User talk:Poketalker

POKéTalker's talk page archive:
 * User talk:Poketalker/2017-18
 * User talk:Poketalker/2019
 * User talk:Poketalker/2020

新しい
I've started a thread on Talk:新しい about the aratasi -> atarasi metathesis. I'm ja-1 and not a regular Wiktionary editor (mostly active at Wikipedia and Wikidata) so I'll leave it to you to decide on the citations I suggested. Deryck Chan (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

verification
The name of this piece of art in the may help. (I'd share the British Museum's page about the artwork, but it seems their site has been temporarily hacked, since I'm getting "Your connection is not private" errors.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Checking my own copy of the NHK 日本語発音アクセント辞典, I find nothing for すいぼ -- the dictionary only includes the くらげ reading for 水母, and no entries for すいぼ. I've edited the entry accordingly.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That piture is one of the pieces from Sankai medetai zue (山海愛度図会). All other pictures in this set include titles ending with, but this one is untitled. Its background landscape picture is titled 備前水母 (Bizen kurage; standard Japanese name of Rhopilema esculentum, lit. Bizen jerryfish). Small characters on the upper right can read as とりかた (torikata, "how to catch") in obsolete variants of hiragana.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What to include in Template:also
Curious about your recent edits to the lists at:



Arguably, all four are similar -- one common challenge for many English speakers learning Japanese is learning to differentiate 長音, so from a usability standpoint, it's not unreasonable to anticipate that some users might hear すいほ, for instance, and look up すいほう instead, or the other way around. Cross-linking is useful for such users, and I cannot think of any downside to including the long-vowel variants in the listing.

Is there a downside I'm missing?

(I deliberately omitted ずいほ・ずいぼ・ずいほう・ずいぼう, because as best I can tell, there are no such words. ずいほう is the the only match I'm finding, but that is 瑞宝, and that's a person, and I don't think we include the names of individuals unless their names have become lexically distinct somehow.)

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * you were not the first to put additional chōon or tan'on form(s) for a kana entry on, once did that a long time ago. No downside(s) at the moment, but if that is the case, would suggest adding rōmaji to the  and  as if before they were implemented in place of , etc.; that would help direct them to the actual chōon/tan'on spelling of a term in question.
 * Also, there's also 瑞鳳 (Zuihō) as in the IJN battleship, wonder what was that named for... ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 13:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I confess I don't quite understand your suggestion, though?  The part "as if before they were implemented in place of, etc." kinda lost me.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * like, , , and , suggest that both and  have rōmaji as well to not confuse readers. Personally, a kana entry such as すいほ with an  in the parameters could be confusing as comparing bo and bō with either bow or boh. My preference is for romanized chōon or tan'on is that they should refer to the rōmaji entry with the  that has/has no macrons. Any better idea(s), or still confusing? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 00:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

急しい
Heya, unclear to me what you want to have happen here. Ya, 急しい is incorrect okurigana for 急がしい, but that seems to be a good reason to have a redirect, so I'm not sure I understand your deletion request? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * is there any reason to retain the redirect? . Either your mistake or one of your dictionaries made this error... ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 08:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there's value in having something at the 急しい page. See also .  On further reflection, a soft redirect is probably preferable to a hard redirect, allowing for a note that this usage of okurigana is considered non-standard and is less common.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Tosa Nikki
Pleas see my talk page for a response regarding Tosa Nikki. Bendono (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Etymology question at 平安京
Curious about the etymology you added there. This does not match what I recall from past history classes and readings, nor does it match the description at ja:w:平安京. The name was coined as 平安 as 平らで安らか, in deliberate contrast to the political upheaval and disruptions that prompted the move, and the 京 is a suffix, not part of a blend. Also, the previous capital wasn't Nara, but rather. The references listed all describe how 平安京 was modeled after 長安, but that's talking about the city layout, not the name.

Would you object to a reworking of the etymology? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging since they created the article with the added etymology section. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 22:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I brought some folk etymology I saw somewhere. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you both! I'm out of time for today, but at some point I'll see about redoing the etymology there.  If either of you have the available time and the motivation, please feel free to beat me to it.  :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Japanese terms spelled with 后 read as きさい
I created this 5 years ago back when there was no bot to create category pages and no one else was spending much time on it. Since I don't speak Japanese, I was relying on the information in the entries. Given that, I have no problem with any of them being deleted- especially since it's empty.

I was just curious, though: your deletion reason is “Not a kun-reading according to Daijisen.” The only reason it says "kun reading" is because of a parameter in the template. Judging from WWW.JDIC, there are at least two kanji with that reading, though apparently they're both rare variants.

On the face of it, it seems odd to be deleting a category with no yomi in the name because it's not the right yomi. What am I missing? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * “Not a kun-reading according to Daijisen” is just that, a Heian-period shift from an actual kun-reading kisaki. Your reliance on JDIC couldn't be more noticeable. For your query, such terms are categorized as “...spelled with [kanji] read as [kana reading]” if they are actual kun- or on-reading according to kanji dictionaries. If or, there would be no “...read as [kana reading]” part in that category name. Is it clear to you now, or you ask for more explanation? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 22:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Poketalker and I disagree on what counts as kun'yomi. Poketalker hews to what is listed in kanji dictionaries, I hew to how the term kun'yomi is defined.  Per 訓読み:

 訓読み（くんよみ）とは、日本語において、個々の漢字をその意味に相当する和語（大和言葉、日本語の固有語）によって読む読み方が定着したもの. Rough translation: The kun'yomi in Japanese is the established way of reading a kanji that is based on the meaning of that kanji in native Japanese terms.
 * For 后, the kisai reading isn't on'yomi and it isn't a jukugo reading either (where the reading is derived independently of the spelling), and the character appears in various terms with this reading. Consequently, this reading surely appears to me to be a 定着したもの ("an established thing"), and thus merits listing as kun'yomi regardless of what dedicated kanji dictionaries include.  Such an approach also seems to fit Wiktionary's descriptive approach better.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop hiding citations
Please stop hiding citations. The main value I have for a dictionary is to verify when and for how long a word has been in use. Moving it to the citation page destroys the value of a word. When there are dozens or hundreds of citations, it makes sense to move some. But the oldest need to remain on the entry itself. Bendono (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * you actually undo-ed everything (on my single edit) and not tackling the pronoun senses which is the focus of this discussion. It would be better if the formatting went like did: “First attested in the [...] (year)” or “First cited to a [...] in (year)” in Etymology section, using, etc.; was it decided that the pronoun sense(s) are to be put in the kana entry?
 * For now, I had to undo your undo since that did not seem to be from careful judgement. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 11:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Your edits are not atomic, so it was all reverted. : Please join. These edits are destroying the dictionary. Bendono (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Late to the thread. Could someone clue me in to what you're talking about, more specifically?  Is this with regard to a specific entry, or a group of them?  Also pinging .  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To both and, pardon the lateness. The citations for the na (an Old Japanese first-person, and rarely a third-person reflexive, pronoun) were already in Citations:汝. Corrected much of the formatting in the kana entry, then Bendonoさん undoed my entire edit, formatting and all, instead of the pronoun senses in question. Undoed the undo, none of the citations were hidden and were moved to the proper Citations page. That is all there is. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

甲乙 and かりめり
Heya, it looks like also has a rare kun of かり, and  has a rare kun of めり. See also 甲 at Kotobank and 乙 at Kotobank. The readings listed at the top of the page in hiragana are kun, the katakana are on.

