Talk:適当に

RFD discussion: May–October 2015
See Talk:親切に. Nibiko (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have established that に is a separated word, not an ending. Could there possibly be some exceptions, though? Category:Japanese adverbs needs to be checked for words ending in に. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, as pointed out by Nibiko and Anatoli. &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree per above. Here are all other entries with supposed adverbs ending in に, except kana duplicates:
 * --Haplogy (話) 05:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Inseparable adverbs like あまりに, いかに, 殊に, and 更に must be kept. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * From how I understand this, the nomination is that this is a sum of parts of 適当 (1. suitable; appropriate; fit) + に. Which sense of に should I take so that the sum yields "appropriately"? I checked to learn more. The question we should be asking is whether we help the native English speaker by deleting this entry, and whether creating a templated usage note pointing out this is in fact sum of parts (if it is) is not more friendly towards the user. By the way, the deletion of 親切に was out of process as per Talk:親切に: there was one participant in the RFD and there was no formal closure of the discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * All na-type adjectives in Japanese work morphophonemically as standalone words, taking various particles afterwards to indicate how the word functions grammatically in a given sentence. The basic set of particles is  to indicate an attributive adjectival use,  to indicate adverbial use,  to indicate nominal use indicating degree, and  and its inflected variants to indicate use as a predicate.  Some of these na-type adjectives can even operate as nouns, in which case an even wider variety of particles may be used.
 * We do not have any other instances of Japanese entries consisting of [WORD]+[PARTICLE], except for those cases where the resulting combination has some idiomatic meaning not derivable from its constituent parts.
 * Our coverage of Japanese particles may be incomplete; I would be very surprised if it were not, as these words are very wide-ranging in meaning and use, much like English articles and prepositions. However, incompleteness of our entries constitutes grounds for expanding those entries.  I don't think these are grounds for creating entries that are SOP.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "out of process". The discussion archived at Talk:親切に was in 2011, and much has changed since then.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: I just did some quick testing. So long as the lemma entry includes the inflection table, searching for the corresponding adverbial form should direct the user to the lemma page.
 * For instance, the adjective entry for term includes the  inflection table template, which auto-generates a table that includes the adverbial form, .  There is no page at 馬鹿に.  Entering 馬鹿に into Wiktionary's search field directs the user to the  page as the first hit in the list.
 * @Dan, does that answer (at least some of) your concerns about usability? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @Eiríkr Útlendi: You say that particle に (ni) is used to indicate adverbial use, and that this function of the particle is currently missing in the に entry. If that is such a basic function of the particle that it renders a whole class of items sum of parts, the first thing to do, IMHO, is to expand the entry; it is as if -ly entry for English were missing, and people would be nonetheless opposing entries like quickly. It would be real nice to have at least one external link from に entry to a page that explains the particle use that you have described. On another note, how do you establish for Japanese that 適当に is not a single word? The background of that question is that, in English, I can use spacing in typography to assess whether something is a single word, and I cannot do this in Japanese, apparently. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in replying; with work and other IRL responsibilities increased, my time on Wiktionary has been severely curtailed, and this thread fell off my radar.
 * @Dan, descriptions of Japanese grammar in English have generally treated particles as separate words, inasmuch as there is such a concept (you correctly note the lack of whitespace, which introduces some ambiguity). Some schools of thought advocate treating particles as suffixes, but these viewpoints appear to be in the minority, and are generally limited to higher academia.
 * The descriptions of Japanese grammar in Japanese that I have read also treat particles as separate words. Monolingual Japanese dictionaries have entries for  and for, but not for , suggesting further that Japanese lexicographers treat these as discrete units.
 * Does that address your question?
 * In addition, I agree that we should expand the entry for, and indeed for all the Japanese particles. Doing so adequately is a substantial undertaking, similar to the task of fully documenting the senses of any of the small grammatically important words in the world's languages (compare English , , etc.), and while I am not certain when I will be able to get around to tackling this challenge, it is on my to-do list.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Eiríkr Útlendi: As for my question (how do you establish for Japanese that 適当に is not a single word?), what I intend to know is how does anyone establish the thing, including the sources that you mention. How do they justify their claim that 適当に is not a single word, that is, how do they show that what they call particles are not really suffixes or that a combination of a particle with something else is not a single word? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that is a much deeper discussion. In a nutshell, a lot of the judgment call comes down to how individual phonetic units function, and whether such units can be used independently in various kinds of utterances.  By that analysis,  and  are regarded separate, whereas synonym  is regarded as an integral whole (the final -i cannot be omitted in the same way that the ni can for tekitō ni).  There is some description of this in the  article over on Wikipedia, particularly in the Characterization section.  There is quite a bit more material about this in Japanese, and the JA WP article at ja:w:形容動詞 is more extensive than the corresponding English section.  Monolingual dead-tree dictionaries will also often given an extensive treatment of parts of speech in the introductory material before the entry listings.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted as sum-of-parts. This deletion only applies to the nominated term. The other 45 terms identified as having this ending seem to require some individual attention to determine their inseparability. bd2412 T 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)