Talk:放物線

Etymology

 * Is this edit okay? This word may have been coined in China by Alexander Wylie and Li Shanlan in (1859) which is a translation of Elias Loomis's Elements of Analytical Geometry and of the Differential and Integral Calculus (1851), which was later translated by  and 福田半 as Japanese 《代微積拾級訳解》 (1872), but the current etymology is too brief, and I'm not familiar with the syntax of . KevinUp (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , anyone else, I've sunk too much time into this today. :)  How about the following?


 * In the Chinese lemma entry, presumably at (we also need a kyūjitai Japanese entry on that page):

 Possibly coined by Alexander Wylie and Li Shanlan in (1859), a translation of 's Elements of Analytical Geometry and of the Differential and Integral Calculus (1851). Appears to be a, formed as a compound of , perhaps in reference to the etymology of parabola.


 * It appears that the Japanese work was a fresh translation of the English, where the translators used the earlier Chinese work as a reference -- at least, if I read the foreword correctly (see here), where the foreword author explicitly mentions the Chinese work, calling it the . As such, the Japanese term may represent a borrowing + reanalysis.  Notably, Japanese dictionaries consistently show this term as 抛物 + 線.  This parallels the stated composition of term, as a compound of 抛物 + 面.
 * (That said, I also see evidence of, composed as a compound of 抛物線 + 面, so it's possible that 抛物面 is an abbreviation as opposed to a compound. I don't have dates for these other terms.)
 * I note that the Chinese work at Wikiversity does not include, , or.


 * Distilling the above, I'd suggest the following in the Japanese lemma entry, presumably at :

 Appears in Japanese in 1872 in the, a Japanese translation by (Fukuda Riken) and  of the 1851 book Elements of Analytical Geometry and of the Differential and Integral Calculus by. According to the foreword, the translators referenced an earlier Chinese translation from 1859, so the term likely derives originally from (see that entry for further details).

According to other Japanese sources,   analyzed as a compound of. See also related term.


 * Let me know what you think. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Everything seems to be in order, so I've updated the etymology of Chinese . I think the kyūjitai entry would be at (different page from Chinese), because the Japanese standard is   rather than 拋 . As for the etymology of, it is hard to say whether it is a Japanese coinage or Chinese coinage. In recent years, modern Chinese scholars have found that many wasei kango were actually coined in China first, but we don't have evidence of  yet.
 * I think the Japanese etymology above is well-written, so you may update it if you like. KevinUp (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'd misunderstood that  was already considered shinjitai of, so thank you for correcting me on that.
 * Also, and I were discussing the format of, wherein s/he mentioned redundancy.  I've been confused what redundancy was at issue, since the  page itself didn't have any apparent redundancy as viewed -- I think now that s/he meant redundancy not within that one entry, but between the  and  entries with regard to where the  instance should go.
 * Ultimately, it might want to go into the bottom of the table / frame generated by . Pinging  as well, what do you think?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the redundancy, was created for compounds containing  such as  rather than, as explained in the documentation. Also, alternative spelling entries don't usually have an etymology header, so maybe that's the issue. Perhaps the etymology can be turned into a usage notes instead. KevinUp (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, the template documentation text is a bit ambiguous -- "used in the etymology section of Japanese compounds spelled with 代用字 (daiyōji)" could mean "used in the entry for the compound, whichever spelling". I didn't understand that it was intended only for the newer spelling.  Perhaps that could be clarified?
 * Also, sometimes alt forms can benefit from additional information about how the spelling was derived. I think any information about derivation is ultimately about etymology, be it regarding the phonemic realization, or the graphemic (i.e. spelling).
 * For this specific case of and, I'm fine with there being just the one instance of .  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reworded Template:ja-daiyouji/documentation to make things clearer and moved the etymology section of as a usage note. KevinUp (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)