User talk:Poketalker/2019

Readings at 槵
I figured, that you could edit the Japanese readings of the kanji 槵. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , done! (It's in here, 11 strokes) ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 06:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you may have a look at my list of contributions at any time. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. My reason for bringing up my contributions is that if you have Microsoft Word, you could create and save a list of kanji entries, that you plan to update. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , it's usual for me to check the (recent) contributions of a particular user and the chosen article's history before taking the necessary edits (such as updating the template. Thanks for the tip, though. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 11:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, I was talking about the following kanji: 眜, 昩, 劺, 悝, 艃, 薶, 靽, 蚖, 忨, 脘, 豗, 豛, 豜, 豣, 豝, 阸, 砎, 砑, 砡, 頍, 庪, 攱, 廞, 匷, 耹, 庈, 芩, 芪, 坅, 鳹, 匴, 匬, 匫, 昒, 岉, 岏, 岒, 岓, 妋, 妌, 峗, 姽, 垝, 峞, 髤, 庥, 鉽, 帒, 襵, 荑, 詾, 抎, 耺, 踳, 瑃, 庉, 坁, 扺, 蒪, 欂, 鑮, 簙, 鬴, 郙, 悑, 痡, 誧, 峬, 庯, 裰, 錣, 唭, 魌, 諆, 萁, 硾, 諈, 藂, 埾, 蕞, 郰, 鄹, 緅, 掫, 衃, 紑, 岯, 邳, 嚭, 豾, 秠, 矟, 焇, 帩, 莦, 弰, 誋, 玘, 跽, 襳, 醽, 廇, 罶, 珋, 嵧, 雘, 劐, 韄, 濩, 蔪, 擩, 醰, 壗, 禫, 腯, 咰, 卼, 饘, 飦, 虷, 豻, 盰, 簳, 衦, 邗, 鏋, 芇, 怘, 怓, 怊, 怇, 忺, 忷, 恀, 恉, 恌, 恑, 忶, 忳, 忲, 忯, 忬, 餟, 醊 , 娹, 娸, 娷, 娵, 娨 , 娤, 娞 , 娒, 娏, 娍 , 娊, 妅 , 奿, 奾, 孁, 嬽, 嬼, 嬯, 嬨, 嬧, 贉, 贃, 贁, 赮, 鍧, 輷, 呁, 箰, 畇, 眴 , 盶, 忔, 忓 , 悎, 垬, 蔌, 遬, 餗, 娕, 燬, 徯, 傒. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * More entries I updated on my part: 笇, 飰, 瓪, 昄. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks, will do the others soon enough. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 11:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , some of them have no Middle Chinese equivalents, any suggestions? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 23:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * finished most of the kanji above, do you have any more? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 01:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Dasaitama
Hello, Poketalker. I think (but am not certain) that ダ埼玉 need not refer to the prefecture, but can also refer to the city. I take the second quote ("2001年に「埼玉」をなくして") to be a reference to the city; it was officially established in 2001 and spelled with hiragana. That is why I didn't specifically mention Saitama Prefecture. Best, Cnilep (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks for the information, professor. Split the senses to mean both the prefecture and the city. Also, recently expanded and, hope anyone can reply to my  on the latter. Domo, ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 04:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The etymology contradicts itself; it claims that the term is from a ren'youkei but the ren'youkei ending was -i1, not -i2. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 19:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * the OJP/classical form is in, so it is . Refer to the , if you can interpret the OJP conjugation table. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 11:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just realized that yes it should be i2 in koi, but that the -i is not the ren'youkei suffix, it's a separate nominalizer suffix. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 00:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

戀
I come here because you mentioned me. Let me express my impression on your editing: ｰｰ荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To change 尓 into 爾 is not correct. 繁体字/正體字 were not the only one characters used in the ancient times. "尓" is a simplified character that has been used since ancient times. Especially in this case, this letter was prefferred for phonetic purposes. Mixed using with 戀 is not an error.
 * Regarding the origin of , that is a dialectal corruption which lost distinction between  and  ahead of Central dialect.
 * To make Old Japanese entries by using okurigana is not good. They hadn't been used in the time of Old Japanese. If you need the entries in kana script, to use katakana phonetically with superscripts 甲 and 乙 (like コ甲ヒ乙シ) is better way, because that is the way which has been used traditionally in the academic scene for convenience sake.


 * Thanks for the tips, さん.
 * The problem is: for MYS poems, the UOV electronic text and Oxford uses 尓, uehiro08 uses 尒, and a Shōwa-era book uses 爾. So it's a confusing matter unless there is an original manuscript or earliest copy using which of the three.
 * When 🇨🇬 entries were created here, the default and hiragana in  were used. What you typed would require a new head template with the proper parameters regarding which form of kana to use, sub/superscript, etc. These should be tackled in Wiktionary talk:About Old Japanese. For now, we're still using.
 * For now, I'm depending on Oxford for the pronunciation differences, and that Shōwa-era book as my source text, with some mixing of the both when it comes to the 尓/爾 and probable shinjitai "errors" on the Oxford (like 将/將). Keeping it old-character forms while making less mistakes as possible. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 06:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was after the Qing Dynasty made the (康熙字典) that the difficult letters became the formal. This is a page including the poem, from Kishū-bon Man'yōshū (紀州本万葉集), one of the old manuscripts written in the late Kamakura period. This book seems to have adopted "尒". And this is the same one from the manuscript written in the late Edo period by, uses 尓. As they were handwritten, there would be differences of the character forms depending on the manuscripts.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

子等
here's the 3369th poem. It was (mis)spelled as instead of. Same loss of distinction, or intended to be particle/noun ? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 20:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It has many problems to interpret 許呂  as 子等. Firstly, I recommand to lemmatize original forms 兒呂, 故呂, 古呂 and 古侶 as the Old Japanese entries.
 * The word 子等 is read as  or , and not read as  in the original Old Japanese texts. is only a way of the interpretation in Middle Japanese. It's just wrong to lemmatize 子等 as  in Old Japanese.
 * Interpretations of the poems of Manyōshū were done after the end of the period of Old Japanese (note that it's oldest existing manuscript is written in the late 11th century). Ways of that are not unified, which includes uninterpreted poems and some mistakes came from the lack of phonological knowledge. Unlike the other syllables, the distinction between  and  remained until the early Heian period. It's hard to think that this confusion of the two syllables is a dialectal variant.
 * Phonologically correct interpretation of  might be 此ろ ( + ). This emphasizing expression is similar to in Modern Japanese.  is grammatically unnnatural for the poem, but etymologically it might be derived from that demonstrative pronoun, because this word hadn't been limited to indicate the time, but been used also for size/scale/degree, in the classical usage.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Side comment --
 * @荒巻モロゾフ, you stated, "I recommand to lemmatize original forms 兒呂, 故呂, 古呂 and 古侶 as the Old Japanese entries." We generally only lemmatize at one spelling if at all possible.  There are rare exceptions to this, but that is mostly due to modern political considerations (such as keeping both US and UK spellings, as at  and ).
 * Surveying a couple dead-tree 古文 dictionaries that I have to hand, both lemmatize at a combination of the kana followed by the modernized kanji spelling. One of them (ベネッセ古語辞典) distinguishes 甲・乙 by adding a vertical line to the right of the relevant kana for 甲 and to the left for 乙.
 * Rather than duplicating information across the four different spellings of 兒呂, 故呂, 古呂 and 古侶, I would instead recommend either of the following:
 * Lemmatize at modernized kanji spellings. Within each entry, optionally list all known historical 万葉仮名 spellings.
 * Lemmatize at kana spellings. Within each entry, list separate   sections for each separate term, clearly indicating 1) any 甲・乙 distinction, and 2) any differences in modernized kanji spellings.  Again, within each section, optionally list all known historical 万葉仮名 spellings.
 * Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Japanese kanji with historical kan'on reading くゑい
Can you please not mark categories for deletion until you've emptied out all the entries? We can't delete them while they still have entries in them. —Rua (mew) 22:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: your query
In, you'd asked about punctuation. Fumiko has in the past gotten very aggressive with me about changes to quotes she's added, so I've often tried to minimize those to reduce the potential for confrontation. That's just me, though. :) I welcome your input and changes.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Etym change at 寝ぬ
Curious about your in the etym wording. The KDJ specifically calls this a compound:

（名詞「い（寝）」と動詞「ぬ（寝）」との複合語）

蛇足: I find it interesting how this parallels the modern Korean construction in, literally +  -- though in the Korean example the two components are from the same root. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this can be “Derived from 🇰🇲”. Both element are archaic so they can be lemmatized at kana. 寝 + 寝 is too funny. Similarly, I think this term 寝ぬ (inu) can be lemmatized at kana. --Dine2016 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No argument there, lemmatizing at the kana form is fine by me. :)  I'm mostly just curious about the change from "Compound of" to "Derived from".  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * it's still categorized as a compound. Do you still want it explicitly stated as a compound in the Etymology section? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 01:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm personally a fan of calling compounds compounds. :)  I find that just saying "From..." is awfully vague.  But that might just be me.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Tonari, tonaru...
Re:, it looks like tonaru might be a back-formation. If you compare the quotes listed in the tonari and tonaru entries from the KDJ as shown on Kotobank, tonari shows up from the 700s, while tonaru only appears much later in the 1100s.

Past there, I'm researching a hypothesis that tonari might be a contraction of something like 戸にあり "at the door" → by extension "next door", but I'm not finding anything definitive yet.

Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Japanese kanji historical reading requests
Hello. Since these categories should exist but under different names, why not simply move them instead of requesting their deletion? - TheDaveRoss  12:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * the historical entries might be or not be called "ancient" because most dictionaries do not have the -uwi historical/ancient? readings. What do you suggest then? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 22:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I know virtually nothing about the subject, I just read your deletion message that the category should be ancient instead of historical. If that is the case it doesn't need to be deleted it can just be moved to the correct version. If there is more nuance to it than that it should probably be discussed at WT:RFD/O instead of speedily deleted (which is usually reserved for mistakes and vandalism). - TheDaveRoss  01:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , aside from Jigen, which Chinese character dictionaries you've read have historical readings, and should they be categorized as "historical" or "ancient" readings?
 * If you don't know what I mean, two examples are and . ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 11:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but my copy of the 広漢和辞典 isn't available to me now. --Dine2016 (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with it at all. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 01:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like I'll take this to the higher echelons:, and others not mentioned, same question above (Aside from Jigen, do you know any Sino-Japanese dictionaries that have historical readings?). ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 01:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Any chance that this is the kind of data you're looking for? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * nothing related in weblio古語辞典. Recently found out that Heibonsha's 大辞典 used it, these pages have kanji in スイ entries rubied as すゐ. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 04:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Perhaps this is related to the phenomenon described in ゐ?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you check out the entry in Category:Japanese terms spelled with 月 read as つく and recategorize or remove the category from the entry before I delete the category? - TheDaveRoss  11:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * seems to be the reason for this. The tsuku is probably Old Japanese-only and Tsukuyomi as such is the Old Japanese name for Tsukiyomi; and the addition of is an error on my part, only used within the modern Japanese heading. Unless  was a kun-reading in Daijisen (it is not), might as well remove the  in the  article. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 16:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, tsukuyomi is still listed as a modern reading for 月読 by both the JA WP article at ja:w:月読 and even by the Microsoft Japanese IME, suggesting that the tsuku reading, while rare, is not obsolete (i.e. wholly unused) for the 月 kanji. It also appears in the term 月夜 as an archaic reading.  And it's definitely not an on'yomi.  This is a (rare, non-Jōyō) kun'yomi.
 * Also, I didn't think we were using kyūjitai kanji for any lemmata? Using old kana forms like ゑ for OJP makes sense, as these encode important phonetic information.  However, the kyūjitai kanji don't have any such distinction (in most cases where there's a one-to-one correlation between kyūjitai and shinjitai), and instead just do more to isolate OJP from the relevant modern JA terms.  I don't think this is an improvement, and instead I think it presents a (minor) usability barrier.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

戦 reading ikusa
Curious about your removal of etym details in ? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * here's the summary: → . That leaves  and, which was usually interpreted as ikusa in Maeda's annotation of the  per KDJ (example being , entry 36: 丙寅、詔左右京職及諸國司、築習射所.). My opinion is that ikusa does originally mean “archery” before the “soldier, army” senses. Daijiten entries (lower left on 183). It's a slight misunderstanding like where the KDJ does not differentiate between  →.
 * Meanwhile, the same KDJ says that the earliest attestation for the “battle, conflict, fight, war” senses was in Utsubo. Unless the Himiko-Y Kojiki annotation (, part 4: 爾、興軍待戰射出之矢如葦來散.) is incorrect being ikusa already meant that (or it should've been read as tatakai), I don't know where to start.
 * Other than that, edited and added the OJP entry. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 23:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, thank you for the explanation. :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Template
Hello. There seems to be 1,685 entries in Category:Japanese terms derived from Middle Chinese (added via ) and 430 entries in Category:Japanese terms borrowed from Middle Chinese (added via )

For entries with readings, which do you think is more appropriate? I would prefer because most entries with on'yomi readings were borrowed into Early Middle Japanese (794 to 1185) from Middle Chinese (581-1127), so something like  +  would be more accurate. Unfortunately, there are no ISO codes for Middle Japanese, which is why Middle Japanese (8th to 16th century) is considered part of Category:Japanese language on Wiktionary.

I think or  would be more suitable for calques such as the entries listed in Category:Japanese terms calqued from Middle Chinese, or for more recent borrowings, e.g. words that entered into Late Middle Japanese (12th to 16th century) via Old Mandarin (12th to 14th century) or Middle Mandarin (14th to 18th century). KevinUp (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated note, please take a look at Votes/pl-2019-05/Lemmatize Japanese wago words at kana spellings (voting closes at 23:59, 10 August 2019). KevinUp (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The usages of are at least partially from me, starting from before we had any plans to create OJP entries, and all stages of the language were happening within "Japanese".
 * However, even now, in terms of language codes and how Wiktionary entries are organized for Japanese, everything after Old Japanese (OJP) is still just lumped together into Japanese (JA). So a borrowing into Early Middle Japanese (794 to 1185) from Middle Chinese (581-1127) ... still winds up in Japanese (JA).
 * Should we open a thread in the WT:Beer parlor (or other forum) to discuss the creation of an etymology-only language code for post-Old, but pre-modern, Japanese? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would be a good idea to have etym-only codes for (1) Early Middle Japanese and (2) Late Middle Japanese, analogous to Early Middle Chinese and Late Middle Chinese.
 * For Middle Japanese, I think a non-etym language code may be required, so that we can have categories such as or.
 * Once the language codes are available, we could then use, from  to make things clearer. KevinUp (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, I noticed that some kanji compounds have readings that are related to Min Nan (perhaps a borrowing from Coastal Min or Proto-Min) rather than Middle Chinese, such as the following:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Japanese
 * Min Nan
 * Middle Chinese
 * }
 * Some of these lemmas may be from an earlier borrowing, e.g. from Late Old Chinese to Late Old Japanese but I'll stick with to be safe and list the Min Nan readings as a cognate instead. KevinUp (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * }
 * Some of these lemmas may be from an earlier borrowing, e.g. from Late Old Chinese to Late Old Japanese but I'll stick with to be safe and list the Min Nan readings as a cognate instead. KevinUp (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * }
 * Some of these lemmas may be from an earlier borrowing, e.g. from Late Old Chinese to Late Old Japanese but I'll stick with to be safe and list the Min Nan readings as a cognate instead. KevinUp (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * }
 * Some of these lemmas may be from an earlier borrowing, e.g. from Late Old Chinese to Late Old Japanese but I'll stick with to be safe and list the Min Nan readings as a cognate instead. KevinUp (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * }
 * Some of these lemmas may be from an earlier borrowing, e.g. from Late Old Chinese to Late Old Japanese but I'll stick with to be safe and list the Min Nan readings as a cognate instead. KevinUp (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * }
 * Some of these lemmas may be from an earlier borrowing, e.g. from Late Old Chinese to Late Old Japanese but I'll stick with to be safe and list the Min Nan readings as a cognate instead. KevinUp (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * }
 * Some of these lemmas may be from an earlier borrowing, e.g. from Late Old Chinese to Late Old Japanese but I'll stick with to be safe and list the Min Nan readings as a cognate instead. KevinUp (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of these lemmas may be from an earlier borrowing, e.g. from Late Old Chinese to Late Old Japanese but I'll stick with to be safe and list the Min Nan readings as a cognate instead. KevinUp (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of synonyms for 月経 at 月 entry
Curious about -- Daijirin lists both  and  as synonyms of, with pitch accents provided, which usually means these aren't too out-of-date. See also 月の障り and 月水 at Kotobank. Did you mean to remove these syns? If so, I'm curious why? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * unless the memory error issue needs to be solved immediately, might as well remove some redlinks and move the quotes to Citations. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 22:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Memory issues
Hi. I don't think it is a good idea to remove content to temporarily resolve the memory issue. Even though languages such as Vietnamese tend to suffer from red error notices, the content is still viewable by clicking on [edit] and "Show preview".

A better solution would be to inform higher authority via platforms such as Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

Can you please restore content that has been removed from in this edit? Thanks and please continue to work on expanding entries rather than the other way round. KevinUp (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * before that, pinging for any additional comments with my recent edit. Most of the temporarily removed examples in  in are either common or unsourced, probably not worthy of the Citations section. The derived terms removed are probably compounds of compounds in my opinion. Do any of you agree? Any advice is appreciated. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 08:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As mentioned here, I would prefer for the "compounds of compounds" (red or blue links) to be moved over to the compound entries before they are removed from single character entries. There are some words such as which don't have entries for  or . Moreover, some terms such as  are not derived from  - the  in  is an alternative form of . I would prefer for the removal to be done on a case-by-case basis. The obvious ones such as compounds of  can be moved over but the rest ought to be carefully scrutinized as some of them such as  may actually be proper nouns. KevinUp (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Admin vote
Hello, someone has nominated you for admin without notifying you in any way, as far as I can tell. I guess you can still accept or reject despite the unorthodox procedure. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Kana in transliteration
It is the standard for Japanese and Okinawan transliteration on Wiktionary, I'm just doing things how I've seen them, referencing existing content. @Poketalker MiguelX413 (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I acutally don't remember anything about “putting kana alongside the romanization in entries if the translation has kanji” being standard. By the way, Wiktionary is not Wikipedia, so the formatting system here is different. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 04:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant to say Wiktionary, and you can see that this is the convention by looking at most translation boxes, even those I have not contributed on. MiguelX413 (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * from the translation boxes, some of the Japonic-Ryukyuan entries have kana alongside the romanization if with the kanji. The other languages that are not Latin-based only have romanization. So odd... this can be resolved by putting the kana form in their respective entries.
 * Methinks you are new here in Wiktionary, aren't you? You're like エリック・キィさん who puts katakana in plant name translations... ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 04:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What's odd about it? What's wrong with it? It helps prevent ambiguity too with the other Japonic languages too. For example, 鳥 is pronounced as とぅい (tui) in Okinawan, but if it was only "tui" in the romanization, there would be ambiguity about whether it is the Nihon-shiki romanization romanizaiton of つい or if it is the Hepburn romanization of とぅい, even though it is very well established that Hepburn romanization is what is meant to be used on here.In additon, it also helps prevent ambiguity with the transliteration of Old Japanese. I am new, but I'm just doing things just like everyone else does. MiguelX413 (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * to each his own then? I checked About Japanese and both are allowed. Hepburn is the standard romanization for Japanese here. Regarding the romanization of Okinawan and other Ryukyan languages, there is no About Okinawan page yet, so there's probably no standard here (see also Okinawan scripts in Wikipedia). Other than that, in my opinion, the method is same with the Japanese., ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 06:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: before discovering tui as the correct romanization, a song by the Boom uses turi: 島唄ぐゎ風に乗り鳥とともに海ゆ渡り (Shimauta gwa kazi ni nuri turi to tomo ni umi yu watari)
 * PSS: you don't have to put on my talk page. I always get notified of them.
 * PSSS: Pinging the translator who probably knows some ryu.
 * @Poketalker: As for Japanese plant names, what kind of character I use depends on whether it might be common in Japanese materials or not. Names for species tend to appear with Katakana script in Japanese scientific context. Native or some other species known to Japanese since old times, however, are somewhat exceptional (e.g., ). Recently I added Japanese translations to Monterey cypress, cherimoya, kapok tree, amla and mangrove, all in Katakana characters. All but amla and mangrove are not native to Japan nor common in older Japanese literature as far as I know.
 * As for not native amla,, which must be originally Kanji transcription of native Indo-Aryan name (?) via Chinese but I failed to access any attestation, relies on this database, which also refers to the name . I have other paper materials that refer to amla with names such as マラッカノキ, , but not . To be honest, I am not confident which name (or style) is most common and authoritative.
 * (native to southern regions including Okinawa, etc.) has Kanji forms, namely and, both of which are less common styles, however. Or about other pages? If you think that my manner in translation sections is problematic, please specify my post(s). --Eryk Kij (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: translations, our (EN Wiktionary JA-entry editor) practice has been to use the common, non-scientific spelling as the primary (lemma) form, and thus to use that form as the location of the full entry and the target for any translation tables or other links. For example, links to the Japanese term for  should not point to the katakana spelling, but instead point to , as that kanji spelling is used as the lemma form.  However, links to the Japanese term for  should point to the katakana spelling , as that katakana spelling is the lemma form.
 * If a term is commonly rendered in katakana in specific contexts such as biology or other academia, the recommended practice is to include that katakana in the headword template, and to include a  section explaining the usage.  See also 人 and 梅 for examples.   as seen in 梅 is a helper template intended for such usage notes.
 * Re: using kana in the transliteration parameter, such as in, this is deprecated practice from several years ago. Please do not include kana in transliterations, and if you see any kana in transliterations in existing content, please remove the kana.
 * You will still find examples of this older usage all over the place, simply because no one has bothered to go through and clean everything up. This practice of including kana in transliterations arose in part from the previous thought that having redlinks to non-existent pages for any rendering of a Japanese term -- be it kanji, kana, or romaji -- would help editors to identify gaps in our page coverage, predicated in turn on the thought that we (the Wiktionary community as a whole) would want entries for all renderings to ensure that readers could find an entry more easily.  Since then, changes in templates, changes in editor practice, changes in the underlying MediaWiki search technology, and changes in the underlying MediaWiki platform itself to include more advanced coding options like Lua, have done away with the use case for kana in transliterations.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, I think it still has function and is helpful, what page on wiktionary holds the standards for this? MiguelX413 (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WT:AJA is the closest thing we have to a "standard" -- except most of it is very woefully out of date, as few of us bother with any such pages once we get up to speed with the editing format. Beyond the main page at WT:ELE that describes the main entry structure, the actual "standard" for each language's entries, such as it is, is the living practice engaged in by a majority of editors for that language.  Wiktionary editors in general appear to be more likely to have a discussion on Talk pages or one of the forum pages like the Beer Parlor, and focus editing efforts on the entries themselves, rather than spending the time to try to document processes.
 * Ultimately, the transliterations included in and  links are just that -- transliterations -- and as the target audience of the English Wiktionary are readers of the English language who are not expected to know kana, kana in transliteration parameters appear to be inappropriate additional information.  They're also unnecessary, as the kana and our modified-Hepburn romanization have a nearly one-to-one correlation, and also as the kana are always available right in the lemma entries themselves.  I'm curious, what's your use case for kana in   parameters?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Tfw never came up with a good reason, also, how can I get started on automating an Okinawan Conjugation system similar to the Japanese one? MiguelX413 (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging . Please see also Template_talk:CJKV. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 01:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Tweak at スバル
Curious about your addition of:

====See also==== *

The entry doesn't have any relevant content. Presumably you're referring to, or for short?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * aye. Derived term?
 * , any media that uses either the 富士 or 富士重 shorthands to refer to Fuji Heavy Industries? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 23:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Belatedly, . ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Babel languages
Why does your profile just have ? MiguelX413 (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * good question!
 * It is due to . Never had a formal Japanese class in high school or college; dropped basic college class twice. Before even that, already found out that Wiktionary is a good hub for expanding my knowledge on the languages such as this (along with linguistics of course!). The evidence is in my contributions. Anything else, señor? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 04:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see! I did until the second half of 2018, when I transferred to my current High School and entered Japanese III. Thx! MiguelX413 (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Okinawan pitch accent
I'd just like to let you know that Okinawan dictionaries, when representing pitch accent, use 0 for 平板型 and 1 for 下降型. 頭高型 does not exist in Okinawan. MiguelX413 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * got them. How about the acute/grave accent marks, IPA tildes, ɯ's/ɰ's, etc.? Please differentiate atamadaka-gata and kakō-gata for my references (unless they're in the “” article or another link). Dōmo, ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 06:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can the resources be in Japanese? MiguelX413 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * as long as the aformentioned terminology are there, that is fine. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 15:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've found
 * # https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ieejeiss1987/108/10/108_10_773/_pdf
 * # http://ir.lib.u-ryukyu.ac.jp/bitstream/20.500.12000/1459/1/No34p247.pdf
 * # https://blog.goo.ne.jp/gajimaru18/e/a0c6dfd6808c88589a583518a71883a4
 * # http://ryukyu-lang.lib.u-ryukyu.ac.jp/srnh/abs.html
 * # http://ryukyu-lang.lib.u-ryukyu.ac.jp/srnh/sign.html
 * I hope this is good. I can't find the number associations themselves, I might've read it in 沖縄語辞典 or something. MiguelX413 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Akshobhya
Hey- I saw your recent edit on the Akshobhya page 阿閦如来, and since I am unfamiliar with Akshobhya, I clicked the English Wikipedia link only to be piped to a red link. I don't know how this should be changed, but I wanted to let you know that there is a problem on that page. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * fixed. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 19:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

