, like the above to entries. It could clarify things and also be interesting. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 21:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC))

@Suzukaze-c: Ok, I'll add also to other Ph. Hok. specific words if I can find a nice common sentence/phrase/expression about the context.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the examples. I've made some edits to fix some formatting problems, so please keep those in mind when you add more examples :D — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

jabón

This word was still pronounced with /ʃ/ in early modern Spanish. The fact that a loanword has s or sh does not mean that it was loaned from Old Spanish. The Old Spanish period ended in the 1400s, before there was any contact with most of these languages. --Lvovmauro (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok, I'll just specify on the descendant pages that it was from specifically Early Modern Spanish, since most of these languages first came in contact during the 1500s.Mlgc1998 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Etymology chains

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that in etymology chains, the first argument of {{inh}}, {{bor}} or {{der}} should be the language of the entry, not the language where the derivation happened. See my edits on sabon. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

bor vs. der for Classical Tagalog

Your edit comment on this edit implies that you're treating Classical Tagalog as a separate language, rather than a stage in the history of Tagalog. That's not the way it's done in other Tagalog entries (see About Tagalog). To follow that to its logical conclusion, you would have to say that the modern form was inherited from Classical Tagalog, which borrowed it from Spanish. I don't think the system would let you do that- assuming that we have a language code for Classical Tagalog, the system would give you an error message stating that a language can't inherit from itself.

Yes, the standard language changed in 1897, but we have to look at the whole language. If you think about it, I really doubt that any of the Tagalog dialects changed much in 1897 when they suddenly became dialects of Pilipino (or whatever its original name was). There are extremely rare occasions when we've decided to overlook the linguistic realities in favor of political ones- Indonesian as separate from Malay is an obvious example- but that's only when a consensus was formed through discussion. As of now Classical Tagalog is just Tagalog as far as Wiktionary is concerned, and saying otherwise in etymologies makes your etymologies inconsistent with everyone else's. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I know these are all stages of the language and {{bor}} and {{der}} are ambiguous at best at defining these, but how do we best show loanwords that were borrowed centuries ago, as opposed to borrowings that were just borrowed decades or a few years ago. Where does one draw a line on this? {{der}} just says that it's a "catch-all" template for terms that were created in an ancestor. Hindu and Arabic loanwords were borrowed almost a millennium ago during Old Tagalog. Spanish and Chinese loanwords were borrowed during Classical Tagalog. English loanwords were borrowed during Modern Tagalog (Filipino), which is displayed in the use of Taglish and Coño English that is the mainstream casual language today around the Philippines. {{bor}} explained in their example that the Modern English entry that were borrowed from Anglo-Norman French in Middle English would not use {{bor}}, but the Middle English one would.

Classical Tagalog is basically Middle Tagalog or the period when Old Tagalog, that previously took on hindu and arabic influences and wrote in baybayin, started taking in Spanish (and some Chinese and a hand few Japanese) loanwords, was using a different spelling standard like using c instead of k, used diacritics, and started writing in latin letters. By 1897, the KKK revolutionaries declared their revolution and their changes to the language, which changed the spelling standard, removed the diacritics, formalized the official alphabet, and cemented the Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese loanwords into their own forms into the modern language that was basically the Manila dialect of Tagalog that became the Modern Tagalog standard that we now call in schools across the country as "Filipino".

The dialects in the provinces like in Marinduque, Nueva Ecija, Batangas, Quezon/Tayabas, Bulacan, etc. were more conservative and kept many old words that the common filipino from Metro Manila and nearby surroundings would no longer use or recognize. It's a common thing that people gloss over even to people here to not realize how different the other dialects can be to the mainstream Tagalog of the capital, since people almost never hear these dialects used outside their tight-knit communities. For example, where Modern Manila Tagalog(Filipino) would say "Tútulungan ba kayó ni Hilario?", Marinduqueño Tagalog would say "Atulungan ga kamo ni Hilario?". Where Modern Manila Tagalog(Filipino) would say "Ang hindi marunong lumingon sa pinanggalingan ay hindi makararating sa paroroonan.", Tayabas(Quezon) Tagalog would say "Ang hindi maalam lumingon sa pinaroonan ay hindi makakarating sa paroroonan." Here is a video of the Nueva Ecija dialect. They have different particles, conjugations, vocabulary and spellings that is otherwise alien to the common filipino of the capital, with only a similar grammar and cognates that tellingly shows that they're dialects. Modern Tagalog is the one that currently borrows many English terms since the American colonial times for modern concepts, which many remain outside yet due to the widespread acceptance of code-switching and it being considered part of "Taglish" instead. The common origin of both these dialects and Modern Tagalog (Filipino) is Classical Tagalog. Classical Tagalog didn't only produce Modern Tagalog and it's nearby provincial Tagalog dialects, it was also one of the components that factored into both the Chavacano dialects of nearby Cavite and Ternate, also one of which that combined into the modern Davaoeño language with Cebuano Bisaya as its base in Mindanao, and the one that produced the Paranan and Kasiguranin language to it's northeastern hinterlands around Aurora province in Luzon, and etc. These were all separate to the modern Tagalog that people know in the capital, which today many aren't able to even speak pure Modern Tagalog/Filipino without slipping an English word, but those in the provinces and conservative churches still speak in a purer Tagalog that would otherwise be regarded as too deep and purist. It's actually taught as a mandatory lesson for all highschool Filipino classes in their 1st and 2nd year in the Philippines to teach Classical Tagalog works like Ibong Adarna and Florante at Laura. Here are some texts of what they look like in Project Gutenberg: Ibong Adarna and Florante at Laura. This is why when you're in highschool here, people tend to just read summaries online or just listen to teachers discuss them rather than actually reading through that deep vocabulary. Here's also an online pdf copy of the Doctrina Christiana during the Classical Tagalog era, along with the Spanish and Baybayin of the era: Doctrina Christiana. I'm not sure if people have added Old and Classical Tagalog in wiktionary but to catch that ambiguity in the timeline, I'd just use {{der}} for old borrowings and {{bor}} for definitely recent borrowings. The etymologies I put in don't show the difference to readers anyways if its in {{der}} or {{bor}}, since it would just plainly look like "From ..." and the category templates seem to categorize them to both categories whichever I put them in.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Classical Tagalog and Old Tagalog are currently treated as etymology-only languages on Wiktionary. In future, it is possible to have them upgraded as full languages.

For now, if you would like to add words attested in Classical or Old Tagalog texts at the etymology section, you may use:

1. From {{der|tl|tl-cls|Word spelled in Classical Tagalog}}, from {{der|tl|es|Word spelled in Spanish}}.
2. From {{der|tl|tl-old|Word spelled in Old Tagalog}}, from {{der|tl|sa|Word spelled in Sanskrit}}.

Note that dialectal evidence does not count as an attestation as it points towards a reconstruction instead. As mentioned at Talk:Hong, do not add etymologies based on your own theories and assumptions. I suggest you add etymologies based on scholarly evidence such as library books, not based on your own ideas. KevinUp (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you know how Tagalog Gran Bretanya was spelled from the 16th century to 1897? If you are not able to find proof that the word was used in the Tagalog language before 1897, then please revert to {{bor}}. KevinUp (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment on Min Nan

I've noticed instances where you have confused words with different tones such as:

1. 狗 (káu, “dog”) and 猴 (kâu, “monkey”) — see Special:History/山狗
2. 魚 / 鱼 (hî, “fish”) and 耳 (hīⁿ, “ear”) — see Talk:臭魚

This type of mistake would not have been done by native Min Nan speakers.

