I will reply to messages wherever they are posted. Thus, if you leave a message here, I will respond here. If I leave a message on your page, please respond on your page; I will be watching it.


Baka edit

Hi. Thanks for helping out at Baka. It didn't seem plausible. However, it's most likely a clever folk etymology. Anyway, greetings to a kindred spirit. My hobby is dialectology and historical linguistics, though I focus on China. I recognize your area is Japan but if you have time to help with the Chinese entries here, that would be great (understandable if you don't, of course). Kindly, 达伟 01:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Votes/2010-04/Voting_policy edit

Just letting you know of this surprisingly contentious vote. Input from more Wiktionarians such as yourself would be much appreciated. Thanks. – Krun 09:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I speak... edit

Hi, Bendono. In the entry do you speak English the Japanese translation is given as 英語話せますか。 , whereas in a Japanese grammar which I am perusing there is one illustrative sentence すこし日本語話せます。 I understand well the second sentence, but why is the particle in it instead of after 日本語? Because there is すこし, a bit, or because of the question in the first case, the か particle in the end. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bogorm. Do not be led astray by sukosi or ka, which are immaterial here. The first sentence can also be eigo ga hanasemasu ka. The general pattern is "NP wo V-ru" --> "NP ga V-eru". It is only recently that "NP wo V-eru" has become possible, but prescriptivist and school grammar typically will not recognize it as correct. The same phenomenon occurs with -tai: "NP wo V-ru" -> "NP ga V-tai". Regards, Bendono 23:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the explanation. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 05:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

check edit

Hi. This is a hoax, isn't it? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unsure. Would need to look for quotations predating the introduction of YMCA to Japan. The Japanese Wikipedia does suggest this, though. I am on a business trip for the next two weeks. Will try to check when I get back. Bendono 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I reverted the change. Early citations may be found beginning around 1786, which is the formation of YMCA in 1844 in London and the later introduction to Japan. Bendono 20:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for correcting the entry. I have taken it upon myself to try to make entries tagged with rfc-structure tags conform to WT:ELE. As many entries with such tags are in languages I don't know, there is a high risk of error. OTOH, no one else seems to look at items so tagged, even though they also appear on the various language attention lists as well. If I don't grasp the nettle, they might languish for months, even years. Also, I often either get it right or no one notices my errors. Feel free to correct my errors. I can take no offense. But please try to get entries into ELE format, of course respecting the needs of Japanese entries. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

J-K Cognates edit

Separate from the 活用 term discussion, I wonder if you're interested in / know much about Japanese - Korean cognates? I've been chewing on Japanese etymologies and semantic interrelationships for several years, but not many other people in my real-life circles are at all interested in such things, and attempts at conversation usually result in rapid eye-glazing.  :-/ I've found a few semantic clusters that seem to match in J and K, and am curious what you'd think, if you're interested.

Also, have you by any chance read The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages? If so, is it any good? I'm thinking of getting a copy some day (when I'm not so busy and my reading list has cleared out some).


-- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 04:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi User:Eirikr. Sorry for the very late response. As you're probably noticed, I am not very active here anymore. As for the above book, yes I have read it. It is an interesting read, but I must warn you that it is weak on linguistics. After reading it, I strongly recommend Koreo-Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin by Vovin. It systematically demonstrates that nearly all so-called cognates to date are false. Bendono (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the recommendation. In the intervening years, I have picked up a copy of both books. I'm only partway through The Role..., and so far I agree with your assessment of Unger. I haven't had time to read Koreo-Japonica yet. I did read a couple of Vovin's other papers as found (quite by happy accident) on, and ran across a few concerns where he seems to misparse OJP in a couple places (apparently misanalyzing a suffixing 連用形 as instead a prefix for the following verb, that kind of thing). I'm looking forward to getting into his book, though with my current workload and life structure, it might be a while before I have the bandwidth.
Anyway, thank you again! Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

YamaYomo ablaut edit

A user with limited JA knowledge recently removed your mention of the relationship between and 黄泉. I'd greatly appreciate any leads you might have to resources that call out this relationship so we can add a reference to the 黄泉 entry, and indeed any resources that discuss this kind of ablaut phenomenon in Japonic. I've noticed what appears to be a very old similar mechanic, which I noticed first in verb stems, where /a/ seems to denote "outward; between" and /o/ seems to denote "inward; within". I see this in nouns and adjective stems too. Compare ひら・ひろ, つば・つぼ, たむ・とむ, あく・おく, つむ→つまる・つもる, root has- as in はし・はさむ versus hos- as in ほそい, たわ・とを, やま・よも, etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

izuko and idoko citations edit

If I recall correctly, the Tosa Diary probably came in two versions, the Kunai-fu Zushoryō-bon (idoko) and the Seikeishoyaoku-bon (izuko).

