User talk:刻意

My main talk page 刻意.--刻意(Kèyì) 05:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Hi

...你是? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.Rico (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rao (Chinese name)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rao (Chinese name), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.asiawind.com/pub/forum/fhakka/mhonarc/msg02068.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Bo (Chinese name)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Bo (Chinese name), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Bo (surname). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"I didn't disagree with you" (revised)

Hello. I saw your help-desk question in which you asked about the meaning of the English sentence, "I didn't disagree with you." I thought I'd try to help you with your question here, instead of at the help desk, since I didn't want to post a long reply there. You've asked an excellent and very interesting question! Even though the sentence is quite short, it's really very complex in its language structure. We need to look carefully at that structure in order to understand what the sentence means.

A careful reply to your question appears below. I've posted it here in "collapsed" format to avoid using a lot of space on your talk page. Just click the "show" button at the right end of the bar, below, to see the full comment:

collapsing "Explanation in reply to your question"

In mathematics there is this wise advice: "If you do not understand a problem, then there is some more simple problem that it depends on that you also do not understand. Find that simpler problem, and solve that." So because the sentence you ask about is complex and hard to understand, let us first begin with this much simpler sentence: (1) "Jiang Hou disagreed with Pang Nuan." It's a little confusing in English, but for our purposes here this simpler sentence can mean two very different things: (1a) "Jiang Hou said Pang Nuan was wrong." or (1b) "Jiang Hou thought Pang Nuan was wrong." ( But he didn't express that opinion. ) Next we need to ask what happens when we bring the meaning of the past-tense contradiction phrase "did not" into sentences (1a) and (1b). It's a strangely complicated rule in English, but when the two words "did not" are introduced into a declarative sentence about the past, the two words are placed just before the declarative sentence's main past-tense verb, and then that main past-tense verb is revised to be conjugated in the present-tense. The sentence taken as a whole nevertheless continues to describe something that occurred in the past, because the past-tense verb phrase "did not" carries the burden of informing the listener that it is something in the past that is being discussed. This rule is so complicated that I want to give just one example here, to make it very clear how the rule works: Declarative statement with a past-tense verb: "Shao Lin walked to the temple." Contradiction using the past-tense phrase "did not": "Shao Lin did not walk to the temple." Do you see what happens? The past tense verb phrase "did not" is inserted before the sentence's past-tense verb "walked", and then "walked" is restated as the present tense verb "walk". The effect of "did not" is to contradict the sentence's main past-tense verb, and to then cause that main past-tense verb to be restated into the present tense. This example, please note, says nothing at all about whether Shao Lin went to the temple. It only says that he didn't walk to it. He could have traveled to the temple on horseback, in an oxcart, by bicycle, or some other way, or he could have instead taken a boat to the market or simply stayed at home. There is just not enough information in the resulting sentence "Shao Lin did not walk to the temple" for us to know any of those other things. Fortunately, the rather complex sentence "Shao Lin did not walk to the temple" can be made more clear by expressing the identical idea with this simpler sentence, "It is false that Shao Lin walked to the temple." It would be a little unusual to use this exact sentence in English conversation, by the way, but that's just because it's not a popular way to state the idea. It is nevertheless a perfectly correct English sentence. This same complicated process by which a declarative past-tense sentence is contradicted can also be applied to our earlier example, to achieve the same kind of result. This can be seen by imagining a conversation between two friends who are discussing Jiang Hou and Pang Nuan: First friend: "Jiang Hou disagreed with Pang Nuan." Second friend: "No, that is false: Jiang Hou did not disagree with Pang Nuan." If the second friend in our example is correct, then we can combine and condense the two friends statements into a single sentence that tells the truth of the matter: (2) "It is false that Jiang Hou disagreed with Pang Nuan." We're still not finished, though, because just as I showed in (1a) and (1b) above, sentence (2) can also mean either of two different things for our purposes here: (2a) "It is false that Jiang Hou said Pang Nuan was wrong.", or (2b) "It is false that Jiang Hou thought Pang Nuan was wrong." Now these two sentences are pretty clear: The first interprets "disagreed" from sentence (2) to inform us us that Jiang Hou did not say something. Likewise, the second interpretation of "disagreed" from sentence (2) just tells us that Jiang Hou did not think something. But like the Shao Lin example from above, neither of these two sentences, (2a) or (2b), tells us anything at all about what, if anything, Jiang Hou did say or did think about Pang Nuan. They merely tell us what he didn't say or didn't think. In other words, there is simply not enough information in either sentence for us to make any guesses like these: Jiang Hou did not say Pang Nuan was wrong, but he probably thought so. Jiang Hou did not think Pang Nuan was wrong, he thought Pang Nuan was right. Jiang Hou did not think Pang Nuan was wrong, he just thought Pang Nuan's statement was irrelevant. We don't know whether Shao Lin went to the temple, and we don't know what, if anything, Jiang Hou said or thought about Pang Nuan. We only know what he didn't say or think. Now before we go on, let us substitue "I" for Jiang Hou, and let us substitue "you" for Pang Nuan. This gives: (3a) "It is false that I said you were wrong." (3b) "It is false that I thought you were wrong." Just as in the previous examples, if I were to say either of these sentences I would merely be stating a negative. I would only be communicating the fact that I didn't say something or didn't think something. There is not enough information in either sentence for you to know what, if anything, I did say or think. There's not enough information present in the two sentences to validly infer any additional meanings from them, in other words. For example, they do not imply any of the following: "I didn't think you were wrong, I just have no opinion on the subject." "I didn't think you were wrong, I'm just neutral on the subject." "I didn't think you were wrong; I thought you were right." "I didn't think you were wrong, but now I do." "I didn't think you were wrong, I just didn't understand what you meant." "I didn't think you were wrong, I just thought your statement was irrelevant." "I didn't say you were wrong, I didn't express an opinion at all." "I didn't say you were wrong, but someone else said so." "I didn't say you were wrong, I said you expressed yourself unclearly."

Do you see? Knowing what somone didn't say or or think tells you nothing at all about what he did say or think, if anything. If you want to know what he did say or think you must simply ask him for more information. I hope this helps. Feel free to ask here for clarification, if needed. I will keep this page on my watch list for a week or two, so I don't miss any reply you might make here. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive analysis on the sentence "I didn't disagree with you." It helps me a lot. I am curious to know whether you are a mathematian:) Best.--刻意(Kèyì) 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll see that I copied your reply from my talk/discussion page here, just above. ( It seems best to me if all comments in a discussion can be found on just one page. ) You are most welcome for my remarks on your question. I enjoyed thinking about it very much. I enjoyed it so much, in fact, that I've written more about it!

collapsing "Further explanation"

The analysis I wrote above is correct, but it is an analysis of only the literal meaning of the sentence. I probably paid too little attention to its connotation. I must tell you that most native speakers of English probably would say that the sentence does connote some mild agreement, some weak or qualified support for the other person's words, ideas, or actions. I thought it important to mention this because I've thought more about the present-tense sentence "I don't disagree with you." Someone who says "I don't disagree with you" almost certainly wants to express mild support, at least, for the other's words, ideas, or actions. I admit it is rather strange that the present-tense sentence connotes some agreement, while the past-tense "I didn't disagree with you" does not necessarily connote agreement, or connotes only weaker or partial agreement. ( English is full of such strange rules, I'm sorry to say. ) Perhaps some of the following comments will help explain. I've already mentioned several reasons why "I didn't disagree with you" is complex, but I failed to mention the most important reason for its complexity: The sentence is a kind of double negative; it might be more exactly called a litotes. Most negative sentences have only one word to indicate negation, e.g. the word "not" is most often used. But "I did not disagree with you" has more than one negation; the prefix "dis" in "disagree" also indicates negation. ( This can be seen clearly in the two sentences "The room is in order" and "The room is in disorder"; the first means the room is clean and ready for use while the second means it is not, it is messy or chaotic in some way. ) When a sentence that already contains a negation, like "dis", has another negation added to it, however, the meaning becomes much less clear. Consider adding "not" to our example "The room is in disorder" to get the sentence "The room is not in disorder". This is an example of a kind of double-negative. A person who has asked to rent a hotel room might reasonably reply, "I don't want a room that is 'not in disorder'. I want a room that is in order!" Because this "double negative" pattern of speaking is so ambiguous, most teachers would say it should be avoided if a speaker wants to be clearly understood. Sometimes people use the pattern when they do not want to be very clear. A politician might use it, for example ;-) The author George Orwell ridiculed the pattern in his famous example, "The not unblack dog chased the not unwhite rabbit across the not ungreen field." ( The prefix "un" negates the words black, white, and green, here. ) All native speakers of English would see that sentence as a silly, ridiculous one. Unfortunately, it is also a proper sentence, it is proper English grammar, in other words. So you understand, now, what I meant when I wrote earlier that such sentences do not really carry enough meaning to understand them fully? When I wrote that "you have to ask for more information" to understand the speaker's exact intention? If someone said, "The dog was not unblack" it would probably best to reply, "What color was it, then?" instead of assuming the speaker means it was gray, or that it was only black in spots, and also had different colors on other places on its body. Or perhaps it would be better still to reply: "Please don't talk that way. You give me a headache." ;-) Finally, after I posted my first reply, above, I noticed that the Wikipedia article for double negative mentions a sentence that's very close to the one you first asked about. Here's what it says: ... For instance, "I do not disagree" could be said to mean, "I certainly agree" if stated in an affirmative manner; this is an example of litotes. However, if stated in a cautious manner, "I do not disagree" can also be used to mean, "You may be right, although I am not sure," or "There is no mistake in what you say, but there is more to it than that." Similarly, the phrase "Mr. Jones was not incompetent" may be used to mean either "Mr. Jones was very competent" or "Mr. Jones was competent, but not brilliantly so." I hope I haven't confused you with all this! The sentence you asked about would also be quite difficult for most native speakers of English to analyze, discuss, and understand correctly. Perhaps the best rule would be to avoid speaking with this pattern yourself, and to ask for more information about the meaning when someone else speaks any sentence that has this "double negative" pattern.

I'm only an amateur in mathematics, since you ask. I'm much more interested in the foundations of mathematics, especialy in symbolic logic, lingustics, semantics, formal languages, and related areas. I'm fascinated by how symbols communicate meaning, and by the puzzles and problems that arise in that process. ( See liar's paradox for one example. ) Such puzzles can give us a hint about hidden, fundamental mistakes in our usual way of thinking, and I have always enjoyed trying to discover such mistakes and understand how they arise. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Juan is not 娟, 隽 nor is it 卷

The sentence which I wrote and which you keep moving back to its out of context position makes no sense whatsoever there and is flat out wrong as in that paragraph it it is referring to the Spanish name not the Chinese name/word. Please put it back. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Also it's my birth name, I ought to know. Lycurgus (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I've moved it. There will be a problem if you move it back because that sentence, which I repeat, I ORIGINALLY WROTE, is diameterically the opposite of the case in the context of the paragraph you keep moving it to. As an apparent speaker of a language which is extremely context sensitive I should think you would have some appreciation of this. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for my misunderstanding. I thought that sentence was talking about the spanish name.--刻意(Kèyì) 09:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, No problem :) 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wa

Many thanks fou your help about Wa flags. The flag I draw is the one of Wa National Organization/Wa National Army that was for many years (in te seventy and eighty) the main (or single) Wa nationalist group, and their flags was considered "national", even if it seems that this can be discused now. After 1989 the main Wa group was the United Wa State Party/United Wa State Army, that signed a peace agreement with SLORC and administer a special region within Shan State. The flags in the video seems to be the United Wa State Party (the first image) and the flags of United Wa State Army - Myanmar - Shan State, the next image with three flags. Also is know the flag of Wa National Unity Party (created in 1989 as Wa National Development Party) that is blue over red with a canton with a white canton containing the three mountains and star. Unluckely there's few Wa infos in the net and less about flags; I hope that this change in next years. My best regards. --79.147.36.143 (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Test line

[tsʰɤ̂ ʂî]

Edit summaries are good, too!

Edit summaries are good! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Republic of China article

Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.81 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

幸会朋友~_~ Zen Light (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Li Surname (郦)

Please stop undoing the redirect for this non-notable stub written in poor English by a now-blocked user, whose creation of these articles was deemed disruptive editing. The redirect was discussed at Talk:Li (surname)#Merger proposal (among countless other places - it was a hell of a discussion!) and there was some consensus for it. I'm not talking about the other surnames such as Li (surname meaning "profit"), just the stub. Anything on this specific surname can be included at the target - on its own, it wasn't deemed notable. Also it doesn't conform with WP:USEENG. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

刻意, I have restored your edit. This represents User:Robsinden's personal view that Chinese family names should not have separate articles, it is not a view that has consensus. At the moment it is stalemated. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zanthoxylum ailanthoides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, 刻意. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, 刻意. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 刻意. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 刻意. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Shenxu listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shenxu. Since you had some involvement with the Shenxu redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)