Since it is clear that you are not fluent enough in your native language, can you use a more reputable source, such as an external word list, rather than statements such as "my dad would usually say ..." to create Min Nan entries? KevinUp (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@KevinUp: Philippine Hokkien is under-documented, so there's not much to work with in terms of reliable sources. But yeah, Mlgc1998, there seems to be many mistakes in your edits. Please be more careful in your edits. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@KevinUp: Yeah, sorry about that. I make no claims of being an expert in Philippine Hokkien and I've always had it listed in my profile that I'm not a native speaker and it isn't my forte. This dialect or the language in general though is not exactly mainstream. It actually has a negative stigma, even within our small community of Chinese-Filipinos. Usually, it's almost exclusively spoken only by the elderly or middle-aged 1st and any would-be pious 2nd gen people. It's uncool and regarded as backwards as the language of old people. Even chinese-filipino private schools, all exclusively teach Mandarin instead if they offered chinese classes. Speaking this dialect or the language in general in such schools during chinese language classes would get you reprimanded, or at worst made to pay a penalty fee. I, myself, as a young person would be regarded as a weirdo in real life if I was publicly seen having an active interest in this, hence there aren't exactly a lot of sources for this specific dialect spoken here besides maybe studies of it's older historical versions which today some of the words, like religious terms, listed there are outdated and unused now, because today, you'd just instead codeswitch to English or Tagalog, or a combination of which(Taglish). Most sources one will find about this topic is just the select few authors who delve in the history of Chinese Filipinos in general and the existence of this dialect being used, but otherwise the only available modern sources are say, an old paper on its loanwords to Tagalog, some papers mainly discussing history, and small chinese-filipino college organization groups or clubs who may be interested in showcasing it as a small fun fact tidbits on the side. For me, being here on wiktionary, is itself a learning experience on this language, since there are little to no formal classes teaching this dialect or language out there, especially when I have open access to the community with parents, relatives, siblings, and provincial friend's relatives who do have this dialect as their native language that they regularly speak every day. My native expertise on Philippine Hokkien is more of hearing it spoken to me all my life, so I've gained a sense of comprehending about around 70% of what I hear daily but I don't think I'm conversant in it. This is a situation that is common to most all 2nd to 3rd gen chinese filipinos who were born and raised in the Philippines (3rd to 5th gen don't speak it at all), with even most not understanding any at all or only about 20% of what they hear, hence some few have made a pidgin mix language called Hokaglish where they also mix a few hokkien terms along with Tagalog and English like Taglish does.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I see. One of the things you could do is to record words or conversations of the language spoken by friends and relatives who use the language on a daily basis. The recordings can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for documentation purposes. One of the errors you made is in the character transcription. If a recording is available, it would be easier for other editors to fix or rename the page title. KevinUp (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

(Even if it's imperfect, I think it's very cool that you are here. I have the same relationship with Teochew 🙃 —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC))

