help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Lst27(talk)
21:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cangjie method
Thank you for making the Cangjie method article more informative. But there are some symbols that my browser doesn't show correctly. For example, in the table under "The short list of exceptions", the city radical doesn't show on my browser. All I see is a little square. How can I make it show up properly? ~Wang123 (Talk) 06:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Missing Characters
Hi Gniw,
I just realized something. I don't think the problem is that I don't have the font installed. When I copy the "square" representing the missing character from the article into MS Word, or into an input field of another browser window, then the character appears correctly. So I must have the correct font installed on my computer.
I think the problem lies in the web browser that I'm using. I just remembered a recent incident where my browser didn't properly show the IPA (international phonetic alphabet) symbols in the Hong Kong article page. At the time, I was corresponding with the user who inserted the IPA symbols into the article. That user fixed it by using something called an "IPA template". Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with HTML to understand how it works. From my understanding though, this only seems to be a problem with MSIE 6. When I try to view the article with Netscape 7.2, it works. But most other users wouldn't think of trying a different browser. And unfortunately, the population of MSIE users on the net is large enough for this to be a concern to you.
I hope this information helps you. I know you would want your work to be readable by the largest range of people possible.
I've added a response to your comment in my talk page. Sorry for a 2 month delay. I haven't been very active on this site recently. Kowloonese 19:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
The word 係
As for the edit summary [1], I think the word was more usually used in written Chinese between the World Wars than today.. since vernacular Chinese which started to flourish in the late 1910s actually incorporated elements of different languages and dialects in its early stage of development. Kuo-yü was not in widespread use as today, and the way people wrote was influenced by the way they speak. Its usage is actually preserved to certain extent in written texts in Taiwan, but probably not the case in mainland China. — Instantnood 05:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much.. learnt something new. :-D In fact most of the texts I read containing this usage are old texts, or those published in Taiwan. — Instantnood 07:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gniw! (Wing)
Thanks for the greeting on my talk page. Guess we should start a category for the ex-IO crew, eh? :) Cheers, Madmagic 03:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Room vs. Soup (RE)
In some English dialects, if not most, the U sound in soup is pronounced closer to the German ü or Russian ю, than the Hebrew U sound. In fact, I don't know if there's an exact English equivalent to this sound, but the U in room sounds more 'flat'. Same with the U in ooze for instance. If you think it's really important though, maybe it's better to search for more relevant sounds, or ask an expert.
On an unrelated note, you might want to specify that the language used in your spelling of Wing is Persian and not Arabic. I stared at it wondering what the last letter was until I noticed the link said 'Persian'. Not really important though I guess.
I also noticed on your user page the frustration regarding the Bable system. I agree completely that it's inadequate, although it is for slightly different reasons than you. In any case, check Wikipedia talk:Babel (at the bottom) for a discussion, and add your input :)
Kōgaryū
I checked out the article, I must say that the language and wording is somewhat beyond my knowledge of Japanese. Besides, you're the one who's supposed to know Kanji, or at least the remote meaning of many of them ;). But even so, I translated the section titled 特徴, into someone that's probably coherent; although this part: All major decisions in the municipality were made by a majority vote from the union representatives.
is somewhat improvised, since it doesn't say that the majority vote involved only representatives (but this is what I can logically derive from the text. Will do some research on the subject later and make farther edits.)
At one point I actually thought of lowering my Japanese 'level' to 1, but I can understand average Japanese speech for all it's worth and speak and write on an OK level, which would probably constitute as a 2. Reading is a bit problematic, you know, I wasn't raised with Kanji, learning them is a bit difficult. But I'm already at about 400-500 :).
