Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:ojo. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:ojo, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:ojo in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:ojo you have here. The definition of the word Talk:ojo will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:ojo, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
RFV — moved to RFD
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
I think inclusion criteria should be based not on what kind of Romanization it is, but on whether it's used. With anime as popular as it is, it wouldn't surprise me if this and/or oujo are used. One thing about Hepburn is that it wasn't created with keyboards in mind. I've always had a pet peeve with romanization systems that use difficult to type characters like ō. If we have to go out of our way to type the damn romanized word, we may as well just use the original Japanese! Language Lover21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Incidentally, all over the web, people use a common variation of Hepburn where ō is ou and similarly with uu. It's not just a matter of difficulty to type, but also that many websites don't support the umlaut crap, certainly not in usernames, where Japanese influence is common. Hepburn is a perfect example where the prescriptivists tell us one thing but actual real life observation tells us something else entirely. Language Lover21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I understand what you're saying but I don't think we need ojo because let's just presume for a sec that Hepburn was the standard romanisation system. If you put ojo as Hepburn it's the same but oujo becomes ōjo. Also ōjo(or oujo as I need to type in hiragana) will convert to 王女 which is the correct kanji for "princess" and ojo won't. Compare this with 人魚(ningyo)& 人形(ningyō) Two similar sounding words that are pretty much unrelated.--50 Xylophone Players13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
This was discussed last year and at that time it was decided that it would be better not to have the macrons in the article name, since they are a problem to type, and since the romaji entries are purely for the convenience of those of us who cannot type Japanese. So we put the Japanese romaji article at sayonara, with sayōnara as a redirect. —Stephen17:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is so completely ass-backwards I hardly know where to begin.
We do not have rōmaji entries "for the convenience of those who cannot type Japanese". Just like we don't have romanized entries for those who can't "type Russian".
We have rōmaji entries because rōmaji is a script used to write Japanese. The language is frequently written in rōmaji in chats, emails, and quite a number of other places. If this were not so, the rōmaji forms would entirely fail CFI, just as a Russian word written in Latin script would. (But not a Serbian word.)
"sayōnara" should be at sayōnara, the redirect is wrong (just as other redirects between spelling/form variants are always wrong) In this particular case, having an entry at sayonara is probably also valid, as it is familiar in English (i.e. like nyet, which we have, although quite oddly labelled English; while certainly not having romanizations of all the other words in Russian!)
There was never a discussion about having romaji entries because Japanese is written in romaji. The only discussions we had were as I described above, that is, for the convenience of those who can’t type Japanese. For my money it a good policy and I think it’s the best policy. Similar arguments might have been made for Russian, but they weren’t, for reasons that should be obvious. —Stephen18:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
PalkiaX50 is referring specifically to the Japanese section. Don't worry, no one's going to delete the entry as a whole, just possibly remove the Japanese section. —RuakhTALK13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
The Japanese looks very good to me, very useful, and makes finding the correct meaning and kanji easy. As discussed previously, it should be kept. —Stephen17:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I know almost nothing about Japanese, and nothing about how it's Romanized, but if accent marks are necessary, then why shouldn't this be deleted (and replaced with {{also}})?—msh210℠19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I'm pretty iffy on the concept of keeping romanizations in general, but this in particular — romaji with no indication of vowel length — seems to be what you might call a "common misromanization". —RuakhTALK18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
