==''[[cane]]'' and ''[[can]]'' in [[w:consilience|consilience]] ==
{| align=center
| width=50% |
eng: {{l|en|cane}}
esp: {{l|es|caña}}
fre: {{l|fr|canne}}
ita: {{l|it|canna}}
jpn: {{l|ja|管}}
''kan''
kor: {{l|ko|수수깡}}
''-kkang''
| width=50% |
eng: {{l|en|can}}
dut: {{l|nl|kan}}
nor: {{l|no|kanne}}
swe: {{l|sv|kanna}}
jpn: {{l|ja|缶}}, {{l|ja|罐}}
''kan''
kor: {{l|ko|깡통}}
''kkang-''
|}
--[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
:Please STOP adding your theories to entries. I had to revert you at [[sugarcane]], where you added a [[hanja]] box in an English entry. --[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 02:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
{| align=right style="border:1px solid #aaaaaa; background:#f9f9f9; padding:5px; margin-left:10px; margin-bottom:10px; font-size:48px; font-family:궁서체"
| height=50 | [[蔗]]
|}
:: You deleted this box without ''Talk'' to me, and denied me to experiment with a new way of Definition to bridge West and East such that WMF positively encourages! I wish you see what was wrong with you. And again you talk to me now in the wrong place for that issue irrelevant right here.
:: Nonetheless, I would say this. To add the hanja [[pictogram]] box is ''never ever'' to add my subjective theory but to add something picturesque and much more than that, most objectively! The sugarcane is exactly equivalent to [[蔗]], irrespective of my theory. (Thus you were too hypersensitive, too, I fear.) You would see the trouble that the English meanings may change dynamic and unclear over time, while the hanja's remain static and clear, either whether ill or well.
:: For example, the {{term|sugar}} originally meant the gravel, while [[糖]] has ever meant the same thing so that it could serve as a bench mark. Should both get together as I had them, the former could be defined or refined more precisely. Furthermore, the latter helps fast in case you look for a hanja for sugar. Hanja may be the greatest semantic heritage for us all, I guess.
:: How again and again I wish everyone here behave oneself!
:: --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 04:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
::: Wrong. Sugar comes from Sanskrit, not from Chinese. The Chinese character has never been used for the Sanskrit word or any of its descendants. A Chinese character doesn't belong in the [[sugar]] entry any more than Tongan [[tō]] belongs in the [[糖]] entry. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 04:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
::: You can start by behaving yourself. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 04:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
:::: It's you who are wrong. Who said that {{term|sugar}} came from Chinese and that it was used for the Sanskrit word? I said neither! Why is it too bad for English entries to have Chinese in reciprocity while it is so good for Chinese entries to have English? BTW will you interdere with my wishes? --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 06:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
::: That is ridiculous, KY. We are a dictionary. We don't add hanja to English entries because they are "picturesque" or "static and clear" or "the greatest semantic heritage for us all". Those are opinions; we deal in facts. Furthermore, English entries are subject to [[WT:ELE]] and [[WT:AEN]]. --[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 04:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
:::: [[WT:ELE]] and [[WT:AEN]] ever did and would change. I'm afraid you don't understand how vital it is for wikis to experiment with new ways for such changes for ever. Yeah, WT might be most conservative in this perspective. --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 06:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
: There are two etymologies here. The western one traces back to borrowing from Hebrew {{term|קָנֶה|tr=qane|lang=he}}, or from some other Semitic language, into Greek and Latin, and from them throughout the languages of Europe. The eastern one is from Chinese, borrowed with or without the character [[罐]] (the character {{l|ja|缶}} doesn't belong here, since it means "jar", not "cane" or "pipe"). The Middle Chinese form is transliterated as "*guǎn", and the Semitic one starts with some variant of the uvular stop q, so it would seem that they started out different and have converged over time. If you want to claim these are all the same, you'll have to show how the Semitic and the Chinese are connected. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 04:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
:: I'm very glad that you take into account the oriental thread. In Japanese, {{l|ja|缶}} is practically the same as {{l|ja|罐}}, meaning "pitcher, can," differing from {{l|ja|管}} "tube, cane." I'd never argue "these are all the same," especially both {{l|ja|管}} and {{l|ja|罐}} that definitely differ much more than English {{term|cane}} and {{term|can}} that are etymologically quite confused in concert hence a remarkable ''consilience''! This is not my subjective thesis or theory at all but an objective note or report. It's up to you or us how to interpret this unusual concert. Cheers. --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 06:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
* As an addendum, {{l|ja|管}} in JA carries more connotations of {{term|lang=en|pipe}} or {{term|lang=en|tube}}, with additional senses of {{term|lang=en|shuttle|pos=as for weaving}} and {{term|lang=en|spindle|pos=as for spinning thread}}; the JA word for {{term|lang=en|cane}} is {{l|ja|杖|tr=''tsue''}}, a word deriving from {{etyl|ojp|-}} rather than from {{etyl|zho|-}}.
