User talk:Eirikr/2019

Not much going on here at present. Feel free to drop a line. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

歲寒三友
When you get time could you please take a look at this Japanese edit? Thank you. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ya, that was rubbish. .  :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * it's the first kanji that is noticeable ('s not in JIS). Created with the correct character. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 10:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @POKéTalker, thank you. I'm not familiar with the expression, and didn't visually recognize that the first glyph wasn't just, so between the zero Japanese hits and the  (just arbitrarily inserting the ==Japanese== header in the middle of the ZH entry structure), I assumed vandalism.  Thanks for building out the proper JA entry!  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

泳ぐ
You stated that is from Old Japanese, is it known whether the o's are from o1 or o2? Also, I highly suspect that is cognate to this, and if it is the case, it would support that the /g/ in the verb is original. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 05:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've updated the entry a bit to reflect things I've learned since 2015, when I last edited that page.  About the vowel values, the earliest text I've found this in so far is , where the 甲・乙 distinction is no longer extant ( and  had already converged to just ).  Interesting about the Ryūkyūan language cognates, and yes, that would seem to support a voiced consonant in the OJP.  Thank you!  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Chiuayafuru, noun sense
It's in the Nippo Jisho (2 lines above highlighted "Chixa"). Kotobank says "...mukashi no koto/the long years past". What do you think? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 18:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @POKéTalker -- Thank you for the links! I see that the Kotobank entry is based on the Nippo Jisho entry.  Looking at that in more detail, I see the following:

Chihayafuru. i. Couſa antigua, ou de muito tempo: Xintǒ.
 * Referencing the Xintǒ entry, we find that this is 神道. I find myself thinking that this is at best an extension of the allusion to kami, or perhaps even a confusion based on that sense.  Even if the 昔 sense is valid, I think it should be marked as historical and rare.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

虹
Only "努自" is the string which is clearly read as no1zi in the instances among Old Japanese texts identified with "虹 (rainbow)" and another instances don't exist. It's kanji equivalent "虹" is only attested by the annotations written in the later eras. The poem from the man'yōshū which includes the word, ≪伊香保呂能 夜左可能為提尓 多都 努自 能 安良波路萬代母 佐祢乎佐祢弖婆≫ was without any indication about the interpretation originally (as a side note, this poem is written phonetically in the Old Eastern dialect, not regular Old Japanese). Because Old Japanese don't have same vowels with the Modern Japanese, if you remove the examples of man'yōgana, we can't know why the word read so. (You know as basic knowledge that there weren't any katakana nor hiragana in the era of Man'yōshū, don't you?) I can understand about erasing Middle Chinese readings, but I think that it is incorrect to erase man'yōgana entirely.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * : I understand your point. When including man'yōgana in the entries, the formatting at 虹 is more appropriate.  While we (the Wiktionary editor community in general) haven't settled on conventions for OJP entries in general, I am strongly opposed to using man'yōgana as headwords for OJP, as man'yōgana spellings are too variable.
 * As it is, the entry gives the ⟨spelling notation⟩, which includes the 甲・乙 subscript numbering. The entry also links through to a (in this case, the one and only) Man'yōshū poem that includes this term in context.
 * All of that aside, the more I dig into this, the more I doubt that was a valid reading.  There are examples of Central Old Japanese  corresponding with Eastern Old Japanese, but I cannot find any examples of the reverse -- which would be required for this Eastern OJP  and apparent later standard Middle Japanese (presumably from Central OJP) nuji.
 * Considering also that this term only appears once in the entirety of the Man'yōshū, and only with the ambiguous man'yōgana spelling, where could be read as either  or , I'm inclined to view the noji reading as apocryphal and ultimately a mistake on the part of modern dictionary editors.
 * Are you aware of other OJP sources for the Eastern Old Japanese term, that more clearly show a reading?  If the Man'yōshū is the only ancient source, the sound correspondence rules between Central Old Japanese and Eastern Old Japanese would appear to rule out the possibility of Central nuji ↔ Eastern no₁ji.  See 上代日本語 and 日本語の方言.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dialectal form noji itself exists even nowaday. (e.g. "にじ：東国の小児のじと云. 尾張の商人なべづるといふ. 西国にていうじと云. 「万葉」にぬじ又のすとも詠り (Butsurui Shōko(物類称呼), 1775)", "・のじ：東北全域・関東全域（東京以外）・新潟・長野・山梨・静岡. ") If you insist that reading of "努自" is ambiguous, it's more inapropriate to remove man'yōgana which leave room for interpretation.
 * The poem reffered above includes the word 安良波路(araparo1) which been interpretated as 顕ろ, attributive form of 顕る(araparu, modern equivalent 現れる arawareru) characteristic in the Old Eastern dialect. This attributive form araparo1 become araparuru in the Central dialect and merged in the terminal form arawareru in modern mainland Japanese. Final vowel of the attributive form of verbs is -u in the Central dialect, -o1 in the Old Eastern dialect; This phenomenon is explained as that Proto-Japanese *o changed into u in the Central but not changed in the Eastern and Proto-Ryukyuan. Central nuzi ↔ Eastern no1zi correspondence you said is also occured by the same phonological change. For that reason, researchers read ”努自” as "noji < no1zi".--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I've frequently encountered the following etymology format of kango: From. Compare modern 🇨🇬 reading zoeng6.

The goon reading, so likely the initial borrowing. What about making a template for it?

(Also pinging ) --Dine2016 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What about adding the IPA for the Mandarin/Cantonese/... pronunciation of the kanji, like 異? --Dine2016 (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that making a template is a sensible idea. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 03:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, changed mind just now. It seems that more detailed descriptions which do not fit into the model above are sometimes necessary (右 and 遠). --Dine2016 (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

女郎花
Any etymological information for this one? That omina- component sounds familiar. (The etym section used to have "" before I removed it today for being blatantly incorrect.) mellohi! (僕の乖離) 01:00, 2:7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to this, Ominaeshi is derived from 女飯 (をみなめし ominameshi, literally "woman rice"), because it's blossoms look like steamed grains of millet (粟飯) which had been called 女飯 (をみなめし ominameshi). If this is correct, an explanation as 女圧し (をみなへし ominaheshi, lit. "woman pressing") in the meaning of "beautifulness which overwhelm women", is far-fetched view in the later times (however there is an spelling example, 姫押 (lit. "princess pressing") in the Man'yoshū). The kanji spelling 女郎花 appeared at first in the early Heian period (for example: "名にめでて　折れるばかりぞ　女郎花　我おちにきと　人にかたるな (Kokin Wakashū, 905)").--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who added his own etymology to the entry in the meanwhile. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 04:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not my etymology, look at the "Further reading" section. Aramaki-san, KDJ? in Kotobank says that ominameshi is a shift from variant ominabeshi; possibly influenced by verb mesu or meshi rice? Not only used ominaeshi in the Kokinshū,  at least 13 more poems attest to that term. In the e-text version here only 4 use the kanji spelling, not one of them is by Henjō. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 14:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Searched all texts in the Man'yōshū, I found 14 records by "をみなへし", which spelled in 娘子部四, 姫押, 娘部思, 娘部志, 姫部志, 佳人部為, 美人部師, 娘部四, 乎美奈敝之 and 乎美奈弊之; However any records by "をみなべし" and "をみなめし" didn't be found. The oldest form seems to be , consistent with a interpretation as 女 + 圧し.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

沢山
Any ideas? Sounds suspiciously like a Sino-Japanese compound but nobody seems to know how. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 21:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * According to thosepages, 沢山 used to have the Kun-reading さわやま← さはやま (沢山, sawayama) which interpreted as さは (多, "(obsolete) many") + やま (山, "mountain"). However, this reading is first appeared in the early-modern era. meanwhile, On-reading たくさん (沢山, takusan) is first appeared in the Kamakura era (c. 1200 CE). An another theory says that たくさん takusan was a native word and akin to たかし (高し takashi, "tall, high"; whence modern 高い takai) and たく (長く taku, "to excel in, to be versed in"; whence modern 長ける takeru).--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

ill
Hi there. I noticed in my travels that ill is translated into Japanese here as 病気 which is listed as a noun. Is this correct? Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * : Yes, it is. Attributively, it's combined with の: 病気きの人 (byōki no hito) - "a sick person", predicatively, just 病気: あの人は病気です (anohito wa byōki desu) - "he/she is ill". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 18:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. So when translating an English adjective into Japanese you can just put the noun there without any more information? Because if it were Chinese we would add a 的 or something else. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * : Yes, I think it's the best way in this case, even if it's possible to show like this: but with na-adjectives, we normally use this approach, e.g. . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thank you. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

家
Hi. I noticed something funny here in the Japanese entry. Under the "a family" definition in the Noun heading いえ, the quotation given doesn't seem to contain いえ or 家. What's up with that? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor meant the reading, another reading for . I have moved the quotation to where it should be in the sense of "my/our". The quotation has only the kana form. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

liquor store
Could you take a look at the Japanese translation here? I noticed the reading here is さかや, sakaya; さかみせ, sakamise, while at the respective entry 酒店 the reading さかだな, sakadana is given. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These have been fixed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate! ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Global lock
If you are globally locked from Wikitionary but never edited it or created your account on it, are you still forbidden to edit here under a different account? Even if your global lock is due to offense at a different site? 2600:1:F16E:5C4F:D037:A39B:8C03:50BC 22:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's an interesting question. I don't know. , do you have any insight into WT policy for this kind of situation?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * We don't automatically go along with blocks from other sites. There are cases where someone who did serious vandalism on another site demonstrated that they were willing to act responsibly here, and we decided to not block them. Anything of the sort would, of course, be predicated on their having stopped their vandalism on the other site, as well. Also, if the powers that be decide to impose a global lock on the new account or IP range, we wouldn't have any say in the matter. On Wiktionary I may be an admin, a bureaucrat and a checkuser, but I'm just a regular user everywhere else, and I can't touch anything global. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm highly suspect of the Daijisen's etymology - this seems to be a blatant verbalized form of + the intransitive verbalizer -(a)ru, especially given the coexistence of, with a -(a)su transitive verbalizer. mellohi!hi! (僕の乖離) 16:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * @mellohi!, thanks for the ping. My KDJ copy gives the following detail for :

やどる【宿る】 〔自ラ五（四）〕（「屋を取る」の意. 「やど（宿）」の「ど」が甲類なのに対し、「やどる」の「ど」は乙類なので、「やど（宿）」からの派生ではない）
 * Our entry could certainly use some brushing up and additional detail, possibly including Man'yōshū (MYS) examples illustrating the 甲・乙 distinction, such as poem #7 or poem #3693 which both include yadoru forms, or poem #744 or poem #818 which include yado forms.
 * For, meanwhile, the KDJ notes (emphasis mine):

やどす【宿す】 〔他サ五（四）〕（「やどる（宿）」に対する他動詞として中古になって成立）
 * So the latter is a later innovation based on a reanalysis of the earlier verb form yadoru.
 * Here's an analysis of the phonetics that can be gleaned from the MYS:
 * From what I've seen, where spelled out phonetically, yadoru is consistently spelled, consistent with a derivation from ya ("house" or "night") + to2ru ("to take"):
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Phonetics !! Man'yōgana || Poem link
 * rowspan=11 | yado2ri
 * rowspan=2 | 也杼里
 * poem #3630
 * poem #3632
 * 也登里
 * poem #3643
 * 夜杼理
 * poem #3688
 * rowspan=7 | 夜杼里
 * poem #3643S
 * poem #3644
 * poem #3646
 * poem #3689
 * poem #3691
 * poem #3693
 * poem #3442
 * yado2re
 * 屋杼礼
 * poem #3770
 * yado2rerishi
 * 屋杼礼里之
 * poem #7
 * }
 * Alternatively, yadoru is spelled or, again pointing to the same derivation.
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * poem #3442
 * yado2re
 * 屋杼礼
 * poem #3770
 * yado2rerishi
 * 屋杼礼里之
 * poem #7
 * }
 * Alternatively, yadoru is spelled or, again pointing to the same derivation.
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * }
 * Alternatively, yadoru is spelled or, again pointing to the same derivation.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Phonetics !! Man'yōgana || Poem link
 * rowspan=4 | yado2r[u|i|e]
 * 夜取
 * poem #45
 * rowspan=3 | 屋取
 * poem #546
 * poem #930
 * poem #3215
 * }
 * poem #930
 * poem #3215
 * }
 * }


 * Meanwhile, yado is almost always spelled as.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Phonetics !! Man'yōgana || Poem link || Note
 * rowspan=80 | yado1
 * rowspan=15 | 夜度
 * poem #826
 * poem #842
 * poem #851
 * poem #3681
 * poem #3779
 * poem #3998
 * poem #4016
 * poem #4138
 * poem #4303
 * poem #4442
 * poem #4444
 * poem #4446
 * poem #4450
 * poem #4490
 * poem #4496
 * rowspan=3 | 屋度
 * poem #3747
 * poem #3920
 * poem #4291
 * rowspan=4 | 屋外
 * poem #1423
 * poem #1448
 * poem #2114
 * poem #2159
 * rowspan=56 | 屋戸
 * poem #126
 * poem #127
 * poem #384
 * poem #420
 * poem #488
 * poem #594
 * poem #759
 * poem #777
 * poem #785
 * poem #792
 * poem #744
 * poem #1011
 * poem #1013
 * poem #1040
 * poem #1041
 * poem #1471
 * poem #1480
 * poem #1481
 * poem #1483
 * poem #1514
 * poem #1565
 * poem #1572
 * poem #1573
 * poem #1606
 * poem #1616
 * poem #1622
 * poem #1623
 * poem #1743
 * poem #1755
 * poem #1941
 * poem #2027
 * poem #2207
 * poem #2130
 * poem #2172
 * poem #2213
 * poem #2286
 * poem #2295
 * poem #2324
 * poem #2349
 * poem #2465
 * poem #2475
 * poem #2527
 * poem #2759
 * poem #2912
 * poem #3957
 * poem #4113
 * poem #4155
 * poem #4172
 * poem #4185
 * poem #4186
 * poem #4207
 * poem #4219
 * poem #4224
 * poem #4259
 * poem #4270
 * poem #4289
 * rowspan=2 | 室戸
 * poem #1458
 * rowspan=2 | Irregular use of 室.
 * poem #1459
 * rowspan=2 | yado2
 * 耶登
 * poem #818
 * Judging from the context, possibly intended as 屋 + 所?
 * 夜杼
 * poem #3580
 * The KDJ describes this as 「（「やどり」との混同から）」. This particular poem is in Book 15, which is titled 遣新羅使歌. I think this refers to poems brought over from Silla on the Korean peninsula, so that might also be a factor affecting 甲・乙 spellings.
 * }
 * Barring some kind of ablaut phenomenon, I think we must conclude that these are two separate etyma, with yado likely deriving from +  or, and yadoru likely deriving from  +.
 * HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vowels. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 02:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * poem #1616
 * poem #1622
 * poem #1623
 * poem #1743
 * poem #1755
 * poem #1941
 * poem #2027
 * poem #2207
 * poem #2130
 * poem #2172
 * poem #2213
 * poem #2286
 * poem #2295
 * poem #2324
 * poem #2349
 * poem #2465
 * poem #2475
 * poem #2527
 * poem #2759
 * poem #2912
 * poem #3957
 * poem #4113
 * poem #4155
 * poem #4172
 * poem #4185
 * poem #4186
 * poem #4207
 * poem #4219
 * poem #4224
 * poem #4259
 * poem #4270
 * poem #4289
 * rowspan=2 | 室戸
 * poem #1458
 * rowspan=2 | Irregular use of 室.
 * poem #1459
 * rowspan=2 | yado2
 * 耶登
 * poem #818
 * Judging from the context, possibly intended as 屋 + 所?
 * 夜杼
 * poem #3580
 * The KDJ describes this as 「（「やどり」との混同から）」. This particular poem is in Book 15, which is titled 遣新羅使歌. I think this refers to poems brought over from Silla on the Korean peninsula, so that might also be a factor affecting 甲・乙 spellings.
 * }
 * Barring some kind of ablaut phenomenon, I think we must conclude that these are two separate etyma, with yado likely deriving from +  or, and yadoru likely deriving from  +.
 * HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vowels. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 02:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * poem #4185
 * poem #4186
 * poem #4207
 * poem #4219
 * poem #4224
 * poem #4259
 * poem #4270
 * poem #4289
 * rowspan=2 | 室戸
 * poem #1458
 * rowspan=2 | Irregular use of 室.
 * poem #1459
 * rowspan=2 | yado2
 * 耶登
 * poem #818
 * Judging from the context, possibly intended as 屋 + 所?
 * 夜杼
 * poem #3580
 * The KDJ describes this as 「（「やどり」との混同から）」. This particular poem is in Book 15, which is titled 遣新羅使歌. I think this refers to poems brought over from Silla on the Korean peninsula, so that might also be a factor affecting 甲・乙 spellings.
 * }
 * Barring some kind of ablaut phenomenon, I think we must conclude that these are two separate etyma, with yado likely deriving from +  or, and yadoru likely deriving from  +.
 * HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vowels. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 02:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * rowspan=2 | yado2
 * 耶登
 * poem #818
 * Judging from the context, possibly intended as 屋 + 所?
 * 夜杼
 * poem #3580
 * The KDJ describes this as 「（「やどり」との混同から）」. This particular poem is in Book 15, which is titled 遣新羅使歌. I think this refers to poems brought over from Silla on the Korean peninsula, so that might also be a factor affecting 甲・乙 spellings.
 * }
 * Barring some kind of ablaut phenomenon, I think we must conclude that these are two separate etyma, with yado likely deriving from +  or, and yadoru likely deriving from  +.
 * HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vowels. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 02:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vowels. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 02:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Do not shoot the messenger
Do not shoot the messenger; my cousin's been borrowing my laptop, and my user-name, and has been telling me to send you these while she's away (I don't know the facts, I can't tell if you two are butting heads since before she'd started using my laptop, and she's not too good with a laptop anyway, so please just talk to her if there's a problem):
 * http://www.bokunan-do.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=389
 * http://www.bokunan-do.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=392
 * http://www.japanartsandcrafts.com/dosatwa.html
 * https://worldkigodatabase.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-12-29T03:28:00%2B09:00&max-results=15&reverse-paginate=true
 * http://www.iz2.or.jp/english/fukusyoku/kosode/40.htm / http://www.iz2.or.jp/english/fukusyoku/kosode/
 * https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=what+does+%E9%81%93%E4%B8%AD%E8%B2%A1%E5%B8%83+mean%3F&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6sNzfkLfjAhW6VBUIHdYUA94Q_AUIECgB&biw=1366&bih=651

Mare-Silverus (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for the note.
 * I have no idea who your cousin is nor how to contact her, so I'll respond here. :)
 * http://www.bokunan-do.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=389 and http://www.japanartsandcrafts.com/dosatwa.html and https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=what+does+%E9%81%93%E4%B8%AD%E8%B2%A1%E5%B8%83+mean%3F&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6sNzfkLfjAhW6VBUIHdYUA94Q_AUIECgB&biw=1366&bih=651
 * For, this is what we call an "SOP" or "sum-of-parts" term. This means that the total term is easily understood from its individual parts, things like "brown house" or "extra serving".  The policy here at the English Wiktionary is that SOP terms should not have their own entries, and indeed, we don't have an entry for , as this is easily understood as  + .  Along similar lines, we shouldn't have an entry for , as that too can be easily understood as  + .  If a particular combination of individual words takes on a meaning that isn't clear from its constituent parts, then we generally will advocate creation of an entry, such as  or  or.
 * Please see WT:SOP for reference.
 * Incidentally, shopping websites are not particularly good sources for lexicography purposes, especially when one doesn't understand the target language.
 * http://www.bokunan-do.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=392 and probably also http://www.iz2.or.jp/english/fukusyoku/kosode/40.htm
 * For furiwake, the entry I deleted was . This kanji spelling could presumably be read as furidake or furitake, both of which are clearly not furiwake.
 * https://worldkigodatabase.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-12-29T03:28:00%2B09:00&max-results=15&reverse-paginate=true and http://www.iz2.or.jp/english/fukusyoku/kosode/
 * I have no idea what your cousin was trying to convey with these URLs. A quick scan of the pages reveals nothing particularly relevant to my recent edits.
 * Whether you or your cousin, your account has created or edited a number of problematic entries in the recent past. I've been going through and editing / deleting as appropriate, based on my Japanese resources to hand and my own language abilities in understanding those resources.  Broadly speaking, it appears that the Japanese entries from your account have the following problems:
 * Patent misspellings
 * Such as.
 * Misunderstandings of the Japanese term(s)
 * Such as (it's not a suitcase) or  (it's not a double-breasted coat).
 * Formatting issues
 * Pretty much all of them -- in general, definition lines for non-English terms should not use sentence-ending punctuation, nor sentence-initial capitalization. For Japanese entries, it would be best to match the formatting and style used in other Japanese entries, which so far the edits by your User:Mare-Silverus account have not done.
 * Adding encyclopedic content
 * Pretty much all of them -- see What Wiktionary is not, taking particular note of the first line ("Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia... it is not an in-depth collection of factual information... Wiktionary entries are about words. A Wiktionary entry should focus on matters of language and wordsmithing..."). See also Style_guide, again taking particular note of the first line ("Definitions should be concise. Only in rare cases should a definition consist of more than one sentence or sentence fragment.")
 * Including links to non-existent Japanese Wikipedia pages, and/or links to incorrect or irrelevant English Wikipedia pages
 * Many of them -- if a page doesn't exist on the Japanese Wikipedia, do not add a link (or any of the other Wikipedia cross-linking templates) to the English Wiktionary entry.  For instance, there is no article at 振竹, yet you added a link to that from the (now-deleted) 振竹 entry.  Also, when linking to the English Wikipedia, the linked article should be for the same concept or thing described by the Japanese term.  For instance,  is not a suitcase, so linking to the English Wikipedia page for Suitcase is incorrect.
 * While I appreciate the enthusiasm, please be aware that continuing to add problematic entries may result in your account being blocked. Here at Wiktionary, we tend to take the approach that missing information is preferable to misinformation.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I kinda get it. Kinda.

Ally still feels like some sort of distinction between different kinds of purses and wallets should be made; she's been going-on about the ones like the frog's mouth and that one that's apart of Shinto bridal ware and that 7-5-3 thing for little kids. That travel one, she says, is like a samurai's briefcase; she sends you this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-nmoLklKak.

Mare-Silverus (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that there's a lot of incorrect rubbish floating around the English-language web about Japan, Japanese culture, and the Japanese language. Looking at this particular Youtube link, we must ask:
 * Who created this video?
 * Why did they create this video?
 * Do they read and understand Japanese?
 * Have they read and properly understood Japanese-language materials about this subject?
 * I cannot immediately answer anything much about points 3 and 4, and indeed the video creator's Etsy link is dead; perhaps not surprising, as the video was posted over five and a half years ago now. But for points 1 and 2, we have that info right in the video's description:

ATJartworks In ancient Japan, gentlemen of means as well as samurai carried important documents and money in a traditional fabric wallet called a "douchu saifu" or traveler's wallet. ATJ Artworks studio creates kimono style bags and wallets handmade from cotton fabrics in many styles. Many have heard of a kinchaku bag worn with ladies kimono and yukata, but what about the samurai's wallet? Let's find out how it works!
 * Let's dig in.
 * We know from this that they're selling things purported to be "samurai wallets". When money is involved, it's a good idea to take any claims with a grain of salt: people are all too often happy to lie a little bit (or even a lot) if it means they can sell something.  So we know right off the bat that we need to be skeptical of any claims made, and to do more research from other, less potentially conflicted, sources -- regardless of whether the video creators can and did read any relevant Japanese materials.
 * That said, we also know from this description that they're probably not very well versed in Japanese, given that the romanization is odd (should be dōchū saifu, or at least douchuu saifu) and the translation is off (道中 = "travel", not "traveler", and the proper phrase in English is "travel wallet", generating 5.5 million Google hits, not "traveler's wallet", at only 5,230 Google hits).
 * Looking in Japanese-language sources for the phrase "道中財布", I note that no monolingual Japanese dictionary I can find includes any entry for "道中財布", despite including entries for both and .  That tells me that Japanese lexicographers view "道中財布" as a sum-of-parts term that does not merit its own entry.
 * I also note that no Japanese-language encyclopedia that I have access to includes any entry for "道中財布", not even the Japanese Wikipedia: see the "no such article" message at 道中財布. That tells me that "道中財布" is probably neither specific enough nor noteworthy enough to merit its own entry there.  For that matter, there's no mention of the word  anywhere in the Japanese Wikipedia article about wallets in general, at 財布.
 * Searching more broadly, I see various Japanese websites selling "道中財布", but these appear to be mostly just ... travel wallets. Nothing about "samurai" really.
 * In summation, I conclude from the above that we can ignore this Youtube video as, at best, flawed, somewhat incorrect, and untrustworthy for purposes of lexicography.
 * All in all, there may well be various objects that can be called "道中財布", both in the modern world and historically. However, none of these objects that are called "道中財布" appear to be anything more than  that are used by people who are .  This fits the definition of a sum-of-parts term to a "T", and this is why we don't -- and shouldn't -- have any such "道中財布" entry here at Wiktionary.
 * If your cousin Ally feels a burning need to add content about "道中財布", she should do so at Wikipedia. And, incidentally, "道中財布" are not "Kimono accessories", and as such, she should not add any such content to the w:Kimono page (I suspect she's the anon user who has been adding tons of irrelevant content to that article), but rather to some other page, perhaps w:Wallet or even its own page.
 * Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A bit of déjà vu: it sure reminds me of this... Chuck Entz (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

While I get where you're coming from, you'll have a problem getting through to Ally sometimes; I've not replied in over a week, 'cause, first, I had to talk to her parents and mine, for their advice and permission, and they all agree that I should establish for you, some background on Ally, so that you don't misunderstand her.

Ally's autistic; most of my family actually is (including myself, with Asperger Syndrome (a form of high-functioning autism)), to one degree or another, but Ally's more pronounced. The reason that she's never talked to you directly is because of this; we're all a little socially-inept. ^^; While I-myself was diagnosed in my mid-teens, she went left un-diagnosed for years before the doctor called it, which is odd as it's actually more pronounced in her. Ally's also what's called a vulnerable adult; she's half-convinced that you'll bully her, on account of some of the things you've said about her--apparently, at least once, you've called her malicious (as in comments you'd made about her contributions onto Wiktionary are 'malicious'). While describing her as 'inept' is, technically correct, calling her malicious on those occasions really prays on her.

While I, personally, don't think that it was deliberate on your part, she really is a vulnerable person, and did not react to it well.

As for the Japanese travel wallet/briefcase thing, if you just put it's real name, she's more likely to move-on

Mare-Silverus (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert を
why? ᾨδή (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

In case "it might be a couple weeks before I respond. I am not ignoring you -- I am simply busy elsewhere", I will change the entry back first. This is too slow. ᾨδή (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reaching out.
 * Put simply, your edit changed the structure of the entry in ways that make it harder to understand.
 * In more detail, the particle を has three primary uses: as a case particle, as a conjunctive particle, and as an interjectory particle. After your edit, the case particle senses are split up in an odd way: the intransitive senses are separated from the explanatory note that these are still uses of the particle as a case marker. The structure seen here keeps the case particle senses grouped together.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "this is too slow". What is "this"?  And where is the urgency coming from?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, I didn't know "away from/along" is called "case marker". ᾨδή (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Case" doesn't really exist in Japanese, not like it does in European languages, but nonetheless "case" is the common translation of the term used to describe particles like を.  In essence, this marks the object of an action.  Japanese also has a different concept of transitive / intransitive, instead classing verbs as  and, literally "other-moving word" and "self-moving word", depending on whether the action involves an effect upon some other entity, or only an effect upon the agent engaging in the action.  The usage of object-marking を is independent of transitivity, in strict terms, and thus translations into English don't always fit very well.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction
Could I research and write a phonetic science and statistical paper to confirm and come back to post? Houses39 (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC) P.S. You speak Íslenska?! Could you help me research the origin of Indo-European culture and whether at the time of the Pletri (Corded Ware) culture it was connected to Uralic and Turkic?

IP editor
I was told to raise attention about this IP editor to you; it could possibly be Mare-Silverus, who you seem to have interacted with in the past. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 21:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @User:Surjection, thank you. According to Mare Silverus above, this IP user might be his cousin Ally.  Oh, dear...  Good for me to peruse that contributions log.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2409:891A:202:6BC:3C73:E2FF:FE3F:36B2
Same vandal. --Xiplus (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Joy. Thanks for the heads up!  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Aunt, uncle, niece and nephew
Have you heard of aunt-in-law, uncle-in-law, niece-in-law and nephew-in-law? Pages with these names have here, and so I want to make it clear that, aunt is just parent's sister, uncle is just parent's brother, niece is just sibling's daughter and nephew is just sibling's son. 2804:431:D725:4208:543:564A:A8E7:17D6 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do see that we have entries for, , and.
 * However, one important thing to understand is that Wiktionary aims to be a dictionary.  That means that we  words and how they are used.  We are definitely not a  dictionary, as we do not try to  how words should be used.  Please also see the second list item at What_Wiktionary_is_not.
 * The existence of the, , and  entries does not mean that the terms , ,  and  cannot be used to mean the same thing.  Indeed, in my own family, I have never myself used, nor heard anyone else use, the , ,  or  terms: my grandfather's sister's husband was always called "Uncle", never "Uncle-in-law", even though he was not related to me by blood.
 * I hope that helps explain things. Please post again if you have any further questions.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At truth your grandaunt's husband is your granduncle-in-law. In my opinion, aunt, uncle, aunt-in-law, uncle-in-law, grandaunt, granduncle, grandaunt-in-law, granduncle-in-law, are different things. I always say my aunts are just my mother's sisters and my father's sisters and my uncles are just my mother's brothers and my father's brothers. I also always say what my uncles's wifes are my aunts-in-law and never aunts and my aunts's husbands are my uncles-in-law and never uncles. 2804:431:D724:6761:461:D975:EB40:2839 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can use a term any way you want to, but that doesn't mean anyone will understand you. Likewise, if someone refers to their uncle's wife as their aunt, that's what they mean- no matter what you think it should mean. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of native English-speakers have never heard of aunts- and uncles-in-law, and they're not likely to take your word for it that the names they've used for their relatives since childhood are wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can use a term any way you want to, but that doesn't mean anyone will understand you. Likewise, if someone refers to their uncle's wife as their aunt, that's what they mean- no matter what you think it should mean. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of native English-speakers have never heard of aunts- and uncles-in-law, and they're not likely to take your word for it that the names they've used for their relatives since childhood are wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , see also, which appears to be the same Brazilian-located anon who has proved bullheaded with regard to English terms for various family relations. I've reverted all of their current batch of edits, and then blocked them site-wide for two weeks, but I noticed that Surjection took a different approach.  Please adjust the block as you deem fit.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Nata
See hatchet, Machete, and Froe. Then see what a nata is. (and/or consult entries for nata, in Jp-Jp dictionaries or Japanese encyclopedias, such as Japanese Wikipedia, for example) It's clearly not an axe (a hatchet is a type of axe. By definition. As is a froe), nor is it a machete, or even at all similar to a machete. It is used for similar purposes, but that is quite beside the point. A bayonet is used as a spear, to take an example, but no one would claim that it is one.--2002:D571:32D0:0:0:0:D571:32D0 10:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I see that you refuse to discuss, but rather prefer to just edit war and abuse power.--213.113.48.251 05:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It is also especially absurd, to remove the correction of the 刀 in 薙刀 being jukujikun, rather than kun'yomi, when the etymology section clearly explains that it is, undeniably, jukujikun (and there is no way in which 刀 can be read as "nata". Not as on-yomi nor kun-yomi) ...but then, that's what happens when you lazily just rollback all changes, without care. Oh, and I know that editors are supposed to be civil, but my accusations above are clearly and obviously true. I tried to discuss this with you. You refused to do so, but instead just reverted my edits and blocked me from editing. That goes completely against all behavioural and procedural principles of any and all parts of Wikimedia, be it Wikipedia (which I am more used to) or Wiktionary. And it's far from being civil, either.--213.113.48.251 05:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * For one, hold your horses. This is a volunteer effort.  I am busy with other things in the rest of my life.
 * For two, hold the arrogance. Notice that the entry includes various sources, indicated with [1] notation inline in various places and then listed at the bottom in the   section.
 * For three, check the page history and look for edit comments. As I noted in the edit comments for  and, an axe is not a hatchet.  The former is generally two-handed and large, the latter is single-handed and smaller.  If I asked someone for either and they gave me the other one, I would question their comprehension.  (Our current entries at axe and hatchet are deficient, a separate issue that I will bring up later in one of our forums.)  Also, as I noted in the edit comments for  and , I reverted to sourced content.  If you disagree with the sources, that's your prerogative, but it won't get you very far.
 * For four, my edits are based on a bit of research, as shown in part in the  section.  As best I can tell, your edits are based on personal opinion, which doesn't cut it here.
 * For five, the juku reversion was a mistake, which I've since fixed.
 * For six, civility and respect are reflective. You've shown very little, so you'll have to forgive me for returning the favor.
 * That's all I've got time for now. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hold my horses, you say? Your busy? You were clearly not busy enough to revert my edits, well after you had seen that I had tried to discuss the issue. Note especially, that the last edit before you did your major rollback, included a link to this section, in it's edit summary! You were perfectly well aware of it. You knowingly and intentionally CHOSE to refuse to engage. Refuse to talk.
 * "an axe is not a hatchet."
 * A hatchet is an axe.
 * "The former is generally two-handed and large, the latter is single-handed and smaller."
 * No. An axe can be big or small, two handed or one handed. A hatchet is a small, single handed axe.
 * On "two": I have addressed that here, as you can see.
 * "(Our current entries at axe and hatchet are deficient, a separate issue that I will bring up later in one of our forums.)"
 * You are quite wrong, and in direct conflict with the English language. As I've said, any and all sources, say that "hatchet" is a type of axe ...and that axes can be of any size or "hand-requirement".
 * "If you disagree with the sources, that's your prerogative, but it won't get you very far."
 * If a source states that 刀 means "spoon", we must go with the source, even if anyone can see that it is obviously wrong, in every conceivable way?
 * "civility and respect are reflective."
 * I began by trying to discuss. You answered by refusing to do so, and simply just reverting my edits, and blocking me from being able to edit. I did not commit any incivility, that you responded to. You initiated incivility.--213.113.48.251 06:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You have had more than a week to give answer. During which time, you've done plenty of Wiktionary editing, and discussing. Clearly you have no answer, or have no interest in giving one. Hence, as my arguments are unchallenged, I shall fix the entries, accordingly.--85.228.52.145 19:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ...except I forgot you actually blocked editing of naginata. So I'll have to actually report you, to get things right. I'll have to remember to do that, tomorrow.--85.228.52.145 19:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

To address your claims, when you edited 鉈: I also have access to Daijirin. Dictionaries can contain obvious inaccuracies. Particularly when they are so old. "some of which are clearly analogous to a billhook (such as the 越前鉈)" The image just names it 越前 (and I'd challenge you to find any examples of that word being used, to refer to the tool pictured, BTW). You added the 鉈 to it, yourself. Also, that is simply a 鉈鎌 (natagama), which is already mentioned, in my definition. It is a type of nata, yes, but not all nata are like that. "or a hatchet (such as the 下駄鉈) The image labelled 下駄, in Daijirin (and I would challenge you to find that term, referring to a type of nata, outside of Daijirin), is clearly a knife. Not an axe ...and, as I've pointed out to you, on multiple occasions, a hatchet is by definition, according to any dictionary or encyclopedia you might wish to consult, a type of axe. "or a machete (such as the 腰鉈)" Koshinata appears to be the term for the most iconic/typical type of nata, and the image shows a nice typical example ...which is nothing like a machete, in any way, shape, or form. The construction method, the way the tang is connected, the shape of the handle, the length of the handle, the length of the blade, the fact that the koshinata has a rectangular blade, the blade being set at an inward angle... I could go on. "or a froe (such as an 板割り鉈" Google says "Your search - "板割り鉈" - did not match any documents.". Outside of that picture in Daijirin, I cannot find any examples of such a thing, being even implied to be a nata ...though speaking of froes, I'd like to correct what I have said before. A froe isn't quite an axe ...but I maintain that no nata is anything like one--213.113.48.251 06:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I generally try to avoid conflict, much like most other living things. I could tell from the edit comments that your posts to my talk page were not as constructive as could be hoped.  As such, I set aside the task of reading through your posts and formulating a response.  I was also curious to see if any other editor might chime in.  The lack of anyone else's participation in this thread is indicative in its own way.
 * Given that you had such a negative reaction to my previous response, I am unsure that anything I write here will have a positive effect on your thinking.
 * I'll try to address your main points regarding the Japanese term, and Wiktionary practices in general.
 * Daijirin
 * The age of the source doesn't matter (so long as it's recent enough to count as "Japanese" and not "Old Japanese"). If the term is recorded in use with the indicated meaning, then it merits inclusion here.  I am also much more inclined to trust a monolingual Japanese source from a reputable publisher, corroborated by other sources, in preference over an unsourced anonymous contributor from Sweden.  No offense meant, just stating the facts.
 * Billhooks
 * There are various easily findable pictures clearly labeled as some variant of 鉈 and with shapes analogous to a billhook. Compare this image of antique billhooks in England, and this image of a 鉈 for sale.
 * Then there's the minor point that the JA WP article at 鉈 and the EN WP article at w:Billhook are cross-linked, suggesting that various other Wikipedia editors agree on this meaning.
 * Hatchets
 * As I mentioned earlier, the JA WP article at 鉈 has a section explicitly describing the fact that, for some speakers at least, there is semantic overlap between 鉈 and 斧. In addition, Google image searches show instances of things that an English speaker would call a "hatchet" that are clearly labeled as 鉈, such as this one.
 * Machetes
 * Searches again find things that an English speaker would call a "machete" that are clearly labeled as 鉈, such as this one. Or compare these two 剣鉈 (partway down that page) with this machete at REI.
 * Regarding specifically 腰鉈 with the typical squared blade end, we can also find machetes with similar shapes, such as this one at Hardware World. Or this one at REI, which is even called a "nata machete" and also compared to a hatchet.
 * 越前 -- more specifically, 越前鉈
 * The image in Daijirin shows various kinds of 鉈. Any of the discrete labels that don't include 鉈 imply it.  Much like if you look up the word "racket" at Merriam-Webster, their image shows three kinds of racket, but omits the word "racket" from each of them.  That does not mean that the name of the left-most kind of racket is just "tennis" -- it is a "tennis racket".  This kind of omission in labeling is a common lexicographical practice, likely due to the premium placed on page space when printing to paper.  Similarly, the name of the kind of 鉈 is not just "越前", it is a "越前鉈".
 * Here are various Google images of different 越前鉈.
 * 板割り鉈
 * I'll happily grant you that this is not a common term. Neither is the English term .  However, I do find at least one hit, where the text clearly describes the tool as 『あれは大工道具じゃない、板割り鉈.  屋根屋の道具だ. 』  Which is one common application of the froe: for precision-splitting of wood in the manufacture of planks and shingles.  That, combined with the Daijirin image, makes a strong case for the 板割り鉈 being akin to the froe, close enough for cross-lingual descriptive purposes.
 * That's all I have time for today. And you're welcome to "report" me, whatever that means.  If I have erred in my handling of your edits, I would appreciate impartial feedback from others.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, so NOW you feel like discussing things? Only when I revert your edit, and threaten to report you? (I was kinda busy today, so I didn't get around to it)
 * I'll check to see how many of my points/arguments (that you have previously completely ignored) that you actually address...
 * "I could tell from the edit comments that your posts to my talk page were not as constructive as could be hoped."
 * What's that supposed to mean? I do not appreciate that clear assumption of bad faith, in direct conflict with fundamental Wikimedia policy.
 * You are the one who has, clearly and demonstrably, shown himself to be deeply unconstructive.
 * "I was also curious to see if any other editor might chime in. The lack of anyone else's participation in this thread is indicative in its own way."
 * It is indicative of nothing. No more than that hardly anyone keeps an eye on the 鉈 entry (and why would they? It's not the most common of things) ...and who keeps an eye on other people's personal talk pages, unless they are currently in a discussion with the person in question? If you had made a request for outside comment, and no one had chimed in, that would be a different matter.
 * "Given that you had such a negative reaction to my previous response, I am unsure that anything I write here will have a positive effect on your thinking."
 * So you are saying you cannot give a response, that actually contains valid arguments, or proper evidence? That's pretty damning.
 * "If the term is recorded in use with the indicated meaning, then it merits inclusion here."
 * I never said the term shouldn't be included, so that argument is completely irrelevant.
 * " I am also much more inclined to trust a monolingual Japanese source from a reputable publisher, corroborated by other sources, in preference over an unsourced anonymous contributor from Sweden."
 * Do you trust a monolingual Japanese source from a reputable publisher, even when what they write, is in clear and obvious conflict, with the obvious facts?
 * All of the most reputable English-to-Japanese dictionaries (and no doubt the less reputable ones, too), translate "hip" (in the sense of the body part) as "尻". Would you trust that translation?
 * Furthermore: There is no monolingual Japanese source, that claims it to be an axe, a hatchet (which is an axe), a froe, or a machete. Furthermore, there is no monolingual Japanese source, that claims that it is an 斧.
 * There is no monolingual Japanese source, that doesn't describe nata as something that is, from the description, clearly a knife.
 * "There are various easily findable pictures clearly labeled as some variant of 鉈 and with shapes analogous to a billhook."
 * Those nata, are (as I've already told you) what is more specifically called 鉈鎌. The meaning of the term 鉈, is not as limited, as to mean billhook. Those are just one sub-type. To define 鉈 as "billhook", is just as wrong as defining, say, the term "knife" as, e.g., "balisong".
 * On your arguments about overlap between 鉈 and 斧...
 * There are many who note that, for some speakers at least, there is semantic overlap between "pistol" and "revolver" ...but they are still always defined as two separate and mutually exclusive terms. The fact that some misuse a word, doesn't change the actual definition of it.
 * "Searches again find things that an English speaker would call a "machete" that are clearly labeled as 鉈, such as this one."
 * No, no one would call that a machete.
 * "Or compare these two 剣鉈 (partway down that page) with this machete at REI."
 * Those look nothing alike. Also, I would like to point out that superficial similarities, from photos that strictly show just the profile, is far from enough to show that the knives are, at all, similar. Two blades can look just about identical, in profile, but be completely different in just about every way, with wildly different capabilities/features and uses.
 * "we can also find machetes with similar shapes, such as this one at Hardware World."
 * ... How is that supposed to look anything like a koshinata? In any way? I can't even begin to understand why you claim that it does.
 * Or this one at REI, which is even called a "nata machete""
 * That is not a machete. In any way, shape, or form. REI calls it one for some, bizarre, reason, but that doesn't indicate anything, other than REI's ignorance. The actual manufacturer does not, at any point, BTW.
 * "The image in Daijirin shows various kinds of 鉈. Any of the discrete labels that don't include 鉈 imply it."
 * That is your assumption. Just because they have an image that contains nata, doesn't mean that every single object pictured, has to be nata. Nor, more importantly, do the people at Daijirin necessarily have to be that knowledgable about, and therefore all that correct about, every single area. (such as nata or bladed tools, generally)
 * "Here are various Google images of different 越前鉈."
 * Huh? I didn't find anything when I tried to look, but... Okay, fair enough. I doubt it's a particularly common term, but apparently it is used. Thanks for setting me straight about that.
 * " However, I do find at least one hit, where the text clearly describes the tool as 『あれは大工道具じゃない、板割り鉈. 屋根屋の道具だ. 』"
 * Finding only one instance, in one single Google hit, doesn't count as showing that it is used, much less that it is a correct definition. In fact, I'd say that getting only that, from the most extensive/exhaustive internet search engine out there, rather suggest that the term isn't used.
 * "And you're welcome to "report" me, whatever that means."
 * When people misbehave on Wiktionary, their misbehaviour can be reported to people higher up, so that they can be punished/sanctioned accordingly. I'm not entirely familiar with the details, on Wiktionary (unlike Wikipedia), but they're easy to look up.
 * "If I have erred in my handling of your edits, I would appreciate impartial feedback from others."
 * Good. That is a good attitude.
 * I also note that you have now (finally) addressed everything I've pointed out before this reply. (though I'd also like to challenge you to find any reliable source, that doesn't clearly indicate that a hatchet is obviously a type of axe ...or that "axe" tend to refer to two handed implements/weapons)
 * Now if you would have actually properly engaged in discussion, like this, from the start, rather than engaging in edit warring whilst deaf to discussion (and putting in an unjustified blocking of edits to naginata, that is still in force, in the face of my invitation to discussion, that you clearly saw in the edit summary of the edit you undid, as you were undoing it), then chose not to address all the issues raises, and finally just up and left the discussion...
 * If you had done that, then I wouldn't have become angry, nor (accurately) accused you of misbehaviour, being unconstructive, being deeply rude and uncivil.
 * I would certainly have maintained that you are wrong, of course, but differences of opinion are fine, normal, and to be expected on a place like this. (anywhere where there are more than one person, but especially in places like this)
 * As long as you continue to behave, and undo the harm you have done, I'll have no problems with you and wont bother to report you, as it wouldn't be necessary.--213.113.51.229 22:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * (Good. That is a good attitude. / As long as you continue to behave: bruh chill tho 👀 —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC))


 * So you don't think there is anything particularly wrong with knowingly and intentionally ignoring a call for discussion, and instead just revert and block people from editing a page? ...and continue to refuse to engage in discussion, and later only give a partial answer, which fails to address a multitude of issues ...and then chose to leave again? That's fine, is it?
 * Also, what's wrong with, or "un-chill" about, saying "Good. That is a good attitude."? Giving approval/compliments is a sign of being overemotional/angry, now, is it? If that isn't chill, what is? What could possibly be?--85.228.53.100 19:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It has now been 10 days. You have been quite active, all over Wiktionary ...but you, again, refuse to respond to this discussion.
 * I have not reported you. Not because you don't deserve it, or because I am being generous ..but purely because I looked through Help:Dispute_resolution, and found it to be extremely lacking. Were this Wikipedia, things would be very different, and you would have been set straight, long ago ...but apparently, very unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary more or less operates under anarchy. (please do correct me, if I'm wrong. I would like it very much, to be wrong about this)
 * I'm kinda temped to revert 鉈, as that is apparently the only way to get your attention ...and the only possible option, to get any further discussion on the topic. To get all the issues addressed, rather than have you just shut me down and remove my edits, without any discussion or justification (a justification that doesn't address the points I raised, are not justifications of why your version is right, in the face of those points) ...but I don't want to behave badly, myself, (two wrongs don't make a right. Also I'm a man of principles, so I can't go about betraying them) and given you were able to block edits to naginata, I suspect you might be able to manage to just block me, or block 鉈 in the same way you did naginata ...and use my reversion as justification, should anyone question you (not that they will, as this whole thing is, effectively, invisible to everyone else). No need to give you that ammunition--213.113.49.180 21:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"please leave a message on my talk page", you say? I HAVE ALREADY LEFT A MESSAGE HERE, BUT YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT!
See the section directly above.--213.113.48.251 05:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

ぶ
https://kobun.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%B6

－ぶ

接尾語上二段活用

名詞・形容詞の語幹に付いて、そのような状態になる、そのように振る舞うの意を表す. 「翁（おきな）ぶ」「荒ぶ」

ᾨδή (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggested relation to む might be difficult because む usually does not inflect as 上二. ᾨδή (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The 上 and 下二段 inflection patterns are, in many cases, demonstrably derived from 四段 verb roots. So the fact that the suffix ぶ in this case conjugates as 上二段 doesn't really tell us much about its derivation or related terms.  There are instances of verbs ending in ぶ but with 四段 conjugation, where the ぶ appears to be semantically similar, perhaps even the same, as the ぶ that conjugates as 上二段.  See 浮かぶ, for instance, a 四段 verb found all the way back in the 万葉集.  This is clearly a derivational form, based on root verb 浮く and derived adverbial stem うか as in うかうか.
 * There is also a clear pattern of ↔  variation in Japanese, sometimes even persisting in the modern language, such as the free variation in さびしい ↔ さみしい.
 * While there are cases of this ぶ suffix with 上二段 changing over time to become む with the 四段 conjugation, such as the 上二段 verb すさぶ becoming later 四段 verb すさむ, there's also the opposite, such as 四段 verb form あからむ predating the 上二段 shifted form あからぶ.
 * Verb forms have been somewhat fluid over time, and conjugation patterns are not necessarily indicative of non-relation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"with negative" (at 全然, in this instance)
"Watashi wa ryōri nado zenzen shinai. Jishin ga nai kara ne." is translated as "I don't cook at all, since I lack the confidence." ...except if "zenzen" actually means "not at all" in that sentence, that would mean... Watashi (I) wa (topic marker) ryōri (cooking) nado (and the like) zenzen (not at all) shinai. (don't do) = I (topic marker) cooking and the like not at all don't do = I don't not at all cook. = I absolutely cook. Hence "Watashi wa ryōri nado zenzen shinai. Jishin ga nai kara ne.", translates as "I definitely cook, since I lack the confidence." This makes no sense. It indicates the opposite meaning. Or, more briefly "zenzen shinai" = "not at all don't do" = "certainly do". According to the current definition. According to my edit, it'd be "zenzen shinai" = "certainly don't do", and the translation of the example sentence would logically follow, from the example sentence. (as opposed to how it is, now) How was my version, not clear an accurate? How was the current version, not clearly inaccurate? Not that I expect you to respond, ever, but I'll make a first attempt, at least.--213.113.50.173 01:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

藝人
Would you mind checking the pronunciation of the Japanese descendant here? Currently it is listed as geijin but the respective entry at 芸人 reads geinin. Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the heads-up.
 * Looks like a confused Ozzie anon added that, back in mid-August. I can't find any such reading げいじん for this kanji spelling; in fact, I can't find any kanji term at all with the reading げいじん.  C.f. the lack of any such entry at Weblio or at Kotobank.
 * The only source referencing this reading that I can find is a sample sentence in the KDJ entry for as shown here in Kotobank (third reading down), from a 1428 text, but with a reading that isn't justified by the text and might itself be a typo or misinterpretation.  Notably, none of the references listed in the Kotobank page for the 芸人 spelling include any such げいじん reading.
 * I'll fix the 藝人 entry for now. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Another Mare-Silverus range
At Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:BC5F:8700::/64. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 18:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 3 months. I'm going through their contributions; all are problematic, and a few were so off-the-mark that I just deleted them.  Thank you.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I orphaned and deleted their Category:ja:Lucky charms (which was definitely NOT "!" 🌈❤️🍀🌙 ), but I wasn't aware that we were back to blocking this person or I would have saved you the trouble. Just to be thorough, I've created an abuse filter which should stop him from editing any page that has a Japanese header. We'll have to keep an eye out for false positives, especially in pages where there's a romaji entry along with other language sections. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for cleaning out that category. That certainly seems like something more appropriate for an encyclopedia than here.
 * I blocked the anon because every single content-containing entry was wrong on some level. They've learned enough (finally!) to create romanization redirect entries that are (almost} without issue, but when it comes to actual entry content, they demonstrate raging incompetence: made-up terms, wacky and overly long definitions, misspellings of Japanese terms, links to non-existent JA WP pages (seemingly intended to supply a veneer of validity?), references that don't actually back up what they've added, etc etc.  Enough of what they do comes across as willful lying that I'm frankly quite distrustful and a bit fed up.
 * The edits from the Mare Silverus named account are generally of better quality, except for sometimes, which might be when the actual person behind the account changes -- see the Do not shoot the messenger]] thread above.
 * Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

文集
I noticed we are lacking a Japanese entry for this pretty common word. Would you mind adding it when you get the time? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , added. :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! I note that "[Term?]" appears before the Japanese in the Descendants section of the Chinese entry. Don't suppose you know what happened here? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm, nope. I didn't add that portion, actually  did, but as best I can tell, there's something wrong with the template.  See also Template_talk:CJKV, where the few calls to the template itself all show that same   marker for Japanese, Korean, and Okinawan, even though the input data all appears to be formatted correctly.
 * , I don't suppose you're savvy enough with Lua and Wikicode to suss out what's happening? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This issue should be at aforementioned Template talk page. Other than that, absolutely no idea where did the "[Term?]" just appeared out of nowhere. Recently, put the Okinawan parameters into the  template, so this somehow caused this? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 00:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , I experimentally 's code to see if that did it, but the   persisted, so I reverted myself.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't in CJKV. That template calls ja, giving: and/or ko, giving: . desc invokes Module:etymology/templates, and the place where it goes wrong seems to be at " ". This used to be " ", but  changed it recently to check for g, and for some reason Lua seems to think that there's a value in that parameter. You can tell that's where the problem is because Template:tracking/descendant/no term shows up in the template listings below the edit window, and that piece of code is the only thing in the module that could do that. Of course, I have only a very superficial understanding of Lua based on sifting through code for clues into module errors, so it's nothing more than a hunch. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Chuck Entz is right; it was my fault. Sorry about that. I fixed a basic logical error that I made and works again. — Eru·tuon 07:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone! MiguelX413 (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

predicative
Would you mind checking the Japanese translation for the noun sense - 終止形の? It seems wrong. Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's a garbage "translation". I'd first thought that this might be the same editor who came up in a thread over on Chuck's Talk page a little bit ago; however, that IPv6 address geolocates to Georgia in the US, whereas the IPv4 at issue here at predicative geolocates to somewhere in Brazil.  Anyway, in this particular case, Special:Contributions/179.183.106.145 added Kyrgyz, Xhosa, and Japanese  in April 2016.  I find it highly unlikely that they'd be sufficiently familiar in all three to get this right, so I  (wrong reading, wrong POS, wrong meaning).
 * Thanks for the ping! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for fixing it. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Japonic verbs
All of the entries save for end in, which is actually (I think) a Japanese innovation, since the Oxford-NINJAL OJ dictionary lists verbs ending in the continuative. I propose a move of all the verbs in -ru to the form ancestral to the JR continuative (such as > ). Most scholars agree that both Japanese and Ryukyuan infinitives represent compounded words orginally with the first part being the continuative form, such as Okinawan kachun < *kaki wori and Japanese kureru < *kuray + ? (OJ stem kure-). Would you agree? Kwékwlos (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Kwékwlos, thank you for asking. Short on time, so I must keep this brief.
 * Looking at the Oxford-NINJAL word list (https://oncoj.ninjal.ac.jp/list-of-words?lang=en), I see that their verbs are listed not by the continuative, but instead by the verb stem. This is a distinction that is only made in alphabetical terms, as stems like shir- for  are not expressible in kana.
 * Separately, I'm not sure that the -u ending is a Japanese innovation.
 * More later. :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at Thorpe's Ryukyuan etymological dicitonary I find that Japanese -u is a reduced form of Proto-Japonic, possibly related to , and gives the origin of kaku as . But he then derives the godan -ru from , which is the attributive form. Of course this is different from the imperfective since this is merely a suffixed component of the JR inflection system. I don't see a reason to reconstruct JR *-u because it must be either *-o or *-wə, attached to what I described above. Kwékwlos (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Kwékwlos -- I'm not familiar with Thorpe. Are there any online versions available?  Could you list the full title and author's name?
 * Re: "to be", derives from ancient woru.  Some JA sources suggest this is from  +  (KDJ entry here, scroll down to the [語誌] section), in part as woru had the terminal form of wori, same as ari.  However, I have trouble understanding phonetically how wi + a would resolve to wo.  Moreover, the terminal form was decidedly wori, not just wo, and any compounds with this verb would thus end in -ri.
 * Relatedly, wiru is a 上一段 verb. All of the 一段 and 二段 verbs appear to be defective paradigms originating from 四段 beginnings, and wiru is one such, with a hypothesized earlier 上二段 pattern with terminal form of (w)u.  See also the Kotobank page.
 * If we take this (w)u terminal form as the compounding auxiliary, it's much easier to derive verbs ending in -u. However, even here, we need to have a terminal form ending in -u -- otherwise, the terminal for (w)u would instead be wi, and hypothesized compounds like kaki + wi cannot resolve to kaku in Japanese in any sensible way.  And if we already have a terminal form ending in -u, we don't need to compound with (w)u in the first place.
 * If instead we hypothesize a Proto-Japonic, or Pre-Proto-Japonic, morphophonemic paradigm where roots can end in consonants, then it might make sense to consider compounds like kak- + (w)u to arrive at kaku in Japanese.
 * That said, even here, we have (w)u, not -wə or -o.
 * I'm not sure what Thorpe would mean about godan ending -ru coming from earlier attributive -ro. That doesn't make any sense to me.  Might you mean instead the -ru ending for 一段 and 二段 verbs, such as  or ?
 * Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)