@Dine2016 What about linking to Category:Japanese kanji with on reading えい? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 04:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dine2016, Poketalker This page doesn't have any categories added by the template . DTLHS (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
{{ja-see}}
. ~ POKéTalker(═◉═) 21:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c Do you think showing the historical kana spelling in {{ja-see}}
(e.g.
For pronunciation and definitions of 白川夜舟 – see the following entry at 白河夜船. |
|
(This term, 白川夜舟, is an alternative kanji spelling of 白河夜船.) |
) is a good idea? I'm afraid casual readers may mistake it as the katakana spelling or the (modern) pronunciation of the term, but I don't know any better way to place it. --Dine2016 (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
{{ja-see}}
is supposed to be simple. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
For pronunciation and definitions of 白川夜舟 – see the following entry at 白河夜船. |
|
(This term, 白川夜舟, is an alternative kanji spelling of 白河夜船.) |
For pronunciation and definitions of 白川夜舟 – see the following entry at 白河夜船. |
|
(This term, 白川夜舟, is an alternative kanji spelling of 白河夜船.) |
@Dine2016, see かんじざいぼさつ for 観自在菩薩. The Category:Japanese terms with usage examples should not be in kana spelling form of the kanji entry, is this intentional? ~ POKéTalker(═◉═) 22:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
{{ja-see}}
, I was influenced by western linguistics, which regarded the spoken language as the language and the written language a mere encoding of it. Given this view, かんじざいぼさつ and 観自在菩薩 denoted the same term, and since that term had an usage examples, it followed that かんじざいぼさつ and 観自在菩薩 would both be Category:Japanese terms with usage examples. What distinguished the two was that 観自在菩薩 belonged to Category:Japanese spellings with usage examples while かんじざいぼさつ did not.elseif a == 'ja-usex' or a:find('^quote') then -- special hack return ']{{=' .. b
= true,
to templates_to_exclude
from Module:ja-parse.) --Dine2016 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)This {{ja-see}}
template provides much more useful information to the user than the older {{ja-romanization of}}
. Should we consider using {{ja-see}}
in romaji entries, instead of {{ja-romanization of}}
?
If readers of this page support this idea, then {{ja-see}}
would need a bit of reworking. Here's an example of what {{ja-see}}
looks like on romaji entries. The template now states that the romaji form is an "alternative" spelling.
Also, if we decide to proceed with this idea, considering the kerfuffle from last time when we tried a few iterations of {{ja-romanization of}}
, we should probably broach the topic at WT:BP or WT:GP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
{{ja-see}}
was because the older format for kana soft-redirects,==Japanese== ===Noun=== {{ja-noun}} # {{ja-def|重箱読み}} A reading pattern for certain kanji compound words, using the Chinese-derived '']'' for the first kanji, and the native Japanese '']'' for the second kanji. ]
==Japanese== ===Romanization=== {{ja-romaji}} # {{ja-romanization of|じゅうばこよみ}}
{{ja-see}}
when the current format does a good job. --Dine2016 (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
{{ja-see}}
does an excellent job of that.{{ja-romanization of}}
is poor usability, in that it presents the user with nearly no information, and it requires the user to click through two different entries (the links on the romaji entry, and then the links on the kana entry) before arriving at the desired main entry. I think it would be much more useful and user-friendly to do something at least similar to {{ja-see}}
, by providing users with entry information already on the romaji page, without having to click through -- and if they want to see a full entry, have the romaji page provide direct links, rather than the indirect link to the kana entry, where the user would have to click through again.{{ja-see}}
itself isn't the correct template for the job for romaji entries. Would you be supportive of something similar? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
withdrawn |
---|
@Eirikr I'm sorry, but I still don't get why anyone would want to look up modern Japanese terms by rōmaji. First, there are two transcriptions, of which Kunrei-shiki is official and Hepburn is de facto with numerous variants (and we have created our own variant). Should we build both or stick to our own variant of Hepburn? Second, some words have pronunciation variants. For example, 食う could be either クウ or クー, and 用いる could be either モチイル or モチール. This leads to different transcriptions even in the same transcription scheme. Moreover, capitalization, spaces and hyphens all add further complexities. For example, when the user searches "san", should the results of "San" or "-san" be displayed as well? By the way, sometimes rōmaji usage conforms to neither Kunrei-shiki or Hepburn. For example, anime websites often use a variant of Hepburn with the long sounds expanded according to the rules of 現代仮名遣い or Waapuro. So 東方天空璋 is "Touhou Tenkuushou", neither proper Hepburn "Tōhō Tenkūshō" (nor its usual English rendering "Toho Tenkusho") nor proper Waapuro "Touhou Tennkuusyou/-shou". Here are more examples. I think the ultimate solution is to change the underlying software to use a more sophisticated search interface which supports various transcription schemes, instead of building the search result pages (i.e. rōmaji entries) ourselves. --Dine2016 (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC) |
{{ja-r}}
and similar templates.{{ja-see}}
for rōmaji entries is not mature" rather than attacking users looking up by rōmaji directly (though I still suspect anime fans may try to find 竜 at "ryuu" and be disappointed).{{ja-see}}
in ordinary entries like tentō mushi, but switch back to the older format for entries like "i" once memory limits are breaked? --Dine2016 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Appendix:
or Index:
namespaces, I think that's a wonderful idea. Theoretically, we could have a separate appendix or index set up for each romanization scheme, with the boilerplate at the top of each such page explaining what the scheme is and (in brief) how it encodes the Japanese kana and/or sound values. Presumably, so long as each scheme is a regular encoding, this could be programmatically generated? And we wouldn't need to have existing romaji pages for each word's spelling, like we do for the categories? I have no idea how to go about implementing something like this, however.{{ja-see}}
for romaji entries that don't have memory issues, I would also welcome that.Hi everyone. What do you think is the best way to show inflection of alternative spellings?
My initial plan was to make them automatically generated by {{ja-see}}
, on the respective entries of alternative spellings. For example, let's suppose we're soft-redirecting 言いだす to 言い出す. In addition to fetching the definitions and categories from 言い出す, {{ja-see}}
could also fetch the inflectional type (godan verb ending in -su) and inflect the alternative spelling accordingly:
For pronunciation and definitions of 言いだす – see the following entry at 言い出す. (This term, 言いだす, is an alternative kanji spelling of 言い出す.)
Conjugation of "言いだす" (See Appendix:Japanese verbs.) Stem forms Imperfective (未然形) 言いださ いいださ iidasa Continuative (連用形) 言いだし いいだし iidashi Terminal (終止形) 言いだす いいだす iidasu Attributive (連体形) 言いだす いいだす iidasu Hypothetical (仮定形) 言いだせ いいだせ iidase Imperative (命令形) 言いだせ いいだせ iidase Key constructions Passive 言いだされる いいだされる iidasareru Causative 言いださせる
言いださすいいださせる
いいださすiidasaseru
iidasasuPotential 言いだせる いいだせる iidaseru Volitional 言いだそう いいだそう iidasō Negative 言いださない いいださない iidasanai Negative continuative 言いださず いいださず iidasazu Formal 言いだします いいだします iidashimasu Perfective 言いだした いいだした iidashita Conjunctive 言いだして いいだして iidashite Hypothetical conditional 言いだせば いいだせば iidaseba
The advantage of this approach is that no extra work is needed, as far as modern spellings are concerned. However, once we start creating kanji spellings involving historical kana such as 言ひ出す or 言ひだす, then we need some way to tell the template to use the volitional ending -さう instead of -そう, to keep kana orthography consistent. In other words, the template needs to know whether the current alternative spelling is in modern or historical kana, so that it can supply appropriate inflectional patterns. (Spellings like 言出す add additional complexity: if we give modern inflections to 言いだす and historical inflections to 言ひ出す, then it makes sense to give both to 言出す. So there are really three possibilities, not two.)
It might be tempting to add a new parameter to {{ja-see}}
to indicate the kana orthography of the current alternative spelling, but that defeats the purpose of automatically generating the inflection table and is essentially no better than adding {{ja-go-su-hist}}
manually. An alternative solution is to mark the kana orthography in the lemma entry, for example via {{ja-kanjitab|...|alt=言いだす,言出す|halt=言ひ出す,言ひだす,言出す}}
or {{ja-kanjitab|...|alt=言いだす,言出す-mh,言ひ出す-h,言ひだす-h}}
. I prefer this approach, but I'm not sure which format is better. What do you think?
Alternatively, we could expand the lemma entry directly:
Form | Modern kana orthography | Historical kana orthography | Rōmaji |
---|---|---|---|
Stem forms | |||
Imperfective (未然形) | いいださ【言い出さ・言いださ・言出さ】 | いひださ【言ひ出さ・言ひださ・言出さ】 | iidasa |
Continuative (連用形) | いいだし【言い出し・言いだし・言出し】 | いひだし【言ひ出し・言ひだし・言出し】 | iidashi |
Terminal (終止形) | いいだす【言い出す・言いだす・言出す】 | いひだす【言ひ出す・言ひだす・言出す】 | iidasu |
Attributive (連体形) | いいだす【言い出す・言いだす・言出す】 | いひだす【言ひ出す・言ひだす・言出す】 | iidasu |
Hypothetical (仮定形) | いいだせ【言い出せ・言いだせ・言出せ】 | いひだせ【言ひ出せ・言ひだせ・言出せ】 | iidase |
Imperative (命令形) | いいだせ【言い出せ・言いだせ・言出せ】 | いひだせ【言ひ出せ・言ひだせ・言出せ】 | iidase |
Key constructions | |||
Passive | いいだされる【言い出される・言いだされる・言出される】 | いひだされる【言ひ出される・言ひだされる・言出される】 | iidasareru |
Causative | いいださせる【言い出させる・言いださせる・言出させる】 いいださす【言い出さす・言いださす・言出さす】 |
いひださせる【言ひ出させる・言ひださせる・言出させる】 いひださす【言ひ出さす・言ひださす・言出さす】 |
iidasaseru iidasasu |
Potential | いいだせる【言い出せる・言いだせる・言出せる】 | いひだせる【言ひ出せる・言ひだせる・言出せる】 | iidaseru |
Volitional | いいだそう【言い出そう・言いだそう・言出そう】 | いひださう【言ひ出さう・言ひださう・言出さう】 | iidasō |
Negative | いいださない【言い出さない・言いださない・言出さない】 | いひださない【言ひ出さない・言ひださない・言出さない】 | iidasanai |
Negative continuative | いいださず【言い出さず・言いださず・言出さず】 | いひださず【言ひ出さず・言ひださず・言出さず】 | iidasazu |
Formal | いいだします【言い出します・言いだします・言出します】 | いひだします【言ひ出します・言ひだします・言出します】 | iidashimasu |
Perfective | いいだした【言い出した・言いだした・言出した】 | いひだした【言ひ出した・言ひだした・言出した】 | iidashita |
Conjunctive | いいだして【言い出して・言いだして・言出して】 | いひだして【言ひ出して・言ひだして・言出して】 | iidashite |
Hypothetical conditional | いいだせば【言い出せば・言いだせば・言出せば】 | いひだせば【言ひ出せば・言ひだせば・言出せば】 | iidaseba |
The advantage with this approach is that it is more logical, and users searching alternative spellings of inflected forms is likely to land on the lemma entry directly, with MediaWiki's searching facility. The disadvantage is that the inflection templates must be reworked, and such a format would increase data duplication.
Which approach do you prefer?
(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Nibiko, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c, Poketalker, Cnilep, Britannic124, Marlin Setia1, AstroVulpes, Tsukuyone, Aogaeru4, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, Mellohi!): --Dine2016 (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Errors: * This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: strips L3
Marlin Setia1 (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
==Japanese== {{ja-kanjitab|よ|yomi=k}} ===Verb=== {{ja-verb|さける|type=2}} # {{alternative spelling of|ja|除ける}}
{{ja-see}}
has not been formally recognized.==Japanese== {{ja-kanjitab|よ|yomi=k}} ===Definitions=== {{ja-see|避ける}}
==Japanese== ===Etymology 2=== {{ja-kanjitab|よ|yomi=k}} {{ja-see|避ける}}
===Etymology 2===
even though there's only one etym on that page right now, and it's missing the のける reading, but anyway. :) )==Japanese== {{ja-kanjitab|よ|yomi=k}} {{ja-see|避ける}}
@Dine2016, Suzukaze-c, anyone else interested --
I'm curious if this template / module could be updated to apply sorting. By way of examle, 抱っこ uses {{ja-see|だっこ}}
, but the 抱っこ entry is currently sorted in Category:Japanese_childish_terms under 抱っこ rather than the expected だっこ. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
'
on the end for initial kana with 濁点 and ''
for initial kana with 半濁点, and for kanji, using Lua to sort by radical + additional stroke count, rather than just sorting by the raw character itself. Ideally, editors wouldn't have to bother with sortkeys for Japanese at all. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)The new implementation parses the lemma entry in one pass, instead of dividing it by Etymology headers and accepting/rejecting each in an all-or-nothing manner. This means that the following snippet is parsed correctly:
===Noun=== {{ja-noun|おたまじゃくし}} # musical note // current list of alt spellings: おたまじゃくし ===Noun=== {{ja-noun|おたまじゃくし|オタマジャクシ}} # tadpole // current list of alt spellings: おたまじゃくし, オタマジャクシ
But it also means that fewer categories are copied. In fact, only categories from headword lines and definitions are copied, since the new implementation does not make any assumptions of the format of the rest of the entry.
@Eirikr, Suzukaze-c, Huhu9001 The new implementation also handles {{ja-see}}
and {{ja-see-kango}}
in the same manner (as the old {{ja-see-kango}}
), and their only difference is that the latter speaks of "Sino-Japanese terms" instead of "terms". What about using {{ja-see}}
for both kango and wago, and putting "Sino-Japanese" in the Etymology section? --Nyarukoseijin (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
{{ja-see}}
on the 仙 page should presumably only pull in the Etymology 1
section from セント (sento), the section that has {{ja-kanjitab|alt=仙}}
(which I think was also the previous implementation's behavior). However, what I see on the 仙 page is senses from both etym sections at セント (sento), which incorrectly gives 仙 the "saint" sense as well. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)@Nyarukoseijin, Suzukaze-c, anyone else -- could you please have a look at the いただきます page and suss out why this template isn't working correctly there? I suspect it might be related to the POS header at lemma form 頂きます, but that's just a guess. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Suzukaze-c, Huhu9001, welcoming anyone else with insight --
{{ja-see-kango}}
doesn't handle alt spellings very well. If a listed kanji compound is an alternative form entry that is just a stub, it gets placed at the bottom of the list in smaller font:
.)I haven't confirmed, but this might affect {{ja-see}}
too.
I just had a go at 器械・機械 and きかい, lemmatizing at 器械. The other two use {{ja-see-kango}}
. The two kanji entries are rendering as expected. However, きかい has the 機械 (the stub entry) at the bottom, stating that it hasn't been created yet.
I've found that this happens if {{ja-see-kango}}
can't find an alt spelling or a kana spelling. I'm not sure of the best way of adding it to a stub entry; 機械 has {{ja-kanjitab}}
, so we could presumably add alt=きかい
, but that feels weird since this isn't really an "alternative" spelling, strictly speaking, and listing kana in the "alternative spellings" box looks odd. I also tested that and it didn't seem to work, so if we decide to go with this approach, it would require a change to {{ja-see-kango}}
, and possibly {{ja-see}}
.
Looking forward to your input.
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
{{ja-see}}
. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
{{ja-see}}
isn't a definition. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC))
{{ja-see-kango}}
is not intended to point to entries that amount to little more than stubs as alternative spellings, which is effectively what 機械 is.The documentation isn't clear what the use case is for this parameter. Could someone please explain? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
|pagename=
of other templates. Used only in tests. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)This is Dine2016, the original creator of this template.
There are some things I did wrong with this template:
{{ja-see}}
and {{ja-see-kango}}
, is certainly wrong. Most Japanese dictionaries don't treat Sino-Japanese words specially. It is unclear why Wiktionary should.{{ja-see-kango}}
so that Sino-Japanese words could be grouped together. Later I realized that native words were also rich in homophones, and remodeled {{ja-see}}
after {{ja-see-kango}}
. Now the two templates are almost identical; the only difference is that the later says "Sino-Japanese" in the footer.{{ja-see}}
for all soft-redirects on the same page.{{ja-gv}}
was also a mistake. The original assumption was that graphemes like 竜/龍, 灯/燈, 画/畫/畵, and 代々/代代 were always interchangeable, regardless of which words they spell. So we could simplifyWORDS SPELLINGS だいだい / 代々 代々 ─ 代代 / 代々 よよ / 代代 世々 ─ 世々 \ 世世 せぜ 世々 ─ 世々 \ 世世
WORDS SPELLINGS GRAPHEME-VARIANTS だいだい 代々 代々 \ / 代々 \ 代代 よよ / 世々 世々 \ / 世々 \ 世世 せぜ / 世々
{{ja-see}}
requires the alternative spelling to appear in the main entry. This is not necessary if the main entry contains only one word, in which case no ambiguities will arise.Part of the reason I couldn't write good English lies in the fact that Wiktionary's terminology was unclear. For example, Wiktionary has never developed a concept for "words" (or more accurately, "lexical items"). Instead, its entries are organized around spellings. So one entry may contain several words (くらい = 'dark', 'rank/approximately', 'eating') and one word may span several entries ('rank/approximately' = くらい, くらゐ, 位). {{ja-see}}
requires you to think in words, to organize the data around words, which is difficult in a spelling-centric mode of editing. So I kinda regret creating these templates.
(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo): --2409:894C:3C36:279D:5B65:2A08:CFCA:DED6 16:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what the template means when it says this. Is it broken in detecting whether entries are created, or is it worded/placed poorly?
I see it in entries like 遣る, where it says:
but やる does, in fact, exist—it's the main entry for the word. What's going on here? --TreyHarris (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that this template automatically adds entries to Category:Japanese non-lemma forms, which seems problematic. It's a bit inconsistent for Category:Japanese lemmas to contain some kanji spellings, but not others. Binarystep (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I understand why we don't transliterate when this template is placed at a spelling that contains kanji, but when there's nothing but kana there are no technical reasons not to: we don't have to worry about dealing with multiple readings, and it should be easy to transliterate plain kana without having to fish around in other entries like we do when kanji are involved. We don't even have to link to a romaji entry- it would be fine to just display it like we do in our other templates: かな (“kana”). As for the matter of consistency: I would argue that almost all kana-only entries with this template are basically transliteration entries already- but in a script that's opaque to those who haven't completely mastered the kanas (i.e., most of our readers). Chuck Entz (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)