Talk:유도

Hi. IMO, hanja terms still need to keep the Sinitic origin in etymologies, even if they are borrowed from Japanese. Both Japanese and Chinese should be used in etymologies. The readings of the components is Sino-Korean too. Not applicable to terms like 구두 or 가방, apparently. I even think that Japanese on'yomi terms could be classified as "Sino-Japanese", even if they were coined in Japan (using Chinese components).--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the wording a bit, but yeah, there needs to be a standard format that these entries follow. Wyang (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The etym currently at is a bit odd -- it says “Sino-Korean word from ”, which means this is Korean ... from Korean?  And the hanja entry just points back here to the hangul entry.  This is confusing.
 * Also, saying “via Japanese” means the word was originally Chinese and was only a borrowing in Japanese, later borrowed into Korean, whereas the actual case here is that this was a relatively recent Japanese coinage from Chinese-derived roots.
 * Re: Sino-Japanese, I would be happy enough with this label for Japanese terms that were actually borrowed from Chinese. However, for Japanese coinages, this seems less applicable -- the situation is analogous to English terms composed independently in English from Latinate or Greek roots, like  or  or .  We do not call such terms “Greco-English” or “Latino-English”, and by extension, I don't think we should call Japanese on-yomi coinages “Sino-Japanese”; I would even go so far as to call such a label misleading, as on-yomi components are pretty thoroughly nativized, where even meaning has wandered in potentially humorously misleading ways: c.f. 🇨🇬 vs. 🇨🇬 (though amusing, that isn't an example of on'yomi) 🇨🇬 vs. 🇨🇬.
 * That's my 2p, anyway. :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a digression but a problem will arise if you say “I have an 愛人” without knowing they are faux amis (“spouse” in Mandarin, “extramarital lover” in Japanese). — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * English derivations from Latin or Greek are marked so or should be, like examples or . So, even if 愛人 or any other word has different meanings in Japanese, Chinese and Korean, they definitely share the etymology. Ironically, it applies to Japanese terms, which were in turn the source of re-borrowing into Chinese, like  was created in Japan but it's made of Chinese components, was re-borrowed into Chinese again as, where it feels as if it was made there. Japanese "電話" is a kango and is definitely a Sino-Japanese term. Similarly,  is of course, of Greek origin. Not sure if Greek  was actually created in Greece or is it also a case of a similar re-borrowing from another European language? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * English terms do include a mention of Latin or Greek in the etymologies, but they are not marked as "Latino-English" or "Greco-English": that is my core concern. Calling Japanese terms like  and  "Sino-Japanese" seems to suggest that the terms were wholly of Chinese origin, when they were either Japanese coinages in their entirety (as with  as a Japanese compound of  + ), or very Japanese repurposings of old Chinese words to express new senses (as with  or ).  If a term were plainly borrowed from Chinese and maintained as such in Japanese, like  or, then "Sino-Japanese" makes more sense as a label.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the term "kango" digests better, we could use that (that's the term used by most Japanologists) but it's not a very intuitive English term and that's what it (kango), in essence, mean - "Sino-Japanese".
 * Quote:
 * Sino-Japanese vocabulary or kango (Japanese: 漢語, "Han words") refers to that portion of the Japanese vocabulary that originated in Chinese or has been created from elements borrowed from Chinese. It's from Wikipedia but is it inaccurate? Sino-Japanese = kango, doesn't it? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been using the term Sino-Japanese to mean all kango including wasei kango. Being a Sino-Japanese word tells nothing about who coined the term. A kango may be a Literary Chinese word or a Japanese-created word. Clearly, wording like “Sino-Korean word from 柔道” in the etymology section is misleading; it should be “Sino-Korean word from Japanese 柔道”. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you have no issue with "Sino-Korean" but it's missing the "Japanese" part. Perhaps User:Wyang could try to improve the template to allow the additional info? . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As Eiríkr has already pointed out, “Sino-Korean word from 柔道” sounds like it’s from Chinese. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)