Template talk:ja-readings

See also: Module talk:ja-kanji-readings

"Nadzuke"

"Nadzuke" appears to be more or less pseudo-SAMPA rather than any official or historical romanization of the word. Since hepburn spelling is recommended, please update the template source so that nazuke is directly linked rather than a redirect via nadzuke. I have also commented on the spelling at Talk:nazuke. —Tokek 15:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

nazuke should also have the definition for 菜漬け (;-) ... yes, we can fix this. Would be good to have an entry at 名付け and link that? (E.g. like Go'on etc are linked.) Changed the name of the parameter, but "nadzuke=" still works Robert Ullmann 14:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Formatting when the list of yomi gets long

I brought this up over at Wiktionary_talk:About_Japanese#Updates_needed_for_.7B.7Bja-readings.7D.7D.3F, but no one posted there. As seen at 結#Japanese, the layout for this template can get to be extremely, onerously ugly when the list of yomi gets long. I would like to propose that the list of yomi be broken out into a bulleted list, instead of an inline list all in one paragraph. See Wiktionary_talk:About_Japanese#Updates_needed_for_.7B.7Bja-readings.7D.7D.3F for an illustration of what I mean. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your changes to the template would require the reading-lines of entries like 結 to be rewritten, correct? In other words, a person or bot would have to change

* {{ja-readings
| on=<!--
-->[[けつ]] (''[[ketsu]]''), <!--
-->[[けい]] (''[[kei]]'')
| kanyoon=<!--
-->[[結]] ([[けち]] ''[[kechi]]'') to win an [[archery]] competition; to claim undecided territory in the [[endgame]] of [[go#Etymology_2|go]], <!--
-->[[結する]] ([[けっする]], ''[[kessuru]]'') to become [[constipated]]; to [[tie up]] or [[conclude]] an [[argument]] or stated position, 
...

to something else, like

* {{ja-readings
| on=
* [[けつ]] (''[[ketsu]]'')
* [[けい]] (''[[kei]]'')
...

or

* {{ja-readings
| on1=[[けつ]] (''[[ketsu]]'')|on2=[[けい]] (''[[kei]]'')|kanyoon1=[[結]] ([[けち]] ''[[kechi]]'') to win an [[archery]] competition; to claim undecided territory in the [[endgame]] of [[go#Etymology_2|go]]|kanyoon2=[[結する]] ([[けっする]], ''[[kessuru]]'') to become [[constipated]]; to [[tie up]] or [[conclude]] an [[argument]] or stated position
...

correct? That would seem to be a lot of work, and the second option would not seem to make the wiki-syntax any more übersichtlich (overseeable). How many entries beside 結 have problematically long lists of readings? - -sche (discuss) 02:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Genau, that would be a heck of a mess, which I see now that I'm much more familiar with the inherent limitations of string processing in templates. When I wrote the initial proposal, I had (naively) thought it would be possible to make changes to the template logic to handle the formatting change without requiring any changes to how the template was called. Possibly bot-able, but a bit of a bear.

As to how many entries would have long enough lists of readings to benefit from a bulleted list, I'm not rightly sure, but a quick flip through Nelson's suggests it might be around one in 20, very roughly speaking, for a total of around 1-2,000 kanji entries or so. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The On and Kun links are confusing

The On and Kun links are confusing because they don't directly lead to the correct target page, but to an intermediate one. In addition, I think the dictionary definitions on Wiktionary are too rudimentary here and I would suggest linking to Wikipedia or to some sort of help page on Wiktionary. — This unsigned comment was added by 82.139.81.0 (talk).

I saw your note on Wiktionary:Feedback#互. On and kun readings are only for pronunciations, if there is no PoS (part of speech) entry, then it means no-one created it yet, a character is only used as a component. It does serve its purpose, though. It helps find out the readings of a word. Re: 互. For example 互角 has an on-reading "ご" and 互角, being a "kango" (漢語) or Sino-Japanese word uses "ご" and "かく", both on-yomi. たがい is a kun-yomi, 互 is an alternative spelling of 互い. No, not all characters or readings have definitions, it's a work in progress. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood. I was talking about the On and Kun links inserted by this template. Why did you think I was bringing it up here? Or suggesting the creation of a help page?

