User talk:TAKASUGI Shinji/2017

Do you know if PARENTHESIZED HANGULs and CIRCLED HANGULs have any special meaning, listed in here? I guess they don't and I am going to redirect them to normal hanguls (or words). --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

They are the same as (a) (b) (c) … for list items. It is okay to redirect them if we explain the use of jamos in a list (ㄱ = a, ㄴ = b, ㄷ = c, ㄹ = d, ㅁ = e, ㅂ = f, ㅅ = g, …). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Shinji, I wonder if there are Japanese phrases calqued from English (or other European languages), that mean the same as the source language (e.g. idioms, expressions, etc.). As a bonus, are there any native Japanese equivalents to the calqued phrases? — AWESOME meeos ！ * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 23:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Bible-related phrases are all calques such as 豚に真珠. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it is okay? It seems weird to me for some reason. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It’s okay. It’s probably worth creating a page for うまく行く (“to go well”) because the adverb うまく is obligatory in this sense. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the naming for the stroke order files have a set convention. The -order.gif suffix is used for the PRC stroke order. -traditional order.gif or -simplified order.gif are invalid in the current convention. Please see the project page at Commons. Also, the Taiwanese standard does not use 丨𠃍丨一 in the beginning, but 丨𠃍一丨. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung: Thank you for letting me know the naming convention. Anyway it was incorrect to show 骨 as the principal form of 骨. Please rename them as you wish but the principal character must be the latter. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The current naming convention is to use the PRC (simplified) standard as the "principal" file. I don't agree with this, but it was set by the original contributors over at Commons. We probably have to indicate this on our end with the templates. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Was just wondering how this could be a coinage by Matteo Ricci if there are usages in classical Chinese, e.g. these from moedict: 北齊·顏之推·顏氏家訓·風操：「如此比例，觸類慎之，不可陷於輕脫。」 後漢書·卷三十二·陰識傳：「故侍中衛尉關內侯興，典領禁兵，從平天下，當以軍功顯受封爵，又諸舅比例，應蒙恩澤，興皆固讓，安乎里巷。」 ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The example above is not a mathematical usage of “proportion”. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Even if it were coined (or repurposed) by Matteo Ricci, shouldn't the Japanese be a borrowing from Chinese? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

He invented the Chinese word, of course. I have moved the etymology section. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've undone all these edits because they are not verb forms. They are contractions of a verb form and another word. —Rua (mew) 22:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

They function as verb forms, and -n’t is rather an inflectional suffix as Zwicky and Pullum have proven (Zwicky, Arnold M. and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1983), Cliticization vs. Inflection: English n’t, Language 59(3), pp. 502-513). “Contraction” is an etymology, not a lexical category. We use the latter for classification. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Calling these inflections of verbs would be very controversial, not just among Wiktionarians but among linguists too. I think you should get a wider consensus for this first. —Rua (mew) 23:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just read the article and find it persuasive. I think I might have encountered the inflectional suffix analysis before in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language co-written by Pullum, but didn't think about what it meant for Wiktionary. The Wiktionary situation is inconsistent because -n't seems to have been listed as a suffix ever since this revision in 2008. That implies that all the words with the suffix are verbs and should be listed as such, though they aren't currently (in the same way that, I guess, the clitic analysis would imply that the words with the suffix are really phrases or collocations). I wonder if the "suffix" header remained because people didn't notice it or didn't think through the implications for the "contraction" entries, or because they actually agree with the inflectional suffix analysis. (Well, the latter is unlikely because negative forms aren't listed in inflectional tables. Won't isn't even mentioned in the entry for will!) I agree with @Rua that there needs to be discussion on this, probably in the Beer Parlour. — Eru·tuon 08:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Observation: "contraction" isn't a part of speech, so this feels like the same as the existing movement away from "abbreviation" and "initialism" towards the actual PoS. If they aren't verbs perhaps we should use "phrase". Equinox ◑ 01:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your opinions. I have started a discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/October#Classification of forms with -n't. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for adding in the date when this spelling was recycled to mean platinum. I don't suppose you have a publication title or author that could also be added in? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

By Udagawa Yōan in his 遠西医方名物考補遺, vol. 8, p. 4. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply