RFD 2013
edit
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I must be missing something here. 二 is 2, 三 is 3. The definition of 二、三 is "2, 3." Well, yes. --Haplology (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- [1]. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was a better definition. 一、二 (one or two), 三、四 (three or four) are also used. Tentatively keep, after restoring the definition. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- We don't have one or two, 1 or 2, 1, 2, two or three, three or four, etc. It does mean "a couple" but I don't see anything idiomatic. If this is kept it would be highly unusual as two numbers separated by a comma, or even just as as an entry containing a comma. --Haplology (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- The comma is optional (could also be ， (fullwidth), the main entry could be at 二三 see 二三@Goo dictionary. Also defined at Edict: "二三 にさん (n-adv) two or three". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- We don't have one or two, 1 or 2, 1, 2, two or three, three or four, etc. It does mean "a couple" but I don't see anything idiomatic. If this is kept it would be highly unusual as two numbers separated by a comma, or even just as as an entry containing a comma. --Haplology (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was a better definition. 一、二 (one or two), 三、四 (three or four) are also used. Tentatively keep, after restoring the definition. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strikes me as verrry SOP. Do we include all pairs of single numbers, separated by commas? I could as well say 九十、百, even. Or here's a blog post using 十四五 to mean “fourteen or fifteen”. Where do we stop? Is this 二三 / 二、三 really idiomatic enough? If so, how and why? Can someone please articulate how this is idiomatic? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have a different perception. In fact, it's the only way of saying "a couple (of)" I've learned so far. I think English "one or two" is also idiomatic but the Japanese 二三 / 二、三 is much more common and idiomatic enough. Other combinations are less common and could be mentioned in usage notes, no need to create any/all of them. This is where we should stop, IMO. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- I certainly grant that 二三 / 二、三 is common, but I still don't see how it's idiomatic. :) I'm not trying to be difficult -- I really just don't see it.
- 二三 / 二、三 == 2 or 3. I don't think it can be used for more indeterminate senses.
- Other ways of saying "a couple (of)" as in "a few (of)", without specific regard to number, include:
- FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I know you're not trying to be difficult, just defending your point. I know all these basic expressions. In my opinion they are more like "several", "a few", rather than "a couple (of)" (a smaller amount), which in some cases may make a big difference, e.g. "a couple of hours" vs "a few hours". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Haplology and @Eirikr. Do you guys think it's a good idea to keep all Japanese terms, which are listed at Goo dictionary (or other respectable dictionary of your choice)? "二三" appears there and somebody has already done a job of checking, what is worth keeping. Other number combinations are not there. I don't mind if "二、三" is converted to soft/hard redirect, alternative form entry but like I said Goo used ， in the user example and 、 is also common. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Goo is a website that hosts online versions of a few dictionaries, and it's necessary to make that distinction because the characters of those dictionaries vary. Three of them have entries for 二三. One of them is Shogakukan'S Progressive JA-EN dictionary, and I'd accept the accuracy of Shokagukan's entries, but some of the terms would fail CFI here. Progressive is too broad. It's also listed in the JA-CMN dictionary which I've noticed has a lot of common but non-idiomatic expressions too, probably more so than Progressive. The third is the monolingual Daijisen, which is a mainstream, respectable dictionary. Offline, it's also included in my copy of Kōjien, which is very authoritative, and Meikyo, also mainstream. In 99% of cases a word that meets all of their criteria should meet this site's, but in this case I still don't see how it's idiomatic, and in the end that's what matters, not how many other dictionaries include the term.
- As a separate matter, all of those dictionaries except Progressive include the entry without a comma, which I think is the preferred form. I don't know where Shinji is getting that idea. --Haplology (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- From memory (can't guarantee 100%), みんなの日本語 (my favourite textbook) used "二、三" several times starting from 中級. I'm currently using part II. Actually, if you Google for quoted strings "みんなの日本語" and "二、三", you can find some text samples with a comma. Alternatively, just search for "二、三". Here's an example: いいえ、二、三日 飲まないでください。 (and similar examples with different verbs).
