Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.
Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).
Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:
Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)
In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.
Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:
Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV-failed or RFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time. In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).
Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
@廣九直通車: Thanks for the quotes. I looked at the English translations of some of these, and it seems like it refers to "deliberation" (Protection of Civil Servant Act) or "petition" (Execution of Penalty in Prisons Act). Are these the same thing, and how do these correspond to our current definition of "to review a legal case; to retry a case"? — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }17:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: I'm afraid my Mandarin isn't good enough to help. But for what it's worth, I used Google Translate on the passages quoted above, and they seem to be applying sense 2 of 復審 ("to review a legal case; to retry a case"). I have no idea if this is different from 複審, though. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sgconlaw: I should've linked to the English translations.
監獄行刑法 Prison Act, Article 121: Where an inmate disagrees with the decision to cancel parole in the preceding paragraph or a decision to deny parole, he/she may file a petition to the Ministry of Justice within the ten (10) days starting from the next day following the delivery of decision to the inmate.
公務人員保障法 Civil Service Protection Act, Article 25: 公務人員對於服務機關或人事主管機關（以下均簡稱原處分機關）所為之行政處分，認為違法或顯然不當，致損害其權利或利益者，得依本法提起復審。 A civil servant may petition for deliberation pursuant to this Act against an administrative action, taken by the agency he/she serves or the Personnel Management Authority(hereinafter referred to as "the original action agency"), which, he/she thinks unlawful or obviously illegitimate and causes the infringement of his/her rights or interests.
The literal translation provided by Google Translate seems to indicate a request for a legal case to be reviewed. Petition is too broad; that just refers to a request in general. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago23 comments6 people in discussion
Google News results are exclusively from Falun Gong-related sources (soundofhope, epochtimes, ntdtv). Also probably missing a context label regarding connotation? —Suzukaze-c◇◇08:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
For Chinese, I've added four quotes at Citations:中共病毒. Two are from Epoch Times-related media. The earliest we have is from 陳泱潮, who does not seem to be affiliated with Falun Gong, and another is from 梁文韜, who isn't known to be affiliated with Falun Gong either. 中共病毒 should be cited. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }19:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
The terms were coined, likely partly in condemnation of the Chinese Communist Party's cover-up of the epidemic in Wuhan. --Apisite (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
If all cites are coming from Falun Gong-related sources as suggested by Suzukaze-c, we probably shouldn't consider them independent sources. We need to look outside of Falun Gong sources. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }21:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Why? There's 40,000 to millions of Falun Gong followers out there; that's more than speakers of many languages we document here. If three leftist German newspapers used a term, we wouldn't consider them not independent sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
It seems like it can be traced back to even earlier sources that use 中共病毒 not to refer to COVID-19, but other viruses that have been associated with China, like H5N1 (I think), as in this article. But again, it comes from Epoch Times. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I put four instances in Japanese at Citations:中共肺炎. One is from Epoch Times, one from Nico Nico and cited to Epoch Times, but one is in Mainichi Shimbun (quoting a Japanese politician), and one on a surfing blog. They don't span more than one year, but they seem to be more or less independent (discounting the two Epoch-sourced quotes). Cnilep (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I added another from this past week, so now they span nearly one year (about a week short). It's from 'G-News'; I don't know if that is Falun Gong-related, but the story certainly seems anti-PRC. I've also added "sometimes offensive" to the entry, as the usage is exclusionary and in at least one case has been called "hate speech". Cnilep (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't know who publishes the web pages or what their archiving policies are, but they include links. You can check them out if you have any doubt. (The exception is Mainichi Shimbun, which is a national newspaper and is durably archived in libraries and databases.) Cnilep (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: Um, OK. It's slightly annoying that some editors suggest web pages are not acceptable while other insist that only materials available online are acceptable, but such is the nature of a large group project, I suppose. Cnilep (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Cnilep: Thanks. I don't think only materials available online are acceptable, just preferred (according to how I am reading WT:ATTEST). I don't think web pages are acceptable unless they are somehow durably archived. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }23:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Japan Business Press appears to self-archive (their members page says "more than 30,000 archived articles over the 10 years since the first issue"), but is not in Lexis/Nexis or Proquest. If that's acceptable, it's the third archived (but not easily accessible) attestation. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the durably archived ones currently there are only from 2020, but Epoch Times continues to use the phrase. Cnilep (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
The reading and definition looks suspiciously like a ghost entry inherited from earlier lexicographers. The source seems to be the 《觀象玩占》, an astrology book attributed to Li Chunfeng. A passage from the book reads 辰星…一曰免星link, where the character 免 could have been a misprint of something including 兔 or 㲋. The 《古今圖書集成》, quoting from the passage, corrects this character as 毚link to the page. 《集韻》 has an entry 毚兔【辰星別名，或省】link to page, which in the Jiyun formula seems to say these two characters 毚 and 兔 were considered variants to each other without specifying the linguistic context or referring to attestable literature. Overall the textual quality of these appearances has been subpar, and the reading, especially the tonal value in modern Mandarin, is not well-supported.
@Justinrleung, thank you very much for the research. If you ask me, I can only say "textual corruption", which is a huge problem with the Shiji in general. I checked the (Semi-)Critical Edition by Gu Jiegang et al. which reads毚 in the passage quoting the lost text of Huangfu Mi, and 免in the main text. OTOH, the 《廣雅》 passage as quoted in the Shiji CE reads 兔, but the 《廣雅》 was a secondary source considerably later than the Shiji, and its own textual history may just be as bewildering. For example, this passage from the purported Ming-era edition (i.e. same as the 古今逸史 edition you quoted above) clearly reads 免. I haven't got the time to dig into the critical edition of 《廣雅疏義》, which you can read here. --Frigoris (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Frigoris: 蘇州方言詞典 defines it as “句末助詞，表示變化或新情况，相當于北京話句末助詞‘了’” and lists these examples: “吾吃仔飯～｜大家來吧，吃飯～｜落雨～｜天要好～｜再等等，俚馬上來～｜吾一走，屋裏嘸不人燒飯～｜俚葛閑話好相信，太陽要從西天出來～！”. 上海方言詞典 is a little more vague and defines it as “語氣詞，表時態，用於句子末尾，相當於北京話的‘了’” and lists these examples: “落雨～｜好～，𧟰吵～｜我明朝就要回屋裏去～｜儂再稍爲等一歇，我已經辣着鞋子～，就要好快～”. 上海话大词典 divides it into several definitions:
Bai was written in chinese characters in a system called 僰文, using the characters to represent Bai words and written in a Bai syntax. As for the character itself, it appears in 山花碑/词记山花·咏苍洱境碑, which is written in 僰文, in the line：煴煊茶水（口㱔）𪢂呼 （translation into Chinese:热煮茶水相对饮)[4]，due to the fact that it is written in a Bai syntax, it would be fair to assume it was probably composed in Bai, therefore be pronounced in Bai --Henry Wonh (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've checked 赵橹's book and it seems like the text is slightly different from the blog post, and it's translated slightly differently as well. Either way, I've incorporated it into the entry, so this should be cited. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }06:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Henry Wonh: Actually, one more question. Is it actually Central Bai we're dealing with, or some other variety of Bai? The poem was written many centuries ago, but I'm not sure how much we actually know about the Bai languages at that time. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }06:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Justinrleung: Well, even though the stella was found in Dali city, it southern Bai territory, most sources claim central and southern Bai are mutually intelligible and are essentially dialects of each other, so I wouldn’t think it would pose a big problem, maybe merge the multiple Bai subsections?—-Henry Wonh (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Henry Wonh: If it's in Southern Bai territory, one way we could go about this is to assume that it's Southern Bai, which would mean it's not cited for Central Bai. However, since this was written long ago, I wonder how much the Bai varieties have diverged then. Are there 僰文 texts from elsewhere? Merging Bai varieties is a bigger discussion to be had since it'll affect all other Bai entries we have. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }14:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
ニット(nitto, “nit”) -- Much less common. I do find this listed in my JA ↔ EN medical dictionary alongside alternative form ニト(nito), and also in a scientific jargon glossary with a separate sense of "candela per square meter". Confirming this one in the wild is much more difficult, however. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Checking knit#Noun (which I probably should have done beforehand: I actually wasn't aware that knit was usable as a noun, and believed the entry to be a suspicious mess created by equating etymology with definition, "ニット is from English knit and therefore means knit"), I see that it means (1 of 2 definitions) "knitter garment".
