User talk:Eirikr/2018

What is the Japanese word for guts?きも(胆),はらわた(腸),ぞうき(臟器),ぞうふ(臟腑) or きかん(器官)?Effficientvegetarianpc16 (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Effficientvegetarianpc16: What do you mean by guts? Which sense? Are you asking about intestines, or courage, or some other sense?

The Japanese words you've listed have the following meanings and derivations:

• kimo: liver

Spelled in kanji most commonly as 肝, or rarely as 胆. The latter character is used more commonly in the Chinese-derived compound term 胆嚢 (tannō, “gall bladder”).

• harawata: innards, intestines, entrails

Native Japanese term, a so-called 和語 (wago). Compound of 腹 (hara, “belly”) + 綿 (wata, “cotton; stuffing”).

• zōki: internal organs in general, often in a collective sense: viscera

Derives from Chinese.

• zōfu: bowels, entrails

Less common term. Derives from Chinese.

• kikan: an internal organ

Common term. Derives from Chinese.

In short, there is no integral non-compound purely Japanese term that means guts, entrails, intestines. This includes various terms that aren't listed above, but that also refer to related concepts. In other words, there is no Japanese term that precisely fits this box for purposes of the Swadesh list, unless one is willing to entertain a certain amount of looseness in definitions. This is one reason for why the Swadesh list structure is often inappropriate for comparing some languages.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explanation. So if we have to put a word for Japanese Swadesh List here, it should be harawata?Effficientvegetarianpc16 (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Effficientvegetarianpc16: No.

Compounds or borrowings are generally never appropriate for Swadesh lists. The whole point of Swadesh lists is to explore possibilities for language relationships by finding terms for comparison that are 1) integral (i.e. not compounds created within a given language, but single-term derivations), and 2) native (i.e. not borrowings, but terms with a clear origin within the ancestry of the target language). Since harawata is a compound, it is not an appropriate term for this Swadesh list.

If you're attempting to compare different terms in different languages for purposes of establishing similar patterns of word formation (i.e. finding out how different languages might create compounds in similar ways), then harawata might be a useful comparison term. But for purposes of establishing genetic relatedness between languages, compounds are not generally usable. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explanation. Now I know more.Effficientvegetarianpc16 (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

In light of your edit on kamikaze, if you have time, please take a look at 相撲, is the Muromachi shift sumai → sumō unique to this term?

Also, is there any mention of sumo or related rituals in the Nihon Shoki by any chance?

Going to start prioritizing on borrowings to English, since the sumō article before my edit did not have much coverage. --POKéTalker (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@POKéTalker, I reworked the entry. Have a look. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the revision(s), knew there was an u-onbin from original sumai. An optional question, if this term is actually attested in the Nihon Shoki as likely a different name or kanji spelling, do you know how to address this? --POKéTalker (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@POKéTalker -- Re: ancient spellings, differences in kanji in OJP to spell the same term are generally regarded in monolingual JA lexicography as not worthy of entries, due in particular to the wide variety of possibilities for phonetic man'yōgana usage, and the fact that no one has apparently had the interest to go through and catalog all of them.

If you mean, was "sumō" called something else entirely, any such additional terms could be addressed as synonyms.

I'm not entirely sure if I fully understand your question -- does the above answer what you're looking for? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, to correct myself, the synonym for sumō found in the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki. The online resources tell me the ritual itself is first recorded on those ancient texts, just don't know what they call it (yet). Domo, --POKéTalker (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eirikr, could you please check this recent edit? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@justin(r)leung: reworked, please have a look.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nice, thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Originally a compound of 末 (sue) + 衣 (so) (page 471)? Seems likely to me. --POKéTalker (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@POKéTalker -- Hmm, interesting, but the semantics are backwards: "edge clothing", as opposed to "clothing edge". The usage and meaning I've seen so far all point towards the latter.

FWIW, trawling through my dictionaries to hand, I also find exceedingly few instances of 末 used in compounds as just su. The only old one so far is 末枯り / 末枯る, but the spelling appears to be ateji for 尽る (sugaru, “to pass the peak, to fade”), ultimately cognate with 過ぎる (sugiru, “to go past, to exceed”) by way of root form sugu. I suppose it's possible that sugu and suye / suwe are related, but the phonology seems off, and I haven't had time to suss that out yet. It seems much more likely that suwe is from verb 据う (suu), modern 据える (sueru, historical suweru).

There's also 末黒 (sugoro), but that's listed as a shift from older suegoro, indicating that the su- form is an innovation (at least in this compound).

末 (sue) is a term of long standing in Japanese, and it's been quite productive over the years. If su were a valid combining form of this term, I'd expect to find more evidence in compounds.

All said, it's probably worth mentioning the 1893 日本大辞書 etym as one theory (properly cited and linked), provided we include the caveat that this seems unlikely from semantic and phonological perspectives.

HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

If it isn't too much, could you check these edits I made: diff, diff. Thank you. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Those look good, thank you for adding them! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not likely from Japanese. First applied to Atlantic species. Conjectures include NL saurus and, more likely, OF saurel, etc. DCDuring (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @DCDuring: Good to know re: origin, that makes sense. Given the usex at Merriam-Webster's entry, might the term have been used for a Pacific fish because of the similarly sounding Japanese term? I don't even know how to dig into that hypothesis. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Conceivably. But the Pacific saury may strongly resemble the Atlantic one, either to fishermen or to taxonomists. To me many fish species resemble each other, so inspection of pictures and WP articles may not help much. DCDuring (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

For that matter, I'm not even sure if the Pacific fish called a saury is the same thing as the fish called sayori in Japanese. Something for later when I have more time!  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring -- dug into it some more. The Pacific saury is also known as the sanma, Cololabis saira. The Japanese term sayori is an uncommon alternative name for the sanma, and more commonly this name is applied to Hyporhamphus sajori, a.k.a. Japanese halfbeak -- see w:Hyporhamphus, species:Hyporhamphus, and there are also informative pictures at w:ja:サヨリ.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've been adding to the entry for halfbeak and have added a long list of derived terms at saury. I'm testing the value of the English common names at Fishbase. Fishbase also has vernacular names for species in many languages. We could build many translation tables for both Translingual and English vernacular names from what they have. Marine animals, especially fish, have names in many languages. Also the vernacular names are often applied to many species. DCDuring (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

See also Japanese needlefish. DCDuring (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I tried my best to translate Zaicz. He used the word névátvitel (név - name, át - through, vitel - carrying, also átvitel - transfer) which I translated as name transfer process. Not sure if this is the correct etymological term. I have a hard time to find the appropriate translations for the terminology Zaicz is using. Feel free to correct it. --Panda10 (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

You have effectively ended . But since you questioned my sincerity, I feel I owe you an apology. For one, I feel as a foreign speaker I can contribute a unique perspective on the grammar. Also, if I do have fun writing a comment and can learn something in the result, I don't see any harm in that.