Per our past discussions about readings :), if you're opposed to treating these as kun, I think they should at least be apportioned out per character, and not lumped in as .  What do you think?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "the top of the page in hiragana are kun, the katakana are on" is not consistent on my browser. What I see on those gray rectangles are:
 * : ▽甲, ▽甲/▽上, かり, きのえ こう こう カフ, こう〔カフ〕, and
 * : ▽乙, ▽乙/▽減り, いつ, おつ, う, きのと, めり, 乙 (オト), and 漢字項目
 * Confusing, isn't it? こう, いつ, and おつ as kun-readings? カフ and オト as on-readings? You're thinking about "entries" using either kanji and not readings per se. The readings can be found at the last section, named, in which the Kotobank update from long ago... (you know). That is, ［ 常用漢字］ コウ（カフ）（呉）（漢）　カン（慣）　［訓］きのえ　よろい　かぶと and ［常用漢字］　［音］オツ（呉）　イツ（漢）　［訓］きのと　おと. Based on the gray rectangles, the karimeri reading is indeed irregular for both. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 05:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

ja-gv
I think you misunderstand the purpose. It's an abbreviation of "glyph variant" and is for kyuujitai according to the docs. 阿しゅく如来 should be ja-see. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * re: 阿しゅく如来: It's not really a ja.wp thing, but rather a convention (apparently; I can't find a name for it) where one doesn't write rare kanji, like 抗うつ剤 or 辛らつ.
 * re: 葦原の中つ国: This search on Kotobank shows professional usage of the form.
 * And overall, ja-see is still the appropriate template, disregarding these other details. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * in the case of the Asokbhya-tathagata, my preference is either a hard redirect or a template close to where  does not show the "alternate" kanji-kana spelling. If it does involve "difficult" kanji, as in the the mixed kanji-kana articles, a usage note is enough if said alternative template is implemented. For the "country in the middle of reedfields", despite the ruby, confusion may arise. May be wrong, may be correct: "reedfield-centered country", "middle country of reed-fields" or "reed-fielded [ancient name of China according to the Nihon Shoki]". That explains the addition of the kana for the both old and new script forms. What am I missing? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 09:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, I forgot about this. :(
 * 阿しゅく如来: I found the name: 交ぜ書き. Why not include it in ja-kanjitab? I don't see why not. It could be interesting to readers. IMO a usage note would be unnecessarily conspicuous (although a note in ja-kanjitab calling it 交ぜ書き could be good).
 * 葦原の中つ国: I'm not sure how this bears on usage of ja-see vs ja-gv. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * how about a template put either (1) under Usage notes after  or sense with  or (2) as a third see template like  or ? For the reedfields, the no is the one being in ommission, so my only guess is a hard redirect. Any more ideas? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (chiming in)
 * My sense here is that the 交ぜ書き entry should 1) use, since the  ostensibly stands for "glyph variant", and that's exactly what we have here; and 2) include a   section to explain why the  has been replaced with the  kana spelling.  This kind of replacement is common enough that we should probably have a simple template for it, similar to  and similar boilerplate templates -- I like the straightforward approach of using  for the name.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 交ぜ書き: I could agree to Usage notes on the 交ぜ書き entry itself, and perhaps a note in ja-kanjitab (I do think that writing it and its status in ja-kanjitab is good.)
 * I don't think it is a "glyph variant" as intended by User:Dine2016 though. 実 and 實 are technically 異体字, which is presumably what is meant by variant, while らつ腕←→辣腕 is more like いう←→言う, where one chooses not to use kanji. らつ is the plain kana form (pronunciation) of the kanji 辣, not a variant.
 * 葦原の中つ国: ... I still don't get it. My understanding is that the word あしはらのなかつくに (the kun reading of 葦原中国) can be written as 葦原の中つ国 or 葦原中国, and that including の and つ is a style preference like 締切/締め切り.
 * —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

":: The soft-redirect templates were a failure -- I implemented them through trial and error, going through several iterations without documenting the changes or explaining the rationale. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ja-gv was confusingly named. I should probably have named it as ja-see-kyu (standing for kyujitai). The difference between ja-see and ja-gv is that ja-see is for conditional variants while ja-gv is for unconditional variants. ひ is a conditional variant for 日 because it doesn't apply to the 'Sunday' and 'Japan' senses under the reading Nichi, but 燈 is an unconditional variant of 灯 for obvious reasons. My preference was to treat all variant spellings as conditional except those differing only in shinjitai/kyujitai, itaiji, and kanji repetitive marks. This way I was able to make ja-gv copy the kanjitabs as well. (As a result ja-gv is not suitable for 阿しゅく如来/阿閦如来, which have different numbers of kanji and can not share kanjitabs.)
 * I admit that this is too complicated; this is why I stopped working on soft redirect templates and instead pushed for the 'one word per page, one page per word' change. --2409:894C:3C10:2C3:D3BE:1176:D694:E784 08:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)"

It looks like that had been working on a mazegaki template to no use a long time ago. Still supportive of creating a separate template to keep the frustration as minimal as possible, if no alternatives for  is found. Using for such still bears a bit of confusion, Coolwind-san. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 21:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

もどかしい, etc:
What do you mean by this? I don't really understand. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * these articles do not have to be deleted by an administrator. Since kana prioritization is your preference, you can just copy the blob of text then modify it a bit. What words are you concerned with, by any chance? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , what's your thought here with the and  entries?  Is this part of the general push to lemmatize wago at the kana spellings?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * re: Poketalker: I can definitely copy and paste the text (and have done so), but moving the page along with page history seems like a more "proper" way to do it (preserving attribution better; more linear page history), IMO. As for the page history of the original ja-def / ja-see entry, not much of value is lost (just a soft redirect stub and maybe some bot edits). Compare and.
 * re: Eirikr: Indeed. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/14.165.199.164
(also ) Hi, could you please check the recent edits made by this IP? Thanks a lot. RcAlex36 (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A Vietnamese IP editing Japanese... where have I seen that combination before? I hope it's not Fumiko Take. Their willingness to skate out onto thin ice with regards to Japanese was only matched by their abusiveness when called on it. Might as well also ping, who does a lot of good work patrolling our Japanese entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping!
 * Hmmm. I thought Fumiko was in Ho Chi Minh City, but they may have moved?  Or this might be a different user.
 * I noticed that Special:Contributions/14.250.120.133 may be the same anon.
 * I vetted their edits at 親王 -- good content, needed some tweaks and expansion. I haven't had time to check the rest, and given other responsibilities IRL, I probably won't any time soon.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

百濟 etymology
Heya, re:, I can't find mention in the KDJ of the purported Old Korean meaning "great village". Am I missing something? Does that come from some other source?

The "great" presumably aligns with the ku as in modern Korean. I'm curious what the tara would equate to in Korean. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Old korean source of "居陀羅" doesn't exist. It's inappropriate and should be removed. I found this post. It said 居陀, a place name in Mahan(馬韓) presumed that it had been 居陀羅, is source of Kudara, according to Shōgakukan, 『古語大辞典』. However, this was only guessed by the modern Japanese, and there is no record of "居陀羅" in the ancient Korean language. And 居陀 is not related to Baekje, because it is identified as, Gyeongsangnam-do; so it was Jinhan(辰韓) or Byeonhan(弁韓) actually.
 * In my personal opinion, derivation of Kudara can be explain as *kʰɨn-nɔrɔ, "great ferry" in Koreanic. 百濟 was developed from 伯濟國, one of the statelets in Mahan. 伯 ('eldest brother') can compare 큰 (khun, 'big, large, great'), and 濟 ('to cross a river; to ferry') can compare ᄂᆞᄅᆞ (noro, 'ferry', Modern Korean 나루 naru).--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's certainly an interesting theory. What would account for *kʰɨn-nɔrɔ changing to kudara?  I am unaware of any phonological process that would cause a geminate nasal  to instead become a voiced plosive .  There are also indications in older texts that the Japanified name for the country may have originally been the 清音 variant kutara instead, as also described in the JA WP article on 百済 here: ja:w:百済.  An unvoiced medial  makes it even harder to equate this with a *kʰɨn-nɔrɔ etymon.
 * I like the idea, but I'm not sure the facts support this interpretation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 09:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Existence of the 清音 variant kutara is doubtful. In that wikipedia article, the theory of the kutara is advocated based on the character "太". But it accounts for the majority of Man'yōgana of  in the Nara period. Additionally, since in Early Middle Japanese writing system, 濁音 was incorporated into the tone annotation, 濁点 (developed from a type of (tone symbol) for the voiced sound) were often omitted in the kana notation, it's difficult to distinguish between voiced and unvoiced from the written documents.
 * It's not rare for the change from /nː/ to /nd/ (cf. OE þunor → ME thunnere → ModE thunder). Examples in denasalization in the ancient Koreanic can be given as 健牟羅(MC ɡɨɐnH mɨu lɑ; 「城」 retrieved from 《梁書》) vs MK ᄀᆞ옳 → ModK 고을 (「郡」; *kənmura(k) → kʌwur(h) → kour) and 俱拔(MC kɨo bˠɛt̚; from《北史》) / 居拔(MC kɨʌ bˠɛt̚; from《隋書》) vs 固麻(MC kuoH mˠa; from 《梁書》) / 久麻(kuma; from 《日本書紀》) / MK and ModK 곰 (*koba(t) ⇔ *koma → koːm,「熊」 as in 熊津). (Even in modern Korean, denasalization often occurs at the beginning of a word.)
 * According to 《釈日本紀》, "扶余" as an another name of "百済国" is read as "久多羅久（クタラク）". I guess that the last character 久(ku) can be reflected from the final *-k which had been remained in MK ᄂᆞᆯㅇ—(nʌlɣ-), connective form of ᄂᆞᄅᆞ.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: the ambiguity of the man'yōgana spelling using, granted: this was used variously as either unvoiced ta or voiced da, as we see also in the table over at w:Man'yōgana. -- but the 《釈日本紀》 example you list uses the unambiguous glyph , which was only used for unvoiced ta. This would seem to increase the likelihood that the originating term had an unvoiced medial  sound rather than a voiced.
 * Re: the English example of a nasal hardening into a plosive, I recall reading somewhere that the English example of has been analyzed as epenthesis of the medial  prompted by the  combination, but that mechanism doesn't seem germane here.
 * Re: denasalization, those are interesting examples, but they all show lenition: in the kour example, nasal combination becomes semivowel  and then disappears altogether; in the second koːm example, plosive  becomes nasal .  This seems like the opposite direction of the suggested hardening in any  →  shift for kudara...?
 * Re: the potential for a final in the Koreanic, that echoes past discussions I'd had with other users, such as at User_talk:Wyang/Archive9 and at Talk:고마ᄂᆞᄅᆞ.  I wonder if this might be a suffixed and reduced form of 🇨🇬 locative particle ?
 * Actually, digging into past discussions for this reply reminds me that I'd seen mention of that 🇨🇬 element before. As described there in the Talk:고마ᄂᆞᄅᆞ thread, the originating  appears in the Japanese place-name borrowings with initial.
 * Interesting discussion, thank you! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr: Note by the end of Old Japanese period and Middle Japanese texts, voicing was not marked. Thus kutara may actually be kudara. I also forgot to mention that some scholars interpret the voiced stops in OJ as prenasalized voiced stops, from *NC (nasal + voiceless). Thus it might phonetically represent /kuNdara/.
 * It's likely why 多 (ta/da) was used in shoku nihongi.
 * No other parallels of /VndV/ < /VnrV/ I can think of in English, as these appear to be compounds. Chuterix (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: @Eirikr I sometimes pronounce /sɛntɚ/ as /sɛnɚ/. This might be a parallelism, but probably backwards.
 * Also isn't khu- from *kVhu- or *hVku-? @荒巻モロゾフ, I want you to wake up. Chuterix (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Re: for, ya, I do that too depending on context.  I think this is word-dependent -- there is no ambiguity here, as there are no other words that might collide with a  pronunciation.
 * Meanwhile, for, I think speakers would only use this pronunciation for , but not for or , where the  and  would have to be included in the pronunciation to disambiguate.  😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Other words where I pronounce /n/ ~ /ɾ/ are the ~utter words in English (/~ʌɾɚ/?), and (/inɚ/). Since all cases have /~nɚ/ I believe this is also conditioned. I am in the midwest United States if this helps. (where is the account of aramaki? (not the person; obviously from Japan)) Chuterix (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Other words where I pronounce /n/ ~ /ɾ/ are the ~utter words in English (/~ʌɾɚ/?), and (/inɚ/). Since all cases have /~nɚ/ I believe this is also conditioned. I am in the midwest United States if this helps. (where is the account of aramaki? (not the person; obviously from Japan)) Chuterix (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