阿弥陀如来 etymology
Query re: -- listing the JA etym as a compound implies that this was a compound coined in Japanese. I'd been under the impression that the various Buddhist entity names all came from LTC; see also 🇨🇬, what I'd thought to be the etymon for 🇨🇬. Was the 如来 suffix instead added after borrowing into Japanese, and then exported to Chinese? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, likewise for the rest of the entries.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To my current knowledge, there is a element and a  element for Amitabhā and Akṣobhya depending on which sect of Japanese Buddhism is being discussed. The Chinese article(s) seem no sense to me though, so pinging . ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 05:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * : Sanskrit seems to have something to do with "he who comes and goes in the same way", so the Middle Chinese  is a literal translation of the Sanskrit term. I agree that I the Japanese term was borrowed from Middle Chinese. The Chinese section doesn't have the etymology section but the character glosses seem self-explanatory. Not sure if it helps --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So it sounds like the compounding happened in Chinese, with 如來 as basically an epithet for a buddha, where alternative forms swapping out 如來 for 佛・仏 would be expected. As such,  would be incorrect. , does that make sense?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * since the Chinese Wikipedia entry redirects to 阿彌陀佛, I assumed the tathāgata epithet being coined/invented in Japan. If someone wishes to contest this, a from the LTC era containing something like "Amitabhā-tathāgata" such as  (or other buddha-tathāgata) can suffice. The use of  is a non-issue for me for equivalency reasons. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 19:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I confess I don't understand what you mean by "for equivalency reasons". As I understand it,  means that the term was coined as a compound within Japanese, rather than having been borrowed in toto.  If this compound was coined within Chinese, and borrowed as a whole term, then  can't be correct.  (Sorry if this is しつこい, just trying to understand.)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Wyang has added the the Middle Chinese reading and POS categorisation in to the 如來 entry but we can't ask him as he has left. You may try posting WT:RFE, you may get more answers over time. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yomi types -- moving out of ja-pron, into ja-kanjitab
I noticed in that you added a yomi to. In discussions with, the more sensible approach came up of consolidating yomi information in , where we have finer-grained control.

(As an aside, I've long been quite unhappy with this abbreviation of  to just   for, especially since that same   has been around for years longer to mean kun + on, i.e. yutōyomi, in .  Unnecessary and premature attempt at optimization.)

, was my understanding of your ideas correct? Should we (the JA editors) consider  as a deprecated parameter for ? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's data duplication. The yomi may vary according to spelling, while the pronunciation always stays the same, so it makes sense to put it in the kanjitab. --Dine2016 (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

same reading for 雨
Saw your recent edit at 雨, which raises some concerns. While I appreciate that the in the さめ reading is likely an infix, removing the さめ reading entirely from this entry is problematic.


 * Single-consonant infixes are not a feature of Japanese, or indeed the Japonic languages in general. The closest we have is ん, which is less of an infix than an abbreviation of の or ぬ or occasionally む.  Since this kind of thing isn't a feature of the language, our users can't be expected to know this.
 * The various compound entries that include 雨 with the さめ reading all point to, which doesn't exist after your removal.
 * Without a さめ reading at 雨, we must reproduce the explanation about the infix theory at each individual entry that references さめ, rather than just once at 雨.
 * Your edit summary suggests that the identification of in さめ as an infix is settled.  I'm not aware of any academic consensus about this, but it'd be great if we could drum up some references about it.
 * I'd expanded the past minimal explanation based on my own research into JA and KO, but I don't have any citations and deliberately worded that as speculative "may be" rather than definitive "is". At that time, I had yet to find any JA resources that satisfactorily explained the interstitial  that appears in those old さめ compounds, or the same  that appears in old しね compounds for 稲, or in さお in a few places for 青, etc.  (Indeed, I haven't found any by now either, although I haven't spent time researching it recently.)

I'd like to suggest that we restore a さめ reading at 雨, at a bare minimum as a target for the compound entries and as a single place to consolidate information about the さめ reading. Wiktionary users interested in Japanese may well have encountered this さめ reading and have come here to look that up. By way of comparison, The KDJ includes an entry for the さめ reading, as does the Kanji Jiten, the Japanese Wiktionary, and WWWJDIC. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * for bringing this up; expected this would happen. The compounds ending with same are moved to below the Derived terms of the ame reading. For now, the Usage notes section regarding the possible infix can be expanded if you like. Daijisen says same is a nanori reading.
 * Would it be all right if we discuss this with other Japanese editors before reaching consensus? This is a good time to look up on research, if any, of the possible infix. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 19:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)