Mistakes in your edits

I've gone through some of your edits and they seem to be riddled with errors. The information you put on here should never be your own speculation, but actually properly researched if needed. I see that you cite Chan-Yap a lot, but you seem to be making things up that are not found in the source or simply misreading the source. Please be very careful with your edits. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't misreading them and I don't recommend following Chan-Yap's 1980 paper strictly in the fullest sense, but it's the only paper widely available online on the subject matter and a few others I know are also not exactly perfect and not easily accessible online or they just got their terms from Chan-Yap's paper too. Chan-Yap's 1980 paper isn't perfect and many of the terms, she also got them either through her own research in the 1970s through her own speculation, her own knowledge of the community, and talks with elderly people around here, but with the added scholarly work to further justify and explore her claims on how it came to be that way. Many of the characters Chan-Yap proposes in her 1980 paper don't always make sense, though she seems to be on the right track with many of them. She didn't even write some of the characters for some of the terms she claims they come from, which I presume was because she didn't know or wasn't exactly sure of how the original proper character was written at that time. At that time, she was also likely just consulting local dictionaries she had on hand, because some of the tones and characters don't always match with what we have here in wiktionary and many of the Tagalog terms she cites aren't actually listed in today's modern tagalog dictionaries (like from the KWF, tho KWF is highly prescriptive) since many of them are either archaic these days or were used in specific niches like for certain food and their preparation. I also say this because there are existing terms still used here that are the more likely terms she was looking for. For example, it does not make sense at all and would be considered laughable or simply random or without thought that lawlaw comes from 老老 since we (filipinos in general) still use lawlaw as a term to describe when say, an article of clothing is loose or a rope is dangling and isn't fastened tightly, so 流流 makes perfect sense because we (the chinese-filipino community) use 流 in the sense of dripping/discharging or excreting or flowing out or expelling like 流屎(lâu-sái), 流水 (lâu-chúi), etc. We don't associate lawlaw at all to anything to do with something being loose just because it's old. Other than that, she also suggested that "hiya" came from 額 when Blust's Austronesian Comparative Dictionary claims that it's from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian and Proto-Austronesian. For "bilao", I was also suspicious with her assertion that it came from 米漏 which I presume she was looking for 米樓 instead, yet I am still suspicious of her claim on "bilao" in general, since we pronounce "bilao" in Tagalog with 3 syllables as in "bi-la-o", not "bi-lao". There are also other terms there that I don't recognize anymore to be used, at least maybe because some of them are highly specific food terms that perhaps, local cooks and chefs would only know about, so I didn't try and add some of those besides the ones I know that are still widely used. There were other terms as well from long ago like "kuya" that when I first read her paper a couple of years ago that she said it came from "kò-ǎ [哥亜]" (I presume 哥仔 was what was in her mind when she was writing that part), I was highly suspicious because 哥兄 (ko-hiaⁿ) fits perfectly for it. I say this because these days we (chinese filipinos) more frequently call our elder brothers as 阿兄(á-hiaⁿ), which we commonly informally spell in writing while we code-switch as "ahiya" or "aya", since most of us have always only known that it sounds like that. The pronunciation shift is evident with how we pronounce it as "aya", which is highly likely what also happened with 哥兄 (ko-hiaⁿ) centuries ago among past generations that got it inserted into wider philippine society that virtually everybody now uses in all its modern cultural implications here, like as a casual honorific for just any older young male. We know this because in Kapampangan, they still spell it as "koya" and philippine phonology has always frequently interchanged O and U, and also E and I, which we can observe in ancient Baybayin only having 3 vowels. Anyways, the paper also got the characters for 阿姊 wrong, she claimed that "ate" comes from "á-cì [亜姐]" which makes sense in practice, since even now, we (chinese filipinos) still widely call our elder sisters as 阿姊 which we commonly spell as "atsi" or "achi", but I think it is more likely that "ate" came from 阿姊 at a time, when it was still pronounced as "a-tsé" long ago some generations back in before philippine phonology morphed it into "ate".--Mlgc1998 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with Chan-Yap, why are you citing her work? It is quite dishonest when you cite something as coming from a source but write something that is not found in the cited source. While there are certainly problems with the work, you don't really have much to back your claims up. We need to be very cautious and do much more research before putting our own speculations as actual etymologies. Chan-Yap is a published source (and it is likely peer-reviewed since it's published by Pacific Linguistics as a monograph), which would be considered more reliable than our own speculations.

If we want to go into specifics, 米漏 seems more likely than 米樓 to me semantically. I fail to see how 樓 would connect with a basket tray for winnowing. 漏 can be used in Hokkien to refer to some kind of funnel (according to 閩南方言大詞典), which is functionally similar to a winnow. For kuya, 哥兄 is indeed a possible (and probably better) etymon. As for ate, I think she hasn't got it "all wrong". 亜 is a variant of 阿 (prefix for appellations) and 姐 is a cognate with 姊 and often used interchangeably. You are likely right that it's more likely from a-ché rather than a-chí, but that's a minor point, just a slight pronunciation difference.

