Talk:相合傘

No adverb form

Hello all, I removed the ==Adverb== subheading as the only thing making 相合傘 an "adverb" is the use of the particle で -- there's nothing intrinsically adverbial to the word 相合傘. If we start using particle use as a criterion for requiring whole Part of Speech subsections for every Japanese word, we're in for a ridiculous amount of work. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Too rare to merit inclusion in heading"? Where on {{ja-pos}} or {{ja-noun}} does it say rare forms can't be included? And even rare terms or readings merit their own entries, like you frequently do so yourself, so why the hell doesn't this one? Honestly, I'm sick of your baseless claims (by baseless I mean nothing but your own projection based solely on unscientific Google search results and not truly reliable statistics or your own interpretation based on something that does not say what you claim it does, like half of your "citations" are pure bollocks because they say nothing you claim they do). Have you ever considered not abusing your power as an admin? ばかFumiko￥^talk 10:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Eirikr is a professional translator who gets paid for his knowledge of the Japanese language. I have many times seen him discuss finer points of Japanese grammar with native speakers without anyone complaining about his understanding of the language- you seem to be the only regular contributor who's done so.

I'm not saying you should agree with everything Eirikr says, but given that your knowledge of Japanese seems to be based on spending a few years teaching yourself, and Eirikr's is obviously not very far from that of a native, arguments that basically boil down to "you don't know what you're talking about" won't cut it around here. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, pretty much what Chuck said.

To address your specific point about kana renderings in the POS templates, those are reserved for common renderings. It's fine to create entries like 相合ガサ with the katakana ガサ if you can find enough valid citations to meet CFI, and if that entry is clearly labeled as an alternative spelling that links through to the lemma entry at 相合傘. However, if that katakana spelling is uncommon, it does our readers a disservice to include あいあいガサ in the POS line in the lemma entry at 相合傘 -- doing so suggests that the あいあいガサ kana rendering is common, when the reality is that katakana spellings are quite rare for most non-borrowed and non-scientific Japanese terms.

I'll restate that you describe yourself as illiterate in Japanese. Any comment you have about the quality of monolingual Japanese resources is thus difficult to take at face value. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fumiko Take's English is obviously better than mine, and I think I could label myself as a {{Babel|en-2}} without pushing it; so for English at least, his Babel seems unreflective of his real skills. Is he too humble? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)