Talk:空

On the new format, why are we duplicating information? --- Emperorbma

Because they are different. The upper part explaining the entry as a kanji while the lower part explaining it as a word. Not all kanji can serve as a-word-by-itself in Japanese (how about Chinese?). By declare the entry as kanji, we could always sure that upper section should always have all the possible readings or links to words that containing it (currently it just not completed yet). By declare it as a word, we could always sure that it should have the same format with entries like あれ, 見る, イギリス (may have synonyms, usage, etc.). In Japan you could find a Kanji-Jiten (Kanji Dictionary) and Kokugo-Jiten (Japanese-Japanese Dictionary) sold separately. Petruk 14:22 Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

For those Kanji that can't be used by itself we could simply denote that in the "Other info:" section. Should "words containing this kanji" include the Kanji itself (since we would/could not make it a link)? Japman 22:13 Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

We should separate it not only because of that. My main concern is about the 'cleanliness' of the format, that is, the consistency with other entries. About whether or not the "words containing this kanji" should include the kanji itself, for me it is a matter of taste. You could remove it if you think it is useless. Petruk 17:36 Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind then! — Emperorbma

That's great! Thanks! :-) Petruk 17:36 Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

Mandarin readings

Can it be added in which contexts the three different Mandarin readings are used? 71.66.97.228 06:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

These senses are cognate. kōng (OC *kʰoːŋ) is "to be hollow, empty > sky; in vain". kòng (OC *kʰoːŋs) is the causative ("to make ... empty, to vacate"), nominalised ("empty space, spare time"), and (somewhat) figurative form ("to have nothing, to be poor"). kǒng (OC *kʰoːŋʔ) is "hole, aperture", possibly with the -l- infix (OC *kʰloːŋʔ), now written as 孔, whence also the disyllabic form 窟窿 (kūlong, "hole"). I've always thought this is cognate with Viet. không ("not, to be not" - also the Sino-Viet. of "空"), and that this is borrowed from a non-Sino-Tibetan substratum (Min Nan still has "空" meaning "zero"). 60.240.101.246 10:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, which non-Sino-Tibetan substratum? Why not add this information to the entry? 71.66.97.228 06:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Min Nan readings

THCWD lists 7 definitions under reading khang (the only other reading linked is the substitute case meaning "zero"). How will these definitions be combined with other Chinese varieties? Further, it is not clear what definition corresponds to which compounds. Most compounds use khang or khong but it appears not interchangeably. See 空白, 空地 for khàng. Hongthay (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

If we just look at the pronunciation, 文khong/白khang correspond to Mandarin kōng, Cantonese hung1 and Hakka khûng; 文khòng/白khàng correspond to Mandarin kòng, Cantonese hung3 and Hakka khung. However, the usage in terms of the meanings differ among the different varieties. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Folk etymology on "sora" (Japanese)

Here's something interesting found online (resources in: this blog, Chiebukuro and in Oshiete):

According to the Chiebukuro, it was around the Meiji era: there is some kind of mnemonic of the musical scale:

• sol (so) → ソル (soru) ⇒ 太陽(　) (“sun”)
• la → ラ ⇒ 宇宙(ソラ) (sora, “universe”)

This is pure coincidence, can this be accepted as folk etymology? (Note: this made me create an anonymous edit back then about the theory that "sora" came from Italian) --POKéTalker (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't folk etymology mean it's not supposed to be accepted? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Not really "accepted" (poor word choice once again), just only to be added into the etymology section as folk etymology. --POKéTalker (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, Poketalker:

Chiming in belatedly. My general sense for folk etymologies is that they may be included provided that: 1) they are common enough that users might be expected to encounter them (i.e. not just fringe weirdness), and 2) we clearly explain that they are folk etymologies and not actually how the terms arose. Where possible, we should also 3) include the academically accepted etymology as well. I think all three could apply here, FWIW.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)