Talk:どくん

Part of speech
I'm transferring the comment I've written in the main entry over here for better readability.


 * Not sure if this is supposed to be a noun or a verb of some sort. I have heard it spoken with 言う, meaning "to go" (e.g. "the bird went 'tweet'" -- in this case どくんどくん言う -- but I don't understand what part of speech this is.)

Concretely: if this is an adverb, and nothing else, then the noun sense can be removed, and どくんどくん言う can be considered a phrase of the adverb. Alternatively, that's mistaken, and this is supposed to be a noun. It may also, consequently, be a suru-verb, produced from said noun; however, I personally lack the experience and knowledge required to tell which is the case. I'm thankful to anyone who can help. I'll be passively listening for this phrase in use and clarify the entry if I can get to the bottom of this. Kiril kovachev (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems like an adverb to me. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Definitely an adverb. It's also found with adverbial particle, and is part of a cluster of adverbs including , , and geminated .  The latter two are rare and I don't see them in my references immediately to hand, but they are findable online, and are also attestable at  and .  This pattern is common for adverbs -- a root, often but not always onomatopoetic, manifests with reduplication, with final , with final , and with gemination + final , but not necessarily manifesting all of these at once.  Sometimes we also see historical sound shifts, particularly with the "H" kana.
 * Other examples:
 * Root : →   →  →
 * Root : →  →  →
 * Root : →  →  →
 * Root : →   →   →
 * Root : →  →  →
 * Sometimes you can predict where a particular cluster might be missing a form, due to phonological collisions with other words. For instance, root  gives us, , and , but no  -- because that collides with .  Likewise, root  above (from older ) is missing forms that collide with  and ,.
 * HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * PS -- I forgot to include that adverbial roots are sometimes also found as just  + と, and (maybe more commonly in modern usage?) as   + っと.  Consider, , .  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is great. In the end, should we keep the noun sense or remove it? The adverb seems totally fine, but not sure whether the noun is good to go. Kiril kovachev (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers, hope it's helpful! About the noun sense, I'll remove it -- there's nothing particularly noun-ish about this term, when you dig further.  By way of example, we never see  as the topic or subject of a sentence, followed by  or :, for instance, only finds cases where someone's name or nickname ends in  and the  is the masculine diminutive form of reference.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, good point, I didn't consider it like that! There seem to be a good number of terms like these in Japanese, so thanks for the help: I'll know in future that they aren't nouns. Thanks once again for helping out this inexperienced editor, and all the best. ^^ Kiril kovachev (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)