Your citation with the いずこ (izuko) reading is from the New Compendium of Classical Japanese Literature, volume 24: Tosa Diary, [etc.] from 1989. Probably matches the latter version. However, the Daijirin, Daijisen, Nihon Kokugo Dai Jiten reference the former. May I suggest you at least upload the page/selection from the compendium to prove any unlikeliness of scribal errors? No copyright infringement intended. ~ POKéTalker02:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have given the ISBN. It is there so that you or other people can easily confirm it if in doubt. It is not my responsibility to prove such things. 古典文学大系 (both new and old) is the standard for classical Japanese texts. Further, there are far more than "two versions" of the text. The term you are looking for is manuscript (写本), of which they are grouped into three branches: 1) the Fujiwara no Teika manuscripts, 2) Fujiwara no Tameie manuscripts, and 3) Matsunoki Munetsuna manuscripts. Each branch has many subsequent copies. Manuscript historians (such as Ikeda Kikan) believe that the Seikeishookubon (青谿書屋本)--which derives from the Fujiwara no Tameie manuscript--is closest to the original manuscript. It is this manuscript that the this text is based on.
In any case, here is a copy of the page. Note highlighted portions. Also, note the highlighted note that contrary to the izuko here, it is idoko in three other manuscripts. Bendono (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Added a note on each pronoun regarding which uses which. Guess I have to start reviewing much of my "redaction revisions" from your original edits (based on, of course, compendiums and etc.) as dictionaries may not quote any said differences... 39, ~ POKéTalker06:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

OJP pronoun na edit

Thank you for your recent updates. I'd long wondered about the possible connection between this and the similar Korean pronouns.

This entry is currently split / partially duplicated at and . With the development of the {{ja-see}} template, we've been slowly shifting to a single-home approach for data, where all the key info lives at a single page, and alternative forms refer back to that using {{ja-see}}. For yamato kotoba, we've (generally) been moving the lemma entries to the kana spellings. For an example, please see 横切る, 横ぎる, and よこぎる.

Would you object to similarly collapsing the relevant content at and ? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

No objections at all. I would definitely prefer lemma to be the kana spelling, not only for so-called native Japanese words but all Japanese words. I remember discussing this ages ago here but was rejected by senior editors who said that Wiktionary is different from a paper dictionary and can accommodate all forms blah blah blah. That may technically be true, but without a way to synchronize between kana, kanji, and romanization entries it is nonsense for a serious Japanese dictionary. And years later we are all still paying the price for such poor discussions. Bendono (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the reply.
"all still paying the price" -- indeed. Oofda.
User:Dine2016 and his later nicks did some very good work in setting up {{ja-see}} and similar templates, somewhat alleviating the painfulness of our current predicament. There have been deeper-level discussions of reworking the data structure -- placing all the data for an entry at an unambiguous address, such as くる/来る, differentiated from きたる/来る and くる/繰る etc., and then transcluding that data into all relevant graphemic representations, such that the くる page would have sections for the 来る sense, the 繰る sense, etc. and the 来る page would have sections for the くる sense, the きたる sense, etc. If you're at all interested, I can dig up the links. However, so far, other editors -- notably, those not working so much in the Japanese space -- raise an unholy stink every time we bring up any such reorganization in a broader forum like the Beer Parlor.
Re: the current consensus on where to lemmatize Japanese entries (inasmuch as we have one) is to put yamato kotoba at the kana spelling, since those terms are often tied more closely to their phonemic representations, and often have multiple kanji spellings that add nuance but generally don't affect core meaning; and to put kara kotoba at the kanji spellings, since those terms are often tied more closely to their graphemic representations. That said, the past practice has been to lemmatize at kanji spellings (plus okurigana if there are any), so new entries still get created that way out of inertia.
Hope this helps explain the current state. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Page references to ancient texts edit

Hello, Bendono. If I understand correctly, you added an examples to 言う like this one:

  • c. 890: Taketori Monogatari (page 7)