More on this

The explanatory link on "Kun" should point to 訓読み#Japanese or くんよみ#Japanese, where the definition is visible directly, not to kun'yomi where the user has to click another link to get the explanation. -- Thomas.hori (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nanori and hyphens

@Krun Should nanori readings have hyphens in them? —suzukaze (t・c) 03:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c Names are generally spelled in kanji only, without okurigana, so for nanori, as with on-yomi, the hyphen doesn’t really give any added information. – Krun (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright. @Fumiko Take —suzukaze (t・c) 23:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Reading arrangement and Ōbaku tōon readings

Shouldn't kan'yōon readings be below the four on-readings (check Japanese Wiktionary entry for 海)? Also, there are on readings used in the Ōbaku school of Zen, evidenced here and here, full recitation of the Heart Sutra with ruby characters. Should the kanji readings there be added as tōon? 104.5.75.98 02:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC) See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2017/October#.C5.8Cbaku_t.C5.8D-on.2Fs.C5.8D-on_readings

Also 行. --POKéTalker (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, gloss seems a really bad idea for this template

Revisiting this issue, including glosses in {{ja-readings}} strikes me as opening the door for substantial confusion and impaired usability. With few exceptions, glosses have not been included in readings tables, and the sheer number of readings combined with the sheer number of glosses makes this unwieldy. Seeing the 結 entry again brought this back to my attention.

@suzukaze-c, would you object to removing this feature? And is there any easy way of generating a list of entries that use this feature, for purposes of cleanup? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

1. I personally don't really care either way. I don't know about others' opinions.

2. sure

—suzukaze (t・c) 03:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Also the tracking template ja-kanji-readings/gloss. — Eru·tuon 03:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Qualifiers?

@suzukaze-c Would it be possible to have some means of adding qualifiers for readings? For 苧, for instance, several of the readings are rare and/or obsolete. Prior to the revision to the template's input, these qualifiers were listed right in the {{ja-readings}} output. Losing that detail seems lossy and less helpful. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr, my standard would be to put, in the ja-readings, the common/modern readings; see 冠 (kanmuri) and 峰 (mine) for examples. Terms that are ancient readings like himukashi and kagafuri/kōburi may be put as kun'yomi only in the ja-kanjitab/ja-pron to imply that the modern derivations of the kun'yomi are higashi and kanmuri, respectively. Any objections? --POKéTalker (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My worry is confusion on the one hand (why is XYZ reading not in the readings table?), and usability on the other (there would be no single place on the page to see a list of recognized readings for a character). I can wholly agree with omitting nanori, as these can be truly arbitrary. But archaic and obsolete readings aren't that difficult to catalog, and can be very useful. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Theoretically it is totally possible as long as someone implements it :P Who decides that they're rare though? —suzukaze (t・c) 03:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: rarity, there's a certain amount of subjectivity to be sure, but if a given reading is included in multiple common reference works, it's probably a common reading. If a given reading is only found in one or two, it's probably not a common reading.  :) That can be corroborated (to some extent) by searching through usage examples. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Categorization mistakes caused by hyphens to show presence / lack of okurigana

(...moved from Template talk:ja-kanjitab...)

I noticed on 2017-11-18 at 梅 (ume) that the template is incorrectly categorizing into Category:Japanese kanji with kun reading うめ-. Meanwhile, the expected Category:Japanese kanji with kun reading うめ (without the hyphen) doesn't exist, and doesn't have anything in it. Similarly, 光 (hikari) is incorrectly added to Category:Japanese kanji with kun reading ひかり-, which sits alongside the orthogonal older and correctly named Category:Japanese kanji with kun reading ひかり.

Could someone have a look at this and fix things? The general expectation is that the category name should not include hyphens if the reading is for a single kanji without okurigana, like 光 (hikari) or 桜 (sakura), etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• @TAKASUGI Shinji, suzukaze-c, Dine2016, Wyang, anyone else --

Could one of you please have a look at this template and module? We are getting spurious categories. The instance of {{ja-readings}} at 空#Japanese categorizes this as [[Category:Japanese_kanji_with_kun_reading_むな-しい]], but then the instances of {{ja-kanjitab}} at 空しい, and also at 空手#Etymology_5 (reading munade), categorize this as [[Category:Japanese terms spelled with 空 read as むな]]. The behavior of {{ja-readings}} is incorrect. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr: you can just remove the hyphen: 梅, 光. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I modified Module:ja-kanji-readings in order to remove the trailing hyphen. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it was useful. hikari for those that have not explicitly recorded how the kana are okuru'd (???) (i.e. still needs closer examination, whether it might be hika-ri or hikari-). —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 23:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

