Talk:祝呪

祝呪
I let this term sit for a while with just an RFC, but looking into it again, it appears to be bogus. shows no credible hits -- mostly Chinese, and a number of weird hits that are clearly scannos (I have trouble believing that the "United States census of population, 1950: Special reports, Volume 4, Part 1‎ - Page 102", currently the top hit, would really make mention of "magical spells"). only gives six hits at present, of which only the topmost seems relevant. Looking into it, that hit (PDF) is a paper about religion in Tainan, Taiwan, and skimming through, I think the author is using the Chinese word in a Japanese context. I don't see any clear definition of this term, either, but I'm reasonably certain from the context of the paper that "magical spell" is probably not one of the meanings.

If no one can find anything solid for this term, and a citable def, we should probably remove it. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The references with this kanji combination in it seem to be extremely literary / historical, so I am having a lot of trouble understanding them with my meagre Japanese. From the surface, this combo simply means a blessing + a curse. I am not sure where the author sourced the different nuances from. My question is... is this necessary? How does this help the users? If a user is capable of reading literary texts like the ones I mentioned, do they really need to look up the dictionary for this word and its various nuances, if it can be cited at all? The entry itself is extremely messy, almost illegible if you will. Simply not a good practice of lexicography. I am all for its deletion along with all the terms listed in the see also section. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 20:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed. Haplology 13:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion: August 2011
More fun magic-related messiness from IP users. Needs cleaning, probably some verification too of the (exhaustive!) list of synonyms and see-alsos. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The reading is wrong too; I might have some time today to deal with this entry. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)