Talk:靄

Hi. Please see Template talk:ja-kanji reading for the rationale of using the Affix POS to present Sino-Japanese roots (字音語素 or 漢語造語成分). In this case, presenting the reading as an affix makes it clear that  is used in compounds, but  or  isn't. --Dine2016 (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks for the link. Though split on what to put on the Compounds section. Normally would put the Middle-Chinese derived terms, Mandarin-borrowed, irregular, jukujikun, etc. to Compounds; while Sino-Japanese terms coined in Japan go to Derived terms of particular Sino-Japanese reading (if there is one). ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 01:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the remainder. Yes, many of the Sino-Japanese terms are borrowed from Middle Chinese rather than coined in Japan, so putting them under the Derived terms would be misleading. (On the other hand, lists  as a derived terms, though the entry at  makes it clear that it is assembled in Ancient Greek and  is a surface analysis.) When I created affixes of kanji from  to, I used the existing format of affixes on the wiki, such as 魚. --Dine2016 (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you think affixes should be presented? Should the compounds be in the kanji section or the affix section? --Dine2016 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m okay with the affix header but why is it used only for Japanese? — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Affix-type headers are used for some other languages — see for instance the Greenlandic affix, or compare en-prefix or zh-suf. Do you mean to ask why Japanese forms of this kind are called "affix" rather than, say, "root"? I don't know the answer to that. (Also, I have no specific preference for how to present affixes in Japanese.) Cnilep (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder why it isn’t used for Chinese, Korean or Vietnamese. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Placing compounds under the "Affix" section seems alright to me. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 03:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)