| Change log entry 97255 | |
|---|---|
| Processed by: | richwarm (2026-08-23 01:13:50 UTC) |
| Comment: |
<< review queue entry 89046 - submitted by 'cws' >> changed `variant of 瞭|了[liao3]` to `see 瞭|了[liao3]` 瞭 了 [[liao3]] /(bound form) clear in one's mind; to understand clearly/ 了 了 [[liao3]] /to finish/(used with 得[de2] or 不[bu4] after a verb to express (im)possibility, as in 忘不了[wang4bu5liao3] "cannot forget")/(literary) (usually followed by a negative such as 無|无[wu2] or 不[bu4]) completely (not); entirely (not); (not) in the least/variant of 瞭|了[liao3]/ From the definition above, 了[liao3] is a variant of 瞭[liao3]. However, we have this definition: 瞭解 了解 [[liao3jie3]] /variant of 了解[liao3jie3]/ 瞭[liao3] cannot be a variant of 了[liao3] though. 瞭[liao3] has one meaning as compared to 了[liao3] with four meanings/uses. Add to the fact that 了[liao3] was existing for centuries, it appears that 瞭[liao3] is a modern creation ===== Inquiry from Gemini 瞭 了 [[liao3]] /(bound form) clear in one's mind; to understand clearly/ 了 了 [[liao3]] /..other definitions are stripped../variant of 瞭|了[liao3]/ 瞭解 了解 [[liao3jie3]] /variant of 了解[liao3jie3]/ but how come 瞭解 is a variant of 了解? why not 了解 is a variant of 瞭解? Gemini's answer: 了解 is the primary, standard form because the simple character 了 (liǎo) independently carries the historical meaning of "clear" or "to understand," predating the use of the more complex 瞭 in this context. Rather than 了解 being a "simplified" or lazy version of 瞭解, the reverse is closer to the truth: 瞭解 is an elaborated, visually-specific offshoot of the original word. The Original Meaning of 了 While most learners first encounter 了 as a grammatical particle (le) or a verb for finishing (liǎo, as in 完了), classical Chinese also used 了 to mean "clear" or "understood." You can see this preserved in idioms like 了然於心 (liǎorán yú xīn - to understand clearly in one's heart). Because of this, 了解 has been the correct and logical way to write the word for centuries. The Creation of 瞭 The character 瞭 was created later by adding the "eye" radical (目). It was originally designed to describe physical eyesight—specifically "to look from afar" (瞭望, liàowàng) or "bright, clear vision." Because the concepts of "seeing clearly" and "understanding clearly" overlap conceptually, writers gradually started substituting 了 with 瞭 to emphasize mental clarity through a visual metaphor. Official Standardization Dictionary maintainers (like CC-CEDICT) list 了解 as the main entry and 瞭解 as the variant because both major modern standardization bodies agree: Traditional Chinese (Taiwan/Hong Kong): The Taiwan Ministry of Education's official dictionary explicitly designates 了解 as the orthodox, standard form. 瞭解 is accepted in daily writing but is technically classified as a variant. Simplified Chinese (Mainland China): During the character simplification process in the 20th century, the liǎo pronunciation of 瞭 was officially merged back into the simpler 了 to reduce stroke counts. In mainland China today, 了解 is the only correct form, and 瞭 is strictly reserved for the liào pronunciation (like looking from a watchtower). RE Gemini's answer: Rather than 了解 being a "simplified" or lazy version of 瞭解, the reverse is closer to the truth: 瞭解 is an elaborated, visually-specific offshoot of the original word. The character 瞭 was created later by adding the "eye" radical (目). Because the concepts of "seeing clearly" and "understanding clearly" overlap conceptually, writers gradually started substituting 了 with 瞭 to emphasize mental clarity through a visual metaphor. If 瞭[liao3] were to be documented as a visual variant of 瞭|了[liao3] entry, how it should be defined in CC-CEDICT? Are there other kinds of these variants? Where the variant+pronunciation can only be substituted for one very specific meaning from a character+pronunciation with multiple meanings ================================ Editor: I see that kbaiko has already rejected the diff and explained the relevant reference syntax. I agree with his handling of the submission, but I would like to add some comments about the assumptions that appear to have prompted it. In your recent submission concerning 當啷, you wrote: > I have a tool that converts simplified to traditional. Even though the two words (噹啷 and 當啷) have exactly the same definition [...], the algorithm won't be able to infer which word is more significant or canon for the traditional writing of the 当啷. and: > Demoting 當啷 to a variant will help the algorithm to choose 噹啷 as the traditional of 当啷. For that particular word, 当啷 → 噹啷 may be a well-supported conversion, and treating 當啷 as a variant may be lexicographically appropriate. However, THE DIRECTION OF A CC-CEDICT VARIANT REFERENCE DOES NOT IN GENERAL ESTABLISH ONE FORM AS THE GLOBALLY CANONICAL TRADITIONAL FORM FOR CONVERSION PURPOSES. Where practicable, we normally put the less common form on the variant side, but variant relationships and spelling preferences may be specific to a particular word or sense (see below). It is also important to distinguish the direction of a variant relationship from the semantic scope of the reference. An unparenthesized reference such as /variant of Y/ indicates that the complete definition of the referenced entry applies at that point and may be substituted by an app. When only a particular sense is shared, while the referenced entry also has senses that do not apply to the variant form, we state the applicable definition explicitly and put "(variant of Y)" in parentheses. This tells an app to display the stated definition and variant note without substituting Y's complete definition. For example: 哀號 哀号 [[ai1hao2]] /to wail; to cry piteously (variant of 哀嚎[ai1hao2])/ 哀嚎 哀嚎 [[ai1hao2]] /to wail; to cry piteously/(of a wild animal) to