Talk:Qieyun

WP:NOR

Eiorgiomugini, why did you request an amateur version of Baxter's scholarly translation? Isn't that soliciting original research to replace a published source? Whether or not you like this rendition is irrelevant, it's a direct quotation and not a translation contest. Baxter notes his translation is adapted from Goran Malmqvist's "Chou Tsu-mo on the Ch'ieh-yun" (BMFEA 40, 1968, 35), which is the English translation authorized by Zhōu Zǔmó for his seminal Qieyun article (Yuyanxue luncong 5, 1963, 39-70). Thanks for adding the preface quote characters, but aren't they moot for an English encyclopedia? --Keahapana 21:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what did you meant by amateur version, considered the fact the so-called Baxter's scholarly translation was wrong, and something needed to be done on that. "Isn't that soliciting original research" No, because Wikipedia is a multilingual project; I know its a direct quote, but its still can be improved. "not a translation contest" Nobody had said this is a translation contest, so I guess that just parts of a nonsense from you. "Thanks for adding the preface quote characters, but aren't they moot for an English encyclopedia" No, I don't think so, why would you think that? I hope thats not just a POV. Read Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." If is a moot, why don't you instead removed all characters from the article? "which is the English translation authorized by Zhōu Zǔmó for his seminal Qieyun article " So is that meant that the English quote can be found on his 语言学论丛.? Eiorgiomugini 06:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In this context, "amateur version" and "translation contest" refer to anyone who believes: "Rough and poorly translated Chinese passage, which claimed to be Baxter's own translation. I think it should in the night rather than in the "evening" at the opening passage. These aren't just detailed errors but the basics."

You're correct that Wikipedia is multilingual, and I wouldn't remove the characters you added, they're fine with me. Unlike some users,[1] I'm much more interested in constructively adding information to Wikipedia than destructively deleting it.

Since you claim not to understand "authorized" and "scholarly translation," here are the facts again. Zhou's Qieyun article was important and, as is often the case in Sinology, he wanted an English version to be widely available. He chose Prof. Malmqvist to translate and publish it in a major journal. I quoted from Baxter, who knew better than to try to "improve" upon Malmqvist, both of whom have native-speaker competence and are experts in the field of Chinese linguistics. Now you (who are the best judge of your competence) may believe this translation is "wrong" and "still can be improved," and you're entitled to your opinions but they're an unpublished POV. "Wikipedia is not the place for original research."[2] If there were a factual error in this Baxter quote, it would be fine to correct it [in parenthesis, as you now know], but translating 夜 in this wine-drinking context as "evening" instead of "night" is not a mistake. But don't believe me or the experts I've cited, let's wait and see the opinions of other bilingual Wikipedia editors who respond to your disingenuous "Pages needing translation into English" tag. Good luck. --Keahapana 03:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"If there were a factual error in this Baxter quote" Obviously this had out of your Chinese comprehend competence as the quote is clearly wrong, so is irrelevant to the corrections. "it would be fine to correct it [in parenthesis, as you now know]" No, we don't have to, after the translation was done, you can simply removed the citing sources of "translation by Baxter 1992: 35-36", as we already had the originally quote below as a base of source. "Wikipedia is not the place for original research." This is not a original research but a translation, an original research refer to an unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis and so forth. Those research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. "[in parenthesis, as you now know]" I had knew that since I was here, get that through your head. "Since you claim not to understand "authorized" and "scholarly translation" Well, I did not, I asked if the English quote can be found in his work, but thanks for the facts. "In this context, "amateur version" and "translation contest" refer to anyone who believes:..." You're not addressing to my questions, and I could removed it if I want it to, since this is clearly a sarcastic for me. "but translating 夜 in this wine-drinking context as "evening" instead of "night" is not a mistake." There are more than that, since Chinese is not your native tongue, you're not in the position to removed these tags, btw you had not explained how did Zhou authorized the English quote, since he would probably not be an English native speaker and anything could be misrepsented. Malmqvist was clearly not a Chinese native speaker as can be seen from his quote, he left no explanation (since you had not showed one) on changing 夜 [3] to less implication evening and Fanyan to I, even French sinologist Rene Grousset had make tons of mistake translation in his book, he claimed and misinterpreted Li Shih-min's quote (as reported fromT'ang shu by Rene) "Night will soon fall, and it will be of the darkest, T'u-chüeh are to be feared only when they can see to shoot their arrows. Let us go to them, saber and pike in hand, and we shall rout them before they can prepare to defend themseleves" when he summoned his "captain" (by Rene) to make an attack, in an actual event, this was not the cases as of the tujue was not able to shoot their arrows had due to the deluge of rain which swept the region instead of the darkest, and with such he had misquoted, there are many more can be found. I found that you had this habit of accusing me without a vaild information, first of all you claimed I entitled my opinions that "they're an unpublished POV." Well, at least I made a POV on a disscusion than in the article like you had did. You also claimed on Shiming that I had changed ""200" to "220", back to "200", and then back again to "220" While I had explained that I did only once, and you left no explanation to me of this accusing. Second, you claimed that I had changed "the punctuation and wording of a quotation without following the accepted convention of brackets" and "added tone marks (thanks again) but removed the brackets" This is clearly not the cases as I had explained you made "Liu [Zhen]" in the quote yourself and I had changed "Liu [Zhen]" to "Liú [Zhēn]" on the next edits with the originally brackets as I did not noticed you had changed to "[Liu Zhen]" on your revised edition. You also claimed that my responses were "insulting and autocratic" even as the responses is not for you, and criticizing a book or author is quite normal in Wikipedia, I don't see anything that you could sarcastically blamed me on that. What even more worst is that you had deliberately removed my whole responses under the edit summary of "reply" at here. You claimed that in Extensive Gleanings of the Taiping Era that I " picked a fight with you in the Shiming, which I refused to listen to reason or compromise" Just where's your ground on that, I had tried to make an effort to communicate with you on the talk pages. Frankly, I found enough of your nonsense, which I had limited my temper to being so patient in dealing with you. You also claimed that I "added pinyin tones into the Shiming article but deleted them from others with contrariness " While I had told you that I had changed some articles without tone marks for consistency, since they were not originally marked with tone. If you're still unhappy with it, you might made a request on Mediation. "other bilingual Wikipedia editors who respond to your disingenuous" claiming something like disingenuous would be nothing but pure rubbish that came out from your mouth. Since you're an older Wikipedian than me as you had joined in since 00:26, 27 February 2006 (11:34, 17 March 2006 for me), I don't wish to pick a fight with you, and I hope that you would know what you're writing about other. Eiorgiomugini 10:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cited publications vs. original research

Eiorgiomugini, you're correct that "we have no accounts for [Lu's] date of birth and death." My "581-618" was a mistake and I apologize.

However, if you want to require others to give citations (e.g., numbers of characters in Guangyun and Jiyun) while you don't (e.g., correcting my mistake for the number of characters in Erya[4]), it's OK with me. Here are the relevant pages.

I cited two published English sources (Baxter 37, Norman 25) for "three southerners" while you loosely cited "based upon [sic] primary sources" for your remarkable Original Research. For now, I'll just mark it and wait for you to find a valid English citation supporting your POV.

Baxter (38) also writes, "Rhyme book fragments were discovered in the Dunhuang caves and in Turfan; others turned up in Beijing." He cites Wang Li 王力 (漢語詩律學, 1957, 178-180) quoting Wang Guowei who "argued that two of the three Qieyun fragments from Dunhuang in the British Museum were from Zhangsun Neyan's version, and that the other represented Lu Fayan's original version." You might want to read Wang's opinions before going off the handle. --Keahapana 23:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Eiorgiomugini, why am I not surprised that you'd resort to ad hominem invective? If you can't win an argument with facts or logic, do you think insults will work? --Keahapana 21:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Some clarification for the changes in this article

Some clarifications about my changes:

As our friend here Keahapana had make a few criticising towards my changes, I would wanted to make some clarifications, however, I would not makes any response to this clown and bully as I had figured it out he would probably accused me for "picking a fight with him" or deliberately removed my whole responses with his foolish mien. I wanted to make my last reply and some clarifications here so that you other would not misunderstood from his dispraise of my changes. I removed the date of Lu, because we had no date of birth and death of him, and 581-618 obviously aren't his dates of birth and death but the fool insisted on adding them back, though later he decided to give it up. Second, I changed 3 southerners to 1 as based upon Beishi [5] and Suishu [6], its not a loosely cited, but consists of collecting and organising information from existing primary sources as stated on NOR, I don't get what did he meant by three "native speakers", is it three southerners speakers or three who native to the south. The numbers in the article are suspicious which are why they required to be cited, and I added some citation needed over there as according to Wikipedia policy, I'm not requiring others to give citations, but if they does have one feel free to add it in. As for the the Dunhuang caves, we should be more cautious on the sources that we read, after all those information stated on the article are not through enough to take it seriously, e.g. the exact Mogao Grottoes which had been excavated from as there were many caves, the paragraph are something like "It survives in fragmentary copies, like the Tang Dynasty version found in the caves of Dunhuang" and the editor conceitedly did not mentioned anything more with regard of it. Eiorgiomugini 06:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrected preface

Following mediation with Eiorgiomugini, I'm correcting the preface and moving his original research here: 7 were northerners; one from northern Jiangsu (沛县); two from Hebei (范阳、鉅鹿); one from Shandong (臨沂); one from Henan (顿丘); one from southern Shanxi (河东); the last from Gansu (狄道) and 1 were southerners with Jīnlíng (modern Nanjing) pronunciation standard. Beishi Vol. 24, 30, 83, 36; Suishu Vol. 58. …夜永酒阑，论及音韵。以古今声调既自有别，诸家取舍亦复不同。…法言即烛下握笔，略记纲纪。后博问英辩，殆得精华。Keahapana 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Cutting"

Qiè definitely doesn’t mean 'cutting'... that word is qiē. See e.g. discussion at W. South Coblin, "Reflections on the Shǒuwēn Fragments," in David Prager Branner ed. The Chinese Rime Tables, p. 105, note 2: Coblin remarks that qiè in the context of traditional phonology "has usually been explained in native sources as 'to press close upon, be close together with, to rub against, etc.', which are all common and well-attested senses of the syllable qiè." Zhaonach (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of rhyme categories

Could someone please make a table of the actual rhyme categories in the Qieyun? There is such a table in the Rhyme Book article, but it has 175 categories and explicitly notes that it has reordered them and added some from later works. Tibetologist (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky. There were at least five revisions under the name Qieyun, and the earliest surviving complete one is the third (by Wang Renxu). The table in rime dictionary#Structure has footnotes that say which groups were in each edition, though it doesn't indicate the re-orderings. Both groups and their ordering for seven editions of the Qieyun/Guangyun/Jiyun can be found in Chart 3 of Chang (1974) cited in that article, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to duplicate that level of detail here, particularly since the changes are minor and don't affect the structure of the system. Kanguole 16:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Tibetologist (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)