As for muna-shii vs muna, I think that it is currently inevitable, given how {{ja-readings}} and {{ja-kanjitab}} work. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 23:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Only the final hyphen is removed. 光り (hika-ri) and 光 (hikari) are still distinguished correctly. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Separate template for Okinawan

@Suzukaze-c, Erutuon, as seen on the Okinawan section of 世, it actually uses the ja-readings template (messes up with categories); there should be a separate readings template for Okinawan... --POKéTalker (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely. But (and I don't mean to belittle Japanese dialects) I think we need to make sure that it is even appropriate to have a Readings section in non-Japanese entries. Are concepts like on'yomi and kun'yomi found in Okinawan? —suzukaze (t・c) 06:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

reading of kanji compounds

@Suzukaze-c I wonder if this template can be used for kanji compounds. This would benefit entries like 上下, of which most readings are spelled with okurigana and probably doesn't deserve even a {{ja-see}}. --Dine2016 (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Questions concerning what should be listed under kun readings.

• Is a conjugated form (particularly a stem form) of one reading considered a distinct reading?
• What about variant okurigana spellings? (in terms of wikitext, readings that differ only in the location of the hyphen)
• Variant pronunciation?
• Should archaic readings be included? If so, is there (or should there be) a way to indicate them as archaic?
• How should entries be ordered?

For example, 過 currently has the following 12 kun readings:

1. あやま-つ (ayama-tsu) - Jōyō, high school-level
2. あやま-ち (ayama-chi) - stem form of (1), but Jōyō in its own right, high school-level)
3. あやまち- (ayamachi) - variant okurigana of (2)
4. す-ぐ (su-gu) - archaic form of (7)
5. す-ぐす (su-gusu) - variant pronunciation of (9)
6. す-ぐる (su-guru) - attributive form of (4)
7. す-ぎる (su-giru) - Jōyō, elementary school-level
8. すぎ- (sugi) - stem form of (7), variant okurigana
9. す-ごす (su-gosu) - Jōyō, elementary school-level
10. すご-す (sugo-su) - variant okurigana of (9)
11. よ-ぎる (yo-giru) - variant okurigana of (12), not differentiable from (7) in text unless written all in kana
12. よぎ-る (yogi-ru) - Hyōgai reading

In comparison, sites returned by a Google search for "過 訓読み" ([1] [2] [3] and also the ja.wiktionary sister page) typically give six or fewer readings, more-or-less in this order:

• す-ぎる
• す-ごす
• あやま-つ
• あやま-ち
• とが
• よぎ-る

173.72.25.105 23:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@173.72.25.105:

• Is a conjugated form (particularly a stem form) of one reading considered a distinct reading?

If it is used in any sense distinct from its role as that conjugated form, then yes. For あやまち, for instance, that is used as a standalone noun with some notable frequency, in a way that deviates somewhat from just the gerundive or infinitive (i.e. 連用形) of あやまつ. By way of comparison, つけられ is the stem of つけられる, but as best I can tell, it is only ever used as the 連用形 of つけられる.

• What about variant okurigana spellings? (in terms of wikitext, readings that differ only in the location of the hyphen)

There have been different approaches. Some editors have listed all okurigana combinations given in various references, while others have focused on the main okurigana derived from morphological rules (for 過, everything after the initial す should be okurigana, since these all derive from older changing final mora ～ぐ). Years ago I was more in the former camp, and now I'm more in the latter. If a given different-okurigana form is common enough, I think that might warrant a note in the body of the relevant entry -- but I don't think it belongs in the kun'yomi list on the individual-kanji page.

• Variant pronunciation?
• Should archaic readings be included? If so, is there (or should there be) a way to indicate them as archaic?

There is a lot of overlap here. For instance, your #5 is described as variant, but it might be more accurate to label it as archaic -- it is attested already in the Many'ōshū, later falling out of use before the modern period. Either way, most other online dictionaries focus only on mainstream modern usage. Our focus is much broader, and includes attestable historical and (to some extent) dialectal variations. As a logical extension of this difference in approach, our entries will generally list more readings than other online dictionaries.

• How should entries be ordered?

There is no set standard, from what I've seen. Some folks list in kana order, others list base forms in kana order (such as すぐ, the base for すぎる・すごす・等) with derivatives listed in kana order immediately after each base.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

idea: highlight JIS X 0208 readings too?

w:JIS X 0208#Arrangement —Fish bowl (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)