Revision 17146540 of "Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/cane" on enwiktionary

==''[[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|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&nbsp;Útlendi]]&nbsp;│&nbsp;<small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala&nbsp;við&nbsp;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)

::* A distinction I feel it is important to make:
::: I am not saying that {{term|lang=en|cane}} and {{term|sc=Hani|管}} are absolutely unrelated.  Given what little I know of the two terms, I am led to the conclusion that this is an open question.  I ''am'' saying that we do not have enough evidence to say that {{term|lang=en|cane}} and {{term|sc=Hani|管}} are related.  We (the EN WT community) need evidence, or at least supporting quotations from respected linguists, before we can include such information in the main entry.  You are welcome to add such theories on the Talk pages, but until we have evidence, the addition of such information to main entry pages will be reverted, as it was at [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=sugar_cane&diff=17127685&oldid=17127662 sugar cane]. -- [[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr&nbsp;Útlendi]]&nbsp;│&nbsp;<small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala&nbsp;við&nbsp;mig]]''</small> 09:08 am, 25 July 2012, last Wednesday (11 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−7)

::::	I regret you extend the manifold injustice Metaknowledge did to me by and after reverting at sugar cane immediately, hypersensitively, illegitimately, without any Talk! His likely lack of hanja knowledge must have convinced him that it was because of ''etymological relatedness'' that I added the box of [[蔗]] to [[sugar cane|that page]]. Do you agree with him indeed? But he was wrong indeed, I fear! 

::::	It was no more than ''semantic identity'', absolutely irrespective of any etymology and my theories, that drove me to do that to experiment with a new way of enhancing the Definition. Such is quite legitimate and encouraged in wikis, as you may agree. {{quote|You are welcome to add such theories on the Talk pages, but until we have evidence, the addition of such information to main entry pages will be reverted, as it was at sugar cane. -- Eiríkr Útlendi}} 

::::	You are quite right ''but for'' "as it was at sugar cane" which was definitely ill done in manifold ways. I ask you to see it through thoroughly. I greatly regret that you may not yet after you may have read my responses to Metaknowledge and Chuck Entz in the beginning. 

::::	So do I again that, whether deliberately or not, they and you in effect suggest to the readers that I am such an unlawful man as a vandal. Then I cannot help but suspect you all to make it a rule to make me sick and tired in such annoying ways, however shameful and shameless they may be. If so, please stop it right away! Why should we waste our precious time like this?

::::	How well you are inspired depends on your mindset. My table on top above all suggests to the PIE folks that English {{term|cane}} and {{term|can}} are in concert on the same etymological platform, as may be echoed [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=can&diff=17131502&oldid=17109004 here]  soon after my post. 

::::	Such is the case with many other European languages, hence such a great concert, which in the end might be far wider than the IE genesis. At least we are now inclined to take into account the Aramaic and Akkadian thread beyond PIE, which may probably extend even to the Far East. Now we have such a great open question we have to study neutrally from now on! 

::::	You should not warn me in advance not to bring that unsolved question into the Entry page. Please don't suggest that I am such a light-headed child. And we will not exhaust ourselves with useless precaution, such as the said ill-done revert. 
::::	--[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 03:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

===''[[sugar cane]]'' and [[蔗]]===
Reverting such an action as that, which you well know is not permitted, was not "useless", as you claim, nor done "illegitimately". If I learn of you repeating this kind of action, I will block you for a relatively short period of time and request that you be blocked for a year before the Wiktionary community. Consider yourself warned. --[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 04:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

: No, I never ever know that my experiment with such a hanja box is not permitted but prohibited at Wiktionary. 

: Please let me know which provision of WT:ELE, WT:AEN, or whatever, prohibits me to do it, and endorses you to revert it right away without any Talk. I suspect there's no such thing. 

: I greatly regret you are repeatedly doing injustice to me including at last a block warning for an unclear reason, whether my repeated experiments or my repeated complaints or what else. 

: Please bring this case before the Wiktionary community so that what's precisely wrong with either you or me could be discussed. I have to know other views to know what was so wrong with me. 
: --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 06:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
::The reason is clear. Our policies and established about pages do not allow it, and they do not have to disallow it for it to be disallowed. I am endorsed to revert it without discussion by dint of being an [[WT:A|administrator]]. I don't want to make a big deal of this unless you persist. --[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 06:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

::: I don't want either unless such injustice repeats itself. (BTW I am so surprised and even scared by the likelihood of unprincipled adminship.)  --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 07:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

* An attempt to clarify --
: [[File:Blue_Glass_Arrow.svg|15px]] KYPark, what is your goal?
:* I ''think'' your goal is to spark '''discussion''' about possible etymological relationships between PIE-based languages and other language families.
:: If my understanding is correct, the various Wiktionary discussion pages would be the more appropriate place for such discussion and experimentation.  There are strict guidelines and expectations about entry format and content.  Definitions require certain kinds of citations, as described at [[WT:CFI]].  The policy for etymologies seems to be closer to Wikipedia's policy regarding original research, as described at [[w:Wikipedia:No_original_research]].

::: My goal is ''exactly'' "to spark [such] discussion".

::: It is Metaknowledge who brought the case of [[蔗]] into this ''wrong'' place two minutes later than I opened it up, perhaps as I ignored his hint that I may ''talk'' about his revert on his ''User talk'' page. This is a case of injustice he did me. 

::: Yeah, I fully accept the need for consistent form and content, say, of Definition. But these are never for ever, but ever changes both in principle and in practice, mostly via experiments, as wikis do encourage but Metaknowledge did deny me to my agony! May I cry to the world that Wiktionary is not such an open place as may be wrongly wished or imagined by it but as may be probably administered roughly by unprincipled admins?

::: I do wonder why is it too bad to have [[蔗]] picturesque beside (or in addition to) ''Definition'' of {{term|sugar cane}} while it is so good to have it simply in ''Translations''. 
::: --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 09:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

: [[File:Arrowyellow.png|15px]] Metaknowledge, what is your goal?
:* I ''think'' your goal is to keep entry format and content in line with what I've described above.
:: If my understanding is correct, would you object to KYPark adding [[蔗]] as a translation for {{term|lang=en|sugar cane}} (which it does appear to be), and to steering KYPark's more exploratory energies towards one of the WT discussion pages?

::: Well, you seem to understand my position perfectly. I would of course be fine with standard, correct edits and discussions on appropriate pages. Thanks for asking for clarification. --[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

:::: You look like trying to agree with him, contrary to "to understand [your] position perfectly." He is focally asking you about your ''objection'' to me! Why do you water it down? --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 09:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 
::::: Why are you trying to tell ''me'' what ''I'' believe? I don't care about you specifically; I care about the quality of the dictionary. When you do "experimental" things that endanger the quality, in terms of our established standards, then it leads me to believe that we would be better without you. When you make acceptable edits, like marking Sino-Korean etymologies back to Chinese sources, I have no objection with you. --[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

: As this Talk page currently stands, I'm not sure I fully understand what either of you are striving towards.  I do not mean this as a criticism, and rather as a statement of confusion.  I look forward to your replies, which will hopefully resolve my confusion.  -- Kind regards, [[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr&nbsp;Útlendi]]&nbsp;│&nbsp;<small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala&nbsp;við&nbsp;mig]]''</small> 07:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)