Template talk:ja-spellings
Latest comment: 5 years ago by KevinUp in topic kyūjitai
Turn this into a morphology template? edit
withdrawing this
As you know, I've always wanted to remodel the Japanese entry layout after the Chinese one, in order to solve the two problems which makes the Wiktionary-default entry layout unsuitable for Japanese:
- A Japanese entry usually have more than one spelling, and therefore must appear on multiple entries;
- Homographs are common, especially when ancient words are included.
The solution I see is to use a soft-redirect system similar to Chinese entries: the lemma entry uses {{ja-forms}} to link to non-lemma spellings, and non-lemma spellings use {{ja-see}} to link to the lemma form, with these two templates modeled after {{zh-forms}} and {{zh-see}}.
Thus, Japanese entries are expected to have the following structure:
==Japanese== <lexeme> |
==Japanese== ===Etymology 1=== <lexeme 1> ===Etymology 2=== <lexeme 2> ===Etymology 3=== <lexeme 3> ... |
where each <lexeme> is either a lemma entry or a non-lemma entry, signified whether it begins with {{ja-forms}} or {{ja-see}} respectively.
I created this template ({{ja-kanji spellings}}) as a substitute of what was to be {{ja-forms}} (whose name was already taken). It had the basic feature to list all the spellings of an entry as well as to link to its non-lemma forms. Unfortunately (1) I was not good at web design and it looked ugly, and (2) the problem of where to place {{ja-kanjitab}}s remained. However, it fell short of the features of {{zh-forms}} which it was modeled after: to show the internal structure of the term. For example, the Chinese entry 國際音標 had |type=22 to show it was a compound of 國際 + 音標, but the similar Japanese entry 国際音声記号 has no such information, so the word structure must be shown in the etymology section.
Therefore I'd like to propose adding morphology information to this template:
| international; (obs) diplomatic intercourse | phonetic symbol | |
|---|---|---|
| hiragana | こくさい | おんせいきごう |
| kanji (国際音声記号) | 国際 | 音声記号 |
(The resulting template is meant to be put on the lemma entry. Information about individual kanji is still to be handled by {{ja-kanjitab}}, which can be either centralized or listed on the individual non-lemma entries.)
What do you think about such an approach? 草草頓首
(Notifying Eirikr, Wyang, TAKASUGI Shinji, Nibiko, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c, Poketalker, Cnilep, Britannic124, Fumiko Take, Nardog, Marlin Setia1, AstroVulpes, Tsukuyone, Aogaeru4): --Dine2016 (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I’m not against using it, but isn’t it enough to explain word formation in the etymology section? I think there aren’t so many cases where word boundaries are different. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- @TAKASUGI Shinji: Thanks for your reply. For compounds, word formation is obvious in most cases. If you explain it in the etymology section, you probably need to type something like
{{com|ja|インド|ヨーロッパ|語族|tr1=Indo|t1=[[India]]|tr2=Yōroppa|t2=[[Europe]]|tr3=gozoku|t3=[[language family]]}}. On the other hand, you could just have{{ja-forms|インド ・ ヨーロッパ 語族|h=インド ・ ヨーロッパ ごぞく}}and the template will fill the rest automatically. Of course, there are many problems and difficulties with such an approach, especially when concerning 和語. --Dine2016 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)- Although this proposal is withdrawn, I think it is a good idea to show information such as 国際 + 音声記号, perhaps as an extension under
{{ja-kanjitab}}. There is too much information if I were to click on each kanji: 国 + 際 + 音 + 声 + 記 + 号 (国 + 際 + 音 + 声 + 記 + 号). By the way, this proposal works best for Sino-Japanese compounds that are written without okurigana. KevinUp (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Although this proposal is withdrawn, I think it is a good idea to show information such as 国際 + 音声記号, perhaps as an extension under
- @TAKASUGI Shinji: Thanks for your reply. For compounds, word formation is obvious in most cases. If you explain it in the etymology section, you probably need to type something like
Accent reference carried from kana entry edit
@Dine2016, please take a look at 加留多, is this normal? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 22:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Poketalker: It's fixed; thanks for reporting the problem. (It was a problem in Module:ja-parse, which only removed references in the form
<ref...</ref>, not<ref.../>.) --Dine2016 (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
kyūjitai edit
@Dine2016: Is kyūjitai underwithin the scope of this template? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Suzukaze-c: Thanks for the question. I considered kyūjitai (and other orthographical variations such as 日々 vs 日日) to be specific to spellings rather than words, so I left them out when making this template, leaving them for
{{ja-kanjitab}}for handle.
