Talk:ハ行転呼

RFV discussion: September 2019–February 2021
See also Talk:ハ行転呼音

The basis was probably only a single Wikipedia article. There are no entries in the Kotobank search results for or  themselves; but the longer form  and  do have their own entries. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 08:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an important Japanese linguistic term to which WT:SOP may not apply. Similar cases in English include Great Vowel Shift. The existence of this term can be verified in Google search results and should not be judged by any other online dictionary. However, I do find that its definition was inaccurate and tried improving it, but it is still far from being perfect. --H2NCH2COOH (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What you describe sounds much more encyclopedic than lexicographic. As a term, this is clearly  + .  There are various kinds of, of which this specific  shift is only one.  See also the JA WP article at ja:w:転呼.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify my position: delete as SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Eirikr: I might notify that ハ行転呼 refers to the historical shift of ハ行 from /f/ to /w/, not just an unspecified one. ᾨδή (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @ᾨδή: Apologies if I was unclear. I'm aware of what ハ行転呼 is.  My point is that there are multiple kinds of 転呼, such as the ゑふ (ancient wepu) → よう (modern you) historical shift seen in the verb, and the ハ行転呼 is one specific variety of 転呼.  My argument is not that ハ行転呼 does not exist.  My argument is that, while ハ行転呼 does exist as a concept, it is a subject for an encyclopedia article, rather than an integral lexical item that belongs in a dictionary.
 * I am open to being convinced otherwise. At present, no one has sufficiently addressed the apparent WT:SOP-ness of "ハ行転呼".  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this word is basically as WT:SOP as Hundred Years' War = hundred + year + war or 仮定形 = 仮定 + 形. ᾨδή (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @ᾨδή: The SOP test is, is it idiomatic?
 * I posit that we can tell most of what ハ行転呼 is simply from the constituent parts: it is a 転呼 that has to do with the ハ行. If we know what a 転呼 is, and what a ハ行 is, then we know the basics of this combination: there isn't any additional idiomatically derived meaning that is not obvious from its constituent terms.
 * Meanwhile, although there is only one unambiguous sense for ハ行, "hundred years" is an ambiguous reference to any hundred years. If we look at Hundred Years' War, we recognize that this is idiomatically used to refer to a specific thing, and that specific meaning is not derivable from its constituent terms.
 * Also, both ハ行 and 転呼 are independent terms, unlike the 形 suffix in 仮定形.
 * Ultimately, I cannot see anything in this combined ハ行転呼 that isn't SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An even older sound shift of ハ行 from /p/ to /f/ is not included in ハ行転呼 but called 唇音退化, which can not be deduced from the SOP of ハ行転呼.
 * As for the encyclopedia stuff, I think this is the real question deserving notice. In fact many Japanese linguistic term entries have more or less become entries of a linguistic encyclopedia. Japanese inflection templates have links directed to entries like 未然形, which means the template writer had expected the entries to explain "what 未然形 is" (encyclopedia), rather than "how the term 未然形 is used" (dictionary). Even User:H2NCH2COOH above wanted to furthur improve the entry, by which I believe he meant more encyclopedic contents. With all this kind of practice around, I may have mistaken this as the norm here. ᾨδή (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @ᾨδή:
 * Re: the →  shift, that is not 転呼.  転呼 is a specific kind of sound shift, where a given kana takes on an irregular reading.  Since the  →  shift was regular, where all the  sounds simply lenited into  sounds, none of the relevant ハ行 kana underwent any irregular changes, so it's not 転呼.  Meanwhile, as seen in the 1603  entries and still recorded as historical kana usage, spellings like たう that were sometimes read as  in 1603 or as  in the modern language, instead of the expected, would be examples of 転呼: literally, a kind of 転 "shifted" 呼 "calling" or "reading", where the reading is shifted from what would normally be expected.  Another case is the modern practice of reading  as  in most cases, but as  when used as the topic particle.  Likewise for  read as  in most cases, but as  when used as the directional particle.  These two are examples of an irregular shift that is both 転呼 in general and ハ行転呼 in specific (since these kana are two of the ハ行 kana).  See also 転呼 for additional examples.
 * Re:, the 形 portion is a suffix and not an independent word, so 未然形 cannot be SOP. There's also a difference between saying "what 未然形 is" in lexicographic terms -- supplying a definition -- and saying "what 未然形 is" in encyclopedic terms -- going into the history of the concept, presenting different academic views, analyzing how the form has evolved over time.  Wiktionary entries should provide definitions.  Sometimes a word expresses concept that is complicated enough that a complicated definition is required.  However, going much beyond that definition would indeed be material for an encyclopedic entry, and, arguably, some of the usage notes content currently in the 未然形 entry should be moved.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As you have stated, the modern は and へ is not included in ハ行転呼, which can not be deduced from the SOP of ハ行転呼. ᾨδή (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also "可能動詞 = 可能 + 動詞", thematic vowel = thematic + vowel. ᾨδή (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Eirikr: Also, not all ハ行-involved 転呼 are ハ行転呼. is not, or at least not entirely ハ行転呼, although all of はふはふ are ハ行., ハ行-involved, but not ハ行転呼. These also can not be deduced from the SOP of ハ行転呼. Also  ᾨδή (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @ᾨδή, re: ハ行転呼, apologies, I'd gotten my wires crossed and lost sight of the forest for the trees. I revise my view, and recognize the specificity of ハ行転呼 in reference not just to any 転呼 of the ハ行, but to the specific Heian-era shift in word-medial ハ行 sounds from  to .  This is therefore idiomatic in a manner similar to Hundred Years' War, and not SOP, and I hereby strike my "delete" comment above, and instead say keep.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your understanding. But... perhaps I think apologizing for a mere difference of ideas might sound a bit too serious... ᾨδή (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Being misunderstood is seldom a fun experience, and I recognize too that this thread represents a commitment in terms of time and energy. :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * RFV-kept. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)