: But then, the meanings of kanji in modern JA are largely irrelevant as evidence of ancient use -- modern Japanese is most definitely '''''not''''' ancient Chinese, '''''nor''''' is it ancient Japanese. By way of example of semantic drift, modern JA {{l|ja|手紙}} means {{term|lang=en|letter}}, {{term|lang=en|epistle}}; apparently, in modern Mandarin, this same word means {{term|lang=en|toilet paper}}. Modern JA {{l|ja|卵}} means {{term|lang=en|egg}}, but I've had Chinese students laugh at Japanese labels, because it apparently means more specifically {{term|lang=en|fish}} {{term|lang=en|egg}}, {{term|lang=en|roe}} in modern Mandarin. So mentioning the semantic similarity between {{term|sc=Hani|缶}} and {{term|sc=Hani|罐}} in modern JA as somehow significant to the meanings of the words in ancient Chinese suggests a profound confusion.
: [[File:Arrowred.png|15px]] Put more simply, in order to even begin to find linguistic relationships on the level of PIE <-> Chinese, you would need to look at the ''oldest attested forms'' of the languages. -- Cheers, [[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr Útlendi]] │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala við mig]]''</small> 16:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
:: In a way, science looks like a double helix such as DNA, with empiricism and rationalism intertwined cooperatingly rather than conflictingly. The test is empiricist, and the rest is rationalist. Both are ''yang'' and ''yin'', respectively, making up the ''universe''! Nevertheless, hard-testing empiricists or positivists may blame rationalists or interpretivists for their easy-going theories or theses, which though may open up a new horizon, including new empiricist jobs.
:: Focally you seem to argue that the modern Japanese reading ''kan'' and meaning "tube" of [[管]], for example, might be too different from the ancient Chinese originality to be seriously or etymologically compared with the European counterpart, say, {{term|cane}}.
::: The more appealing rationalist thesis of mine,
::: the more appealing empiricist antithesis of yours.
:: This is a kind of the law of action and reaction. Explicitly, however, I am not yet appealing any etymological thesis, however appealing I may be in silence. Meanwhile, you look like appealing a positivist antithesis such that any Eurasian concert looks like a mirage. Simply, this is likely ahistoric!
:: Here we're not really caring the general "linguistic" but lexical "relationships" on the Eurasian, rather than PIE-Chinese, level. Such relationships did begin millenia ago, historically through the silk road, and as etymologically attested by such words as ''silk, china, tea,'' and so on.
:: This Eurasian trade and confusion, whether cultural or lingual, is not a matter of rationalist theory but empiricist historicity ''including'' moral reciprocity. Nevertheless, PIE among Eurocentrism makes Indo-Europeans absolutely self-contained, likely aiming to isolate it from the Eurasian contexture in reality, for one reason or another. This is absolutely absurd!
:: [[File:Arrowred.png|15px]] No thanks. I'm too old to take the toughest oldest tests for my favorite job. If young, you may make it yours. Cheers. --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 08:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
