User talk:Eirikr/2017

Shifting work responsibilities and a long road trip led to me not logging in here for the better part of a month. I will be only sporadically active here for the foreseeable future. If you post here on my Talk page, or ping me from some other page, please be aware that it might be a couple weeks before I respond. I am not ignoring you -- I am simply busy elsewhere. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sayonara
To be honest, I was expecting suzu or someone to revert that, but you're welcome and I'm glad that some of the other users appreciate the nuance/formatting. — Llywelyn II   16:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking for an editor for my Appendix:Gikun_Usage_in_Meiji_Version_of_Japanese_Bible or at least its sub pages
Hello Eirikr! As you will have noticed, I've been out of editing mode for quite a long while and have started recently to get back into the swing of things and continue working on this Appendix which will end up being an extremely long list of words. I was hoping that you wouldn't mind at least taking a moment of time to glance at the sub-pages I've created for the various headwords which gives the quotations showing how the gikun words are used, and edit if you see fit, or offer any feedback/suggestions you may have. I've started linking to those sub-pages using See Also headings at the end of the definitions for the wiktionary headwords. For an example, see 艶美. I would greatly appreciate any help/suggestions you are willing to provide. Also, to any others reading this who feel themselves qualified, I welcome your help. Thanks!馬太阿房 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC) One more thing... The etymologies (if you can call them that) on my sub-pages are my main concern. Please compare what I have done under Appendix:Gikun_Usage_in_Meiji_Version_of_Japanese_Bible/艶美 with what I have put under the Etymology heading under Appendix:Gikun_Usage_in_Meiji_Version_of_Japanese_Bible/眼瞼. Since I have linked in that section to the Sino-Japanese headword and to the individual characters which make up that headword where a user can often find etymologies, I had thought it would be fine if I just explained basically how the gikun word was formed. What are your thoughts on this? 馬太阿房 (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC). Or, would you prefer I didn't use the word Etymology and do something like what you see here: Appendix:Gikun_Usage_in_Meiji_Version_of_Japanese_Bible/挈 馬太阿房 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * : Interesting effort. After looking at the few appendix entries you've linked to here, I think ===Etymology=== is probably a good heading.  However, "derived from Sino-Japanese word ..." strikes me as incorrect wording.  Gikun terms do not derive from the Chinese in any way other than spelling.  Similarly, including the Chinese-derived on'yomi seems misleading and not quite relevant.  Might I suggest wording such as, "derived by applying Chinese-derived spelling XXX to native Japanese term YYY..."
 * I'm curious, have you run across instances of such gikun spellings that are still current? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * : Thanks for having a look and providing your valued feedback. I will definitely revise and make the changes you suggest, and yes, I have recently come across an excellent web site which lists a number of gikun found in old and much more recent literature (https://furigana.info/) but with only a few exceptions, such as (which I fully expected to find on that site since はだか would be such an obvious gikun reading), were there any words from my list thus far. Do you think I should exclude them if I can find them on that web site? At first I was thinking that I should not include words found on that site if they were shown to be common in literature, and it appeared that  was quite common which was not at all surprising, but then recently I changed my mind and added it anyway, because that site does not use quotations from this bible unless they are quoted to a certain extent in other literature and it was from other writings which contained more or less quotes from from this bible, that I found one or two of the other words in my list on that site (not sure if that was good reasoning). Anyhow, I would be very interested in any feedback you may have on this too. I also recently found that my list of words (many if not all of the words I had added up until March of last year I think it was) had been evidently copied onto the Japanese wikipedia page for 義訓 under the 明治・大正 section heading having been added by user Srampax. I say they were copied since words not on my list are not to be found in the specific section under that heading for 明治元訳聖書 and I've only just started having gone through  a few chapters with the exception of my extensive search on the numerous gikun versions of うつくしい and うるわしい). 馬太阿房 (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Okay, please check Appendix:Gikun_Usage_in_Meiji_Version_of_Japanese_Bible/眼瞼. I think I finally got it in proper form, which brings up another question: Why do your etymologies for example for  say the word is derived from  + ... when 目 and 蓋 are technically Chinese words given Japanese readings  and . Wouldn't it be more clear for you to say it in the form I now have under Appendix:Gikun_Usage_in_Meiji_Version_of_Japanese_Bible/眼瞼 and say something like,  is a compound of , instead of showing the Chinese characters Japan has adopted for ま and ふた in the etymology? 馬太阿房 (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC). Okay, I made one more edit for Appendix:Gikun_Usage_in_Meiji_Version_of_Japanese_Bible/眼瞼. I think now without including the Sino-Japanese word spelling がんけん in the Etymology section, I now have it in the form you had felt made the most sense. 馬太阿房 (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Here's one more you can check to make sure I've got the Etymology format the way it should be: Appendix:Gikun_Usage_in_Meiji_Version_of_Japanese_Bible/好合う 馬太阿房 (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC) and one more: Appendix:Gikun_Usage_in_Meiji_Version_of_Japanese_Bible/集合る 馬太阿房 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC) and this Appendix:Gikun_Usage_in_Meiji_Version_of_Japanese_Bible/生霊 馬太阿房 (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC). And here's a more complicated one with more than one etymology you can check: Appendix:Gikun_Usage_in_Meiji_Version_of_Japanese_Bible/発出す. So, if all these look okay now, I'll continue to do the rest using the same form of wording in the Etymology section. 馬太阿房 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

さがしい (賢しい) and さかしい (賢しい)
Please check these entries. From what I can tell, さがしい is an old form used in the Meiji era (found only in the oldest resources I can find) and still used in modern Tōhoku dialect to mean "clever". Interestingly, my research tells me that in Tōhoku dialect, they don't say "こざがしい" (小賢しい) but I think 小賢しい (こざかしい) is a common word elsewhere outside the Tōhoku region. 馬太阿房 (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

汰 Meaning
I looked up on some websites, claiming that 汰 means "luxury" or "selection" in Japanese, so what's the deal with reverting my edit?--Therainbowsend (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * : "Some websites" can be unreliable. Kanjidic includes glosses and readings of dubious sourcing that aren't backed up by vocabulary.  The only terms I can find that actually use the  kanji are:
 * The last term is the only term with anything to do with, but even then, it ultimately decomposes into + .   itself entails no  sense.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I got out my 漢語林 and found that it also means more what you would expect judging from the components: 1. にごる (Make (water) muddy/cloudy (thickening the water, if you will)) 2. なみ. おおなみ. ("Waves and Billows"). Think of how they become muddy as they stir up sediments. I agree with what Eirikr is saying, that there should be vocabulary to back it up to warrant the meanings inclusion and it is easy to see how 奢汰 can be explained using the よなげる meaning which is the 7th meaning given or even meanings 1 and 2 found given in 漢語林 (given above). It actually lists 8 meanings which all seem related and I'm guessing they were all included to show how 汰 evolved in use over time. Interestingly, 漢語林 does not list but にごる, the first meaning given, would look just like it . I'm guessing that 汰 was never really used in either of these ways as a verb in Japan except for maybe idiosyncratically by some writers who understood the basic meaning. The 3rd meaning given is ぜいたくをする ("to live in luxury") and the example vocabulary to go with this usage is . I suppose even this usage may not warrant the "luxury" meaning given how you can extend the basic original meanings. 馬太阿房 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The last term is the only term with anything to do with, but even then, it ultimately decomposes into + .   itself entails no  sense.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I got out my 漢語林 and found that it also means more what you would expect judging from the components: 1. にごる (Make (water) muddy/cloudy (thickening the water, if you will)) 2. なみ. おおなみ. ("Waves and Billows"). Think of how they become muddy as they stir up sediments. I agree with what Eirikr is saying, that there should be vocabulary to back it up to warrant the meanings inclusion and it is easy to see how 奢汰 can be explained using the よなげる meaning which is the 7th meaning given or even meanings 1 and 2 found given in 漢語林 (given above). It actually lists 8 meanings which all seem related and I'm guessing they were all included to show how 汰 evolved in use over time. Interestingly, 漢語林 does not list but にごる, the first meaning given, would look just like it . I'm guessing that 汰 was never really used in either of these ways as a verb in Japan except for maybe idiosyncratically by some writers who understood the basic meaning. The 3rd meaning given is ぜいたくをする ("to live in luxury") and the example vocabulary to go with this usage is . I suppose even this usage may not warrant the "luxury" meaning given how you can extend the basic original meanings. 馬太阿房 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The last term is the only term with anything to do with, but even then, it ultimately decomposes into + .   itself entails no  sense.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I got out my 漢語林 and found that it also means more what you would expect judging from the components: 1. にごる (Make (water) muddy/cloudy (thickening the water, if you will)) 2. なみ. おおなみ. ("Waves and Billows"). Think of how they become muddy as they stir up sediments. I agree with what Eirikr is saying, that there should be vocabulary to back it up to warrant the meanings inclusion and it is easy to see how 奢汰 can be explained using the よなげる meaning which is the 7th meaning given or even meanings 1 and 2 found given in 漢語林 (given above). It actually lists 8 meanings which all seem related and I'm guessing they were all included to show how 汰 evolved in use over time. Interestingly, 漢語林 does not list but にごる, the first meaning given, would look just like it . I'm guessing that 汰 was never really used in either of these ways as a verb in Japan except for maybe idiosyncratically by some writers who understood the basic meaning. The 3rd meaning given is ぜいたくをする ("to live in luxury") and the example vocabulary to go with this usage is . I suppose even this usage may not warrant the "luxury" meaning given how you can extend the basic original meanings. 馬太阿房 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The last term is the only term with anything to do with, but even then, it ultimately decomposes into + .   itself entails no  sense.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I got out my 漢語林 and found that it also means more what you would expect judging from the components: 1. にごる (Make (water) muddy/cloudy (thickening the water, if you will)) 2. なみ. おおなみ. ("Waves and Billows"). Think of how they become muddy as they stir up sediments. I agree with what Eirikr is saying, that there should be vocabulary to back it up to warrant the meanings inclusion and it is easy to see how 奢汰 can be explained using the よなげる meaning which is the 7th meaning given or even meanings 1 and 2 found given in 漢語林 (given above). It actually lists 8 meanings which all seem related and I'm guessing they were all included to show how 汰 evolved in use over time. Interestingly, 漢語林 does not list but にごる, the first meaning given, would look just like it . I'm guessing that 汰 was never really used in either of these ways as a verb in Japan except for maybe idiosyncratically by some writers who understood the basic meaning. The 3rd meaning given is ぜいたくをする ("to live in luxury") and the example vocabulary to go with this usage is . I suppose even this usage may not warrant the "luxury" meaning given how you can extend the basic original meanings. 馬太阿房 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

のに
I'd appreciate if this entry could get an expansion, including usage examples. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Μετάknowledge: Hmm, yes, that needs expansion. I've just added the etym now to put it on my watchlist.  It's late here and I'm about to crash, so I'll have a go at building it out further at a later time.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a reminder that the entry still needs pronunciation and references. By the way, what useful things are there that I could do around here in Japanese? I'm interested in helping out, but it's hard for me to tell what needs to be done that can be done by someone who doesn't actually speak it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you're willing to invest, you could purchase the NHK pronunciation dictionary app, which has audio and easy-to-use notation. There are still many important words without pronunciation sections or they are non-standard, missing the pitch accent or devoicing markers. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this rule recorded anywhere or is it de-facto? —suzukaze (t・c) 23:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's recorded anywhere here on WT, if that's what you're asking. In lexicographic terms, I've only ever seen yomi given in JA sources for two-character terms, and never for anything longer.  Furthermore, two of the yomi terms ( and ) are themselves two-character terms, and only make sense in a two-character context.  If a longer kanji term happens to have consistently on or kun, I have no problem specifying that as a reading; but calling  "irregular" is just not useful, and potentially misleads readers into thinking that the ōkami portion is irregular, when instead the irregularity is entirely limited to the Nihon portion.  I've brought up the idea in the past of expanding the functionality of the  and  templates to allow editors to specify yomi types for substrings, but that never went anywhere.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Derived terms under 女
Some of the derived terms listed seem to be out of place. For example, all the ones which don't even have 女 in them, like. I don't think the derived terms listing on a Character page is supposed to include a listing of terms which have a yomi derived from one of the yomi used to read the character, regardless of whether term is written with a different character(s), or is it? Also, why is on the list? The character used to write おも may have been derived from 女, but does that make it a "derived term"? You will notice that the derived terms section is only under the 3rd etymology heading which was created for the reading め, but some of the terms listed, like and  don't even use the reading め. Would you please explain what criteria is used to determin whether a term belongs in the "derived terms" section or the "compounds" section on a Character page? About_Japanese says "section should be called "Compounds" in kanji entries and "Derived terms" in non-kanji entries." Does that mean there shouldn't be any "Derived terms" sections under on character entry pages, or is it just talking about under the Kanji heading in the Japanese section of the page, and by "non-kanji entries" is it talking about the sections of the Character page which has Etymologies of the different readings? 馬太阿房 (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * -- Japanese is an odd duck. Don't confuse the graphical representation (the spelling -- here, 女) with the term itself (here, me).  Japanese spellings serve as disambiguation for the underlying terms.  The me in  is clearly the same me as in, so 娶る derives from 女.
 * Re:, that clearly traces back to older reading womina, where the mi cognate with the me in . As a cognate and not a direct derivation, this should be removed from the deriveds.
 * I am uncertain about ; the only etymological information I can get for this term suggests that this has no direct relationship with, so this too should be removed from the deriveds.
 * Re: compounds vs. deriveds, compounds is a more general heading and could potentially hold all terms spelled with the same glyph. Deriveds are bound by the etymology, which is tied to the phonetics and sometimes wholly divorced from the spelling.  So  would go under the deriveds under the etym for, but not in the compounds for , nor under any of the other etymologies for that spelling.
 * Please let me know if this doesn't fully address your questions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I guess you are right about me being confused by the graphical representation of the different words. I had found it confusing to see words like which although obviously derived using the term  (the kanji spelling of the word even looks like  +  since both kanji are seen in it), don't share the same character representation of  as they would if it were written . I had been thinking all terms listed under  should include  in the kanji spelling of the word. Now that I fully understand, I'll make sure to only remove the words that obviously don't belong such as  and  from under the etymology for me if you haven't already. 馬太阿房 (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When doing so, please also be aware that sometimes phonological rules may obscure otherwise-clear relationships. For example,  derives directly from  and, but this is not immediately obvious from the phonetics, unless you're aware of some of the historical patterns in sound changes.  Essentially, beware of what may or may not "obviously" belong.  :)  That said, if one term derives from some other term, the etym for the derived term should at least mention that derivation, so check the entries and see what's listed.  If you can read Japanese, please also check sites like Weblio, Kotobank, Gogen Allguide, Nihon Jiten, and any dead-tree resources you might have to hand.  Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll definitely keep that in mind. Thanks for the tip and also thanks for the resources (two of which I use regularily) the other two are new to me and I will definitely start referring to them too. I looked briefly at the Nihon Jiten site and it looks like it may be especially good for finding etymological information.馬太阿房 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

画図
This has been given the pronunciation がず, but in the スーパー大辞林 I only find this with the pronunciation がと. My input method does accept both, but this does suggest がと is the more common pronunciation. I was also wondering whether this term only means the act of drawing, or also the artwork produced by drawing? Would you be so kind as to expand this entry, and perhaps also the related 図画? – Krun (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've expanded. More might still be needed.  Please have a look.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

danskjävel
Hi Eirikr. Re your question whether is still current, I requested the term because I saw it used in a comment on YouTube; I assume, therefore, that the term is indeed current. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edit to 曠 removing reading あきらか
Hi Eirikr. Re your 11/20/2014 edit to 曠 where you commented, "can't find evidence for あきらか, which is of the wrong meaning anyway; Breen's includes あら in あらの, "wild or waste field"". Aside from my dead-tree resources, I was easily able to find 3 Japanese dictionary web sites which I don't think are using a common source for information. Please see the following: 1. http://www.kanjipedia.jp/kanji/0002332400 (this site says it uses information from 『漢検 漢字辞典　第二版』) 2. https://mnamae.jp/c/66e0.html  3. http://xn--i6q76ommckzzzfez63ccihj7o.com/honbun/zoukan-5b25.html As for the meaning あきらか being "wrong" I think if you had thought of in the sence of "out in the open", you would have seen how it came to be a meaning /  of 曠. I appreciate that you included あら and ひろい because these are definitely used too, but if you wanted to, you could also include other rare usages like はれ (open/public) which might be even more common in Japanese literature, see https://furigana.info/w/%E6%9B%A0:%E3%81%AF (see also https://furigana.info/w/%E6%9B%A0). 馬太阿房 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay. Catching up on my backlog, with a sliver of time open to me.
 * About the あきらか reading, I could not find any instances of usage at the time of that edit. I now find five at  -- still not tons, but enough that clearly aren't scannos to meet CFI.
 * Looking further into the むなしい reading, finds some that appear likely, but the search results are also pulling up instances of 素曠しい with a clear reading of すばらしい, as shown more explicitly in the one "preview" instance I can find, marked here in yellow with furigana clarifying the reading.  That one at least is definitely not a scanno, suggesting that the others may also be すばらしい where 曠 is used for the ばら portion.  Although the 晴 in すばらしい is ateji, the cross over in readings / meanings with はれ is likely the source of this alternative 曠 spelling.
 * For now, I'll re-add the あきらか reading. If you feel there are sufficient reliable citations to back up the はれ (probably は-れ, with 曠 as the は) and/or はら readings (with はら becoming ばら by rendaku?), by all means please add these in as well.
 * (FWIW, すばらしい almost certainly comes from verb . The -ashii adjectives derive from verbs in general, from the 未然形 + adjectivizing suffix -しい, with a general meaning of "evoking the quality of the verb stem".  すばらしい originally referred to something awful, as a synonym to ひどい, i.e. "something someone would want to shrink away from".  See also  from, etc.)
 * Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your further research into 曠 readings and for the info about すばらしい which is interesting. I'll let you make the decision about whether to include はら and/or はれ readings. You may have noticed that a lot of the citations on the furigana web site for those readings are from works by the same author so it might be an an old idiosyncratic usage for the most part which was then used by later authors in a similar way. 馬太阿房 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Formatting for alternate readings. Questions about your edits to 楓
Hi Eirikr. I'm confused about how to format alternate readings and was looking for examples of how you have done them to determine what more I should do with the Japanese section I added for and the new entry I created for. So, while searching for an example, I found myself reviewing what you did with the readings for. I would think there should be separate POS headings for them, so when I saw, I expected to see another POS heading for that like you had made for the rare reading かいで, but didn't find one. Also, you defined かいで as "alternate reading for kaede: the maple tree." It doesn't seem to make sense to call かいで a "reading of kaede", as it isn't a reading for kaede but rather a reading for 楓 which is generally read かえで (kaede). Did you mean to say, " alternate reading for : the maple tree". Wouldn't that be better? 馬太阿房 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Alternative readings present certain challenges in terms of entry layout. If there are any sense differences, then it definitely merits its own section.  If it has a clear etymology that is different in some substantive way, then it again probably merits its own section.  If it's only a matter of voicing, I've used  for the less-common reading.  If it's a vowel shift, I've generally broken it out as its own POS.
 * I've tweaked the wording at 楓. Past there, if you feel strongly that the entry should be restructured, have a go.  :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation regarding alternate readings and I'm satisfied with how you tweaked the wording. 馬太阿房 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

口
This is in CAT:E after your last edit there. It seems that ja-r is spoiled and has a tantrum if you don't give it any kana. I swapped it for plain l to get rid of the module error, but you may know of a better way to deal with it. No hurry- it seems to be ok for now. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Chuck! I've started a new thread at Template_talk:ja-r related to this.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Translating "a language"
Hi, I was curious about the two Japanese translations for "language" under the sense "a body of words understood by a community": "kotoba" and "gengo". Both entries have a definition that sounds like "the ability to communicate using words". Could you clear up these definitions for me? Ultimateria (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll chew on that for a bit and have a go later. :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Subordinate to pronunciation
Headers at the same level (4) are not subordinate, and can be arbitrarily rearranged. If some content is subordinate to a header at level n it should have header level n+1. DTLHS (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That's fine as an argument. However, it goes against practice.  Perhaps a matter for further discussion at the Beer parlor, or some similar venue?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For that matter, I'm curious -- if headers at a given level "can be arbitrarily arranged", why bother rearranging them anyway? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When I say arbitrarily arranged I mean that there is no information conveyed by the order of headings (at the same level) on a page. My motivation for arranging them consistently is user friendliness. DTLHS (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In case you missed it (since it seems pings are broken), I posted a query about this a couple days ago, at User_talk:NadandoBot. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did miss it (I do have that page watched of course). DTLHS (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Months-old edits (頭が良い‬, etc.)
How did you find these? :p —suzukaze (t・c) 21:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @suzukaze, I'm puzzled -- I've never before touched (possibly even looked at) the page before.  I did rework, which was brought to my attention by the recent registration of Poketalker, and that user's push to clean up their own pre-registration anon edits (c.f. Etymology_scriptorium/2017/October).
 * Was that WT:ES thread what you were thinking of? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 14:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I got a notification a few days ago saying that you thanked me for reverting an edit from like August or something. —suzukaze (t・c) 19:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @suzukaze -- Aha, that was probably a result of me going through the contributions of the various anon IPs that Poketalker had previously used, or perhaps by looking over the edit histories of the many entries recently reworked by NadandoBot. :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

tentō mushi (, dash or space)
Isn't it supposed to be "tentō-mushi" (with the dash, example: here)? Also, what about compounds such as or ? --POKéTalker (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @POKéTalker For romaji renderings, my general rule of thumb is to use spaces when there are clear term boundaries.  is a standalone noun, and  is also a standalone noun that is modifying mushi.  Since mushi has no rendaku, there's no reason to indicate any "attachedness" between mushi and tentō, so I'd use a space.
 * When there is rendaku, the first part is clearly "attached" in a way to the second, inasmuch as it's causing a phonetic change, so a hyphen is appropriate. If the preceding element causing the rendaku is itself a compound noun, it is appropriate to hyphenate that as well.  In your example, I'd render the romaji for  as tentō-mushi-damashi.  Same rule as for compound nouns in English when used as modifiers (like "high-school student", where "high school" as a compound noun is hyphenated when used as a modifier, to clarify that we're not talking about "high" + "school student" but instead about "high school" + "student), plus the hyphen-before-rendaku rule.
 * That's what I'd do for the main entries and .  I would then create the romaji entries, , , and maybe even  to cover all the bases from a usability perspective -- so users can still find the main entry, even if they use a different convention for spaces and hyphens in romaji spellings.
 * HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, what about and your recent edit of ? My suggestion for the former is denden-daiko due to the rendaku. For the ya kumo one, the literature books say yakumo without the space/dash, which my article addition(s) would correctly say yakumo. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 08:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @POKéTalker, yes, with rendaku, a hyphen is appropriate. Re: 八雲, the  portion was very often used in older times to simply mean, .  The  portion in this term does not undergo rendaku, whereas it does in  of similar meaning.  To me, this suggests that the  and  components are still independent, especially in the phrase .  Where the compound is used as a name or epithet, without the , I think an argument can be made that this has lexicalized into a single unit, but in , all three parts strike me as discrete.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox
A sandbox has cropped up in Category:etyl cleanup/no which I am attempting to clear. I wonder if you would kindly remove it somehow. Cheers! DonnanZ (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Page deleted. :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Simple as that. Thanks a lot. DonnanZ (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

でかい
Hi. Could you have a look at the etymology section of this entry? I'm afraid I've been using unreliable sources for it (as well as being amateurish in writing). --Dine2016 (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a go over it. I'll do another pass later; I need to check a few things from my bigger dead-tree resources that I don't have to hand at the moment.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

キムチ
Could you please handle the attention here? I'm also curious if it can be determined whether the word really came straight from Korean or was mediated by English. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to be from English? Korea and Japan are geographically close. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just thought it was weird that Korean's [k] and [kʰ] would both become [k] in Japanese. But I suppose it's not that unexpected. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They do at the beginning of a word, and Japanese [k] and [ɡ] both become [k] in Korean at the beginning of a word. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess Metaknowledge is asking because the Japanese borrowing is phonetic, just like English, not (a made up word). Even if it were the Korean [kʰ] as in  (a made up word), it would be still Japanese [k] because Japanese don't have aspirated consonants. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @Μετάknowledge -- JA sources consistently source this as directly from Korean. Considering the geography and history, I see no reason to doubt this and instead suspect an import via English.  Phonologically, it's much as Anatoli indicates -- to a Japanese speaker's ear, there is no appreciable difference between Korean initial ㄱ  and ㅋ ; both are heard as .  As a native English speaker and beginning learner of Korean, I currently have to concentrate to be sure I hear the difference: I can hear it, but it's not a distinction I parse automatically.  :)
 * I've reworked the entry some and added commentary at Talk:キムチ.  Please let me know if that covers the bases.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (another example:, dol.a.wa.yo bu.san.hang.e →. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC))
 * Well, the standard Revised Romanization transliteration is " but McCune–Reischauer is "torawayo pusanhange". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is often no difference between ㄱ and ㅋ word-initially; both can be quite aspirated. However, initial syllables with ㄱ typically have a low f0 (tone) ― see Kim et al. (2002), “The contribution of consonantal and vocalic information to the perception of Korean initial stops”: “On average, f0 is lowest for vowels following lax stops, higher following tense stops, and highest following aspirated.” Wyang (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Thank you very much for the additional info. That article sounds very interesting, but Dropbox is giving me a 404: "The owner hasn’t granted you access to this link."  Is there a setting you could change on your end?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bugger, I don’t know how to change it. Sent you an email just then. Wyang (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We are observing tonogenesis in Korean, in which tone distinguishes ㄱ and ㅋ. The exception is ㅅ and ㅆ, whose consonantal difference is audible (at least to Koreans). — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for the explanations, and Eirikr for your work on the entry! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The reverse works similarly. Japanese initial [k] is transliteration with ㄱ in Korean: -> . I should also mention that Korean [kʰ] is palatalised as [kçi], not [kʰi]. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You're really cool.
That's all I wanted to say. 😁 Randomly sincerely, Geekdiva (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)