Talk:King Tai of Zhou

lit.
No, 古公亶父; pinyin: 父 is not "literally" Father Dan, Lord of Gu, or Patriarch Dan of Gu. Gu is just the adjective for ancient, not a placename, and he wasn't the Lord of Antiquity. — Llywelyn II   02:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's the traditional interpretation. Did you read the Shaughnessy 1989 source? The bit about interpreting 古 as a toponym is page 7. Honestly it makes more sense from a grammatical perspective, although the archaeological evidence certainly isn't overwhelmingly convincing. How would you feel about "Father Dan, Patriarch of Gu" as an alternative name somewhere, with or without specific attribution to Shaughnessy? Archaeological discoveries really have shed a lot of light and reinterpretations on traditional thought. Folly Mox (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Forgot to ping, User:LlywelynII. Folly Mox (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, are  and  are.


 * If page 7 presents convincing evidence of other places it got used as a toponym in Old Chinese, it can go back in the lead. Bonus points if he has some rough idea of where it was to put into the bio section. If it's just his feelings/desire to boost his citations with random noodling and the "traditional" (=usual) reading is the clear meaning of the Chinese, then we have a #Name section (not the lead or phrasing that gives it prominence or support) to offer his proposed emendation with whatever evidence he provides. If it's worth noting but even you don't buy what he's selling, then you could note it with a efn footnote and a #Notes section above the refs with a noteslist template. —  Llywelyn II   04:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion
Loads more here. — Llywelyn II