On the other hand, I feel native speakers tend to be preoccupied, no offence. There's no harm in that either, because if you pick a side, you have to defend that. But I would prefer if the discussion remained objective.

I'm new here, so my posting is also intended to learn my ways around here. When I read that a comparative of "Skandi" would be eligible for inclusion, that is to say it would be grammatical because of three attestations, I wondered why the same doesn't hold true for "make due". I don't know whether there is an official policy on how to deal with this case, when there are enough attested uses, but also attested opinions of its incorrectness.

I just wanted to tag it with RVF, because I had gone through all the g-books results for "make due" and "make do" prior to 1900, which was less fun. Frankly, the older uses of "make do" seem in line with "make due X", e.g. "make do doubt", while the single "make do with" prior to 1700 could just as well be a later reprint with make do corrections. However, there is no use of "make due" in the relevant sense (non-sense?) to be found except in legal phrases like "make due preparations".

I thought it best to settle our dispute first so you don't think I'm blindly ignoring your lament. As I have to assume I have indeed made a mistake, I ask you kindly to point it out. Rhyminreason (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Rhyminreason, cheers for dropping a line. I am increasingly convinced that I simply misunderstood where you were coming from. By way of background, there has been a handful of users over the past several years who have made similar kinds of posts, but ultimately in bad faith: they really were acting as trolls in one way or another.

In IT circles, there's an initialism, RTFM, as an expression of frustration from tech support workers towards users who request help with basic features that are already adequately explained in the instructions. I confess that many of us in the Tea Room and Etymology Scriptorium may respond similarly, after too many times in the past of explaining things that are likewise already explained in the individual term entries. So one word of advice: when exploring an etymological theory, please do check any existing entries here at Wiktionary and read the etymologies, following any relevant links, before posting queries and ideas.

In reference to make due vs. make do, there were a couple issues that I saw with your line of reasoning, which, combined with uncertainty about your motivations, may have contributed to a general sense of dubiousness. One error is conflating the rise of one with the decline of the other. This assumes that the two are linked or related. Another interpretation is that the two are not linked at all, and that the rise of one simply coincides historically with the fall of the other. Put another way, correlation is not not causation.

In assuming the two are linked, and alternative forms of each other, you appeared to be arguing that they have the same meaning. That can be shown to be false by distinct differences in usage patterns (viz., due as an adjective modifying a following noun).

An alternative line of argument would be to restate that 1) while these two are distinct and used to indicate different senses in most cases, 2) there are sufficient cases of misuse that meet our criteria for inclusion to suggest that we might want to include a "misspelling of" sense. If you can find enough clear examples of misuse in older cases, with links and examples you can point to, I believe you could also argue successfully for the inclusion of a usage note or similar explanation that these two phrasings may have been conflated, by some writers at least, since the earliest date for which you can find those clear examples.

I hope that helps, and I look forward to you contributing constructively.

Kind regards, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I get back to you with a delay. I had written something but the page crashed, loosing my text twice already.

Cut to the chase: The null hypothesis, that the statistical correlation might not be causally linked, goes without saying. Of course I assumed that the two are related -- that is called a prior. If I have an expectation and a statistic correlates with my expectation, I call that probable confirmation. Now I am looking for further confirmation or counter arguments. To riff on the syntax is not helpful, unless you want to analyze "make do", too.

I didn't say "make do" was used in place of "make due X", rather I am implying that "make due" as a phrase entered the language as a clipping (I believe that's the technical term) with varied meaning, comparable to e.g. "make good". Is that understandable so far? Please confirm.

In that spirit, if I need to provide strong proof for an extraordinary claim, than what proof do you have for the misspelling, your own opinion? Majority vote? Is this a question of policy now? Rhyminreason (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I seem to be contradicting myself with the previous post. Of course I actually did imply before, that make do doubt was looking a lot like it could be misheard from "make due doubt", "make due preparations" (as early as 17th century, at least), etc. That predates the first real result of "make do with" in g-books by half a century, which is set in scare quotes if you are willing to assume the outlier result from the 1590s was later editorializing. Are those enough clear examples of the two constructs used with similar meaning, to you? Rhyminreason (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is a Lua error in the Derived Terms listing under Etymology 2 on this page あばら. Can you please have a look? —Internoob 23:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the ping. Done. I'd forgotten to include a % in the kana string. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you think this is correct? Or have I made mistakes (in the entries and the category), and it should be classified as irregular? —Suzukaze-c◆◆ 00:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c -- I think it's correct. The verb kureru is generally spelled with the re as okurigana, 暗れる. Cognate with 黒 (kuro) and 暗い (kurai), and even 涅 (kuri, “dark mud at the bottom of a body of water”), the root form is くる, which is a 下二段活用動詞. These generally have the -e mora at the end of the stem spelled in kana. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks! It didn't seem to be explicitly included in other resources I looked at. —Suzukaze-c◆◆ 18:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c -- Ya, the 暗 kanji appears to be less common for this term. Daijirin gives the spellings in order of frequency as 【暮れる・昏れる・眩れる・暗れる】. The second one I'm not used to seeing at all; the third I'm only used to seeing in reference to one's eyes going "dark" from blindness.

On its own and in compounds, 暗 does seem to have a reading of kure, where the re gets included in the kanji rather than spelled out. The JA WT entry at ja:暗 doesn't list either kure or kureru as kun'yomi for this kanji, but it is listed with both kure and ku.reru kun'yomi in both KDJ and Daijirin. Oddly, the Daijisen kanji entry excludes kure or kureru from the kun'yomi, but then that same dictionary also lists a kure entry with the 暗 spelling. See here. WWWJDIC's entry lists kure.ru as a kun'yomi, but DJR and KDJ both have this as ku.reru.

Anyway, make of that what you will.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see you removed my post on "makken" in the Etymology Scriptorium. I was about to try to fix it, but didn't want to alter the post and didn't want to amend another wall of text, so I almost figured it should be deleted. Of course I didn't and left it standing for commentary.

My mistake was about fake money. Actually, I was thinking of de:Muckefuck (false coffee), and there I saw that not only was it "-fucke" that was likened to fr. "faux" (false) instead of "mucke-" as I thought, but also that this was an disputed opinion. Therefore, I don't see it related to crime and hence Rotwelsch, and I don't have any source that would reinforce the idea. Anyway, "Mücken" is not even a verb. So, after having written quite a bit of simple factual observations, I allowed myself a momentary lapse of reason.