- In defense of the comma, I'll say that "二三" may be misread as "23" in many contexts. "-" would be misread as "一".
- So, no Japanese dictionary could be considered good enough for CFI in your opinion, if understand correctly? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that term A is listed in dictionary A is not good enough for CFI in my opinion. This was brought up a while back in a proposal that inclusion in certain dictionaries be enough automatically, but it was defeated. I don't think any part of CFI says "...unless you can find it in a good dictionary." --Haplology (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I meant this as a guide for Japanese entries (not set in stone) only because quality of dictionaries differs largely and this can't serve as CFI for all languages. In complex cases I lean on keeping entries if they are also included in reputable dictionaries. Goo doesn't include definite SoP's. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that term A is listed in dictionary A is not good enough for CFI in my opinion. This was brought up a while back in a proposal that inclusion in certain dictionaries be enough automatically, but it was defeated. I don't think any part of CFI says "...unless you can find it in a good dictionary." --Haplology (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Haplology and @Eirikr. Do you guys think it's a good idea to keep all Japanese terms, which are listed at Goo dictionary (or other respectable dictionary of your choice)? "二三" appears there and somebody has already done a job of checking, what is worth keeping. Other number combinations are not there. I don't mind if "二、三" is converted to soft/hard redirect, alternative form entry but like I said Goo used ， in the user example and 、 is also common. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I know you're not trying to be difficult, just defending your point. I know all these basic expressions. In my opinion they are more like "several", "a few", rather than "a couple (of)" (a smaller amount), which in some cases may make a big difference, e.g. "a couple of hours" vs "a few hours". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have a different perception. In fact, it's the only way of saying "a couple (of)" I've learned so far. I think English "one or two" is also idiomatic but the Japanese 二三 / 二、三 is much more common and idiomatic enough. Other combinations are less common and could be mentioned in usage notes, no need to create any/all of them. This is where we should stop, IMO. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It is a single word with a single-word accent, and you cannot insert a pause between 二 and 三. It is also different grammatically from 二:
- You can say up to 七、八 (seven or eight) as a single word, and they can combine with another numeral like 十四五歳, which is written more commonly 十四、五歳 today. The comma is not there to separate words but to avoid confusion with twenty-three. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is really a grammatical issue. They can be combined with counters, as in 二三歳 (two or three years old), 二三個 (two or three items), 二三匹 (two or three animals), 二三人 (two or three people), and this can be replicated as other combinations: 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, etc. However, because numbers usually have more than one reading and these sequences require a particular reading, they may all be worth recording (without the counters). For example, 3,4ヶ月 (san yon kagetsu, three or four months) but 4,5ヶ月 (shi go kagetsu, four or five months), where 4 changes in reading from yon to shi. --BB12 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Those numeral combinations behave differently from simple numerals.
- This is really a grammatical issue. They can be combined with counters, as in 二三歳 (two or three years old), 二三個 (two or three items), 二三匹 (two or three animals), 二三人 (two or three people), and this can be replicated as other combinations: 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, etc. However, because numbers usually have more than one reading and these sequences require a particular reading, they may all be worth recording (without the counters). For example, 3,4ヶ月 (san yon kagetsu, three or four months) but 4,5ヶ月 (shi go kagetsu, four or five months), where 4 changes in reading from yon to shi. --BB12 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No counter -人 -nin
(people)-個 -ko
(objects)-日 -nichi
(days)1 一 ichi 一人 hitori* 一個 ikko 一日 ichinichi 2 二 ni 二人 futari* 二個 niko 二日 futsuka* 3 三 san 三人 sannin 三個 sanko 三日 mikka* 4 四 yon 四人 yonin** 四個 yonko 四日 yokka* 5 五 go 五人 gonin 五個 goko 五日 itsuka* 6 六 roku 六人 rokunin 六個 rokko 六日 muika* 7 七 nana 七人 nananin 七個 nanako 七日 nanoka* 8 八 hachi 八人 hachinin 八個 hakko 八日 yōka* 9 九 kyū 九人 kyūnin 九個 kyūko 九日 kokonoka* 10 十 jū 十人 jūnin 十個 jukko 十日 tōka* 1–2 一、二 ichini 一、二人 ichininin 一、二個 ichiniko 一、二日 ichininichi 2–3 二、三 nisan 二、三人 nisannin 二、三個 nisanko 二、三日 nisannichi 3–4 三、四 sanshi 三、四人 san’yonin** 三、四個 san’yonko 三、四日 san’yokka* 4–5 四、五 shigo 四、五人 shigonin 四、五個 shigoko 四、五日 shigonichi 5–6 五、六 goroku 五、六人 gorokunin 五、六個 gorokko 五、六日 gorokunichi 6–7 六、七 rokushichi 六、七人 rokushichinin 六、七個 rokushichiko 六、七日 rokushichinichi 7–8 七、八 shichihachi 七、八人 shichihachinin 七、八個 shichihakko 七、八日 shichihachinichi
- * Suppletive
- ** Irregular
- There is no word for 8–9, 9–10, or 10–11. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the nice table. I'm confused why you say there is not word for 8-9. I'm not a native speaker of Japanese, but 八九人 (hachi kyuū nin) seems normal to me. See [2], [3] (search on この8、9人にCBが含まれているのかを聞かれると), [4] for three examples.
- 9-10 has the problem that the pronunciation "kyū jū" is literally the same pronunciation as 90, but when I say this, anyway, I use a pause between the 9 element and the 10 element for the meaning "9 or 10" to disambiguate, which I think it normal. See, for example, [5], [6], [7] (search on "9/10人乗りの").
- Similarly, larger combinations exist as well, such as "13、14個" and "15、16日". --BB12 (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful when you cite Google hits. Your examples of 9–10 are all wrong. And larger combinations don’t have a single-word accent pattern. As for 8–9, some might say it by analogy with 7–8, but it doesn’t sound natural to me. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- 1. 8-9: I think there's more than analogy, but in any case, we seem to agree that it's in use :)
- 2. 9-10: I can understand how the first two hits could be dismissed, but not the third. Other examples are easy to find. For example:
- 3. The user may want to know how to handle situations such as 13・14日, 14・15日 and 19・20日, 20・21日.
- I am not opposed to putting all of these sorts of examples within individual pages, such as 3・4個 under the pages for 3 and 4, or in an appendix, but I do think they should be covered. --BB12 (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- These words cannot be combined with the prefix 第, and 第９・１０羽 is dismissed for that reason. The symbol ～ is read から. And I would pronounce 9/10人乗り as two words (kyū jūninnori, not kyūjūninnori which means 90人乗り). For 13 or 14 objects, you say 十三、四個 jūsan’yonko using 三、四 as a digit, and for 15 or 16 days, you say 十五、六日 jūgorokunichi using 五、六 as a digit. Note that the commas here never stand for a pause. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful when you cite Google hits. Your examples of 9–10 are all wrong. And larger combinations don’t have a single-word accent pattern. As for 8–9, some might say it by analogy with 7–8, but it doesn’t sound natural to me. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- For 13/14 and 14/15 the issue is the days of the month. For all these issues, Wiktionary should provide guidance. --BB12 (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- In that case you say 13、14日 (jūsan jūyonnichi) or 13日、14日 (jūsannichi, jūyokka). You cannot use 三、四 here. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- For 13/14 and 14/15 the issue is the days of the month. For all these issues, Wiktionary should provide guidance. --BB12 (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- There are various issues above that I don't agree with, but the main point here is that this is information that users would find useful, so it should be presented in some way. As I mentioned, it could be provided on the individual number pages. Or, it could be collected in an appendix. Once that is decided, then the individual issues can be worked out, one at a time :) --BB12 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept, no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 13:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)