I also added a sense "knitwear" to ニット, so I suppose the RFV for this sense is essentially pointless, and I've removed the sense (maintaining that knit as a noun is not an intelligible definition) and the tag from ニット.
Regarding ニット(nitto, “nit”): I found several mentions of a product called ニットピッカー (nit-picker), either on shopping sites (which tend not to be durably archived) or mommy blogs such as this. I wonder if that is just transliteration of a product name originally in English, though. I also found a 2019 translation of Victorian Lady's Guide etc., which uses ruby in a way that suggests readers would not recognize the katakana word.
ニットピッキング
I associate that style of ruby in film subtitles, where they want to include the (transliterated) non-Japanese word and also a translation. Cnilep (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Tooironic Seems like you added these in this diff. Dr. Eye Chinese English Bilingual Dictionary gives "the solution to a problem" as one of the definitions. "Solution" is also given in mdbg (not that this is necessarily right). "Result; outcome" might be mergeable with "place to settle", I think, which seems to be a little bit inaccurate without something like "result" since Guoyu Cidian and Liang'an Cidian define that sense with 歸宿 and 結果/結局. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }16:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
The sense "chapter" may come from "rule" or "order, arrangement", but I can't find "order, arrangement" at the first 500 of zhwikisource. Any evidence before Han dynasty? EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Isn't the RFV about the definition item "order"? In particular what order means here, since the word can mean quite different things in English. Currently the sense 3 refers to "rules", which the usex suggests reference to the formal regulations, constitutions, charters, etc. It seems to me that whoever first put the definition "order" here refers to the more abstract and possibly more informal sense of "the quality of being organized", which I think matches the usex I just added (雜亂無章).
The 孔子家語 can match as many Han-era epigraphical texts as it may and is still considered pseudepigraphy, not because the text is "fake", but because the authorship very likely doesn't match how it has been claimed to be in the literary tradition. In fact there's little agreement about the true "authorship" if it has one. The text includes many passages that are paralleled in other classical works. If we can find them, it's preferable to use those more certain texts than the secondary literature. --Frigoris (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Frigoris, Crowley666 Yes this sense should refer to being orderly, not to rules or distinctions, as this is how other dictionaries describe it (eg. as 條理); Kroll's Student's Dictionary writes "clearly and properly displayed, well-ordered". Other dictionaries all seem to reference 雜亂無章, but I think it is reasonable to say 章 has extended beyond "rule" here, for example Hanyu Da Cidian gives 無章 as 没有次序.
In some words, 章 seems close to meaning order, tied together with the sense "composition; structure". For example 章法 relates to the organization/arrangement of text, and 成章 relates to a text being well-presented/composed.
Also, here's a line from Chinese characters on Wikipedia: 'Some believe that the name [章草], based on 章 meaning "orderly", arose because the script was a more orderly form of cursive'. It cites Qiu Xigui Chinese writing (文字學概要). Indeed that says '[章] means "orderliness, regulation"' (「章」字有條理，法則等意義) towards the end of section 5.4. Actually the author goes further than Wikipedia suggests, saying that most people agree this explanation is likely correct, in which case 章草 would serve as another example of the sense "orderly". ChromeGames (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
This sense seems to be added by @Zcreator alt (who I don't think is active anymore) in this diff. It may correspond to "指書面語；詩文的句子。" in Hanyu Da Cidian, though the definition would need some rewording if it is so. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }23:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Rfv-sense: in advance; beforehand. Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. This sense is common and is found in Pleco. Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian seem to treat it as a verb, though. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
From my limited searching, this spelling only seems to be used in Japanese works that quote Chinese texts.
Since this kind of usage does indeed happen, and since Japanese readers would indeed read this string with the expected Japanese pronunciation, I think it merits a Japanese entry. However, such an entry definitely needs to be clear about context and usage -- in Japanese writing, the term 簡体字(kantaiji) is much more commonly used to mean "Simplified Chinese".
FWIW, I find more than one hit at Google Books: google books:"規範字" "は" nets me 223 ostensible hits, collapsing to 80 when paging through. Many of these have no preview and the relevant string is not apparent in the snippets shown, but there are enough that do show the string in context to meet CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
He was on an editing spree today. I didn't think much of it but this edit ([6]) looked weird to me. Could somebody maybe check this edit (and maybe some others) to make sure, this user isn't vandalizing? --Fytcha (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ya, apparently she's working through some kind of medical reference and hitting a lot of anatomy terms in Japanese. And, unfortunately, making a bit of a hash of it, as at 鎖骨 or 鎖骨下筋.
She's wrong often enough, and she's bull-headed enough, that I'd be tempted to block her to spare us the work of vetting and cleaning up after her -- but she jumps around IP addresses so much that I don't think this would be at all effective. <sigh.../> ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Suzukaze-c: I don't know if I can contribute much: although I did save some data when they were blocked and there was a reason to run checkuser on them, this IP range has no connection to anything in that data and I have no grounds for using the checkuser tool now to compare browser data- no one is blocked, and no one is using their anonymity to get away with anything.
The abuse filters we used to stop the Sky UK, Thai and Pays de Loire IPs won't work very well here, because there are lots of entries with both Vietnamese and Japanese sections, so there would be lots of collateral damage- we would be blocking Vietnamese IPs from editing their own language. It would require a more sophisticated regex to verify which language section they were editing, and I'm not exactly a regex master. Coming up with a list of IP ranges to trigger the regex checks is another challenge (fetching wikitext is very expensive as abuse filter operations go, so I don't want to do it for every single IP edit). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Sense: tire, languor
Although 深度, 進度, 震度, 心土, 伸度 and Sindh can all be read しんど, I'm not aware of this sense of the word. I wonder if the person who added it (an IP address apparently at Peking University) confused it with しんどい (maybe しんどさ)? Speaking of which, the same IP address edited the latter page one minute after they created this one, suggesting that しんどい comes from しんど. I don't think that is the case, either. Am I mistaken? Cnilep (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I saw the entry in KDJ only after I had posted this. I've never seen the word used (as far as I can recall), though. So to my question, "Am I mistaken?" apparently the answer is "yes". It's not the first time, and probably won't be the last. Cnilep (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Contemporary senses of Etymology 1, あじきない (contra Etymology 2, あじけない, with the same kanji and essentially the same meaning)
I added three quotations before I stopped to think that, based on the writing system, there may no reasonable way to argue whether these are the first or second Etymology.
PS: Thinking more specifically about the challenge that Cnilep brings up about identifying etym and sense, I see that the KDJ entry specifically indicates that the あじけない(ajikenai) reading correlates to sense ③ for the あじきない(ajikinai) reading. So presumably any quote that looks more clearly to be senses ① or ② for あじきない(ajikinai) thus cannot fit for あじけない(ajikenai), ruling out that reading. Likewise, the DDJS entry ties sense ① for あじきない(ajikinai) with あじけない(ajikenai), while the other senses for あじきない(ajikinai) appear to be specific to that reading. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung, Tooironic: This sense ("dwelling" = "house" but more formal) exist in Japanese and Korean and also CC-CEDICT (along with "somebody else's house"). I have just created a Japanese and Korean (hanja) entry. I couldn't find anything solid to confirm this sense in Chinese but this search may give interesting matches. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)02:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: 住户. The example given in the dictionary is "这个村子有百十户~". And also, "遠上寒山石徑斜，白雲深處有人家" by 杜牧, "高秋水村路，隔㟁見人家" by 李中, "三藏道：「悟空，前面人家，可以借宿，明早再行。」" and "只奔山南坡下，忽見山凹之間有一座草舍人家。" in 西遊記, etc. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 08:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Rfv-senses 17-21: "thing;
to exploit, to accept; currency; tomb" (moved to the end of the entry for now)
These senses were all added in one edit along with many other senses that I can account for. However I'm having trouble verifying these couple of senses. Any ideas where they come from or where they are used? Perhaps as alternative forms?
Speaking of alternative forms, the page currently has a lot of them. But I'm reluctant to call 采 an alternative form of other characters like 採 and 彩, because they seem like they might be alternative forms of each other rather than having one character be the main character (although certainly one is more specialized). Perhaps there's a better way to organize things? ChromeGames (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@ChromeGames: These senses seem to be in Hanyu Da Cidian (at least).
@Justinrleung: Thanks for confirming their presence, I wonder if I have a different edition/version of Hanyu Da Cidian though since I don't see all of those definitions that you mention? Although I do find:
The hits at google:"ブス" "電源" suggest that this is a domain-specific jargon term, shortening of ブスバー(busubā), in turn apparently an alternative for バスバー(basubā). If we have any appropriate labels or categories for "spelling pronunciation" to describe the shift from /a/ in バス(basu) to /u/ in ブス(busu), that would apply here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
Japanese. Rfv-senses: Alternative form of ては (Etymology 3); and short for ではないか (Etymology 4)
Of Etymology 3, Eirikr says, “How so? Examples? Unclear that this etym even warrants inclusion.” and “Etym 3 is just a usage of the particle combo in Etym 1, whereas ては would presumably be from って(tte) + は(wa)”. [Etymology 1 is ‘Compound of で and は’, ‘at, in’.]
It is similarly not clear to me that this is a separate lexical item.
Of Etymology 4, Eirikr says, “Etym 4 is not a verb, but a different use of the particle combo in Etym 1, eliding the negative coupula ない(nai) and question particle か(ka).”
Note that I changed the POS from verb-form to particle. Even so, I do not think that this is a lexical item as such. It is just a use of the Etymology 1 sense.
(Note, too, that I tried to rectify a separate issue noted by Eirikr: “No appropriate sense to cover the では in それでは, so the Etym 2 section is effectively broken (user goes to それでは, gets no explanation)”. That is not related to this RfV, but others might want to see if you disagree with what I did.)
I spoke to some people I regard as experts, people who teach and/or write about Japanese grammar. We agree that forms such as 嚙んではいない consist of Verb + は + いる. No one I asked thought that ては / では in this construction is a suffix. Cnilep (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
As for etym 4, being a very new usage, so it's not in common dictionaries, and at least not a verb since it's not a conjugated word. The word which has been elided can be not only ないか, but also polite forms ないですか and ありませんか, honorific form ございませんか and etc. If there were an improvement, it might be to explain it as "negative copula + か".
Etym 3 occurs when the verb root is ended in nasal (-g-, -n-, -m-). で in etym 3 is originated from classical verb つ(tsu), while で in etym 1 is from particle にて(nite), so they are different things.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@荒巻モロゾフ: But those are not lexical items. Those are grammatical constructions. The ～て or ～で is part of the verb (adjective, etc.) conjugation, while は, as well as ない, ございません, or what have you are separate lexical items. Similarly, whether one of those items is elided is a matter of grammar and/or usage, not a part of the lexicon.
As such they are likely to be found in grammars, and not in dictionaries. See for example Nihongo Bunkei Jiten (1998):
【ては】
［N／Na では］
［A-くては］
［V-ては］
述語のテ形と「は」の組合さったもの。
(“ては. noun では, adj-くては, verb-ては. Combination of the te-form of the predicate with ‘wa’.”)
Hm, that it exists is not really disputed. The appropriate treatment IMO would be RFD or RFC. では and ては (verb suffix) should be kept or deleted together as a set. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Japanese. Rfv-sense:
In Man'yōshū I, 2, the first verse 山常庭 (Yamato ni wa) proves the historical use of the Man'yōgana 庭 used phonographically to represent the particle には (ni wa) introducing the place where an action is done. —This unsigned comment was added by 2.36.88.48 (talk) at 08:49, 14 February 2022.
User:Poketalker added two rfv-sense requests on 26 February 2017.
(historical) place where something is done
(regional) at the entrance of a house, a dirt floor
Per 2.36.88.48's comment, the first of these seems to be ateji for the particles には. If that is the case, that would make it archaic (and perhaps uncommon, or obsolete) rather than historical. It would also be a postposition or particle rather than a noun. Cnilep (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
For the current sense 2 ("place where something is done"), if we view this as as man'yōgana, this is arguably not entry-worthy, as that is a spelling convention and not a lexical item -- as the anon correctly notes, this is simply locative particle に(ni) + topic / contrastive particle は(wa). And as @Cnilep notes, this is a particle combination, not a noun. Moreover, this usage Old Japanese, not Japanese.
That said, there is a noun 庭(niwa) with the sense of "place where something is done". The lack of any usex obscured this. My local copy of Daijirin gives examples like 「学びの―」「裁きの―」, where the preceding genitive の(no) means that, grammatically, this niwa must be a noun. The entry also includes a quote from the Nihon Shoki: 「すなわち霊畤(ﾏﾂﾘﾉﾆﾜ)を鳥見の山の中に立てて/日本書紀（神武訓）」 (clearly showing use in a compound noun), and one from the Man'yōshū: 「武庫の海の―良くあらし漁(ｲｻﾘ)する/万葉 3609」 (here coming again after a の(no), marking this as a noun).
I am not sure if the noun sense for "place where something is done" is still current, however -- the quotes are OJP and not JA.
The current sense 3 ("at the entrance of a house, a dirt floor") is included in Daijirin as well, with a quote from a 浄瑠璃(jōruri, “street theater, storytelling with musical accompaniment, ballad or chant”) play dating to 1720: 「そろばん追取―へくわらりと投げ捨たり/浄瑠璃・天の網島（中）」.
No offense directed at you personally. But I am really frustrated at seeing inline citations being removed. I use dictionaries to find "how" and "when" a word and sense have been in use. It supports the given sense as well as etymology. I am most interested in the older citations, but any are better than none. Without any supporting citations, why should I believe any of the definitions given?
While I was not involved in this entry, I have spent many pain staking hours searching and adding citations to find them gone several years later. When there are dozens or even hundreds of citations, moving some to the citation page may make sense, while prioritizing older and relevant citations. But very few entries in this entire project have that many citations. Most entries and senses are missing them completely, which really hurts this dictionary. Bendono (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
RFV passed for sense "place where something is done". No citations yet for "dirt floor", but it is in other dictionaries. Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Added by User:0.02s, who included the label dialect and asked "what dialect?"
Nihon Hōgen Daijiten includes したれば (alternate form of したら, which in turn is a Tohoku conjunction meaning そうすると, それなら(“if that is the case”)), as well as したれる (form of the verb 湿る(shitoru, “be damp”)) and ごしたれる (form of the Tohoku/Hokuriku verb ごしむく(goshimuku, “die”)). Nihon Kokugo Daijiten includes したれ‐ど and したれ‐ども, which it derives respectively as する + たり + ど and する + たり + ども (both roughly “doing in spite of”, if I understand correctly), but doesn't mark them as dialect. Both Digital Daijisen and Shin Wa-Ei Chūjiten have してやる, variously glossed as “do for (someone)”, “trick (someone)”, or “do as one pleases”. I can't find したれ as such, though, and don't know whether it might be a form of Tohoku したら or some other (regional? class?) variant of してやる (or maybe just して?). Cnilep (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I see a hit over at Nihon Jiten. Their entry for したれ (shitare) indicates that this is 阿波弁(Awa-ben), the dialect used in Tokushima prefecture on Shikoku. Apparently it's a contraction of してやれ(shite yare). There's also a separate entry for the Kansai dialect phrase どないかしたれや(donai ka shitare ya, loosely, something like “just do whatever already”), where this したれ(shitare) appears to be again a contraction of してやれ(shite yare).
So, should it be したれ, or したる? The current Digital Daijisen in Kotobank has 為て遣ったり but (oddly) not 為て遣る. (It does, however, gloss 為て遣ったり as 「してやる」 + 「たり」.) I can't tell if this is some kind of defective paradigm, or just "dialect" enough that the editors neglect it a bit. Cnilep (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, just in preliminary poking, I found that the JA WP has a hint of this at ja:w:ポア, a disambig page -- but the mentioned article about this particular aspect of Tibetan Buddhism, at ja:w:ポア (チベット仏教), is a redlink.
I've rewritten ポア, but ポワ still needs to be examined, and the claim I made about ポワ there (based on the Japanese Wikipedia page) should be verified. —Fish bowl (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Japanese. Rfv-sense: (modern fiction, women's speech) I; me (used by haughty women of the highest classes of society)
The entry was previously tagged for cleanup as "Very confusing entry, requires clarification and formatting; expansion also needed". I've done my best to clean it up, but I don't know why there are two senses both glossed, essentially, as "I". (The other is: "(archaic, women's speech, humble) I; me".) I guess that if the word is used in contemporary fiction with a different connotation, this might make sense, but I haven't seen such use myself. I should note, though, that Japanese sources say the the pronoun came to be associated with samurai women in early Modern Japanese, so that may be a clue. Cnilep (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
The Wikipedia article on pronouns includes commentary, but no usage examples. If the usage is easy to find, then could you please add some? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
google:"ゴーブレーキは" (adding the は(wa, topic particle) to filter) turns up only three hits, of which only one doesn't have punctuation between the ゴー(gō) and the ブレーキ(burēki) -- but it's a blog hosted on a server in Poland, and visiting the site shows that it is indeed written in Polish, and the term ゴーブレーキ is nowhere to be found.
@Kwékwlos — Ah, thank you! I don't suppose you can find any quotes? And is this Okinawan, as in Naha Ryukyuan, or Okinawan, as in Okinawan-flavored Japanese? A few of the mainland JA uses I encountered in searches seemed to suggest a subset of ブレーキ(burēki, “brake, as for a vehicle”), but I didn't (and don't) have time for a more extensive search. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
They don't require independent verrification. 简化字总表 states that any trad.-simp. pair in Table 2 is generally applicable to other characters, even if it isn't listed in Table 3. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 04:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The problem with clinging to attestation in Chinese is that there are tons of variants (not just simplified Chinese, but also ancient ones), and it is simply impossible to do in practice. And since simplified Chinese is a relatively new and "artificial" thing, it is hard to find cases where the simplified forms of these rare characters being used. However, the Table 2 did tell us how they should theoretically be simplified when used (since the writing system is "artificial"). This rule has been generally applied to rare characters in classical Chinese publications, and there should not be any exception in these cases when they appear (unless you are talking about the guideline of the latest standard, which recommends traditional forms if outside 通用规范汉字表: but that would probably be even more dreadful to deal with). --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 20:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well I do think there is something questionable. Not about the simplification rule, but the existence of the supposed "traditional" forms in Chinese -- are they really used in ancient texts? Or are they just made up for names? --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 21:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
𨍶 and 𦦗 are presented in Kangxi Dictionary and some others, so I believe they are actually used in ancient text and their simplified form can be derived accordingly. 𠙦 seems like a variant form of 煢 so they both can possibly be treated as variants. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 15:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung To be clear, I'm referring to ancient forms only cited in historical dictionaries, such as the ones Fish bowl mentions. If those are already covered by the LDL policy due to being pre-modern anyway then fair enough. Theknightwho (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I am sceptical that this one can be attested, because 𬠰 (U+2C830) is only used in Taiwanese names[7] and has the reading xué[8]. I'm quite relaxed about including simplified forms of rare characters, but the prima facie evidence suggests this is unlikely to be real. Theknightwho (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Again, I'm sceptical of this one, because 𣞁 (U+23781) is used in Taiwanese names[9] with the reading róng[10]. @ND381 is that how it's also used in Hong Kong? I assume so from the definition, but I just want to check that that usage applies to both. Theknightwho (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: It's probably not an everyday character, so asking anyone about how it's used would not give you much info. I did find 𣞁 in names of people from ancient texts, which I've put in Citations:𣞁. As for whether the simplified form is found, it might be worth looking for simplified reprints of those ancient texts, but I haven't been able to find any of those. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }19:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
'I have a weakness for alcohol... my desire for alcohol really is strong.' [...] One can think, 'I like alcohol this much. This isn't something I can spend my life on, can it.' This is how one can start to objectively recognise one's worldly desires.
I would caution against relying on 実用日本語表現辞典. 実用日本語表現辞典 is an anonymously published blog. It's not even pseudonymous. It apparently tries to document terms in recently popular usage in the Japanese speaking internet. Weblio apparently includes their entries, but I would say that indicates Weblio's loose standards more than anything else. Whym (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Japanese. Not part of the Kanken. Added here. If this can't be verified then be advised that this is not a one-off; I've encountered quite a number of such spurious kanji entries (and senses). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Japanese. An IP claims this "Kanji[…]has no known use beyond Literary Chinese writings", in which case it seems not to merit a Japanese entry. But I don't know a whole lot about the niceties of CJK, so bringing it here. This, that and the other (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Kotobank has something like that sense for Chinese (in Chu-Nichi Jiten), but elsewhere has the kanji as a variant of くじり (くじること). I added the Japanese sense and formatted the section, but haven't verified the IP user's sense or the readings. Cnilep (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
This seems like a rare but valid kanji spelling. I'm having a go at this, locating the main entries at the kana spellings of くじり(kujiri) and つのぎり(tsunogiri). (Still in process, links are still red as I write this.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Vietnamese. Chữ Nôm character. The reading is và, but I cannot connect it to any of the meanings on its page. As much as I've found is dictionaries saying it means reed, and "một và bông lau" which doesn't make much sense to me. Regireki (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Regireki Bông lau means "reed". Và means "and" or "several". So in this quote and context, "một và bông lau", it means "several reed plants". Compare một và to một chút (a little bit) and một ít (a little bit).
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Japanese. Rfv-sense: "thing that happens regularly".
Added by me in [18] and removed by User:Rajzin since it doesn't appear in other reference works.
I note the existence of https://dic.nicovideo.jp/a/ノルマ達成 and https://dic.pixiv.net/a/ノルマ達成 (and also that they define ノルマ using the conventional definition), but cannot find the time for further verification work. I can accept that it is just my misinterpretation.
I think I can see where that sense fits. Whether that's included in other reference works is irrelevant if we can find enough clear examples of usage demonstrating this sense to meet CFI (three).
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Chinese. Rfv-sense: "(Cantonese) Used to point out something that one would like confirmation for.", pronunciation ho1.
I believe this should be an alt form of 嗬 (ho2, "(Cantonese) Sentence-final particle used in an interrogative seeking confirmation."), also commonly written as 可 and possibly 呵, but I do not think it would be pronounced ho1. – Wpi31 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Japanese. At google:"神デレ" the first result is Wiktionary, the only other relevant result is F*ndom (yikes), and the rest is some (presumably) proper noun related to a single product. @Immanuelle
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Japanese.
User:馬太阿房 noted this as Gikun for 満つ(mitsu) in the Meiji Bible, but couldn't find other Japanese usage. I can't find it in archives of Asahi Shimbun (from 1879) or Yomiuri Shimbun (from 1876), and Google Books snippets seem like probably scannos. NKD lists it as じゅう‐じん, with a note, "「仞」はみちる意" (仞/牣 means みちる "to be filled"). The site furigana.info also says the reading is じゅうじん.
I briefly changed the POS from noun to verb-suru, since the gloss suggests an accomplishment, but the one usage I found thanks to NKD (from 1869) doesn't include する, so I changed it back. Cnilep (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Japanese.
I can only find a few newspaper articles about the US military's position on "レーストラック方式", which I gather is a (calque of an English) term for some kind flight path for airplanes? Granted, such mentions go back to the 1970s, but they do not seem to refer to any actual racetracks. e.g. Yomiuri Shimbun, 2011:
Beikoku Bōsōshō ga rokugatsu ni shingata suichoku richakuriku yusōki “ＭＶ２２ Osupurei” no haibi o kimeta koto o uke, taishō kōkūki o ＣＨ４６ chūgata yusō heri kara ＭＶ２２ Osupurei ni, hikō keiro wa daikei kara rikujō kyōgijō kata (rēsutorakku kata) ni henkō.
