Talk:只

Also traditional?

Can this also be traditional Chinese? It's found in the Nom Foundation database of Vietnamese characters, which are based on traditional Chinese characters. 131.123.1.226 06:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Can 祇 or 祗 also be simplified?

I am finding "祇" or '祗," meaning "only," not simplified as "只," in numerous online versions of a Chinese poem from the Tang Dynasty. Does this mean that "祇" can also be simplified? 204.11.189.94 13:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Authoritative reference for such things is Table of General Standard Chinese Characters. https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E9%80%9A%E7%94%A8%E8%A7%84%E8%8C%83%E6%B1%89%E5%AD%97%E8%A1%A8#fn_11 - [zhǐ]/"only" is prescribed to be simplified to 只, the other reading [qí]/"earth spirit" is not simplified. Ivanktw (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Here's the poem I was reading, with simplified 祇:

• https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%9C%93%E8%A3%B3%E7%BE%BD%E8%A1%A3%E8%88%9E%E6%AD%8C/8995792

And here's another version of the same poem, with simplified 祗:

• https://sou-yun.cn/Query.aspx?type=poem1&id=15272
• https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hans/%E9%9C%93%E8%A3%B3%E7%BE%BD%E8%A1%A3%E6%AD%8C

I think both mean "only" in the context of this poem, so can you understand what is happening, if neither of these characters is technically simplified, and should be 只? 204.11.189.94 13:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, but 祗应 is apparently a word with its own specific meaning:

• https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E7%A5%97%E5%BA%94/9834193

204.11.189.94 13:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a yet another separate reading [zhī], too rare/obscure that Table of General Standard Chinese Characters doesn't cover it. I'd suppose it's best left not simplified. Hanyu Da Cidian has an entry with these 6 senses for it, it can be not just "only": "1.适，恰。2.但；只。3.竟；简直。4.通“禔”。安。5.通“多”。6.通“底”。何。". Ivanktw (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)