Talk:Rime dictionary

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference works (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

"Rime" as opposed to "Rhyme"[edit]

The word 'rime' is a specialised word in Chinese linguistics reffering to the character rime classes in Chinese philology. Please revert the changes. Dylanwhs 08:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is rather silly to make a false distinction between "rhyme" and "rime", given that they are just different spellings of the same word. It is justified to do so only if usage is overwhelming. If we use Google as a tool to determine usage, then there are some examples that can be constructed to show that "rime" is used with a specialised meaning, e.g. "onset and rhyme" v. "onset and rime". However, in this specific case, the opposite is true: "rhyme dictionary" v. "rime dictionary"; or "rhyme book" v. "rime book".

Just because some linguists make this strange distinction, we don't have to mandate it, and it does not become more correct. We should not dictate either form, but state that both are used, without giving misleading ideas about which is more common.

It is illogical that we have so many heterographic homophones in English. If a word is pronounced the same as another, then it should have the same spelling, especially if it is essentially the same word etymologically and semantically. Examples such as "practice"/"practise" and "dependent"/"dependant" are to be tolerated because they are overwhelmingly in standard usage, but it is best not to allow new cases to slip into the language. Say no to "rime" at least until the day that this neologism worms its way into mainstream dictionaries. Chamaeleon 14:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me you oppose to the distinction of rime and rhyme simply because you don't like homophones. It's linguists not other people who decide whether they should be distinguished.

The fact that rhyme book is commoner than rime book is meaningless here, because they are different things. The former is a book of rhyme and the latter is a book of rime. Please compare Google results carefully and you'll see they are different. Try googling "Chinese rime book", "Chinese rhyme book", "nursery rime book" and "nursery rhyme book". I think we should use rime for syllable rimes.

The searches that I linked to take that into account. Chamaeleon 17:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know you have rewritten many rime/rhyme related topics and you are merging final (linguistics) and syllable rime. I hesitated merging them because I had found the following site that says they don't completely match.

Mandarin Diphone Synthesis

If you treat a medial as a part of a diphthong, the final and the rime are identical. But if you treat it as a semivowel, it must be in the onset, therefore the final and the rime become different. If the latter analysis is correct, we need to rewrite phrases like "initial (or onset)" and "final (or rime)". - TAKASUGI Shinji 17:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Let's take 王 wáng, 床 chuáng, and 昂 áng. Which are traditionally considered to rhyme in Mandarin? Chamaeleon 17:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now I understand finals and rimes are different. I will soon show you some poems. The syllables áng and chuáng rhyme, therefore they have the same rime, though they have different finals. I will rewrite the articles on finals, rimes, etc. - TAKASUGI Shinji 16:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While some linguists follow Karlgren in using "rime" in this context, it seems the majority do not, including for example Baxter, Norman and Pulleyblank. There also seems to be a trend towards greater use of "rhyme" over time. "rime" has a quaint feel, but I don't think it's helping our readers. Kanguole 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own two cents are that the distinction between 'rhyme' and 'rime' can be meaningful. To destroy this distinction in wiki articles is therefore to make these articles less informative. Even if not all linguistics distinguish rime and rhyme, the conversion of all rimes to rhymes would be unwarrented. (n.b. 'rime' is the etymologically correct spelling). Tibetologist (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course etymological correctness is beside the point, which is usage. In this case the majority usage of subject experts is "rhyme dictionary". Why should we emphasize a distinction they do not make, and what is that distinction when we're talking about books whose purpose was to describe and prescribe poetic rhyming? Kanguole 20:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a reason why my comment about etymology was in brackets, I agree it is irrelevant. You make a good point about the point of rime books, and I would be fine with calling rime books rhyme books. But what I don't like is saying that this or that languages has a certain number of rhymes. Perhaps better to say 'codas' or soemthing more precise if you don't like 'rhyme'. Tibetologist (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I don't think we'd want to say that about languages, but it is common for authors to say that a particular book is divided into some number of rhymes. Kanguole 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]