From June the US Department of Defense has decided to deploy new vertical take off and landing “MV22 Osprey”, switching from CH46 midsize transport helicopter to the MV22 Osprey, the flight path shifting from a trapezoid pattern to a athletic field pattern (racetrack pattern).
It looks like it's used to describe a certain shape of electromagnetic coils and other similar devices, in the form of レーストラック型, レーストラック形状, etc. It might be a stretch to say レーストラック without a suffix means something like "racetrack-shaped", though. Maybe we can have a usage note about it? Whym (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
This sense exists; both it and 優 are pronounced as jau1, but they should be unrelated otherwise. It should be cognate to 抽(cau1), cf 撐(caang3) vs 𨅝(jaang3), 踩(caai2) vs 踹(jaai2).
Ideally we would put this sense on 抽 under a separate etymology, but it appears to me that 休 is a more common form than both 抽 or 優. In any case, it should be a placed under an etymology separate from the main one on any of these three characters. – Wpi (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
google:"為国し" (adding the し to filter for Japanese verb constructions) generates three hits.
Two are from a name website and are mis-hits for the given name 為国(tamekuni).
One is a mis-hit with a comma between the two kanji characters.
google books:"為国し" generates five hits, but all only with Google's error-prone "snippet view".
Two are from text snippets that demonstrate other scanning artifacts (making it likely that these hits are also scannos, and both of them certainly look dubious).
One has a comma in between the two kanji.
Two might possibly be valid -- or they might be scannos as well.
It looks like it comes from Confucius (子曰能以禮讓爲國乎章) which is usually not translated into Japanese in a way that connects the two characters as a word. However, there are other examples that I think count. None of them suggest -suru verb usage, so it makes sense that "為国し" generates few hits.
That said, I don't think I grasp the meaning of the last two sentences well (at least without further research), and I cannot be of much help in adding quotations and their translations. Whym (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Chinese. Rfv-sense: Alternative form of 女同. Previously failed RFV, but there seems to be some more evidence surfacing. However, still none of it is durably archived and needs to be discussed. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }14:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Suddenly and all of a sudden are not wrong, but we might want to be more precise. I think we want to indicate that something like がばっと空が暗くなった would be less common. がばっと usually implies physical movement and sound made by the subject (typically a human or an animal), or a metaphor of that. There are collocations like がばっと開く (to open wide, like an open mouth) - I don't know if this can be explained together with what's discussed above, or should be explained as a separate sense. Whym (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The field of Vietnamese characters is sadly full of cruft. The Nôm writing system was never taught or tested in a formal way. People studied Chinese and Nôm was halfway there, like Franglish for people who are studying French. So making up characters as you went along was a perfectly valid thing to do back in the Nôm era, which ended around 1920. The Han-Nom Institute in Hanoi recommends several dictionaries to sort this issue out, including Tran Van Kiem (2004), Ho Le (1976), Nguyen Quang Hong (2014), Takeuchi (1989), and the Institute of Vietnamese Studies (2009).
The character above is not from any of these dictionaries, but rather from Đại Từ Điển Chữ Nôm (Great Nôm Dictionary, 1998) by Vũ Văn Kính. With numerous unsourced characters, this dictionary is not on the institute's list of approved references. However, it is easily the best-selling Nôm dictionary in Vietnam, not that many Vietnamese buy Nôm dictionaries these days.
Earlier, this character appeared in the Wikipedia article "pho." I have changed it to something better attested. Perhaps the illustration in the chu Nom article can be replaced with 𡂄 (⿰口頗). Its a similar character from Ho Le's dictionary. 72trombones (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Japanese. RFV in search of any unambiguous use of this term as a noun -- as an agent or patient of a verb, such as marked by が(ga, subject particle) or を(o, object particle).
I've done some preliminary digging. While certain Japanese monolingual dictionaries include "noun" as a POS for this (Kojien, Daijirin, Daijisen; FWIW, the NKD does not do this), none of the usage examples listed, nor any I've found online so far, actually show clear use as a noun -- with the term appearing as the agent or patient of a verb. Instead, all usage I've seen so far is consistent with this term being used sometimes as a so-called "no adjective".
If no one can find actual clear use of this term as a noun, I think we have to view the Japanese sources that do this as using an analysis based solely on use with the particle の(no), and that this term is not actually a "noun" as we define it.
In both cases, ただ(tada) is immediately modifying the following adjective, and in that syntactic role, it must be an adverb.
ただ同然
The ただ(tada) here is clearly being used as a bare adverb modifying na adjective 同然(dōzen, “same, equivalent, identical”).
→ I see a similar confusion in Japanese references for 同然(dōzen) that I see for ただ(tada). The NKD lists this as a na adjective, Kojien and Shinmeikai give no part of speech (often implying "noun"), and Daijirin and Daijisen list as both na adjective and noun. But again, the usage examples in the references just show regular no adjective constructions, without any clear evidence of "noun-ness" -- not used as a patient or agent of a verb. Googling around (google books:"同然が") shows cases like しかも本人同然がいずれも女子であるから(shika mo honnin dōzen ga izure mo joshi de aru kara), where the 同然(dōzen) seems to be used to mean "all of them the same" -- but this sense is not listed in the Japanese dictionaries.
Update:
I have to revise the above a bit after looking more closely at the linked page. The fuller context for this instance of ただ(tada) is:
「日用品などをただ同然で配って雰囲気を盛り上げた後、」
If we parse the 同然(dōzen) as "all of them the same", the ただ(tada) still parses out as an adverb (basically, "just"), but in this case it's modifying the phrase 同然で配って(dōzen de kubatte, “distributing them all the same”), or possibly the longer phrase 同然で配って雰囲気を盛り上げた(dōzen de kubatte fun'iki o moriageta, “distributing them all the same and enlivening the mood/atmosphere”). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
ただに等しい
The ただ(tada) in this one can be parsed as either a na adjective used with the に(ni) adverbial particle, or simply as an adverb that takes the に(ni) adverbial particle, modifying the i adjective 等しい(hitoshii, “same, equivalent, identical”).
同然 in ただ同然 is like "virtually", "practically", "almost". Just ただで would be "for free", and ただ同然で is "basically for free", "barely taking any money". At least semantically, it's 同然 that's modifying ただ(で), not vice versa. 同然 seems to almost always follow a noun or も. I don't know if that automatically means ただ there is a noun, but it's definitely not an adverb.
ただに等しい is also synonymous to ただ同然: "practically free". に is definitely not an adverbial particle. に等しい = "equivalent to", "tantamount to". It can follow a verb or adjective, as in ないに等しい, するに等しい. Again not sure if that automatically means ただ here is a noun, but your parsing is incorrect. Nardog (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I checked 漢語大詞典 again, and it gives the definition 變動；反覆, citing a few more quotes: 《漢書·禮樂志二》：“幡比翄回集，貳雙飛常羊。”《漢書·高帝紀下》“譬猶居高屋之上建瓴水也”顏師古注引三國魏如淳曰：“居高屋之上而幡瓴水，言其向下之勢易也。” This sense can be readded, but I think "to flip or turn over" is not a great translation and should be refined. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }04:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Japanese. Etymoloy 2: (archaic) the nominative case; marks the subject of the verb
This is described in the etymology as being "Found in the Okinawa strata" and has the label (Northern Ryukyuan), and has one citation dating back to the 16th century from the Omoro Sōshi, which makes me think this much more likely to be a Ryukyuan language than Japanese. Theknightwho (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agreed that that should be moved to an ===Okinawan=== entry (and/or some other Ryukyuan language as appropriate).
@Eirikr It's a bit tricky to know exactly what L2 it should go under, but I suspect it would be Proto-Northern Ryukyuan (which we don't have at the moment, because the Ryukyuan languages haven't been organised up till now).
Here's a pretty conservative suggestion for how we could do things, and further refinements are certainly possible.
ぎゃ palatalizes after original pR *i (never *e), as in きこゑ大きみぎや (kikowe OFOkimi gya 'the great lord who listens...').
The Ryukyuan reflexes in the dictionaries should just reflex -ga. It's actually well attested (probably both as or either a subject marker or a genitive marker) in Ryukyuan; of course JLect's Ryukyuan coverage is more than extremely patchy, so I only use the integrated Okinawa-go Data Shu in it, and even then I've been using them less, as I'm using https://okinawago.app, although you can't search by kanji. (more entry indexing by pure search; no need for special broken characters). Chuterix (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also this is how we can sort things phylogemy of Ryukyuan:
"It's actually well attested (probably both as or either a subject marker or a genitive marker) in Ryukyuan; of course JLect's Ryukyuan coverage is more than extremely patchy, so I only use the integrated Okinawa-go Data Shu in it, and even then I've been using them less, as I'm using https://okinawago.app..."
Do you have any other sources that list a particle ぎゃ, ぎゃー, じゃ, or じゃー?
If Ryukyuan topic particle ga palatalized to gya in a regular and stable fashion, we should presumably still find examples of gya (or affricated ja) in modern Ryukyuan lects. Is there any such evidence?
@Eirikr Sorry for the confusion; I said -ga is well attested in Ryukyuan; (-i)-gya is only in Old Okinawan, and the palatalization was reverted for unknown reasons (perhaps a combination of consistency and influence from Japanese?). No palatalized form of -ga is found in any Ryukyuan languages. Chuterix (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Vietnamese
我 ngã should not be labelled as archaic for the meaning "I" since in Vietnamese Nôm texts, it was mainly used to mean "to fall". It never had the sense of "I". That sense is only found in Literary Chinese texts written by Vietnamese, but is never found in any Vietnamese language texts. So labelling the term as archaic is misleading.
The easy solution is to simply remove any label, like you said, it's simply not a Vietnamese morpheme, but it's a Vietnamese reading of a Chinese morpheme using a fairly static set of literary readings and therefore does merit a mention. Vietnamese speakers or not, it seems to people just constantly mistake Written Chinese terms for Vietnamese terms, there used to be even users who straight-up added examples blatantly in Chinese in Vietnamese entries because they were in texts written by Vietnamese writers; I bet there're still dozens and dozens entries of such "Chinese terms with Vietnamese readings" that haven't been detected and delete yet and they're still sometimes made. Korean contributors sometimes use the label "Korean Classical Chinese" when they want to add a particular "Korean" usage of Chinese morphemes or term; obviously in this particular case of ngã there's no need for anything similar since it's simply a Chinese morpheme used in its function in the original language, but I do think sometimes stuff should just be added to the Chinese entries using "Vietnamese Classical Chinese" or such similar label. PhanAnh123 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that is why I added the label "Literary Chinese" for the entry, the edit was later reverted. I would prefer it if it was common practice to label Literary Chinese terms with Vietnamese practice as something like "Vietnamese Classical Chinese" or something similar. Lachy70 (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
In Buddhist literature, the word ngã is used for the atman, their concept of the ego. This sense is still missing, though. Otherwise the sense “I, me” should be deleted as not Vietnamese. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm honestly not even entirely sure what that sense line is supposed to mean. Extrapolating, this sounds like -- at best -- an orthographic variant in an attempt at indicating a glide to prevent hiatus between the otherwise-identical two /e/ sounds. Given the historical vagaries I've seen in spellings, I suspect this might have been part of the Meiji era penchant for pedantic hypercorrection, but without more detail, it's hard to be certain.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Chinese. Rfv-sense: "to steal other people's delivery" and "to steal other people's work or production that is just finished or nearly finished". I think that the meaning of this word is "to do something before others can do it" or "be the early bird". These two senses are already included in my suggestion of the revised definition.--Mahogany115 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Japanese, Chinese, Translingual. This is ostensibly a ghost character, a character which doesn't actually exist and was only encoded due to an error by the Japanese standards body: but it is asserted to have a definition in both Japanese and Chinese, and to exist Translingually. So does it exist? In which languages? - -sche(discuss)03:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Weblio only has a KANJIDIC stub, and KANJIDIC / Unihan is known for being rife with errors when it comes to the rare characters.
Meanwhile, the JA Wikt entry at ja:墸 calls it a variant / mistaken form for 𣦡 or 堵.
For the former, the entry notes that this appears just once in excerpts from the w:Jiyun, and is likely a scribal mistake.
For the former, the entry notes that this was included in the earlier JIS standards, but further research for the fourth edition in 1997 concluded that this was a ghost character.
Latest comment: 1 month ago14 comments2 people in discussion
As with 壥 above: the Japanese standards body now claims this character doesn't exist, yet we list a meaning not only in Japanese, but also in Chinese. In which languages is it a real character? - -sche(discuss)03:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you; RFV-withdrawn for Chinese; though any given sense currently only has two cites and not three, I trust that the character exists in Chinese. (It is plausible it has therefore also been used in Japanese, but presumably as a surname rather than a common noun.) If it has been used in Japanese, it's not a ghost kanji; if it hasn't been used in Japanese, then maybe we either delete the Japanese section, or remove the definition and explain that its inclusion by the Japanese standards body was erroneous but nonetheless correct — because it would've been included in Unicode all the same at the behest of the Chinese standards body (since it is used in Chinese) if it hadn't already been included by the Japanese (as I said in the Tea Room). - -sche(discuss)15:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I have removed the Translingual definition, so the entry now presents the character as a ghost character (with no meaning). (I suppose someone else might prefer to {{no entry}} it and point to the Wikipedia article on ghost kanji.) - -sche(discuss)15:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
RFV-failed for Japanese; reduced to # {{non-gloss|A [[ghost character]].}}, but without prejudice to being reduced further to a {{no entry}} pointer to an article or appendix on ghost kanji. - -sche(discuss)15:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Japanese. We claim (via category) that this is a ghost kanji, not a character that has ever really be used. It is not, however, on the JIS list, which implies it has actually been used... in which case it's not a ghost... - -sche(discuss)06:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion
RFV of the ... Chinese and Vietnamese sections, I guess? We and the Japanese standards body say this is a ghost character which doesn't exist...at least not in Japanese. But our entry has a Chinese and a Vietnamese section. Does it exist in those languages? If so, it's weird that the Japanese got so concerned that it had been 'erroneously included' by them, if it would've presumably been included by the Chinese standards body for themselves if the Japanese hadn't already included it... (Cf. RFV#碵, RFV#墸, and the Tea Room discussion of ghost kanji.) - -sche(discuss)06:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
OK. I've explained the situation in the Japanese entry. RFV-resolved I guess, though no prejudice to recasting the Japanese section in {{no entry}} terms and moving the discussion of its Unicode-inclusion history to the Vietnamese section. - -sche(discuss)15:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've commented out the Chinese section pending attestation, and removed the Korean section, and redefined the Japanese section as a ghost kanji. RFV-failed / RFV-resolved? - -sche(discuss)15:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Japanese.
Not in the monolingual dictionaries I checked, and the phrasings in the usage examples are not collocations (little to no Google hits). There are Google hits for "人擬きの", but they are all in creative works and seem to be literally 人+擬き. —Fish bowl (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
But then again, they do take submissions from the public. I'm not sure what kind of vetting process they have. And like you say, I also can't find it in any monolingual JA sources.
Is the question whether Joseon == Korean for this sense, or if 朝鲜民族 is a valid expanded form of 朝鮮族？ If it's the latter, there are definitely usages of it on governmental sites:
What is asked here exactly? To verify the "tea ceremony utensil" sense? If so, judging by #4 in the quoted list, I think we can say it's the name of a tea ceremony utensil at least. I'm not familiar with the technical term and I cannot be more precise than that, though. Whym (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Likewise for the alternative forms 瞏 and 䁚 listed at that kanji.jitenon.jp site.
My suspicion is that these characters are used in Chinese, and someone included them in the JIS standard for character encodings in Japan, despite these not really being used in Japanese. This wouldn't be the first such instance of this, either.
Latest comment: 9 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion
In the NKD, appears in Yamanashi, Hida, and Aichi (never Kanto!). Imoshi in Ibaraki also appears in NKD. Sakishima senses were taken from Hirayama et al. 1992. Sanuki 'slow' is unverified, presumably same source as Hirayama et al. 1992??? Chuterix (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Japanese. Rfv-sense: Sanuki dialect. dull, slow. Cannot find this anywhere, not even in my dictionaries, nor online. @荒巻モロゾフ made this entry. Aramaki Morozov also disappeared on September 2023, so there's no luck unless he returns in time. If you can find a source for this sense, please update the entry. Chuterix (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
How does simply saying Aramaki is on an indefinite hiatus close the discussion? This is not really conclusive. Even if s/he was still active, this discussion should not be closed just for this apparent reason. Chuterix (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
This sense was added by @Tooironic in this diff. Any elaborations on what this means? It might correspond to this definition from Hanyu Da Cidian: 指事物的長短、大小等特征。《文子·自然》：“老子曰：樸至大者無形狀，道至大者無度量。故天圓不中規，地方不中矩。” — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }03:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Japanese Wikipedia page is named such, but Google (Web, Scholar) searches for ヘンタイ + various particles do not being up anything relevant. —Fish bowl (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I see it, ヘンタイ(hentai) is an orthographic variant for 変態(hentai, “aberrance, abnormality, deviation”). I suspect the katakana spelling is used specifically for the "deviant sexual desire" sub-sense of 変態, itself an abbreviation of 変態性欲(hentai seiyoku, literally “deviance + sexual desire”).
I would not quote from the linked book by Daniel Mikelsten because it is full of indications of unnatural, poorly machine-translated Japanese. 「(不)有名」 in the next sentence doesn't make sense without seeing it as an awkward translation of the English "(in)famous" or something similar, if the source language is not English. A sentence below goes 「最も長く実行されているスクリプト化された米国のゴールデンタイムのテレビの継承。」 which would not pass proper proofreading. (It lacks だ/である/です without a good reason, for starter.) Whym (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Based on the evaluations by Kethyga, Ywhy (implied), and Kungming2 that using 裡 is unusual, which presumably would also be reflected in low usage numbers compared to 里. —Fish bowl (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree, 裡 is very strange in transliteration and I'm not seeing too many examples in Chinese-language media. The main examples I can see are in Western publications with Chinese articles like the WSJ/NYT, and there I suspect it's the result of a very lazy conversion from simplified to traditional. Kungming2 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
> 地处中原的山西为什么不说中原话？是五胡乱华的结果吗？(Link}, as contrasted with Jin Chinese.
Noting that ZH WP redirects 中原話 to 中原官話, which is also why I decided to put it there instead of solely the Dungan meaning. Open otherwise to just putting "the language of the Central Plains", which wouldn't necessarily mean Mandarin (historically). Kungming2 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kungming2: Most usage of 中原話 I see seems to be actually referring to 中原官話 specifically? It would be best if we could find durably archived usage of it referring to Mandarin (in general or Standard Mandarin specifically?). — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }05:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If Pellard cites a Kametsu form, it's (almost) certainly from Hirayama 1986. I did a relook at Hirayama 1986, and surely enough, sïbya appears alongside sïba! I'll remove the RFV shortly.
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Chinese. Rfv-sense: "information; message; news; intelligence". Removed out of process by @Ivanktw, so I'm bringing it here for verification. This sense seems to correspond to 消息；情报 found in Hanyu Da Cidian. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Korean. Supposedly an obsolete spelling of 박쥐(bakjwi).
This spelling seems to be absent from any EMoK and 20c. MoK corpus I can access, nor do I see it listed in 큰사전 or 조선어사전. A Google search doesn't seem to hit anything, either. — This unsigned comment was added by Lunabunn (talk • contribs).
Appreciate a lot. Not until this day when I came across the entry of 佔领 did I realise there is actually a possible option to mark it as non-standard simplified form, and now I'm wondering if it would be better to make the main entry shown and linked with this entry like what's done on the main entry of which I mentioned above. Maraschino Cherry (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Google hits (which is actually 1 mere page, both unexpanded and expanded) are all for the generic phrase ウィキ百科事典, composed of 1. presumably-machine-translated mobile app descriptions; 2. mirrors of Japanese-language Wikimedia-family-of-websites content; 1 list of tags in a journal article ウィキ, 百科事典; 1 vector image website. —Fish bowl (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Japanese. Rfv-sense:advancing to the first grade. This word seems to mean “promoted to makuuchi” and I've never seen any usage out of sumo.--Mahogany115 (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can't find much evidence of this. This NHK publication (https://www.nhk.or.jp/bunken/research/kotoba/pdf/20150130_1.pdf) lists a reading of ぜんごく (zengoku), but also notes that this was not approved as a pronunciation to use in broadcasts by a meeting of the 放送用語委員会 / Broadcasting Terminology Committee in late 1939 or early 1940 (page 29 of the PDF, right-hand bordered box, roughly halfway down; search for ぜんごく to find it quickly). I take from this that a zengoku pronunciation existed at that time, but that it was uncommon and proscribed. Unsure if there are any dialectal aspects to this, nor if this pronunciation is still current. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig22:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Japanese. Kanji for "Honolulu": 日系人の間では、「花瑠瑠」の表記が当てられる場合もある。 [a sentence sloppily copy-pasted from Japanese Wikipedia]. There's 2 hits in https://lab.ndl.go.jp/dl/ for 花瑠々/花瑠瑠, of which one is from 福沢諭吉 (which is pretty significant, but still just 1 hit) and one is actually 朝顏の花。[chapter end;]琉球處分以後[chapter title, misprinted as 琉琉～.]. Is it used in modern overseas publications? The Google results seem to be polluted by mentions ("did you know there's kanji for Honolulu?") —Fish bowl (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fish bowl Looking at this, I think it should be しょゝ(shosho), since the iteration mark applies to the mora. GBooks snippet view isn't working for me, but it certainly seems a lot more promising based on the initial results. Theknightwho (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Chinese. Rfv-sense: "Heavenly Immortals, Celestial Immortals". Never heard these meanings before, I suspect they are made up by a Buddhist user who creates poor-quality entries at viwikt. – Nguyên Hưng Trần (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This sense was removed by @Justinrleung before being undone by @Maitrī-karuṇā (benevolence and compassion). According to 神仙#天仙 on zh wikipedia, the Taoist book 重陽真人金關玉鎖訣 classifies 神仙 into various categories, including 鬼仙, 地仙, 神仙, 天仙, and 劍仙. I do not know how important that book is to Taoism, but this is likely a technical Taoist term. Quotation:
It's readily googleable on its own and as "喀拉幹 Zhangjiakou" or "喀拉干 Zhangjiakou". What's the supposed issue, or should it be left as 干 in traditional characters and the others are mistaken hypercorrections? — LlywelynII21:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LlywelynII The fact that it's not attested in historical Chinese texts should hint that this word was not used in Chinese. It's merely a transcription of the Mongolian word in the Chinese language, and some Google results explicitly say so. Are you able to provide any durably archived Chinese quotations that feature the use of 喀拉幹? RcAlex36 (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LlywelynII, RcAlex36: It should be cited (Citations:喀拉幹). However, it is indeed very rare and basically only found in works in translation from English (as a translation of Kalgan), or as mentions as a Mongolian transcription. Based on this, I would say it is highly unlikely that the English word comes from Chinese. I can't seem to find any uses of the particular form 喀拉幹, but all the works I've cited are in simplified Chinese, which means we can't determine whether the traditional Chinese form should be 幹 or 干. I think it would depend on how the term is read, gàn or gān. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }15:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This jargon (or any other jargon) is typically used in-group - that much is clear and not contested. I think the question is: is there any non in-group use of the term that we can cite? Even one such citation is better than nothing. Whym (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Does any of those hits use the term generally, not implying Japanese devices? My question was about the second sense in ガラパゴスケータイ: "(by extension) non-smartphone mobile phone" which does not specify Japan, unlike the first sense. The examples I gave above show the short form is used for devices of non-Japanese manufacturers (because KaiOS is not particularly associated with Japan, and 新興国 suggests countries that don't include Japan), but the same cannot be said for the long form, as far I could see. Whym (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if this counts as a reliable source but here's one: [26]. A quick Google search will show you that 毫 in standard Chinese is 1/10 厘, and 厘 is 1/10 分. The dog2 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@The dog2 The article in your link says "按照大到小的顺序，顺序是每百万美分" and "人民币的基本单位是分，但有时根据需要计算为厘米". I have no idea what they mean. 分, 厘, 毫, 絲 were units of length and weight, while the monetary units were 圓, 角, 分 and 釐, which were in use since the Qing dynasty. As far as I know, the smallest monetary unit defined was 釐. Are you able to provide any quotations that feature the use of 毫 as a unit of money in Mandarin? RcAlex36 (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
For this one, it will be hard to find it in actual use to count money today because modern Chinese currency only goes down to 分. We would probably need to look up historical documents to find actual usage on this. Maybe if someone has access to a well-established dictionary, we can look it up in there. The dog2 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ditto. Note that in all these cases the train station is named after some place name, e.g. 小俣(Obata) is indirectly referring to 小俣町 (三重県), and ideally should be replaced with definition of such place name should the train station sense is deleted. – wpi (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Japanese. Rfv-sense:
# {{lb|ja|pornography}} An [[obese]] female performer in [[JAV]].
# {{lb|ja|pornography}} Pornographic materials featuring obese female performers. Usually not an independent [[niche market|niche]] but a fetish in the popular big bust genre.
FWIW, both YouTube videos are by Iiyama Akari, and at least the second one includes "スライム教" in the description (but I didn't watch either video through). None of the other links use the word, though. The X post criticizes someone (Iiyama or her followers??) for using it, Chiebukuro is someone asking what the word means, and Tammy.ai seems to be an AI-generated summary of one of the videos. Bokete looks like some sort of user-generated meme site featuring a cartoon slime, with no obvious connection to (derogation of) Islam. Cnilep (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to the use of WT:ATTEST's "widespread use" clause, which should only be applied on basic, common, and widespread words that are trivial to cite, and I doubt this word satisfies this clause at all.
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Japanese. Rfv-sense: "to include everything". This sense is not real, or at least, I tried very hard to find it and would be shocked if someone can come up with one exemplar much less three. (I did not understand the process at first and thought it was similar to a {{cn}} tag on English Wikipedia so I just deleted it at first, sorry for that.) Psiĥedelisto (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I think the meaning "to include everything" is from (「5. 全体をつつみ含む。」 "to cover and include the entirety"), this entry on デジタル大辞泉 (「 全体をつつみ含む。」 "to cover and include the entirety"; same dictionary entry also available on goo国語辞書), or from this entry on 精選版 日本国語大辞典 (「5. すべてをつつみ含む。また、説明し尽くす。」 "to cover and include everything; also, to explain something entirely").
The former has this usage example: これを、ひと言で覆えば... ― kore o, hitokoto de ōe ba ― If I were to include this in one word, ...
The latter cites the following sentence from ja:木下尚江 (KINOSHITA, Naoe)'s book 「火の柱」(see below) as the first attestation: 社会主義とは何ですか、一言に掩へば神の御心です、基督が道破し給へる神の御心です。 ― shakwaishugi toha nan desu ka, hitokoto ni ohohe ba kami no mikokoro desu, kirisuto ga dauhashi tamahe ru kami no mikokoro desu. ― What is socialism? To include (its sense) in a few words it is the will of God, (it is) the will of God which Christ has wholly explained.
In this attestation it's spelled with the Kanji "掩" instead of "覆", though.
<Quotation>
1904, 木下尚江 [Kinoshita Naoe], 火の柱 [hi no hashira][30], 青空文庫:
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Japanese. Supposedly a kanji meaning yttrium, but I can't find a single Japanese-language source using it in this context. The only results I've found are snippets of Chinese text, Wiktionary mirror sites, OCR errors, and usernames of Japanese Twitter users. According to the first revision of the page, the source for this info came from Unicode's Unihan database, which lists the character with an unusual reading of "ITORYUUMU" (not イットリウム(ittoriumu)), though this was changed by an anonymous editor six months later. Since then, this info has remained on the page, forever unchanging and completely unsourced. If this does exist, I'm guessing it's in an old and/or obscure book somewhere. Binarystep (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Binarystep: In the early days of Wiktionary NanshuBot was used to set up our Han-character coverage based at least partly on the Unihan database. That database has a lot of user-generated content, but at the time it was better than nothing. We've been weeding out odd cruft like this and lots of straight-up errors ever since. For most of us who have followed CJKV rfvs and rfds for more than a few years, no explanation is necessary. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Chinese. 准 means approve while 準 means standard, so the standard way to write is 御准 instead. The entry should be moved to the correct form. Mahogany115 (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not really relevant whether it's been encoded in Unicode: plenty of legitimate (but rare) characters still haven't been encoded, and on the fipside, some encoded characters don't exist.
Apparently a borrowing from Esperanto herbo(“grass”).
Several problems here:
The noun definition is not clear at all: how is this a reference to w? Whatever the case, this needs to be moved to the etymology, as it obviously doesn't mean "grass".
Obviously copied directly from the entry at 草(kusa), suggesting the IP who added it has no idea what they're doing (how is this a phrase?).
Is this really derived from Esperanto? If it is, it's certainly not borrowed, in any event.
This is definitely out of the range of my knowledge (passive learning of 2ch terms, outside of 2ch). Google finds threads about a board in which Esperanto translations of Internet slang have become popularized(?) and a copypasta listing Esperanto translations, but that runs into the "mention–usage" problem. —Fish bowl (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
At least the third paragraph explains that many proper nouns are translated this way. Could we perhaps limit the scope of this sense then? 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, it was literally but not really semantically related to champion so rfv-sense may be passed or not, depending whether a better material can be found as a quotation to illustrate the sense, or others may not understand either. Maraschino Cherry (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nihon Hōgen Daijiten says it is was (quotes from 1880 or earlier) used in both Okinawa and Kagoshima, though I imagine it (that is, 城 as clearly distinct from 城) will be hard to find written. It also says that ぐすく, ぐふく, and ぎすく are used for 石垣(ishigaki) in parts of Okinawa. Cnilep (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
NKD has this partial quotation, though it could arguably be transliteration or calque of Okinawan:
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Chinese. Rfv-sense:(historical) shogun (supreme generalissimo of feudal Japan). Basically there's no this sense in Chinese dictionaries.--Kethyga (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are plenty of web hits, some even from reputable sources like NYT[32]. How does one decide which are to be treated as naturalized Chinese words rather than literal translations? The NYT use is explicitly a translation of a foreign term and I am inclined to disregard it. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This looks like the creation of people who want a logically formed vernacular name for every species and genus. For example, the plant well known as "Japanese knotweed" has been redubbed "Japanese winged-knotweed" by some botanists. The unadorned term "knotweed" is limited to genus Polygonumsensu strictissimo. I have printed books full of made up English names for insects that nobody ever called by those names. The combination 苞蓼 is used in online checklists and such, probably has no other sense, and probably is not verifiable. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 days ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Vietnamese, reason: “This looks like an impromptu construction; kho was indeed most often written as 庫, and bạc (in this sense) was also written as 鉑 (along with 泊), but is this 庫鉑 combination attested?” MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Xưởng máy bay khéo lạ lùng sao, nam quân khi mới bổ vào, Sửa sang chưa biết thấp cao chưa từng, trông các máy lạ chừng khôn lạ, Rằng nhất sinh nào đã trải qua, tiếng rằng những sự khí cơ, chẳng qua một chút tâm cơ đặt bày, sinh mà biết xưa nay mấy kẻ, Học nhi tri cũng kẻ khốn tri, đào sông qua bể lạ gì, Tâm kiên ắt hẳn sự gì chẳng nên." Lachy70 (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good find! Would you have a link to somewhere we can see the manuscript? I only found a transcription in a copy of a journal article, which is good enough for me at least, but not very satisfying. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sadly the manuscript is not digitalised, if you want to see it, you would have to go in person to the Archives nationales d'outre-mer (ANOM). Lachy70 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 30 December 2024.
Chinese. Rfv-sense: (neologism, slang, derogatory) (from the shape of the mushroom) sexually-experienced young female; promiscuous female or a young female who masturbates often. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }16:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Lachy70 (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