My question is, what is that page reference? I assume it is some publication more recent than the ninth century, but there is no indication of which one. It would be helpful, I think, if you indicate the version you consulted, as well as the original work. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Cnilep Sorry for the late response. The reference is in the References section. The Iwanami edition is the standard reference for pretty much all classical Japanese texts. Bendono (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Horiuchi, Hideaki; Ken Akiyama (1997) Taketori Monogatari, Ise Monogatari, Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten, →ISBN

None taken edit

Hello, Bendono. Regarding this comment, as no quotations were moved from , it seems that your comment refers to my editing. That is absolutely fine; you and I disagree about some things, and discussing them is how we arrive at consensus. But discussions not related to 庭 might be better had at my or your User talk page. If you prefer to involve more editors, that's also fine, as with the recent Tea room discussion.

To be clear, no quotations were removed from 庭. Some were added at Citations:庭, and a {{seemoreCites}} template added in the main entry.

I moved two quotations from おめこ to Citations:おめこ because they give a katakana transliteration and a gloss of the word, rather than illustrating how the word is used. You moved them back, which, again, is fine (though I would still prefer to see actual use illustrated on the page).

Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Shinyaku Kegonkyo Ongi Shiki edit

@Bendono Why is it that I can't find this text publicly accessible anywhere despite the text being over a millennium old? You have added citations of this text before. Chuterix (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can purchase it from the publisher here. It says it is in stock. I have it on my bookshelf too if you need me to look something up. If you are in Japan, many large university libraries should have it as well. Bendono (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Bendono Can I have all of the manyogana usage in there? Chuterix (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix Which word are you looking for? Bendono (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
every word that exists in the book (including non glosses) Chuterix (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
What is your plan to achieve that? Go through all 199 pages of the text and create such an index? That is called scholarship and takes a considerable amount of time and skill, assuming you're able to decipher all of the handwriting.
This publication comes with a complete index with that kind of information. However, reproducing it in full without the publisher's permission is inappropriate and essentially stealing. I am willing to lookup individual words, but not copying the list and putting it on the Internet. Bendono (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Bendono: Ask @Kwamikagami via his talk page for distribution questions; because he sent me 3 works by Hirayama Teruo and Nakasone (1983) via email as a PDF file attachment. I do not distribute the copies on the public internet.
If I were to choose to look up individual words: does (nuka, rice bran) exist? Chuterix (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, <nuka> is not found in this text. If you are looking for man'yōgana usage, you can find it in 新撰字鏡 and 和名類聚抄.
新撰字鏡: 秔 俗作糠、不黏稲也、志良介米、又米志良久、又奴加
和名類聚抄: 糠 沼賀、米皮也
Bendono (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Bendono does (inu, dog) exist in the SKOS? Chuterix (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
No. I checked a few of my resources, and there is very little man'yōgana for <inu>. It is my impression that the Chinese 犬/狗 term was basic enough not to require a Japanese gloss. There is a partial annotation 狗 伊ぬ in a c.810 霊異記 manuscript. There are also records of personal names containing the word "dog" in it such as 伊奴売(年五十三), based on the 十二支. Others citations can be found in compounds, such as <inuzimono> 伊奴時母能 "dog-like" (Man'yōshū 886). Bendono (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Bendono What about (usagi)? Chuterix (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
No. You can find it in 本草和名, 和名類聚抄, and 医心方 though.
Don't forget about <wosagi>, which you can find attested in 万葉集. Bendono (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
wosagji is EOJ, though. Chuterix (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
What about (kuki, stalk) or (yubi, oyobi, finger)? Chuterix (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
No and no. Bendono (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Bendono: Why is everything in the SKOS sparse? Does (uo, io < uwo, iwo, fish) even exist? Any animal, at all? 苦い (nigai < nigashi, bitter)? Chuterix (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Bendono What about (oni, ghost; demon, orge)? Chuterix (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

An old quotation you added edit

Hiya - you added a quotation to (あめ) (ame) back in 2009 from 『和名類聚抄』, and used ■ as a placeholder for a character you couldn't track down at the time. Would it please be possible for you to fill it in? I assume it's probably been encoded by now, and it's much easier to find the encodings for rare kanji than it was back then. Thanks so much. Theknightwho (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Theknightwho, I rechecked my texts, but it looks like you already beat me to it. Note that the printing in 和名類聚抄 for 饊 is not so clear, but it sources 新撰字鏡, which I also have. It is clearer there. Here is a quick photo for reference. Bendono (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bendono (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Bendono Fab - thank you! Theknightwho (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply