Talk:к’узр

RFV discussion: June–July 2015
I encountered this term while researching a Japanese etymology. It seems the Kōjien dictionary lists a possible origin from Nivkh for the Japanese term. This seems reasonable enough, but I do not have access to the Kōjien and I cannot confirm the etymon, given as “к’узр” (k'uzr). Poking around Google finds nothing but Wiktionary echoes. Removing the apostrophe and adding the Russian word for the language name gives some hits -- -- and while these show use of “кузр” as an apparent Nivkh word, this word doesn't seem to mean.

None of my other Japanese resources give any etyma for the Japanese term. Another potential derivation would be from classical Japanese, but the expected nominal form would be kuzure, not kuzuri, and the intransitive / passive verb form seems a less likely etymon semantically than the transitive / active form → nominal form kuzushi. That said, a pure Japanese derivation is not entirely impossible, which leads me back to trying to confirm or rule out the indicated Nivkh origin.

Can anyone confirm the Nivkh word for ? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a Nivkh-Russian dictionary available as snippet view on Google Books, if I am not mistaken. Maybe poking in there might do wonders? -- Liliana • 21:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually nevermind, I found the dictionary on Vahag's favorite website(tm). The word is indeed listed there with that definition. -- Liliana • 21:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Care to share the link?  I'm not that familiar with Vahag's browsing habits.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Liliana • 15:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I might add that application of the Nivkh spelling may differ across dictionaries. Some of them might use the spelling к‛узр (with a reversed quotation mark). ばかFumiko￥talk 07:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect there will also be considerable variation across dialects. Which leads me to wonder, which dialect is given in Taksami's dictionary (linked above by Liliana)?  I also note that the dictionary gives the Cyrillic spelling as  with the caron.  Apparently this indicates a voiceless alveolar trill, and this letter seems to be distinct and phonemically significant in Nivkh, suggesting that we should move the current entry.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fumiko, I see that you've added a couple more dictionary references to the article. What spelling(s) do they use?  Since Taksami is listed as an editor for all of them, it would be very interesting if there were any variance.
 * ( FWIW, I'm satisfied that this entry passes RFV, as I believe that ample proof of its existence has been furnished. At this point, I'm more interested in making sure that the entry is correct.)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just re-read WT:LDL, which lays out the citation requirements for limited-documentation languages like Nivkh. That page clarifies that we need at least one quote showing the given term in use.  Dictionary entries apparently don't suffice.  (I'm not entirely sure I agree with this requirement, as LDLs are exactly that -- limited documentation -- and sometimes dictionaries are the only record.)  My Google-fu is failing me.  Can anyone find an example of this Nivkh term in use?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One mention is sufficient. Quoth WT:CFI: "For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements. For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate [...]." - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In the 1965 dictionary, the spelling к‛узр (with a reverse single quotation mark) was used. The 1970 and 1983 dictionaries, however, used к’узр.
 * It's not quite easy to find a quote in Nivkh. I think you may have some luck with this, which provides sound samples and transcripts. I'd also note that the transcripts are not very well edited and some of them might not be very searchable. ばかFumiko￥talk 06:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, as -sche clarified, one mention should suffice -- and the dictionary entries should (I think) count as mentions, so we're in the clear for WT:CFI purposes. About the spelling, my guess is that the more common (and probably more recent) spelling should be used as the lemma form.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)