Could you please not include a subheading for "Rivals" in the article, given that both of the rivals listed are already links within the body text? Wikipedia policy is quite explicit that we're not supposed to repeat links in that manner. Thanks. Bearcat 06:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, sorry...thought you did since you've done the majority of the editing on the article since the last time I removed it. No worries. (And I already removed it, so no need for you to do that.) Bearcat 07:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you can't characterize the Star's content as "extreme"; it's a point-of-view assertion (and not particularly a true one, either -- it's actually very much a "mushy middle" paper that seems further left because of what it gets compared to.) Bearcat 07:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've noticed that you have completed the merger on the above article. I had initiated the merger (i. e. placed the merge tags) and also initiated the discussion about merger, saying that I'd wait for comments till 22nd November before merging. The merge tags clearly indicate the place for discussing the issue. While I can appreciate your enthusiasm in merging, I'd also like you to be more circumspect in future and look at the discussion page(s) before acting on the merger. Kindly revert the changes so that there could be more participation on the discussion page. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 11:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks a ton!! I do accept that there is not much to be merged. However, I've been involved in around 30 mergers and sometimes the comments can be illuminating. For example, in this case, one may say
Acacia Theatre should be retained as it is not a company (as in a LLC) as such, but only a drama troupe. Someone else may come back saying that the usage of company predates LLC and was used for drama troupes since the middle ages etc. Of the mergers I've been involved with, roughly 50% are closed without a discussion but in the other 50% lot of comments have come about. Regards, --Gurubrahma 05:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
Thanks for your comments on the Noah's Ark piece. If the opponents revert it again, I may next delete the preposterous "objections" by "scientists" and the replies to these. The whole section is concocted out of whole cloth, just as is the enforced dichotomy between atheist scientists (a lie) and spiritual Creationists.
By the way, your English is, of course, superb, but near the top of your user page for "none of which has anything to do with my job title." I might use "have" for "has." Technically, "anybody, anyone, nobody, no one " and so on are singular, but "none" is tricky. Your usage makes some sense, but Merriam Webster on line says: "pronoun, singular or plural in construction" for "none" so I would pluralize it according to the construction and for assimilability by the hoi polloi. We might say "none of them was here" but the Agatha Christie cinema (1945) (which I saw that year, when it was new) [2], based on ten little indians, is entitled "And Then There Were None." (The ten get killed one by one, as I recall). It is in your case a question of whether the grouping you refer to is regarded en masse or discretely. If en masse, then you are best off (in my opinion) the way you wrote it - the "none" refers to the group of items, from which you distance yourself. If discrete, I think the "have" is better, because you are counting off the items one by one. In any case, the average American (and, I'd wager, Brit) would consider the "has" stilted or giving pause. Or you could say "not any of which has..." Best regards, Carrionluggage 01:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution about Chinese Bible version. I have added the link for corresponding articles in Chinese Wikipedia in those articles. Also try writing other articles on other translations.
Are all the non-Cantonese speakers interested in knowing how to say a lot of Hong Kong-related terms in Cantonese? Definitely not. Even if some of them are interested in knowing about how to say something in Cantonese, can you expect all of them to know how to read those phonetic symbols? Of course not. So, there is not really a great demand for the Cantonese phonetic symbols, and that is exactly why there is no point to "flood" the first line in every article with three to four types of phonetic symbols for Cantonese like Instantnood always do. Especially when the formal name, like Kung Kao Po, is already a phonic translation from Cantonese, there is even more ridiculous and stupid for you to add several phonetic symbols for Cantonese that are serving the same purpose. A lot of people may want to come to the "real content" as soon as possible. But because they have to go through those three redundant types of symbols all the time before coming to the "real content". That is stupid.
Your analogy with the Hebrew-related articles does not make sense also. Such Hebrew terms are translated to English by phonic translations, but with several different spellings. A similar example in Cantonese would be "Kung Hei Fat Choi" and "Kung Hay Fat Choy", in which case both spellings should be include. But "Kung Kao Po" just have one official phonic translation. The case is completely different from that of the Hebrew-related articles. Don't force people to do some nonsense things that you come up with (for instance, deleting all the alternative romanizations of the Hebrew-related articles). If you want to do that, do it by yourself.
"Chinese people just do not value our own culture and heritage." Some Chinese people don't, but I do. You are overgeneralizing. (By the way, do you have the qualification to judge whether other Chinese people respect Chinese culture?) On top of that, what is the purpose for you to suddenly add this irrelevant sentence that does not follow from your previous paragraph? Do you mean it is a sign of unrespect to Chinese culture, just because we provide information about Cantonese pronunciation in a wiser way, and delete several symbols (while the symbols themselves are not Chinese characters)? That makes no sense at all. Think about it.
Well, if you want to insist adding things into the Kung Kao Po. Go ahead. Your edits may not necessarily be reverted. People may prefer allowing you to do something nonsense, rather than having an edit war with you.
Original message:
This is sad. How can any English speaker know how to pronounce the name of the newspaper in Cantonese? Cantonese people of course knows how to pronounce the words; or do you provide Cantonese romanizations just for Cantonese people?
Chinese people just do not value our own culture and heritage.
Look at Hanukkah and Rosh Hashanah. Look at Kashrut. See how they all are romanizations. And they all have detailed romanizations in brackets that look just like the article titles. Look at their detailed romanizations in the parentheses. Try to remove their detailed romanisations, and see how other people might feel about your actions. The former two examples even have the detailed romanizations spelt exactly the same as the article titles, and the latter only differ by one letter; for "Kung Kao Po" at least the title of the newspaper is spelt very differently than the jyutping!—Gniw (Wing) 22:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Cantonese IPA
Re: /Criticism of Wikipedia, I guess the "normal IPA" you're referring to is something close to the S. L. Wong style [3][4], which is in turn modified from IPA, and used by academics like M W Ho in teaching. Many dictionaries claim their systems to be IPA, but they're not truly IPA and were actually modified for convenience of readers. Wikipedia is written for everybody and I believe using the real set of IPA (with tone contours) would be more useful for most readers who have no training in any specific system for Cantonese. — Instantnood 17:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. The IPA symbols that I've added were based on Yale romanization#Cantonese, but I tend to omit the ː mark. I agree [k] and [kʰ] are phonemes with the English <g> and <k> respectively, but IMO on Wikipedia phonetic is more useful than phonemic, since phonemic is only useful for native speakers who are familiar with the symbols and the phonemes. (And by the way thanks for the friendly note on the endash. :-D ) — Instantnood 09:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. IPA is actually the most recommended since it's useful to all readers who have no understanding of any systems specific to certain languages. What do you think we can improve it so it's going to be less confusing and ambiguous? — Instantnood 18:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing discussion on "Kung Kao Po"
I changed the colour of the table in the Kung Kao Po article to white colour, because the smaller "inner" box - the box in which the phonetic symbols are placed - has a white background colour. The colour doesn't really matter. You may change it to a more fancy colour if you want to. The idea of making the table is perfectly fine for me.
I have been thinking about whether 粵拼 should be provided, in addition to the phonic translation "Kung Kao Po", during the past few hours. I think that the 粵拼 does help for a little bit. If we make a table aside, it is fine to put 粵拼 in it. I just don't want to "flood" the first line of every articles with a **** load of phonetic symbols before readers can really come to the "real" content. But that Instant. guy is opposing the idea of making a table, which shows several phonetic symbols, aside of the make content of the article. (But meanwhile, he was the one who proposed that idea at the early beginning, and he was the one who always blame people for "flooding" the articles.) Let's stop the edit war and try to work something out.
Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[m]
In fact there're only three words pronounced in this way. [5][6] :-) — Instantnood 14:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ending consonant
Hello Wing can you think of any language (preferably European) that the ending consonants are pronounced in similar ways as the 入聲s in Cantonese and other Chinese languages? Thanks. — Instantnood 16:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But then in Korean when an ending consonant is followed by a null initial, it's linked to the next syllable, unlike Cantonese and other Chinese languages. Is there any example in European languages? The Hong Kong English article suggested Basel German, but I haven't found any material to support that yet. Btw, sort of following up, how can we improve the way Cantonese pronunciation guide can be presented in IPA? Thanks. — Instantnood 16:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tryng to make sure the Basel German claim is correct, and if not, to provide another example. What about the aspirated and unaspirated divide in Cantonese.. is it like Danish, for instance? What can we do to improve the IPA pronunciation guide? — Instantnood 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
French is perhaps another exception, that voiceless consonants are not aspirated (see French phonology). — Instantnood 20:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kung hei fat choi
Please kindly share with us at a
move request discussion your observation from among the people in Toronto, and in other places in Ontario and Canada on the usage of this phrase. Thanks. — Instantnood 17:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply