Talk:Qieyun

message: 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)
thread_title:  WP:NOR 

message: 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), 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)
thread_title:  Cited publications vs. original research 

message: 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  and Suishu , 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)
thread_title: Some clarification for the changes in this article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Corrected preface 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Cutting" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Number of rhyme categories