集合る
Hello, I was just looking at your edits to the the 集合る reference page . I believe you are incorrect about this being an inflected form of 集まる because the classical verb is 集む (not 集まる). I think you must've incorrectly assumed that I made a typo but this was not the case. Please revert. Thanks! 馬太阿房 (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * if you look at the kana closely, you might have forgotten one textbook topic on class 2 verbs. is a  verb in classical Japanese, modern form is, i.e. a transitive verb. The intransitive is  in both classical and modern. In this case, the -reru corresponds to the potential form. Else, how would you explain the -a- infix? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 08:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just found out that has no parameters for classical conjugation. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 08:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is another reason I need somebody to take over the job of working on this appendix. I know very little about classical Japanese (never took a class on it). I just thought 集む was a godan verb meaning gather which becomes passive when changed to 集まれる like 読む becomes 読まれる, etc. It's not so simple I guess.

馬太阿房 (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

mawiru, mawosu
Thanks for ! Regarding these two words, if there were indeed a root verb mawu, these would fit right into that paradigm -- for mawiru, 一段 verbs appear to have developed primarily as outgrowths of underlying 四段 conjugation paradigms; and for mawosu, this would then be the variant of causative / transitive mawasu. (Modern being from older mafasu ← mapasu, and thus from a different root.)

That said, there are a few 一段 verbs that may have developed instead from noun roots; but I can't think of any fitting nouns that might serve as sensible etyma for either mawiru or mawosu. If we assume these are compounds, I'm stuck for the initial : or  are the only two that jump to mind at the moment, and neither really fits. I suppose there's also and, but again, the semantics don't seem right.

Very curious if you run across anything further about the derivations of these two verbs. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

JA muko and OJP
The etym currently at 婿 states that this word muko is unconfirmed in OJP documents. Indeed, I cannot find this word in the ', but the KDJ entry here cites it to the ', which is surely OJP.

The separate KDJ entry here for the reading moko cites the term to the  of 712, in man'yōgana as well as so we have clear phonetics as  -- thankfully, this appears to be included in our entry already.

Given the semantics, I suspect possible cognacy with.

Pinging also. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * pJ *moko and *muk- cannot be related due to vowel discrepency. Chuterix (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per w:Proto-Japonic, Proto-Japonic is raised to  except word finally, where it manifests in OJP as .  This would match both the muk- stem of  and the -o₁ ending in OJP .  The discrepancy between the Nihon Shoki instance of muko and the Kojiki instance of  leads to the question of whether the Kojiki term might reflect an at-the-time archaic form with an unraised medial vowel.
 * What are the Ryukyuan cognates for 🇨🇬 and ? That would help eliminate various possibilities. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ryukyuan variants of muko is well attested in Ryukyuan. There are dialects that syncope */muk/ to /Nk/, and this is demonstrated in Pellard (2013) Ryukyuan Prespectives on the Proto-Japonic vowel system. See https://hal.science/hal-01289288/file/Pellard_2013_Ryukyuan_perspectives_on_the_proto-Japonic_vowel_system.pdf Chuterix (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also the Kojiki may be an archaism, although the semantic meaning 'partner' in that word mo1ko1 needs attention (possible analogy with cousin < beloved child?). Chuterix (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * P.s. Meanwhile the same dialects that syncope such do not do this for pR and pJ */mok/. Chuterix (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just found the Jlect entry for muko. If I understand the mechanics correctly, the lengthening of the first vowel in Okinawan suggests that this may have been viewed as a compound of two independent words.  This seems to strengthen your suggestion of a look at itoko.
 * (Side note: is the noun,  is the verb. 😄) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Vowel lengthening actually occurs from Proto-Ryukyuan tone class C, which pR *moko belongs to.
 * There are of course, irregular words, like and, belonging to the high register (Proto-Ryukyuan tone class A). In this case, for the former, must be an innovation within Okinawan languages (Kunigami and Okinawan), and the latter is actually complex; it must speculatively be contracted from pJ */m(V)joːzi/ or something like that. Chuterix (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course words like, , are certain compounds, but there are words which of uncertain origin (phonotactics go against compound), such as . You can look up JLect (the okinawa-go jiten data shu section), or the okinawago.app that I mentioned for all of these words with vowel length.
 * Since we have, it might be related, but i- is unaccounted for segment (but compare ). Chuterix (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional thoughts.
 * Re: saru, there's an argument to be made that this is a loanword from some early variant of Ainu. Our etym at 猿 mentions Batchelor's theory that 🇨🇬 is from 🇨🇬, in turn from 🇨🇬 + ; I note there is also verb  and suffix, and indeed Batchelor recorded 🇨🇬 as a synonym meaning .  Either Ainu saro → Japanese saru or Ainu sarush → Japanese saru seem reasonable possibilities.
 * Re: imo, I don't think imo is really decomposable any further, and given the semantics, any connection to seems unlikely.
 * Re: itoko, https://sakura-paris.org/dict/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%9B%BD%E8%AA%9E%E5%A4%A7%E8%BE%9E%E5%85%B8/exact/%E3%81%84%E3%81%A8%E3%81%93 seems to point directly to spelling and analyzes this as ito- from, with the pervasive  stuck on the end.
 * It's that that shows up in so many terms that makes me think that muko might be a compound.  FWIW, the NKD surmises that it might be related to : https://sakura-paris.org/dict/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%9B%BD%E8%AA%9E%E5%A4%A7%E8%BE%9E%E5%85%B8/exact/%E3%82%80%E3%81%93 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But we have words ending in -ko1 that cannot be related to 子 with certainity: e.g., , possibly others, but I do not want to scavenge through my copy of Jidai-betsu Kokugo Daijiten for every single of them. Chuterix (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I sense some confusion?
 * Unless the text at w:Old_Japanese is wrong, Arisaka's law limits where can appear, not .  A shift from  to  in a mid-word position as in TAKOSIMA → TAKUSIMA would possibly make sense, considering the correlations at w:Proto-Japonic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake. o2 is the one that cannot go into a, not o1. Chuterix (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be the likes of 🇨🇬 and, respectively; refer to Okinawago Jiten pages 398 and 435. ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 23:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For covinience, there are also online searchable database of OGJ. Chuterix (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Am using the .PDF file on the reference template, which allows consideration for okurigana use, etc. ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/AwesomeGuy21
(also pinging ) These entries need cleanup. Numerous historical topics, which seems to be a shared interest with you. (words extracted from Battoutai lyrics?) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I nuked one obvious SOP on sight -- 進むべし.  Another entry that stood out as an immediate concern is ほろぶる -- this at least isn't SOP or nonsense, but it is a verb form and the notation used on that entry seems wrong to me.  Not incorrect per se, but not what we should be using: "prenominal" isn't terribly useful as a descriptor, nor do I think this is standard in the field.  Using the JA term  somewhere seems like a good idea, as well as the more-common English term "attributive".
 * There's a bigger discussion to be had about standardizing "verb form" entries and templatizing as much as possible, to better control, and maintain, wording and formatting going forward. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