Bottom line, your edits should be honest to any sources that you cite. If you think there's a better etymology than the work you cite, you should only list that as a possibility alongside the published etymology. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Should I do it instead like "From ... according to Chan-Yap (1980)[1], though also possibly from ..."? I was a bit iffy on Chan-Yap's paper months before, since I don't completely see the sense in some of the etymons she proposed and many Tagalog terms aren't always present in modern dictionaries, but I do believe there is some truth and that she is on the right track on many of them which is why I would cite it and also the only other work I see available on the subject matter is a book by Jean-Paul G. Potet on all the different loanwords to Tagalog in general, but he would sometimes put in chinese etymons that would make sense in Hokkien or sometimes Cantonese but then, he'll put the Mandarin pronunciation which morphologically didn't make sense to me, but some editors on the wikipedia page of List of loanwords in Tagalog who seem like they might not have a chinese background still wanted to put in that etymon and say that it was from Mandarin because that source used the Mandarin pronunciation, even when it morphologically didn't make sense. Historically, it also doesn't make sense that an old word like that supposedly came from Mandarin, when Mandarin mostly came in contact in the Philippines in the more recent modern era, while Hokkien and Cantonese were the main Chinese influences in the past centuries. Anyways, I didn't say 亜姐 was "all wrong", but yeah the characters, it'd rather be 阿姊. As for "bilao", I'm still suspicious on the account of where the 3rd syllable in tagalog came in from ("tsaa" for the Tagalog word for Tea as well in terms of it just coming from 茶 in Hokkien or Cantonese or if it was from 茶仔), especially when the object is a highly cultural matter that the template filipino rural countryside would always use, though yeah I mean I don't doubt the possibility of it, just if the mysteries of the etymon is completely shed to light. --Mlgc1998 (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

You could say "Possibly from ...,[1] but more likely from ..." if you're sure about it. If a source (e.g. Potet) gives the Mandarin pronunciation for something that should probably be Hokkien, I think we can still cite it - it's likely that the source is treating all Chinese varieties as one, but we can make the distinction if it's obvious that it's from Hokkien. About characters being right or wrong, that's just a matter of orthography, which is far less important than the actual etymon (the actual spoken word). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: 相同

You can upload audio recordings to Wikimedia Commons. Lingua Libre is a good tool to help you record and upload directly to Wikimedia Commons. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding potentially disputable etymology-related contributions not backed up by sources.

Instead of putting the rfv-etym template, I've decided to temporarily delete your contributions regarding the supposed etymology of the following words for the simple reason that you have not mentioned any source to backup your claims (and I can't currently find sources to backup your claims):

• kapwa (the proposed etymology to 佮我 is not sourced);
• wasak (the proposed etymology to 換捒 is not sourced);
• anghang (the proposed etymology to 紅吭/紅烘 is not sourced);
• hintay (claims of it being a blend of hinhin + antay etc. not supported by source);
• hindi (claims of it being a blend of hinhin + di etc. not supported by source);

Meanwhile, I've deleted your contribution regarding the etymology of the word "impo" for the simple reason that more reliable sources (like the Austronesian Comparative Dictionary available online) constructed the Proto-Austronesian word from which the Tagalog "impo" descended, which corroborated the Gloria Chan-Yap source which stated that "impo" is most likely not derived from Hokkien.

Wiktionary may not be Wikipedia since the former is considered as a secondary source, however when it comes to etymological information, it is considered better to add references when possible. To maintain quality standards of Wiktionary, references should be used when proposed etymological information are called to doubt. Stricnina (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

POJ romanization

Hi! I do indeed appreciate your edits in Wiktionary, but I've seen you write POJ wrongly many times already, so it might be a good idea to learn more about POJ before using it. Thanks! --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, contributing here in wiktionary and wikipedia too is just frustrating sometimes and I mean like in general even for the past months and years. These sentiments even reach Youtube and Quora comments where I've read comments where people remark that Wikipedia is supposed to be filled with whatever it is drama they experience there. It's just from the same things people keep saying and doing. It's like some people here go to these wiki sites and just instead of focusing at contributing, some others I've seen just stay to police cuz that's supposed to be easier to tell people off with. I'm not referring to anyone we know here. I just have seen some long time users guarding articles in the past months do just that in wikipedia and you can see in their contribs or another friend when I told them I did something on some page, somebody's gonna strut up as the police then leave without fixing it themselves. They see something wrong, they click edit, but instead of fixing it themselves, they're just there to tell people off. How would everybody here feel when somebody's just doing some honest work, then somebody watches their back just for doing publicly free work no one wants to do that's not even their job and tells them, no no no you're doin it wrong, you mess it all up, I'm just here to remove all of it, then they leave not doing anything about it, then we go back to zero progress done cuz apparently no one needed it, no one wanted it. In wikipedia, I don't know if it's a meme by now, but when someone writes a paragraph there on a high priority level article, someone's gonna appear feeling like they're the police and start putting those brackets of doubt appended on top of their words or start deleting people's progress, like if people got any better ideas, feel free to step into the mud and show people how it's done. Plus, a lot of these websites whether wiktionary, wikipedia, quora, or the other apps I use to help people or where I simply share information for people to learn freely, people irl behind me at least in my family frequently or once in a while tell me or treat me like I'm wasting my time on this or this isn't really a respectable thing to care about doing, simply cuz it's not related to earning anything. I suppose this is unrewarded work, no one wants to deal with anyways, which is why these matters get under researched and under documented. Of course, we'd all hate the fact that that's the situation we gotta deal with, so is why people like you and me pour in our spare time to this matter even if it all feels like work. I mean this isn't even supposed to be my field of expertise. I can't even see a future where I should be in any way be pouring time to improving myself on this field, rather than where life tells me I should've been facing at. I suppose I've already jumped the rabbit hole and climbed this pretty high up, as others I've told this about treat me like, why not reach the top or near the peak to where you guys keep bugging me about that I should be at, that's supposed to make this place perfect? Perhaps, you know something where that peak is supposed to lead me to. Anyways, if you're really particular about the POJ and my contribs are supposed to cause you enough OCD to bug me about it, despite we're all just contributing here like it were a precious public garden we're tending to than anything else, would you mind actually teaching me the proper POJ then, if the ones I already showed you prior weren't accurate enough? Otherwise, I'd just pass the words to you for you to make the pages or you give me the pronunciation when I ask, cuz I know you don't respond when you either aren't sure or are lazy to do it. I know many others bug you too and we're busy dealing with that other side of life that life wants us to face more at. But now you see, it's hard to pour time for years into tending this precious garden of a place that people come to look at.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: A good shortcut is to just look at the POJ of each character from the character entry. For example, for the etymology you put on heko, 蝦 is hê (陽平) and not hé (陰上). And 膏 is ko (陰平) and not kō (陽去). But sometimes, the character entry gives you many options, so if ever in doubt, just ask me. I also ask Justin Leung every time I'm not sure of something, especially in Min Dong and Wu. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998: Oh yeah, tag me lol if you reply. Because I won't see it. :) --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced etymological information

I have removed your contributions regarding the supposed Sanskrit-derived etymology of the following entries:

• kadiri;
• lakan;

I have not seen a source that corroborates claims of their supposed Sanskrit origin. One book I do possess written by Potet gives an alternative etymology of the word lakan from Javanese. I suggest we make more research before adding contestable or outright false information, especially when it comes to relatively well-studied fields like the Sanskrit loanwords in Tagalog. The best way to do this is to avoid adding information if you have no academic source in mind that can attest your claim. At the same time, feel free to restore your edits when a valid source is available. Thank you in advance. Stricnina (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Stricnina: Which book and Javanese word was this? Also, which sources of Sanskrit loanwords in Tagalog do you know about that we can look into, besides Potet's books? (ideally with a good online copy cuz Google Books hides some pages) If you've looked into a source, feel free to edit whichever tagalog wiktionary entry it is you find with the source that you found it in. The Tagalog entries aren't as well recorded and refined yet, any help counts cuz there's not many contributors actively working on this.--Mlgc1998 (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

三貂角

At least the 角 part is phonosemantic matching of the go at the end of Santiago. Also the whole phrase can be interpreted as meaningful (kind of), so it's phonosemantic matching in another sense, not necessarily have the same meaning as the source, but meaningful to the donee language. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: 角 is a עקב (‘āqḗḇ) "heel"? lol wdym? hahaha How exactly does 三貂角 seem to mean like from a Taiwanese Chinese viewpoint? From a Spanish viewpoint, especially that coming from a Philippine Spanish perspective who named that area of Taiwan, since the governors there were an extension of the Basque governors of Batanes islands and the plans from Spanish Manila to counter the rival Dutch Batavia's gains in Taiwan. Santiago is the patron saint of Spain, since St. James' very remains are traditionally buried there in Santiago de Compostela in Galicia and the Spaniards traditionally loved naming places in dedication to a saint as a sanctimonious formality, that being Sant Iago, all in remembrance to their tradition of Reconquista against their enemies of either moors / non-christians / or non-catholics (of which the latter 2 are on that island). Also, "¡Santiago!" is their favorite traditional battlecry, which they even have the traditional military and religious Order of Santiago, whose job it was since Reconquista times to supposedly defend Christendom's frontiers, so Cape Santiago, being the first spot they landed in and being the northeasternmost point of Taiwan and at the same time, the northernmost frontier of the Spanish East Indies made it perfect for them to dedicate the place to their beloved saint as a frontier, but of course, they later found better spots in Keelung and Tamsui, where both forts they put there they also decided to name using Spanish Catholic terminologies, with the main fort being in Keelung as Santissima Trinidad (the "most sanctified trinity", which they make it clear in the name it's the main one as the holiest of named places), then the fort in Tamsui as San Domingo ("Saint Dominic", the founder of the Dominican Order which were one of the big political movers in spanish colonial Philippines since the friars had a lot of power they accumulated). So for all intents and purposes, a place being named "Santiago" is just a name of a sanctified person, harkening back to "Sant Iago" (Saint Jacob/James), of which he was called in Medieval Latin in the Roman Catholic church and before that in Biblical Greek of the New Testament, of which the original person himself had the Hebrew name, that were long ago before that person's existence meant those Hebrew words, so kinda a stretch lol hahaha. Even here in ph, people might already forgotten or don't know whatever all those other languages behind the idea it's Spanish or even disregarded the Spanish meaning. We have characters years ago in our government-mandated school novels named, "Kapitan Tiago". lol it's also from Santiago like Captain Santiago. This is just by now, a name they even mistakenly cut the "San-" part and didn't include the "-t" cuz most other saints are always heard of as just "San ...", so for a person's name as a nickname, they did that, tho his real full official name would'v been "Santiago". Like, does that last character have anything to do with the name "Jacob" or "James"? lol isn't that name supposedly 雅各?--Mlgc1998 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Your digression is not helpful at all. I don't know how all this is relevant to the discussion. 角 means "cape" and sounds similar to the go at the end of Santiago, and this is a name of a cape in Taiwan. The whole thing literally means "three marten cape", which doesn't have anything to do with Santiago per se, but nonetheless is meaningful to the Taiwanese in a way. This is just like Coca Cola is 可口可樂 (literally "palatable and enjoyable"), which is quite far from the original meaning of Coca Cola, but which is nonetheless meaningful to the Chinese who use the word. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I think we may have a different understanding of what Phono-semantic matching means then, if you think what I just explained is not connected. The second sentence of the wiki page itself says "...the approximate sound and meaning of the original expression in the source language are preserved..." The example you illustrated shows that the meaning of the original expression in the source language is not preserved and as you say, quite far. Perhaps, what you're referring to is Homophonic translation. --Mlgc1998 (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It's still partially a phono-semantic matching because of 角. The other part is more controversial, and could be treated as homophonic translation. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Again lol, as what I just said above. If 角 means "cape", what part of "Santiago" means "cape"? The only part that means "cape" in "Cape Santiago" is "Cape" lol hahahaha and that part wasn't even in the original Spanish name. The "-go" part that you mentioned is part of "Iago" (Jacob/James), the name of the Saint or Apostle, and if you wanna stretch it back to before his name, it only goes as far back to עקב (‘āqḗḇ, “heel of the foot”). Does "heel of the foot" or "trace" or "to follow" mean the same as "cape"? What do you think? hahahahahha I know what you must be thinking about now about all those other entries that's been putting "psm" now, don't you? lol --Mlgc1998 (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you did with the Hebrew. I don't think PSM means the parts have to correspond directly. That's a very specific kind of PSM that's kind of calque-like, which is way too narrow of a definition. Words like 黑客 or 聲納 certainly don't have parts that mean "black" or "receive", but taken together, the word does express the semantics of the original word with matching of how it sounds as well. That said, it is good that you question this word's status as PSM. I'm thinking of it a little more and the go part probably isn't corresponding to 角. It's more likely that 貂 represents the tiago part since it's pronounced [tiaɣo] in Spanish, which seems close to tiau in Hokkien, especially since the fricative [ɣ] is probably not quite audible. If this is the case, then this would not be PSM. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Semantics is indeed a subjective topic anyways to where that line of narrowness is, which is how all the other PSMs can be confusing to define. Anyways, "Santiago" in Spanish of that era, whether the Peninsulares, the Americanos, and the Insulares(aka "Filipino"s, the first people to be named as such) in the Philippines and in turn, Taiwan, (and also even now in Filipino/Tagalog) pronounce this with 3 syllables. If you're supposing that they might've heard the Spaniards speak it like it were "Santiago Capa", this not how the Spaniards would have said it if they really did refer to the place as a Cape. They would've called it "Cabo Santiago" just as the Spanish wiki page in Cabo Santiago names the page as and coincidentally, we actually also do have a place here in the Philippines named exactly that here, Cape Santiago, which exactly says that "(Spanish: Cabo Santiago, Filipino: Kabo Santiago)". Today in Filipino and in the same phonology as how we would pronounce it in Philippine Spanish and likely too in Mexican Spanish and Iberian Spanish, "Cabo Santiago" would be like /Ka‧'bo‧San‧'t͡ʃa‧go/ or /'Ka‧β̞o‧'San‧tʃa‧'ɣo/ or /Ka‧'bo‧San‧'tja‧go/, though anyways, the wiki page, Cape Santiago, itself claims that the initial name was just "Santiago" because it applied only to the native village of Caquiunauan (also Caguiuanuan; present-day Fulong Village) and only later this name extended to the nearby cape. Here is a Spanish map of the place by Tonio Andrade's book. The wiki page did not offer a good source, but I have found it in this book that the place they initially called as "Santiago", or as the map says "ensenada de S. tiago" meaning "cove of St. jacob/james", initially referred to the shores of that bay which the book calls in English as "Port Santiago", but before Japanese era as "Samtiao Point" or "Samtiao Point Bay" or "Samtiao hills", then upon Japanese landing as "Sanshokiaku (Samtiao point)" and "Sanshorei (Samtiao hills)".--Mlgc1998 (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Well in that case it could still be that "Samtiao" is a transcription of "Santiago", and 角 could either be a calque of "Cabo" (and so it would not have to follow Spanish grammar and have the word for "cape" go first) or just added on independently since it is a cape. 18:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)