Wiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Japanese Verb Reciprocals

Japanese Verb Reciprocals

 * Voting on: The addition of the following text to About Japanese, between "Usage notes" and "Synonyms":

---

Reciprocal (for verbs)

 * If a verb is part of a reciprocal pair, where two verbs share the same kanji but have different endings to determine activeness/passiveness- as for example 見える and 見る- you may indicate here its reciprocal (linked).

---


 * Vote started by: Language Lover 04:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 27 August 2007
 * Discussion: Wiktionary_talk:About_Japanese

Thanks for voting!

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Language Lover 04:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't a regular method of "conjugating" a verb into its reciprocal, so it's very useful to have this info listed.

Oppose

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Robert Ullmann 06:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Should be Related terms. In any case, the definition is wrong: "reciprocal" does not mean active v passive.
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. I don't speak Japanese, but from your description, it seems like "reciprocal" is a bad name for this. (Note that there's an actual "reciprocal voice" in some languages, and "reciprocal" is also used very often to refer to a certain common use of many languages' reflexive voices.) How about "active counterpart" or "passive counterpart"? Also, I'm not sure this really warrants its own header; how about specifying instead that a verb's active or counterpart should be listed first in the "Related terms" section, with a tag identifying what it is? —RuakhTALK 19:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose EncycloPetey 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I'm against the creation of a new section header that will only apply in one language, to just one part of speech, and only some of the time.  These entries belong under Related terms and can be marked with a following parenthetical note, if it is necessary). --EncycloPetey 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose --Tohru 04:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC) As in the following list, there are at least three essentially different classes of those nontrivial pairs, where two verbs share the same kanji but have different endings. It would be confusing to label one of them "reciprocal." Also, I think we shouldn't devise three new headers for all of them. I'm for using "Related terms" header.
 * 5) * 育つ sodatsu: to be raised / 育てる sodateru: to raise (passive/active)
 * 6) * 買う kau: to buy / 買える kaeru: to be able to buy (potential)
 * It seems that exparts often treat two pairs 見る / 見える and 聞く / 聞こえる as only two members of a special class―while they look very similar to verb/potential verb pairs in this class―due to the unique, confusing characteristics.
 * 1) * 見る miru: to see / 見せる miseru: to show (taking indirect object)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Rod (A. Smith) 16:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Reiterating the point I made in the preceding discussion, this seems similar to etymologically related / verb pairs in Korean and to Russian and Polish perfective/imperfective pairs.  Although some common affixes are used to form such related terms, which affix to use for any given verb is unpredictable, so I agree with the spirit of this proposal in that English Wiktionary should list those related terms prominently.  The tag “reciprocal” is pretty vague, though, enough that it might apply to any of those verb pair types, so using that term would probably cause more confusion than it would alleviate.  Rather than add a slew of new section headings for sections that will house only a single item per entry, let's just consistently apply tags that describe the relationship of the related term, e.g. "(causative)", "(passive)", "(perfective)", etc. in the ====Related terms==== section and perhaps order the list of related terms so that these important terms appear prominently.  Rod (A. Smith) 16:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Cynewulf 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC) We don't need a separate header for this.

Decision

 * Withdrawn by author. DAVilla 04:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)