Also, my advise to look for gbook results was misguided: There is no dutch available on ngram and Indonesia was around the 16th century, before which ngram doesn't index anyway ... and gbooks doesn't have search by language or order by date. I'm not into Dutch otherwise.

Still, "nichts zu machen" - "niets te maken" would appear very reasonable to take into consideration here. Why not? Because it's obvious?

About Rigor:

A single page that doesn't explain anything is not a good source (found clicking through from nl.wt to Sofeer]! I expect cites of primary sources, cognates, the supposed Hebrew root and so an. Otherwise nl.wt is citing just an opinion. But perhaps I am just spoiled from the better parts of WT.

Your "opinion" on probability is absolutely not rigorous either. How would you feel if that part of your comment was cut out? That's what prompted me to write a lot of my own opinion!

Rhyminreason (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@User:Rhyminreason -- I'm not quite sure where to start. On thing I can say, is that you are pretty consistent -- your posts generally come across as disorganized ramblings. I don't say that out of meanness or intent to insult, but rather as an attempt at an objective description.

Picking apart the disorganized threads of your post above, I'll respond as below:

• "after having written quite a bit of simple factual observations"

You are apparently referring to your shotgun-blast listing of terms with vaguely similar spellings, which you present as if they all are 1) somehow etymologically related to each other, and 2) somehow germane to the Dutch makken.

These points are refutable by simply doing some research.

• Makler: derived from makeln as the agent noun. Pretty straightforward. Grammatically, as a noun, not very relevant to the derivation of the Dutch verb -- for that, we would be much better served by looking into the verb makeln. Semantically, clearly not relevant to the senses of spending or influencing or even possibly eating attributed to the Dutch verb makken.

→ Unless we can find a clear connection in terms of sense development and phonetic development, we can ignore this.

• Makel: from Latin macula, and unrelated to any of the senses at issue in the Dutch term.

→ Unless we can find a clear connection in terms of sense development and phonetic development, we can ignore this.

• Macke: from Yiddish מכּה (make, “plague, wound”), from Hebrew מַכָּה (maká, “blow, wound”), from הִכָּה (hiká, “to hit, to strike”).

→ Unless we can find a clear connection in terms of sense development and phonetic development, we can ignore this.

• makeln: Cognate with machen, derived as the frequentative / iterative, similar to many other Germanic verbs with -l- at the end. Semantically developed as to make or do something iteratively / repeatedly → to trade, to do business. Given the frequentative / iterative suffix, and given that this suffix is a common element across the Germanic languages, and given also that this element is wholly lacking from the term at issue -- makken -- this term makeln is likely irrelevant.

→ Unless we can find a clear connection in terms of sense development and phonetic development, we can ignore this.

• mäkeln: Similar derivation. The sense development went a different route, to make or do something iteratively / repeatedly → to trade, to do business → to find fault with, from the way that businessmen often point out problems in the process of haggling over prices. Again, we have the frequentative / iterative suffix in German mäkeln, but missing in Dutch makken.

→ Unless we can find a clear connection in terms of sense development and phonetic development, we can ignore this.

• Mark: Ignoring the ambiguity in which sense you intended, the derivations all trace back to etyma that, barring highly unusual developments for which we currently have no evidence, cannot be relevant to Dutch makken. In addition, all forms of this term throughout history have included either a clear /r/ phoneme or its sometimes-precursor /s/, /z/ invalid IPA characters (//), which are notably missing in Dutch makken.

→ Unless we can find a clear connection in terms of sense development and phonetic development, we can ignore this.

• Marke: From French marque, ultimately cognate with German Mark, and subject to the same considerations as Mark above.

→ Unless we can find a clear connection in terms of sense development and phonetic development, we can ignore this.

• markieren: Again, cognate with German Mark, and subject to the same considerations as Mark above.

→ Unless we can find a clear connection in terms of sense development and phonetic development, we can ignore this.

• Mangel: From verb mangeln, from Old High German mangolōn, from medieval Latin mancare, from Latin mancus, apparently from Proto-Indo-European *man-ko- (“maimed in the hand”), from *man-. Here, we have both medial /n/ and /l/, missing from Dutch makken.

→ Unless we can find a clear connection in terms of sense development and phonetic development, we can ignore this.

I've run out of energy and interest here, so I will not bother listing and refuting your further speculations.

My basic point above is that you ignore historical derivation, sense development, and phonetic development in your search for possible cognates. This is unacceptably loose for any serious exploration of etymology, hence my comment about rigor.

• "nichts zu machen" - "niets te maken" would appear very reasonable

It's possible these are related. However, German machen is cognate with Dutch maken -- one "k" -- and there's no explanation for why this would manifest instead as Dutch makken. Barring any compelling evidence of such a shift, we cannot state that Dutch makken comes directly from German machen.

• Your "opinion" on probability is absolutely not rigorous either.

I went no further than stating what I had found explicitly about the etymology, with a short sentence about my own opinions of my findings. You added lots of disorganized and confusing speculation that is easily refuted, suggesting that you yourself did not even bother with casual research.

I've again run out of energy and interest, so I'll leave it at that.

If, in future, you feel moved to expound on etymologies, I would like to strongly encourage you to consider historical derivation, sense development, and phonetic development. Simply casting about for any terms with similar spellings will likely elicit a similar reaction from the Wiktionary editing community (i.e. such posts will probably be deleted). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks like nonsense. Please check. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 05:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c -- Thanks. Ya, it's a lot of sloppy silliness, interspersed with some (accidentally?) kinda correct content. Vetting now. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for my careless edit in this one. Although I do know the difference between phonemic and phonetic transcriptions, thanks anyway for taking the time explaining in your edit summary. I'll be sure to catch any more mistakes in the future. Hope this won't be a problem again. Cheers! — Lucarubis (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lucarubis -- No worries, we all start somewhere.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 03:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind checking the changes made to the Japanese entry here when you get time? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: I have fixed the IP's sloppy edit, which looked more like vandalism. There's always room for improvement and I'm sure Eirikr will be interested. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@---> Tooironic, @Anatoli: Thank you both.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could you please take a look at this Japanese entry when you get the time? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @Tooironic: replied at ]. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. How many kinds of kanji spellings do you think we should include for wago terms like 追い払う? Okurigana usage seems very irregular in premodern texts, do you think we should include every variation?

• 追い払う
  • 追払う, 追い払らう, 追払らう (irregular okurigana usage)
  • 追ひ払ふ, 追払ふ, 追払らふ (historical kana)
  • 追い拂う, 追拂う (kyūjitai)
  • 追ひ拂ふ, 追拂ふ, 追拂らふ (kyūjitai with historical kana)
• 追いはらう
  • 追ひはらふ (historical kana)

(My original idea was to organize all the variant forms in the kanjitab, like this, but it takes too much space for wago terms.) --Dine2016 (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016: I quite like the tabular format in your "original idea" edit, in part because it allows for per-character reading information, something we're still missing from {{ja-kanjitab}} -- but you're right, that takes up a lot of space.

My gut sense is that we should provide the modern kanji + least-ambiguous okurigana as the main spelling; I believe this is what most JA language-learner materials use. The rest could be presented in a collapsible section, much like what {{der-top}} provides.

Perhaps there's some way of combining these two? That is, have your tabular layout, but with just the modern spelling + least-ambiguous okurigana, and an "expand" element that shows the rest. Similar to how Chinese readings are presented. Would that work? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and yes, a collapsed version would be better. I think we can have one-row 追い払う: 追　払(拂) instead of two-row

追い払う: 追　払
????    : 追　拂

to save more space. (On an unrelated note, the kyūjitai form of 追 has two dots in 辶, although font support is lacking.) --Dine2016 (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could you help check this Japanese edit when you get time? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: Mostly spot-on. I tweaked and added deriveds. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here's another Japanese entry that requires checking when you are free: 樹蔭. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: Done.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is it 藪 + 柑子 (gānzi), or anything similar? mellohi! (僕の乖離) 22:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@mellohi!: Yes, as you surmised. Updated, have a look.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I want to add verbs in Unami Delaware and Ojibwe. I know the grammar, but am unsure how to write the code to create a paradigm which would include agent-markers, pre-verbs, alternative forms, conjunct and subjunctive, imperative, gerunds, etc... Is there any way that you can either personally help me out, or can lead me to a link or someone else that can help teach me? Any and all help is greatly appreciated!!! I can see that you must be very smart, and I don’t intend to waste your time. Thanks~~ hk5183 Hk5183 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hk5183: Although I got quite proficient with the MediaWiki template syntax, the inherent limitations made any comprehensive approach for Navajo a non-starter. Later, once the MediaWiki folks added Lua, much more became possible -- but I just haven't had the time and bandwidth to learn the Lua framework here.

I suspect that Unami Delaware and Ojibwe are similarly synthetic languages. User:Julien Daux has done a lot of good work with Navajo templates in the intervening years. You might try asking him. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I tried contacting him and am currently awaiting a response. You are right that Unami and Ojibwe are polysynthetic languages. I don’t know that I’ll ever be able to learn Lua :(, but hopefully I can find some way to bring ojibwe, cree and other widely spoken languages up to par with Navajo in terms of the content on wiktionary. There is currently no framework whatsoever for adding verbs in these very verb-heavy languages, which is a shame! I’m very much a beginner... I’m sorry to bother you, but could you advise me as to how to start a project for this, or how to recruit interested people? Thanks, ~~hk5183

@Hk5183: I'd suggest posting a new thread at Wiktionary:Beer parlour by clicking the + button at the top of that page, between Read and History. Explain your focus, and ask if anyone else here has any expertise or desire to pitch in, or any good resources they can point you to. I suspect you'll get at least a few nibbles.

Also, bear in mind that this is a volunteer project, and many of us take breaks from editing to spend time on other aspects of our lives. These breaks could be a few days to several months, sometimes even years. If you're curious about a user's response times, have a look at their User contributions page (available on the left-hand sidebar on any user's page). That shows how long it's been since they last edited, which can give you a rough idea of whether you can expect to hear from them soon.

HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have the conjugation of one Ojibwe verb at to drink.

I did not try to format it, but I was working on showing the affixes for each form. I'm not yet finished showing the affixes. There are several different types of conjugation, depending on vai, vii, vta, vti, and vowel stems, consonant stems, -o/-i stems, -am stems, -d stems, -n stems, and so on. But this verb (to drink) gives a good idea of them all. (I substituted a different verb for passive forms, since the intransitive "to drink" does not have passives.) —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If I'm not mistaken, I recalled that you had once expressed support for grouping Classical and Modern Japanese under a single "Japanese" header, in consistency with monolingual kokugo dictionaries. That reminded me of the “Unified Chinese” proposal and the current Chinese entry layout. I know this is a bold idea, but would it be possible to apply the Chinese layout to Japanese entries, like in this revision? (The pronunciation box in that revision probably needs expansion and is wrong in periodization.)

And, thanks for the reply. Module:labels/data includes “copular” but simply as an alias for “copulative”. --Dine2016 (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, regular developments (like たづぬ→たずねる) are treated as a single word and irregular developments (like 酔(え)う→よう) are treated as different words in kokugo dictionaries. But あふぐ→あおぐ seems to be an exception? --Dine2016 (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016 -- My copy of the KDJ has full-blown separate entries for 酔う (eu) and 酔う (you), clearly indicating that eu is classical (the 〔自ハ四〕 shows that this has the 四段活用 pattern, which became 五段活用 for all such verbs still used in the modern period). I suspect the presence of separate entries is due to two factors: 1) modern you has a sense not found for classical eu (「あまりに圧倒されて気持が悪くなる。のぼせたようになる。」), and 2) ultimately this dictionary was created by humans, leading inevitably to variance here and there, be it by mistake or by vagaries in editorial decision-making. Since the eu → you shift is a regular diachronic phonetic development, same as for apugu → afugu → *awugu → aogu, it would be much cleaner to adopt the same structure as for あふぐ / あおぐ -- to wit, have the entry indexed under the modern kana spelling, and simply indicate via definitions or notes or labels that certain senses are only found in the modern period.

For our purposes, it sounds like we have at least a rough consensus to build out kana-headword entries for native-JA 和語, in which case you and eu would be at よう and えう respectively, already separate entries. If we instead hew to kanji-headword entries, both would be under 酔う, and labels or usage notes could be used to indicate which senses are specific to which readings and / or historical stages of the language.

Does that approach make sense to you? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree we should focus on which form to use for the headword first.

Ancient wepu became eu by Late Middle Japanese, with the 終止形/連体形 and ウ音便 form eu monophthongized to yoo. However, regular development would have (1) other conjugations still following eu, and (2) the monophthongization no longer applying by Modern Japanese, changing even theses conjugations back to eu. (Compare 洗う, which is pronounced as アロー in 文語 and アラウ in 口語.) What is unusual about the modern form is that yoo is reanalyzed as yo.u and extended to other conjugated forms. As for afugu, I think regular development should have afugu → augu → ɔːgu → ōgu (compare ōgi ‘fan’). --Dine2016 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016 --

Re: 酔う, it's worth noting that ゑ we itself had shifted to ye some time in the Muromachi period, which makes the shift then to you somewhat more sensible. Not sure what you mean by "other conjugations still following eu"?

Re: au vs. ō, there's also the example of あう (au), which never (so far as I've read) monophthongized. It's also interesting that あふぐ opened the u rather than closing the a, as it were. There's probably a phonetic rule there...

I do see in the 1603 Nippo Jisho here that the pronunciation was recorded as auogu. Oddly, that dictionary has no section for terms starting with o, so I cannot find how to confirm the reading of the noun 扇 (ōgi). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for any confusion; by "regular" I meant "predictable from the historical kana spelling". And by "other conjugations still following eu" I meant eu is still the basis in the formation of other conjugated forms:

	Classical Japanese	Late Middle Japanese	Modern Japanese
終止形・連体形	wefu	yō (underlying form eu)	you (expected eu)
未然形	wefa	ewa	yowa (expected ewa)
連用形	wefi	ei	yoi (expected ei)
已然形（仮定形）・命令形	wefe	ee	yoe (expected ee)

I have not attested the forms in the table above, but Frellesvig's book would imply so (although he uses /p/ instead of /f/ for Old and Early Middle Japanese). --Dine2016 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016 --

I haven't confirmed the above either. However, some historical phonetic developments might make this clearer. What I've read elsewhere jives with w:ja:ゑ#歴史:

• ゑ started out as /we/.

/we/, /je/, and /e/ were all distinct in man'yōgana usage during the Nara period.

During the Heian period, /je/ and /e/ appear to have fused, while /we/ was still mostly distinct. The Iroha poem, for instance, was written to be a pangram, and it has no distinction between /je/ and /e/, but it does have a distinct /we/.

Towards the end of the Heian period, /we/ and /e/ begin to fuse in cases where the concurrent mid-term shift from /f/ to /w/ result in two consecutive syllables starting with /w/. The JA WP article uses this very verb 酔ふ as an example, pointing out that 酔はす → ゑはす shifted from /wefasu/ to /wewasu/ as part of this change in /f/, and the double-"w" then shifted to /ewasu/.

During the Kamakura period, /we/ became less distinct, and as え was read more commonly as /je/, it looks like all all three /we/, /je/, and /e/ had collapsed into /je/.

This corresponds to the Late Middle Japanese in your table above. So I'd amend the conjugation list:

	Classical Japanese	Late Middle Japanese	Modern Japanese
終止形・連体形	wefu	you (underlying form yeu)	you
未然形	wefa	yewa	yowa
連用形	wefi	yei	yoi
已然形（仮定形）・命令形	wefe	yee	yoe

The yeu → you shift seen in the top row is quite regular, and is observable in other terms (c.f. 今日, where OJP kepu became keu became modern kyō). We even see something similar in English, where the Greek-derived ⟨eu⟩ in Europe is pronounced as /jʊ/. Also, I'm not convinced that the final conjugable -u was ever fully subsumed as /joː/ in Late Middle Japanese, so I've kept that separate above.

Meanwhile, the ye- → yo- shift for the other conjugated forms might appear to be stranger, but I think this is explainable as influence from the resulting -o vowel in the "main" 終止・連体形, where the whole verb stem was thus reanalyzed as yo-. Verb stems in Japanese are generally viewed as unchanging phonetic units, so there would be a strong impetus to unify. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could you take a look at this entry? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@justin(r)leung -- Hmm, that anon. I've noticed them creating categories that I don't quite agree with, as they don't seem to understand that Japanese spellings don't always connect to the readings. I started a BP thread at ]. I'm also currently reworking the JA entry at 海老.

Looking into this term, the kairō reading is suggestive of a possible Chinese borrowing. I note too that ] redirects to ]. Is there any chance that our ZH entry at 海老 (hǎilǎo) is missing a sense? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The two definitions in the Chinese section are the only ones I can find in dictionaries. I'm not aware of Chinese usage of 海老 to refer to a shrimp/lobster. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@justin(r)leung -- Interesting. Maybe a regionalism? google:"海老的" -"日本" is throwing up plenty of hits, albeit not huge numbers. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, most of the hits about "shrimp/lobster" are still related to Japanese cuisine. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@justin(r)leung -- Brilliant, thank you! I'll rework the JA entry accordingly, clarifying that the kairō reading is likely a Japanese coinage.

Any value in adding a sense to the ZH term, maybe something like, "shrimp, prawn (in relation to Japanese cuisine)"? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@justin(r)leung -- PS: done.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Expanded, entry on bottom-left. Anything missing? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 20:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@POKéTalker -- Since you ask :), glosses for the deriveds / idioms would be a helpful addition. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr, @Poketalker: Thank you both for reworking the entry! About adding a sense to Chinese related to this, I think I'll have to gather some valid quotations before doing so. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• On a slightly related topic, 海老名 needs a Japanese section, and I'm very curious why a city would be called "shrimp name". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Μετάknowledge -- Updated with what I can ferret out.

Much more speculatively, I note that various other placenames in the Kantō region might have their sources outside of Japanese, notably in Ainu, such as 武蔵 (Musashi) or 富士 (Fuji). Ebina is roughly halfway along the Sagami River between the river mouth and the mountainous river valley complex to the north and west. Ainu エ (e, “to, towards”, preposition) + ピナイ (pinai, “valley”, voicing in compounds to binai) could be the ultimate origin.

I haven't researched this last possibility to see if anyone else has suggested the same, so I'm leaving this out of the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• And another, when you are free. 射爆. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic -- I've done what I can. I'll have to rely on others to confirm the Mandarin borrowing. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was surprised to see you had reverted my edit to えみこ. You see, most Japanese personal name entries that are hiragana don't use Template:der-top4 and the like, they use Template:ja-def, like はなこ， for instance. 2600:1003:B440:E4FD:B11D:114A:D73D:2A8E 23:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@2600:1003:B440:E4FD:B11D:114A:D73D:2A8E -- In general, yes, {{ja-def}} is fine. However, when you reworked えみこ, you also removed all reference to the fact that this name is also found just as the hiragana spelling. Lossy changes are generally not a good thing.

Separately, there's some discussion (starting here, continued some here) about handling 和語 terms in general by locating the main entries under the hiragana spellings, as the kanji are largely incidental to 和語. Adopting that approach, we would instead build out the main entry at えみこ to include etymology and pronunciation, as well as a record of known spellings. Those kanji spellings would direct users back to the hiragara entry for details. For names in particular, kanji spellings are wildly variant, and are often chosen for a combination of phonetics and desirable meanings. In listing all the kanji spellings for a name, it would be a service to readers to provide the literal breakdowns of the spelling meanings, similar to many other name dictionary sites. I note that the {{ja-def}} horizontal layout is poorly suited to this use case. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

PS: Thank you for striking up a dialog! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted an etymology on that page that me and some others found to be very suspect. Anything gatherable for this term? mellohi! (僕の乖離) 01:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@mellohi! -- Hmm, there seems to be disagreement in the sources.

• The KDJ notes the following:

(in the こうじ【麹】 entry)

（「かむだち（麹）」の略の「かむち」の変化）

in the かむだち【麹】 entry)

⇒かんだち（麹）

(in the かん‐だち【麹】 entry)

（「かびたち（麹）」の変化。「黴（かび）発（た）ち」の意。古くは「かむだち」と表記）こうじの古い呼称。かむし。かむち。かみたち。

This is problematic in a few ways.

• No citations are given. Nor can I find this term with the given kana spellings in the UVA corpus of Old and classical Japanese (over at http://jti.lib.virginia.edu/japanese/).
• While 「黴（かび）発（た）ち」 (literally "mold arising") is a reasonable semantic derivation, I cannot find any support for kabi shifting to kamu. Moreover, kabi is derived as the continuative stem of verb kabu (modern 黴びる (kabiru, “to go moldy, to go off”)), and this form is a requirement if the stem is to connect to another verb -- so kabu or kamu + tachi is ungrammatical. I'm also not aware of any other examples of this kind of exceptional compounding.

However, I also note that む was used historically to represent /ɴ/ prior to the development of the ん kana (which actually derives from an earlier hentaigana form for /mu/). So it's possible that the shift was actually not kabi → kamu, but rather kabi → kan. This would be a mostly-regular kind of contraction, and is more plausible.

• Grammar aside, this derivation would necessitate an historical kana spelling of かうぢ. The KDJ does indeed indicate this, but I cannot confirm this historical kana spelling -- and other sources instead list かうじ (DJR, SMK5), which would rule out the above derivation.
• Perhaps a clue: the KDJ also lists かむし as a synonym / alternative form. This would shift diachronically to かうじ, and points to the other main derivation theory I've found.

• The entry at Gogen-Allguide (of uncertain provenance, but often informative) states the following:

(in the こうじ【麹】 entry)

平安時代の漢和辞書『類聚名義抄』に「麹　カムタチ　カムダチ」とある。
このことから、「カビダチ（黴立）」→「カムダチ」→「カウダチ」→「カウヂ」と音変化したものといわれ、有力な説とされているが、中世の古辞書では「カウジ」しか見られず、「ヂ」の仮名遣いが異なる点に疑問の声もある。
その他、「かもす（醸す）」の連用形「かもし」が変化したとする説もあるが未詳。
「麹」は「糀」とも表記されるが、「糀」は和製漢字である。

This mention of 醸す (kamosu, “to brew”, deriving from 噛む (kamu, “to chew”) in reference to how sake was originally produced, by chewing rice and spitting it out into a communal bowl, wherein the enzymes in saliva would break down the complex starches into fermentable sugars) jives with the history, fits plausibly with the かむし mention in the KDJ, and fits also with the purported historical kana spelling of かうじ.

• The DJR is less helpful with regard to etymologies. The こうじ【麹】 entry there includes nothing about derivation.

Looking up かんだち【麹】 instead, we are referred to かむだち【麹】, which does include a pointer to a citation source:

麹(ｺｳｼﾞ)の古名。かんだち。［名義抄］

• Digging around, I found that Waseda provides online copies of the Wamyō Ruijushō. They aren't searchable, just images. Confusingly, the 1617 edition doesn't seem to include an entry for 麹; it would be in Volume 8, starting from page 26.

There is an entry in one of the two 1667 editions (I didn't look at both) here, clearly showing the 麹 kanji with furigana of カムタチ.

There is another entry in the 1688 edition, with the same furigana.

For either edition, it is unclear to me if the furigana were part of the original from 938 (possibly on the early edge of when katakana could have been used), or if this was a later addition. If a later addition, then we don't know for sure how this character was read in earlier times.

Ultimately, I suspect this term represents a conflation of two earlier terms.

• From 黴 (kabi, “mold”) + 発ち (tachi, “arising”):

/kabitati/ → /kaũtat͡ɕi/ → /kaũdat͡ɕi/ → /kaud͡ʑi/ → /kɔːd͡ʑi/ → /koːd͡ʑi/

Considering phonlogical and orthographic trends, the む in かむたち was likely the spelling for the nasalized /ũ/ and the resulting nasal /n/ that appears in かんだち. Also, for the Wamyō Ruijushō, I don't think the 濁点 was in common use (that convention only solidified after spelling reforms in the mid-1900s), so the カムタチ spelling could well have been pronounced as かんだち, or even かうだち.

• Separately, also from 醸し (kamoshi, “brewing”):

/kamosi/ → /kamuɕi/ → /kaũɕi/ → /kaũʑi/ → /kɔːʑi/ → /koːd͡ʑi/

This would explain why different sources list different historical kana: かうぢ for the derivation from 黴 + 発ち, and かうじ for the derivation from 醸し.

HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@POKéTalker -- see above, 醸む (kamu) + 立ち (tachi) doesn't work grammatically. Kamu here would be in the terminal form -- and thus cannot compound onto another verb. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Understood, what to do with kamudachi then? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 21:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@POKéTalker -- It's further above in this thread:

/kabitati/ → /kaũtat͡ɕi/ → /kaũdat͡ɕi/ → /kaud͡ʑi/ → /kɔːd͡ʑi/ → /koːd͡ʑi/

... where /bi/ contracted to /ũ/ as a kind of nasalized near-equivalent to /ɴ/, spelled in modern kana as ん -- but spelled in older orthographies as む, which was then apparently re-analyzed by readers as /mu/. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. What do you think should be the lemma form of compound words involving both kango and wago? What about proper nouns or specialized terms with established kanji spellings? What about katakana-go + other elements? --Dine2016 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

IMO given names should be lemmatized as kana, but that's just my opinion. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 20:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016, Mellohi!:

• Re: kango / wago mixes, lemmatizing at the most common spellings would be my guess for best approach. The constituent parts could then follow the kanji / kana lemma guidelines we've discussed before in the BP.
• Re: katakana + other elements, likewise.
• Re: given names as a specific subset of proper nouns, the spellings are wackily unrelated to etymologies, and the number of spellings appears to be only increasing over time. I'd second mellohi!'s suggestion: put all the lemma data at the kana spelling, and ideally include a list of commonly used kanji spellings. I suppose an exhaustive list is probably not possible for all names, but I suppose some dedicated users might produce something approaching that.
• Re: other proper nouns and specialized terms, in the cases that come to mind right now, I'd support using the established kanji spelling as the lemma. The spellings can sometimes be a part of the etymologies, or just inherent in the sense of the term (in that the specific referent is only ever referred to by that spelling), as at this discussion about 武蔵.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I hope we switch to lemmatizing wago terms at kana and using {{ja-see}} as soon as possible. Maybe start a vote? --Dine2016 (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016 -- I was thinking we might not need a vote as there hasn't been any opposition, but then I realized that this is a sizable shift in approach and should get feedback from all quarters.

It would be most welcome if you could help set that up.

Relatedly, I ran across an anon's work on the three Imperial Regalia, and stumbled a bit in my thinking. See 八尺瓊勾玉 and やさかにのまがたま. The Yasakani is irregular and derived from on'yomi, while the no Magatama is clearly kun'yomi. Given the variance in spellings, and the option to either spell out the の or leave it implied, I'm inclined to put the lemma at the kana spelling. I'm similarly inclined for the other Regalia, and so too for other set terms with optional particle spellings. Your thoughts? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, though I don't think I'm going to start the vote since (1) my ability to write and reason in English is poor and (2) I can't speak Japanese, and am just a reader. I think I'm going to focus on Chinese now since the Chinese entry layout is much better :) For 八尺瓊勾玉, 日本国語大辞典　第二版 actually lists it as a 子見出し (慣用句・ことわざなどの類) under やさか-に【八尺瓊】, as

やさかに の 曲玉（まがたま・まがりたま）　〔中略〕　発音ヤサカニノマカ゜タマ　〈標ア〉０　〈京ア〉０　辞書言海　表記八尺瓊勾玉（言）

--Dine2016 (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016: Yes, mine has the same layout. I intentionally omitted the まがりたま reading as I cannot find any confirmation for this outside of the KDJ.

I've never set up a vote before and was hoping you might have a go at it.  :) No worries, I'll bring it up later in the BP and go from there. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind checking this Japanese addition when you have time? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @Tooironic: Done. Thanks for the heads-up!  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm not sure about this, but Middle Japanese and Classical Japanese don't seem to be the same thing. First, “Middle Japanese” includes Early Middle Japanese and Late Middle Japanese, and only the former is the basis for Classical Japanese. Second, Classical Japanese is a written norm, not a stage of the language, and it is now usually read with today's phonology. Notably, verbs ending in アウ seem to have a variant literary reading ending in オー:

I have not attested this オー reading of 会ふ, but if you listen to the Jewel Voice Broadcast you can hear 失ふ pronounced more like ウシノー (rather than the 口語形 ウシナウ). --Dine2016 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Note: the arrangement of the table is arbitrary. I'm not sure why verb-final ～う is suddently treated as a separate element from the verb stem in Modern Japanese. --Dine2016 (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Dine2016 -- Very interesting, thank you for bringing that audio to my attention.

There are a number of interesting tidbits there. Line 9 in the text, for instance, ends in 謝セムヤ. Line 9 is roughly 2:06 to 2:14 in the ogg file, and the reading of the end there is clearly sha sen ya, exhibiting the む→ん reading that is apparently quite old indeed. The general lack of voicing marks is also somewhat curious, as I'd thought that 濁点 and 半濁点 usage was prevalent already before this point in time; but then, this orthography might reflect again the formal -- and thus, deliberately archaic -- nature of the text.

It's also fascinating the way Hirohito's clipped pronunciation, likely due to the formal nature of the text and pronouncement, starts to sound closer phonetically to Korean, with its final consonants.

The instance of 失フ is on line 17, or roughly 3:37 to 3:58, with a clear rendering of ushinō, as you note, at around 3:54. Oddly, the text is 失フカ如キハ, presumably ushinau ka gotoki wa in modern and ushinō ka gotoki wa in the archaic, but for all the world, it sounds to me like ushinō an gotoki wa. Recording artifact, perhaps?

Anyway, looking specifically at vowel values, the 日葡辞書 may be a useful resource. The last entry in the right-hand column here is for 失ふ, presented in the Portuguese orthography of the time as:

Vxinai, ǒ, ǒta . Perder. ¶ Qi, i, fonxǒuo vxinǒ . Esmorecer, ou perder o sentido.

The JA sample text appears to be 気・意・本性を失う. The ⟨ǒ⟩ of that time (o + caron) indicated /ɔː/ as the monophthongization of earlier /au/, in contrast to ⟨ô⟩ (o + circumflex) to indicate /oː/. These were contrastive at that time, as we can see here about 2/3rds of the way down the right-hand column, where Cǒjǒ, re-glossed in Japanese as “Tacai uye” (高い上, on'yomi historical kana of かうじゃう), is contrasted with Côjǒ just below it, re-glossed as “Cuchino uye” (口の上, on'yomi historical kana of こうじゃう).

Historically important details include the different final vowel values for the terminal / attributive, and the different past tense -- using a long vowel before the -ta ending, rather than a geminate on the -ta ending.

Browsing for other verbs with similar phonetic shapes confirms similar patterns, such as the second entry in the right-hand column here for 買う:

Cai, cǒ, ǒta . Comprar.

The third and fourth entries there follow the same phonetic pattern. I'm not sure about the third entry (maybe 支う?), in part as the poor print quality makes it that much harder to decipher the Portuguese, but the fourth one is definitely 飼う. Anyway, we see the same monophthongization, and the same long-vowel past tense form as well.

I haven't run across any audio demonstrating that 合う・会う etc. were pronounced as /ɔː/ or /oː/. However, the Nippo Jisho again could be a useful reference. The fifth entry under A ANTES DE I here is for 会う:

Ai, ǒ, ǒta . Emcontrar.

It's clear that /au/ did shift to /ɔː/ historically, and in some cases even in regular everyday terms this became /oː/ in modern Japanese as the two vowel values converged. All that said, I'm not sure if this /au/ → /oː/ reading is 文語形, or more rarified speech specific to the deliberately-even-more-archaic imperial household. More research seems needed here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I suspect this oː reading of 会う (or of any verb ending in アウ) is a hypercorrection, since ⟨アウ⟩ and ⟨アフ⟩ sequences in Classical Japanese are usually read as オー. For the spoken language, 会う did became ɔː in Late Middle Japanese, but according to Frellesvig's book, the contraction rules “stopped applying to the formation of the nonpast of -w- base verbs” so this ɔː restored to au, instead of developing into oː, in Modern Japanese. (Verb volitional and adjective ウ音便 forms are a different story, and we still find oː in constructions like 書こう and 高う(ございます).)

By the way, 日本国語大辞典　第二版 has the following notes in the 凡例 (quoted from here):

動詞終止形の文語の発音は次のように示す。
　おもう【思】　　【発音】文オモーとも
　はらう【払】　　【発音】文ハローとも

--Dine2016 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is this? Is it true? Is it worth keeping? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c --

Ya... nope. This character was certainly used phonetically to spell ya, but that's no different than any other man'yōgana kanji usage.

There is a distant chance that the anon is referencing something cromulent, as there's other evidence of /o/ ↔ /a/ alternation in some of the oldest Japanese terms, such as the yama ↔ yomo pair mentioned at 黄泉, the waka ↔ woko pair related to youth and stupidity, and probably even the /o/ ↔ /a/ alternation in various verb clusters, such as komaru ↔ komoru, tsumaru ↔ tsumoru, etc.

However, without even a link, and with no sources to hand that back up the anon's assertion, I've deleted the anon's addition. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I just noticed that you have added 完治 to かんじ, but both the Japanese Wikipedia and the Japanese-German dictionary that I usually rely on list only かんち as Hiragana spelling for 完治. Could this reading be archaic, regional or need some other additional clarification template? Bogorm converſation 11:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @Bogorm --

FWIW, Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten lists both かんじ and かんち as readings, with かんじ as the primary. Daijirin also lists both readings, but chooses かんち as the primary. The MS IME offers 完治 as a conversion candidate for both かんじ and かんち readings.

From sources, all I get is that both readings are valid and current. I can't tell if there are any connotations. Pinging Shinji for more input. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

かんじ is dated. Today it is almost exclusively pronounced as かんち. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Shinji. Are you aware of any notable dialectal differences? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Old pronunciations tend to survive in rural areas, but in the case of 完治 there seems no dialectal difference. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again, Shinji. I've updated the かんじ entry accordingly. It looks like we don't have 完治#Japanese yet. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The book 動植物名よみかた辞典　普及版の解説 seems to have these terms. But I don't know whether they actually exists, or are just synonyms.

Also, デジタル大辞泉 have "サボン（〈フランス〉savon）「シャボン」に同じ。「石鹸」とも書く。"

スオナー(哨吶) can be found in 百科事典マイペディア.--2001:DA8:201:3878:CD0:2F8:D37A:8CD 02:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the ping, and the further detail.

Re: 鳳梨 and 蕃茄, I cannot find any sources that list these kanji with these readings. I can find cases of these katakana terms or synonyms mentioned with these kanji spellings also mentioned, but that appears to be cases of "there's this term, and there are these synonyms...", as you mentioned might be the case: see ja:w:パイナップル, ja:w:トマト (the トマト article lists an あかなす synonym, but not あかなすび, but that seems a minor point).

Re: サボン, you've prompted me to look deeper. Oddly, if you search Kotobank for サボン, the site shows the Daijirin entry with no mention of the 石鹸 spelling, and the Daijisen entry doesn't appear. I found numerous cases of 石鹸 (sekken) listed as a synonym of サボン (sabon), but I did not see 石鹸 with the sabon reading -- until I did some more searching. I'll restore that section of the 石鹸 entry, with appropriate labeling.

Re: スオナー, the マイペディア entry for 哨吶 that I can find here at Kotobank states the following (emphasis in the original):

哨吶【さない】

中国のオーボエ属の管楽器。中国語ではスオナー。ソーナーとも。

Here, スオナー and ソーナー are (the Japanese approximations of) the Chinese readings, whereas さない is the Japanese reading.

If I click through to the スオナー heading, I get the マイペディア entry for スルナイ, which states (emphasis mine):

中国では明代に伝えられソーナー，スオナーなどと呼ばれ，鎖吶，鎖などと記され，清代には嗩吶，蘇爾奈とも書かれた。朝鮮では太平簫または胡笛と称され，日本には江戸時代末期に清楽合奏(明清楽)の楽器として伝えられ，嗩吶（さない）と呼ばれた。

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is literally no basis in fact whatsoever for the speculative Japanese origin for this expression. No trail of citations, no cultural exchange, nothing. There's the vaguest similarity in sound and meaning, which is the amateur etymologist's most common mistake. Do yourself a credibility favor and leave that speculation deleted. I have added an antedating, too, which is verified through newspapers, books, and images of the actual 45 record!

Hi. How is the proposal going? I think using phonetic spellings in etymology sections, such as “こまつくり（独楽） = こま（高麗） + つくり（作）” rather than “独楽 = 高麗 + 作り”, makes more sense. Also, is the “Japanese” section intended to be synchronic (dealing with Modern Japanese only, with settled orthography) or diachronic (like monolingual Japanese dictionaries such as the KDJ)? If the latter, I think it is extremely important to separate the writing system from the spoken language (or the language, in linguistics' view). Kana is not perfect as there are two orthographies, but much better than kanji. --Dine2016 (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

As you can see in Special:WantedCategories there are quite a few of these. I'd like to create these automatically but the existing categories such as Category:Japanese terms spelled with 赤 read as あか have several arguments that don't appear to be directly derivable from the page name. @Erutuon as well. DTLHS (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the additional parameters (the type of reading: on, kun, or nanori) can be found in {{ja-kanjitab}} in the entries in the category, but I imagine it would be hard to program the bot to retrieve that information and get it right. (It might require retrieving and parsing a bunch of pages to ensure that all the types of reading are recorded on the category page.) But maybe the bot can just add the parameters that can be determined from the page name, and editors can look through Category:Japanese kanji reading categories without reading type and add the rest of the parameters later. — Eru·tuon 03:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This edit you had, made rather inaccurate romanization for the Ryukyuan languages. Hepburn Romanization can not transliterate Ryukyuan phonemes correctly; some of which have aspirated and glottalized consonants, extra vowels, weak fricative in the specific conditions and more syllabic consonants. Please rethink about it.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@荒巻モロゾフ: I think perhaps you're confused as to what exactly I did? As I noted in the edit summary, IPA is inappropriate content in the tr parameter. I didn't add the romanizations, I simply removed the inappropriate IPA. If the romanizations are themselves incorrect, by all means please fix them. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply