恪別𡧲版𢯢𢷮𧵑「討論成員:SaigonSarang」
SaigonSarang (討論 | 㨂𢵰) |
SaigonSarang (討論 | 㨂𢵰) n (→易「城舖」爲「城庯」之議) |
||
| 𣳔28： | 𣳔28： | ||
: Yes, I saw 庯 in the source you just provided, and the articles are in Classical Chinese. So it probably a Chuhan. And, do you think 庯 is a [[:wikipedia:Variant Chinese character|Variant character]] of another Chuhan? {{@|Keepout2010|p=}} --[[成員:SaigonSarang|SaigonSarang]] ([[討論成員:SaigonSarang|討論]]) 11:13, 主日, 𣈜28𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07) | : Yes, I saw 庯 in the source you just provided, and the articles are in Classical Chinese. So it probably a Chuhan. And, do you think 庯 is a [[:wikipedia:Variant Chinese character|Variant character]] of another Chuhan? {{@|Keepout2010|p=}} --[[成員:SaigonSarang|SaigonSarang]] ([[討論成員:SaigonSarang|討論]]) 11:13, 主日, 𣈜28𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07) | ||
::In Chinese there're just examples with completely different meanings [http://ytenx.org/kyonh/dzih/2844/ Example 1][http://www.zdic.net/z/19/kx/5EAF.htm Example 2]. Anyway, 舗/鋪 don't have an variant written as 庯. Another point I need to say is that I did not change the original text when I reprinted an article from the wiki incubator years ago, and neither did I study it. This may be the reason that later participants also used this character. I think since there are enough evidences, it's reasonable to use a character that has more support.漢文「庯」諸義皆遠殊於「舗/鋪」，不似其異體。初余未攷其字，直錄漢喃於 Wiki Incubator，後之覽者以爲正字，以是未嘗更易也。今既存文獻，當循其本。--[[成員:Keepout2010|<ruby><rb>杜澎栩</rb><rp>(</rp><rt>Đỗ Bành Hủ</rt><rp>)</rp></ruby>]]（[[討論‐成員:Keepout2010|討論]]） 02:17, 次𠀧, 𣈜30𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07) | ::In Chinese there're just examples with completely different meanings [http://ytenx.org/kyonh/dzih/2844/ Example 1][http://www.zdic.net/z/19/kx/5EAF.htm Example 2]. Anyway, 舗/鋪 don't have an variant written as 庯. Another point I need to say is that I did not change the original text when I reprinted an article from the wiki incubator years ago, and neither did I study it. This may be the reason that later participants also used this character. I think since there are enough evidences, it's reasonable to use a character that has more support.漢文「庯」諸義皆遠殊於「舗/鋪」，不似其異體。初余未攷其字，直錄漢喃於 Wiki Incubator，後之覽者以爲正字，以是未嘗更易也。今既存文獻，當循其本。--[[成員:Keepout2010|<ruby><rb>杜澎栩</rb><rp>(</rp><rt>Đỗ Bành Hủ</rt><rp>)</rp></ruby>]]（[[討論‐成員:Keepout2010|討論]]） 02:17, 次𠀧, 𣈜30𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07) | ||
:{{@|Keepout2010}} I personally agree with you. I'm going to open a discussion page about "[[討論標準化: | :{{@|Keepout2010}} I personally agree with you. I'm going to open a discussion page about "Thành [[討論標準化:phố|phố]]", for collecting more opinions. --[[成員:SaigonSarang|SaigonSarang]] ([[討論成員:SaigonSarang|討論]]) 10:48, 次四, 𣈜31𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07) | ||
== 君將[[板母:歡迎]]置於余“成員頁”為何故？ == | == 君將[[板母:歡迎]]置於余“成員頁”為何故？ == | ||
番版𣅶15:24、𣈜2𣎃2𢆥2018
Re: Quocngu-Hannom Converter Feedback
All words checked and updated. I'll send a new version soon. Thanks and I'm willing to see more corrections! ----
Re: Why 成員:Keepout2010/標準漢喃(New_List) was deleted?
In fact I don't mean that the content is useless. Instead, I've archived them in my PC just for a republish with a complete list of Han-Noms. What is abolished is just some choice of characters, not the explanation after them. I'm now a kind of busy so I'll publish it later. Or, you can help me to sort it out in a complete A-Z list if possible.
- New chosen characters in a complete list are here. You can refer the format that was used in 成員:Keepout2010/標準漢喃(New_List) to start the work. I'll also start it soon.
杜澎栩 （討論） 01:29, 次𠀧, 𣈜5𣎃1𢆥2016 (ICT)
Why use 鐵 for sắt？
In both Dictionnaire Annamite-Français and Dictionnaire Annamite-Français, sắt is written as 鉄. I think that this character is not a "俗字" of "鐵" but a new phono-semantic compound characters (形聲字): 金 as radical and 失 as phonetic.
兩字典中 sắt 都作「鉄」。我認爲此字並非「鐵」之俗字，而是「從金，失聲」的一個喃字，只是恰好和漢字文化圈內其他地區的「鐵」俗字同形了而已。--
- Re: Understood. Now I think it's reasonable. One thing interesting: From Proto-Vietic *k-rac (“iron”). Perhaps a borrowing from Old Chinese 鐵／铁 (SV: thiết); compare Proto-Sino-Tibetan *hljak. This means that they are probably cognates and now they share a same character again lol. --
杜澎栩 （討論） 18:58, 次𠀧, 𣈜23𣎃2𢆥2016 (ICT)
易「城舖」爲「城庯」之議
可參考此處。-
余編輯之論據亦同上，望斟酌定奪。-七个点 (討論) 23:33, 次𠄼, 𣈜11𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07)
- Thanks for the explanation. Is 庯 here a Chunom or Chuhan?--SaigonSarang (討論) 11:50, 次𦉱, 𣈜27𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07)
- Yes, I saw 庯 in the source you just provided, and the articles are in Classical Chinese. So it probably a Chuhan. And, do you think 庯 is a Variant character of another Chuhan? @Keepout2010 --SaigonSarang (討論) 11:13, 主日, 𣈜28𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07)
- In Chinese there're just examples with completely different meanings Example 1Example 2. Anyway, 舗/鋪 don't have an variant written as 庯. Another point I need to say is that I did not change the original text when I reprinted an article from the wiki incubator years ago, and neither did I study it. This may be the reason that later participants also used this character. I think since there are enough evidences, it's reasonable to use a character that has more support.漢文「庯」諸義皆遠殊於「舗/鋪」，不似其異體。初余未攷其字，直錄漢喃於 Wiki Incubator，後之覽者以爲正字，以是未嘗更易也。今既存文獻，當循其本。--
杜澎栩 （討論） 02:17, 次𠀧, 𣈜30𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07)
- In Chinese there're just examples with completely different meanings Example 1Example 2. Anyway, 舗/鋪 don't have an variant written as 庯. Another point I need to say is that I did not change the original text when I reprinted an article from the wiki incubator years ago, and neither did I study it. This may be the reason that later participants also used this character. I think since there are enough evidences, it's reasonable to use a character that has more support.漢文「庯」諸義皆遠殊於「舗/鋪」，不似其異體。初余未攷其字，直錄漢喃於 Wiki Incubator，後之覽者以爲正字，以是未嘗更易也。今既存文獻，當循其本。--
- @Keepout2010: I personally agree with you. I'm going to open a discussion page about "Thành phố", for collecting more opinions. --SaigonSarang (討論) 10:48, 次四, 𣈜31𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07)
君將板母:歡迎置於余“成員頁”為何故？
余不解甚矣。-七个点 (討論) 23:44, 次𠄼, 𣈜11𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07)
- Sorry for the mistake. I've revised it. Thanks.--SaigonSarang (討論) 11:46, 次𦉱, 𣈜27𣎃1𢆥2018 (+07)