ja-see and etym sections
Curious about your over at. Splitting out by kango versus yamato kotoba makes sense, and I actually just over at. But you've also got multiple separate etym sections for each of the yamato kotoba. Since now allows for multiple terms, such as, what's your reasoning for setting up different etym sections? (This isn't intended as pushback, and rather as curiosity.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * See also my edit(s) at . A quick reply to my preference is to separate them by similar definitions. Do you think  and  are such? For the aforementioned na, more specifically Etymology 6,  and  are cognates according to the dictionaries. Let me know if it's still not clear to you. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 03:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

なむぢ? I can only find なむち...
Curious about the entry. My references to hand include, but not ...?? I'd lemmatize at the unvoiced version, no?

See also various Man'yōshū poems, which include the unvoiced ち but not the voiced ぢ:


 * MYS 3.355,
 * MYS 6.963,
 * MYS 7.1247,
 * MYS 18.4106,

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E3%81%AA%E3%82%80%E3%81%A2&oldid=51024036 ? —Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , cheers. Given the phonetic development in the etym section there, this seems to be evidence for nanji...?  Prior to the standardization of the ん kana, the nasal sound  was spelled with む, so this is a sticky point to try to clarify.
 * At any rate, we have apparent evidence in the MYS for the existence of, so it is puzzling that we don't have any entry there yet. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * . —Fish bowl (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Why are the citations that I painlessly added to なむぢ missing!?!? Please ban editors who delete them. I'm getting really tired of wasting my time here. I'm sorry to say it, but this dictionary is a failure.
 * なむち is the original form and primarily Nara period. It is a compound of 汝 (na) and 貴 (muchi). Eventually the medial /mu/ elides /n/ which later causes voicing on the /t/ -> /d/. (And of course /di/ later to /zi/ じ.) Bendono (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * said citations (and references) were moved to Citations:汝. Something the matter?
 * Absolutely. The citations are for なむぢ not 汝. Two entirely separate "words". Entries not supported with citations should be deleted. Please delete なむぢ. And also support 汝 (however you want to read it) with better citations. Bendono (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * is short for Ōnamuchi no mikoto/kami, i.e. an alternative name of Ōkuninushi no mikoto/kami. Probably unrelated to the pronoun nanji. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 05:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

行 and the listing of gyō as both goon and kan'yōon
Hello Poketalker, curious about your edit in 2017, adding gyō as a kan'yōon when it's already listed as goon. I can't corroborate this as kan'yōon in any JA sources, only as goon. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks for reminding me about that character, it has to do with which of the four Middle Chinese pronunciations the definitions were derived from. From the corresponding Chinese entry, I imply that pronunciations 1 and 3-5 became the 呉音 gyō and 漢音 kō, while pronunciation 2 /ɦɑŋ/ (definitions "line of text" and "matrix") 呉音 gō and 漢音 kō; the latter which in my initial impression the 慣用音 would be gyō. And the reference: the old kanji dictionary Jigen in the 行 entry of the same radical (any proficiency reading the old character styles?). Had to separate the two gyōs because of this. Any thoughts? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 17:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thank you for the background!
 * My thought is that if a reading already exists as goon or kan'on or tōon, it can't also be kan'yōon.
 * Granted that the sense of "line" derives from the Middle Chinese, while the reading ぎょう comes from the Middle Chinese . That said, the reading ぎょう is already there, so this is not kan'yōon, so much as the existing goon being used for an additional sense.  For that matter, we can't tell if the initial borrowing of the "line" sense might have been associated with the ぎょう reading right from the get-go by whichever Japanese speakers or writers first borrowed the term.
 * I confess I don't know what to look at in the linked page; reading group ㊂ includes ぎょう, and then sense group ㊂ includes the ならび sense. I don't see anything about kan'yōon?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * pronunciation 5 here also derives 呉音 ごう. For theoretical 慣用音, it was due to perceived logic of ㊁ with pronunciations 2 and 5 (ɦɑŋ and ɦɑŋH) having no 呉音 listed, only the カゥ. There was a table in the Japanese Wiktionary counterpart, which was removed by  four years ago, that might help you. Did I just reiterate or is Jigen incorrect in comparison with the present entry?
 * Had to split the two gyōs back then to distinguish between the level and departing tones, and  for "going/walking" and "monk training" respectively. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 10:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Strange "Pronunciation" section at す
Heya Poketalker, what resource were you working from when you that note about す being pronounced as ",, or "? I could see that applying to the reading for, given the Middle Chinese readings for and. But I really don't think that could possibly apply to the kana.

Could you take a look? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * it's been a while since last editing the su entry, but it's from the Daijisen entry under す［五十音］:
 * [補説]「す」は古く［tsu］（あるいは［ʃu］［tʃu］）であったかともいわれる. 室町時代末にはすでに［su］であった.
 * ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 20:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. I must shake my head at the Daijisen editors; that comment makes little sense to me, as the man'yōgana spellings differentiate these sounds.
 * On that same page, looking further down at the 日本大百科全書 section, they even list the man'yōgana spellings:
 * "五十音図第3行第3段の仮名. 平仮名の「す」は「寸」の草体から、片仮名の「ス」は「須」の行書体の旁(つくり)の末3画からできたものである. 万葉仮名では「須、周、州、洲、酒、珠（以上音仮名）、栖、渚、酢（以上訓仮名）」などが清音に使われ、「受、授、殊、聚、儒、孺（以上音仮名）、簀（訓仮名）」などが濁音に使われた. ほかに草仮名としては「（須）」「（春）」「（寿）」「（数）」などがある."
 * Most of the unvoiced are unambiguously su. A couple show up as shu in modern on'yomi:, .  However, both are reconstructed with Middle Chinese affricates, /tɕ/ and /ts/, which Japanese did not have at the time.  The preponderance of evidence suggests that /ɕu/ might have been a rare rendering, but /tsu/ seems very unlikely -- especially considering that OJP /tu/  to /tsu/, and yet we have no apparent confusion in the lexicon between words starting with す and those starting with つ, so we know these must have been distinct.
 * That same section also mentions the Muromachi period, perhaps suggesting where the Daijisen editors might have gotten that bit:
 * "ズとヅとは、室町時代ころから混同され始め、今日では、東北や出雲(いずも)地方、四国、九州の一部などを除いて、合一してしまっている."
 * This also suggests that ず and づ were distinct prior to this period.
 * I have the pronunciation details.  Please review when you get the chance.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

しろたえの
Hello, I am having trouble understanding the current definition of, could you clarify it as it seems you are its author? Thanks and take care. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * how about now? ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 16:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, much clearer now, thank you! &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

{com} templates at 戯れ言
Hello, what do you mean by “a waste of legroom” in this diff? Do templates with ruby take up more Lua memory than those without? I’m sorry if my edits in this entry were inappropriate. Also, how should I use these templates in future? Thank you. Mcph2 (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * to be fair, the as-of-this-typing ruby templates, , , etc. do take some space between the lines; and with myself having no proficiency in Lua coding, just following what and past Japanese-entry editors have done. I used to edit entries with these kinds of ruby'd templates since signing up here back in ’15-17-ish, but now reserved them for kana-only entries. Nothing inappropriate seen in your edits to that entry; and for the last question: it is up to you... just try not to do that so much to entries that have my revision(s) or makeover(s) or clean-up(s) or whatever word you can think of. , ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 11:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining! Mcph2 (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (chiming in...) In my view, ruby are most useful for readers who already know kana, and also don't know how the individual kanji might be read.  But they are only slightly useful since we already provide the romanization, and they are totally useless -- and potentially even confusing / misleading -- to readers who don't know kana, or even don't know much about Japanese writing conventions at all.  For instance, someone ignorant of Japanese might see something like  and mistakenly assume that the entire chunk of Japanese text is the correct way to write the word -- when, in actuality,  is the word, and the ruby text is just an add-on for the convenience of certain readers.
 * Since our readership for the EN Wikt is "anyone on the web who can read and understand enough English to navigate our site", we cannot assume any familiarity with Japanese at all. And since kana ruby text isn't legible to English readers, and isn't necessary either, my bias is to use the no-ruby template  rather than . ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Dynamic quotations
Hi, could you tell about quotation templates that are cycled between with {{#switch: {{#expr: {{#time: d}} mod 3}} so that the articles they're found in aren't stable? Is there are a (debugging?) purpose, or is it just for fun? I'm trying to debug some annoying issues in Wiktextract, we're using Lupa/Lua in Python with multiprocessing and sometimes things just go haywire and references get scrambled in weird ways... I've been running and rerunning our extractor in various configurations and only now realized that some of the differences I've been seeing were caused by the date changing and these switch-templates advancing. Not much I can do about it now, but I just wanted to know what the cycling is for. Kristian-Clausal (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * My competency with Lua is little to non-existent, but putting them in quotation templates was indeed just for fun. Assure you, any of my edits with said templates are stable otherwise me or others should notice the break(s). Adds more variety to the examples or other elements of the online dictionary. ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 00:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Okinawan "heiban-gata" and 時代別国語大辞典
The Heiban-gata is usually described as LL(L) for 2 morae and LLL(L) for 3 morae, according to Shimabukuro 2007 (The accentual historu of the Japanese languages). It's not the same as Tokyo Japanese.

Also exists if you plan to state that a term goes back to Old Japanese or say it's attested in an obscure text (if you actually reference this, such as seen at 羊, 鍋, and 禊). Chuterix (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Logographic Old Japanese attestations
In About_Korean/Historical_forms, particularly the "Orthography and romanization" section, this is said: "Old Korean forms are given in the Chinese characters of the original attestations, not their reconstructed phonetic value.

Old Korean forms transcribed only by Chinese logograms, without any phonographic element, should not be included. An example is 我 (“I; me”) in the gugyeol glosses. There is simply nothing one can say about these forms other than their semantic meaning, which is in any case identical to the meaning of the Chinese characters with which they are written.

Gugyeol glosses are usually drastically abbreviated, e.g. 隱 is written as 𠃍. However, the source Chinese characters are the forms used for entry titles because:


 * The hyangga poems and gugyeol glosses share forms, but the orthography of the former uses the original Chinese characters, not the glossing abbreviations
 * There is a great deal of variation in gugyeol abbreviations even for the same character, which is avoided by using the source character instead
 * Some gugyeol abbreviations are not included in Unicode

When quoting primary sources, the actual gugyeol abbreviations are preferred. The source characters may be used instead if this is not feasible, but the fact that the abbreviations have been replaced by their sources should be explicitly noted.

Reconstructed romanizations are conventionally given in the Yale Romanization of Korean, and preceded with an asterisk. Per scholarly convention, romanizations for elements of an Old Korean phrase which are orthographically represented by a logogram are given in capital letters. Example:


 * 慕理 (*KUli, “to long for”)

Only the second syllable *li is phonetically represented (as 理), so the unrepresented first syllable that we fill in with the Middle Korean reflex is given in capitals.

Given our poor understanding of Old Korean phonology, IPA pronunciations must not be added."

This is not fair. Why are you making logographic readings that could be interpreted as anything, including the red text at Citations:いかだ in small caps? What about imperial edicts and the Engishiki Norito? I am very unsatisfied by the fact you did this.

Even Vovin gives the logographic in all capital letters. Should we follow the convention? Is there some way we can distinguish logographic and phonographic spellings? Chuterix (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * : Why are you quoting the policy about Old Korean, but talking about Old Japanese? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because Old Korean uses logographic scripts, which makes the readings subject to interpretation. The same goes with OJ, but we're just neglecting it ATM. Chuterix (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * as before, there hasn’t been any consensus to adopt such convention of yours; simple, really. The rest of us just followed what has already been established in previous entries/edits, nothing about distinguishing syllables by majuscule and minuscule (or phonetic/logographic, if you like to interpret it as such) until your assertiveness to change status quo came along. Take your proposal to the Beer parlour, as one our administrators suggests... it takes patience. The distinguishing between logo-/phono- spellings will be dealt there, though must initially disagree with such a radical change to the transliteration parameters; hence the “not yet” answer.
 * About the edicts and the Engishiki invocations, AFAIK those haven’t yet been put as usage examples in any of our JA/OJP entries... and they could be mixed in with Classical Chinese, show me a few examples of full native Japanese passages if you can.
 * Next time, please don’t drag that “Old Korean phonology” and fairness cards ever so lightly; are you assuming that OJP too has that “poor phonological understanding”? Haven’t notice any neglect just yet... ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 08:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We literally cannot add IPA to Old Japanese, but at least Old Japanese has consistent transcription unlike Old Korean. Chuterix (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