{{ja-spellings|ひろがる|広がる|拡がる}} // to be put on whatever is chosen as the main entry
{{ja-kanjitab|k=廣がる|ひろ|yomi=k}} // to be put on 広がる
{{ja-kanjitab|k=擴がる|ひろ|yomi=k}} // to be put on 拡がる
- I'm not sure if this is the best approach, though. What's your thought? --Dine2016 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I forgot that my original plan was to make them generated automatically (except for ambiguous cases like 弁 and 芸). --Dine2016 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dine2016: I had thought that such variations might be within the scope (being mere alternative spellings), but including them in your concept of
{{ja-kanjitab}}also makes sense. It would be more concise, as well. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)- Actually, I put off kyūjitai because there are other issues to be solved (such as how to display the kyūjitai if it's unified with the shinjitai in Unicode, e.g. 漢). --Dine2016 (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- ah, my favorite part of unicode~ they did such a great job with han unification. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 09:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Um…, a few Hongkongese are unhappy about it: [1] [2]. I guess it has something to do with the lack of an official standard of kyūjitai. --Dine2016 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- (is sarcasm _(：3 」∠ )_ —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 17:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC))
- Um…, a few Hongkongese are unhappy about it: [1] [2]. I guess it has something to do with the lack of an official standard of kyūjitai. --Dine2016 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- ah, my favorite part of unicode~ they did such a great job with han unification. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 09:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, I put off kyūjitai because there are other issues to be solved (such as how to display the kyūjitai if it's unified with the shinjitai in Unicode, e.g. 漢). --Dine2016 (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dine2016: I had thought that such variations might be within the scope (being mere alternative spellings), but including them in your concept of
- Ah, I forgot that my original plan was to make them generated automatically (except for ambiguous cases like 弁 and 芸). --Dine2016 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c Which kyūjitai standard do you prefer - JIS X 0208 / JIS X 0213 or Unicode? If the latter, we might as well use pictures for unified characters such as 漢. Also, do you happen to be aware of any shin-to-kyū conversion table which follows one of the listed standards? --Dine2016 (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dine2016: I'm not sure (´・ω・｀) Perhaps we should follow JIS use of codepoints, to align with Japanese computing, but the shape of the characters is also important … I like how the Chinese Wikipedia page for 旧字体 uses CJK compatibility characters, and there is also the possibility of using Unicode variation selectors. wikisource:ja:ヘルプ:異体字 might be worth looking at. As for lists, what about jaglyphwiki:Group:常用漢字の旧字体 or [3]? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 19:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dine2016 Hey there. I compiled the following shinjitai to kyūjitai conversion list:
- No. 1 to No. 362 are from Jōyō kanji (2010).
- No. 363 to No. 380 are from Jinmeiyō kanji (2015) (212 kanji that already appear in Jōyō kanji (2010) are omitted).
- No. 381 to No. 398 are from Hyōgai kanji (2000) (4 kanji already listed in Jōyō kanji or Jinmeiyō kanji are omitted).
- Codepoints of compatibility ideographs have been bolded. Also, note that shinjitai 弁 (
U+5F01) corresponds to three different kyūjitai. For Jōyō kanji, all codepoints are obtained by converting PDF files into text files. KevinUp (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dine2016 Hey there. I compiled the following shinjitai to kyūjitai conversion list:
| Extended content |
|---|
|
@KevinUp: Thanks a lot! Though I would like to add 欠（けつ＝缺、けん＝欠）・芸（げい＝藝、うん＝芸）・缶（かん＝罐、ふ＝缶） to the one-shin-to-multiple-kyū list. (Well, there are also cases like 虫（ちゅう＝蟲、き＝虫）・糸（し＝絲、べき＝糸）, in terms that reference the original glyphs such as 虫部 and 糸部.)
By the way, very curious why 篭-籠 isn't listed _(:зゝ∠)_ --Dine2016 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- 籠 is still the official form in Jōyō kanji (2010) and no shinjitai is listed for it. Japan has strict rules regarding character simplification and only shinjitai listed in official documents are considered official. Apparently, 篭 is still considered an extended shinjitai character. KevinUp (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- On an unrelated note, I noticed that the radical 辶 is written as three strokes for Jōyō kanji characters but reverts to its original form as four strokes (辶) for non Jōyō kanji characters such as Jinmeiyō kanji. KevinUp (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @KevinUp: Very nice. Out of curiosity, which PDF files were specifically used? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 20:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Suzukaze-c: (1) Jōyō kanji (2010) [4] (2) Jinmeiyō kanji (2015) [5] (3) Hyōgai kanji (2000) [6] - I obtained the codepoints manually for glyphs that are not part of Jōyō kanji. Also, the simplified forms in hyōgai kanji are known as 簡易慣用字体 (variant kanji that can be used in place of 印刷標準字体).
- Anyway, these are the official approved shinjitai. Hopefully we could have it all automated. I think we can consider shinjitai not found in the list above as 拡張新字体 (extended or unofficial shinjitai). KevinUp (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c should 𥳑 be listed as a kyujitai of 簡? This character isn't even supported on my Android phone (which uses Source Han Sans :) Dine2016 (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Dine2016: I don't know orz —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 20:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
romaji edit
Should we add romaji information to this template? Then we may drop spelling information from headings. This is an example layout:
| Hiragana | modern | まっとう (mattō) |
|---|---|---|
| historical | まつたう | |
| Kanji | 全う 真っ当 ateji, adjective only 完う literary | |
--115.27.198.88 21:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for bringing up this issue. Unlike the kana spellings, the romaji is dependent on the POS. For example, 本 (ほん) is romanized as “hon” as a noun (“book”), but “-hon” as a counter. 紫 (むらさき) is “murasaki” as a noun, but “Murasaki” as a proper noun. So I think it might be advantageous to let the romaji remain in the POS headers. On the other hand, I recognize that doing so would mean repeating the same information in every POS header, which can be tedious and error-prone. Which is why I proposed a “unified Japanese” entry layout similar to that of Chinese. Such an entry layout puts the romaji in the pronunciation template, because the romaji is closer to actual pronunciation than to modern kana spelling (gendai kanazukai). Finally, if we still want to put the romaji in the ja-spellings box, it is better to give the romaji a separate row, below kana and kanji. By doing so there will be abundant space to add both Hepburn and Kunrei-shiki romanizations. I personally don't like adding anything to the right of any kana or kanji spelling listed in the ja-spellings box, because it would make the kana and kanji spellings no longer centered in the box and vertically aligned. Thanks. --Dine2016 (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)