howl/ 哀號 is a variant spelling of 哀嚎 in the first sense, but the additional wild-animal sense of 哀嚎 does not apply to 哀號. If we wrote only /variant of 哀嚎[ai1hao2]/, an app would be expected to substitute the complete definition of 哀嚎 and incorrectly import that additional sense. In the present case, the shared sense has already been isolated in a separate single-sense entry: 瞭 了 [[liao3]] /(bound form) clear in one's mind; to understand clearly/ The unparenthesized /variant of 瞭|了[liao3]/ occurs as one sense within the entry for "了 了 [[liao3]]". It tells an app that the complete definition of that particular single-sense target entry may be inserted at that point. It does not imply that all the other senses of 了 are also meanings of 瞭. The fact that the "了 了 [[liao3]]" entry has several senses while the "瞭 了 [[liao3]]" entry has only one is therefore not an inconsistency; it is precisely why the reference is placed as a separate sense in the "了 了 [[liao3]]" entry. LA adopts essentially the same sense-specific analysis. After giving the other senses of 了[liao3], it adds: 明白；清楚。同「瞭」。 https://www.moedict.tw/~了 Thus, the fact that 了 has a wider semantic range does not prevent it from being treated as equivalent to 瞭 within their shared sense. Nor does this syntax make a historical claim that 了 developed from 瞭. The age or etymological origin of the characters is a separate matter from how their variant relationship is represented in entries describing modern usage. If we instead regarded 了 as the main traditional form for the shared "clear in one's mind; understand clearly" sense, we could put that definition directly in the entry for "了 了 [[liao3]]" and define the corresponding sense of 瞭 explicitly as: /clear in one's mind; to understand clearly (variant of 了[liao3])/ The variant note would need to be parenthetical because the complete, polysemous definition of 了 could not safely be substituted into the entry for 瞭. That would be a possible alternative organization, but it would reflect a different editorial decision about which traditional form should serve as the main form for this particular sense. The treatment of 瞭解 as a variant of 了解 does not by itself establish that 了 should be the main traditional form in every word containing this morpheme. Preferred spellings can be word-specific. A corpus of Taiwan Panorama (TP) articles provides useful evidence of this: * among the occurrences of the word "míngliǎo" in TP, 32 are written 明瞭 and none 明了; * there are 27 instances of 瞭若指掌 and none of 了若指掌. Yet 了解 is evidently more common than 瞭解. This suggests that 了解 has its own word-specific spelling preference, whereas 瞭 is strongly preferred in at least some other words involving the relevant "liǎo" sense. It also provides some support for the present choice of 瞭 as the main traditional form in the single-sense 瞭|了[liao3] entry, although evidence from other sources could of course also be considered. A simplified-to-traditional converter therefore has to operate at word level and sometimes contextually. For example, a converter targeting the traditional spelling preferences found in TP might produce: * 了解 → 了解 * 明了 → 明瞭 * 了若指掌 → 瞭若指掌 There is no single traditional replacement for simplified 了 that can be inferred from the direction of one CC-CEDICT variant reference. The 当啷 case concerns the preferred traditional spelling of one complete word and may therefore supply a straightforward word-level conversion. It does not establish that variant references can be used to derive a globally preferred conversion for an individual polysemous character. Changing /variant of 瞭|了[liao3]/ to /see 瞭|了[liao3]/ would produce much the same substituted definition, but it would discard the relevant information that the forms are variants with the same pronunciation. It would not improve the lexicographical description and, most importantly, IT WOULD NOT RESOLVE THE UNDERLYING CONVERSION PROBLEM. More generally, for future submissions, please first establish that the existing entry has a lexicographical problem, and support that conclusion with concise evidence from reliable sources or actual usage. CC-CEDICT entries should not be changed merely to make a particular conversion script produce a desired output. If the difficulty concerns how CC-CEDICT syntax should be interpreted by software, it would be better to ask about that separately before submitting a diff. Please also state the argument briefly in your own words rather than pasting lengthy passages of AI-generated text. * * * P.S. A separate point concerns the historical account quoted from Gemini, which also appears oversimplified. MOE has separate entries for 明瞭 and 明了, citing Song-dynasty examples of 明瞭, as well as a Yuan example and an example from the "Book of the Later Han" for 明了. The Song examples of 明瞭 concern visual clarity rather than specifically mental understanding, so they do not establish complete semantic equivalence at that date. They do, however, establish a textual tradition for 瞭[liao3] going back at least to the Song; it is certainly not merely a modern creation. Even if 瞭 developed later than 了, that would be very different from saying that it was created in modern times. |
| Diff: |
# - 了 了 [[liao3]] /to finish/(used with 得[de2] or 不[bu4] after a verb to express (im)possibility, as in 忘不了[wang4bu5liao3] "cannot forget")/(literary) (usually followed by a negative such as 無|无[wu2] or 不[bu4]) completely (not); entirely (not); (not) in the least/variant of 瞭|了[liao3]/ # + 了 了 [[liao3]] /to finish/(used with 得[de2] or 不[bu4] after a verb to express (im)possibility, as in 忘不了[wang4bu5liao3] "cannot forget")/(literary) (usually followed by a negative such as 無|无[wu2] or 不[bu4]) completely (not); entirely (not); (not) in the least/see 瞭|了[liao3]/ |