犬に論語
Hi, I had removed the italics because it interferes with the hiragana's page. Perhaps |head= could use the italics while the actual hiragana doesn't? Shelkovitsa ( 💬｜🗄️ ) 02:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing; made a workaround using the |head= parameter of the template. ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 02:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Kojiki
Only a handful of uses have a number in the first parameter. Almost all of them basically have the second parameter as the first one. Doing arithmetic on non-numeric text causes a ParserFunction error, with the result that, of the 98 entries in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:RQ:Kojiki, 74 are in Category:Pages with ParserFunction errors- and that's after I cleaned up half a dozen by adding a pipe to add an empty first parameter. Judging by this search, it looks like there are only 2 entries with a numeric first parameter,

I haven't had time to figure out why this problem only emerged this week, but it has to be fixed. If you can figure out how to test for non-numeric content before doing arithmetic without triggering an error, that would be good. Otherwise you would have to either remove the logic that tests what number is in the first parameter, or add pipes like I did so the first parameter is empty. Or perhaps you could convert the numeric first parameter to a named parameter and change the few entries with a positional parameter to add the parameter name. Unless you can implement the test for non-numeric content, the last option would be the least work, though adding a pipe to entries without a numeric first parameter would be easy for someone with a bot or AWB. If you can't fix this yourself, you need to ask for help at the Grease Pit. We can't leave Category:Pages with ParserFunction errors full- unrelated new errors will be hard to spot with all the clutter. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Removing kana from
Why do this, and more importantly, why insist on doing it? It doesn't make the entry easier to read, and simply means readers have to go to another page to find information that we can easily display in the etymology itself. You might not need it, but removing it is simply detrimental to other users over something you can easily ignore. Please don't. Theknightwho (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Am having doubts putting under Etymology sections myself once I joined this online dictionary, and have leaned to follow ’s formatting of using simpler ones like  or  without the ruby/kana. For an example, take a look at the history of   and  my formatting edit. Mcph2 is just a few who had been using  extensively under Etymology header. Be grateful it’s a weekend, as you would receive a reply from the former like one of my discussions above... ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 20:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it does any harm, and I don't really agree with the argument that because we should facilitate users with no Japanese knowledge that that entails excluding kana, really, because it's informative for those that do. It's the same reason we use transliterations, even though those appear at the entry as well. Theknightwho (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do think there's an argument that Japanese ruby text does not belong in non-Japanese entries. We don't use ruby text for any other language, nor do we use non-Latin-alphabet transcription for any other language except in entries for that language (such as bopomofo for Chinese).  As such, using Japanese kana ruby as in the Hokkien entry for kha-báng seems inappropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr I disagree - the best analogy would be the fact we show traditional and simplified Chinese, and many Korean links give hangul and hanja. Bopomofo is not comparable, because it is (almost) never actually used in day-to-day writing. Theknightwho (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither traditional nor simplified Chinese are used as ruby text.
 * Hanja is not used as ruby text. Hanja is also deprecated in South Korea (I think in North too), so Korean speakers are not expected to be able to read hanja much these days.  Probably because of this, hangul is not uncommonly used in South Korean signage where the text includes hanja; see also w:Ruby_character and w:Ruby_character.
 * Bopomofo is used as ruby text in Chinese introductory texts for learners; see also w:Bopomofo.
 * Japanese kana ruby is also "(almost) never actually used in day-to-day writing". I'm looking at a novel in Japanese right now, and ruby text is used pretty much just when introducing names spelled in kanji that have multiple likely name readings.  Ruby is more common in manga, as a decidedly informal and flexible medium, to spell things one way and pronounce them another, providing authors an additional dimension for wordplay and allusion.  But otherwise, for regular words like  or  or, you will never see ruby outside of introductory texts for kids still learning how to read.
 * → Including kana ruby for a Japanese term, especially one mentioned or listed in an entry for another language, seems as inappropriate as including that Japanese term's etymology, full sense listing, or other information irrelevant to the language of the entry — that additional detail more correctly belongs in the Japanese term's entry itself. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr Why are you focusing on whether hanja or simplified Chinese are given as rubytext, when the issue at hand is obviously whether or not it should be possible to give an alternative display form? It's a complete side-issue. Hanja is also not obsolete (as it sees use in academia, among other places), and I don't really understand your point regarding it anyway, given that Korean entries are invariably lemmatised at the hangul form, even though it's still given in many links. The same goes for simplified Chinese: entries are lemmatised at the traditional form, but we still give the simplified form when linking to Chinese entries. Whether or not rubytext is involved has nothing to do with the point I'm making, because rubytext is simply a mechanism. The fact that it's a useful mechanism for making the Japanese reading clear is why I like to add it, but at the end of the day it is - at worst - harmless.
 * I simply cannot see how this is harmful to the reader in any way, particularly given that a large number of Japanese terms can be given in their kana forms, and often are. You might not feel the need for it, but to call it "inappropriate" feels really strange. Theknightwho (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Why are you focusing on whether hanja or simplified Chinese are given as rubytext, when the issue at hand is obviously whether or not it should be possible to give an alternative display form?"
 * In addition, ruby text is not just an alternative display form: ruby involves important (and potentially confusing) changes to text layout. Past there, alternative forms belong in the lemma entry, not as integrated parts of links or mentions of a term from some other location.
 * "I simply cannot see how this is harmful to the reader in any way, particularly given that a large number of Japanese terms can be given in their kana forms, and often are. You might not feel the need for it, but to call it "inappropriate" feels really strange."
 * Japanese kana ruby are only usable by readers who can already read kana. This assumes a degree of familiarity with the Japanese language, which is arguably an appropriate assumption for readers looking at Japanese entries.  It is not an appropriate assumption for readers looking at entries in other languages, like Hokkien.
 * Kana ruby text duplicates information already presented in the romanization. Readers interested in the nitty gritty of how to parse each mora to each kanji are better served by looking at the Japanese entry, where it is entirely appropriate to present such information about the Japanese term.  This information does not belong in entries for terms in other languages.
 * In addition, I have encountered past comments from users who were wholly unfamiliar with Japanese topography, and who mistakenly thought that the ruby text was part of the normal Japanese graphemic spelling of the word, as if the ruby were additional strokes belonging to the kanji. For readers who don't know Japanese, adding ruby kana text reduces the usability of the text. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr Yes, I brought it up because it's a convenient way of showing an alternative form that also happens to give the reading; the fact that it happens to be rubytext while simplified Chinese and Korean hanja are not is completely immaterial to the point that there is already precedent for showing multiple forms of a term in links. In both cases, those forms are used in real writing (just as kana often is), which does not apply to Bopomofo, so the comparison does not hold; this is the same reason why we have Japanese kana entries but don't have Mandarin Bopomofo ones. I'd be making exactly the same argument if we instead displayed it like this:.
 * Saying that it's only useful to people who can already read Japanese is (a) not strictly true, since it's far easier to read kana even if you aren't very familiar with the Japanese language itself, and (b) misses the point that that logic also applies to both simplified Chinese and hanja, yet we include them anyway, because we recognise the additional value that they provide to those who can actually read them. This is the point that you've essentially glossed over. It's not "nitty-gritty"; it's simply providing the basic reading in an unambiguous format. As for being concerned that people think they're additional strokes, that (a) also applies to tons of Japanese headwords (why don't you consider it a problem there or in all the derived terms on Japanese entries?), (b) isn't a mistake that most users actually make in practice and (c) isn't really a sitaution where the inclusion/exclusion of rubytext seems to make much difference, as if someone is that clueless as to how Japanese works then it's not at all clear how much a Japanese entry could provide them if they do actually click on it. It feels like trying to cater to people who can't read, so to say it "reduces the usability of the text" doesn't really make sense, when the usability for that reader is already 0.
 * One last point: duplication of material is not inherently bad, either. You don't want to go overboard with it, but removing harmless info for the sake of concentrating everything in only one place is only convenient for editors, not actual users, which is the wrong approach in my view. Theknightwho (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying that it's only useful to people who can already read Japanese is (a) not strictly true, since it's far easier to read kana even if you aren't very familiar with the Japanese language itself, and (b) misses the point that that logic also applies to both simplified Chinese and hanja, yet we include them anyway, because we recognise the additional value that they provide to those who can actually read them. This is the point that you've essentially glossed over. It's not "nitty-gritty"; it's simply providing the basic reading in an unambiguous format. As for being concerned that people think they're additional strokes, that (a) also applies to tons of Japanese headwords (why don't you consider it a problem there or in all the derived terms on Japanese entries?), (b) isn't a mistake that most users actually make in practice and (c) isn't really a sitaution where the inclusion/exclusion of rubytext seems to make much difference, as if someone is that clueless as to how Japanese works then it's not at all clear how much a Japanese entry could provide them if they do actually click on it. It feels like trying to cater to people who can't read, so to say it "reduces the usability of the text" doesn't really make sense, when the usability for that reader is already 0.
 * One last point: duplication of material is not inherently bad, either. You don't want to go overboard with it, but removing harmless info for the sake of concentrating everything in only one place is only convenient for editors, not actual users, which is the wrong approach in my view. Theknightwho (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * One last point: duplication of material is not inherently bad, either. You don't want to go overboard with it, but removing harmless info for the sake of concentrating everything in only one place is only convenient for editors, not actual users, which is the wrong approach in my view. Theknightwho (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * One last point: duplication of material is not inherently bad, either. You don't want to go overboard with it, but removing harmless info for the sake of concentrating everything in only one place is only convenient for editors, not actual users, which is the wrong approach in my view. Theknightwho (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Japanese "perfection of wisdom" transliteration
this can’t go on forever. I don’t know Theknight’s Japanese Babel-level template at the time of typing this, but my intuition thinks he is pushing for more rubies at Etymology headers in the target language where it already exists at the sense headings and templates. Just because I made the entry, obviously I don’t own it outright... and can’t distinguish who is either grieving or provoking the situation at hand. Your thoughts? ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 05:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Poketalker I'm not trying to be contentious; I simply feel that removing rubytext from a Japanese entry is unambiguously unhelpful, for a couple of reasons:
 * It increases the work required for entry maintenance, since it means transliterations all have to be added manually; this is not a minor concern, either, given that there are many thousands of Japanese entries, and manual transliterations are a massive headache to maintain. These kinds of cosmetic changes which add maintenance overhewad are a real pain, in my view, because they simply add to editor burden for the sake of one editor's preferences, which isn't how it should work. Granted, you could argue that the same is true for all the kana that have to be manually added, but...
 * The kana are obviously helpful on a Japanese entry, which is something none of us disagreed on in the above thread. Removing them for "legroom" seems counterproductive at best, given that this is an online dictionary where space is free. Plus, kana are (generally) fixed, whereas transliterations may change depending on the scheme chosen (since we use a customised version of Modified Hepburn, after all), so it's much better to do it that way around.
 * Theknightwho (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In Japanese entries, I have no particular concern about the use of kana ruby text. In the context of a Japanese entry, I have no usability concerns about kana usage in ruby.  And with regard to space, WT:NOTPAPER would seem applicable, so long as on-screen layout isn't problematic.
 * @POKéTalker, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by the title of this section. Could you provide any links?  I might understand your concerns better if I could see a couple concrete examples. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Theknight's reverts and corrects in particular almost seem annoying to me. Have a right to question their style of formatting and probably edits leading to possible misinformation... no need to use  under Etymology, can do if the terms are only in kana; more complex code than ruby-less . Might change the section not just to reflect that sole link but to our edit-warring in recent edits. ～ POKéTalker（＝◉＝） 08:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Poketalker I changed it because I believe your edit made the entry worse. I strongly advise you to WT:Assume good faith, because if you think I'm doing this to annoy you then you're very much mistaken.
 * Passive-aggressively calling my edits "misinformation", when what you really mean is that you don't like calling rare readings "kun'yomi", despite everyone else disagreeing with you, is not acceptable, either. Theknightwho (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Passive-aggressively calling my edits "misinformation", when what you really mean is that you don't like calling rare readings "kun'yomi", despite everyone else disagreeing with you, is not acceptable, either. Theknightwho (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Nominating empty categories for deletion
Hi - you don't need to do this, as they get routinely deleted for being empty. Nominating just creates more work for admins, especially when they aren't empty. Theknightwho (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Edits at 歩
There are two problems with your edits here: Theknightwho (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) You are removing readings based on your misunderstanding of what "kun'yomi" means. Stop. No other editor agreed with your interpretation that "kun" is only what Poketalker could find in dictionaries (so it is completely untrue that my position is a "minority position"), and as Eirikr explained, you weren't even using very comprehensive dictionaries to measure this. It's literally just making the dictionary worse, and actively harmful to the project. It is very clear that you did not read the dicussion at Talk:皇 fully, so I advise you to do that, noting that three contributors disagreed with you, and none agreed with you. You do not get to claim that your view is the majority because you suspect native speakers would agree with you, either; I suspect they wouldn't, but more importantly, that isn't how consensus on Wiktionary works.
 * 2) You do not need to explain that a goon reading was likely an earlier borrowing than the kan'on reading, because that is obviously true when it comes to kanji, since the difference between "goon" and "kan'on" is that they are borrowings that occurred in different periods. Over-explaining this in etymology sections - especially with unnecessary links such as   (instead of simple glossary links) - does not benefit the dictionary; in fact, it's distracting and patronising, and makes Japanese entries unnecessarily complicated for no benefit whatsoever.