Not much going on here at present. Feel free to drop a line. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

(old, deprecated)



golden rule


Hiya. Would you mind checking the Japanese translation provided here? The Chinese one happened to be inaccurate, so it's possible the Japanese one is as well. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: The Japanese there is actually good, thankfully.  :) See also the relevant page at Kotobank, and at Eijirō. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

How to archive


You mentioned at RFVN that you don't know how to archive discussions to talk pages. Here's how: go to WT:PREFS, select the gadget 'A Wondefool Archiver', and you'll get archive links that are pretty intuitive (though feel free to ask should you need help). Bear in mind that we generally let closed discussions sit for about a week before archiving them, in case there are any last-minute objections. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Μετάknowledge, many thanks! I've enabled the gadget, and I'll fumble through using it when an appropriate opportunity arises.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
You can repay me for the tip by closing some of the open Japanese sections at WT:RFVN. :)Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Μετάknowledge, what do you do when AWA times out and the corresponding Talk page isn't created? C.f. Talk:štaljba and diff. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
You could fix it by hand, but it's probably faster to revert your edit and try again when conditions are better (not sure if it's due to client-side conditions or the page itself). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Μετάknowledge: Thanks, I did just that and it worked this time.  :) Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Grammatical terms for Japanese


Hi, this is Dine2016. The Japanese conjugation tables ({{ja-go-u}}, etc.) currently label desu/masu forms as "formal". But I think such forms should be labeled "polite", while "formal" should be used for the written style that substitutes de aru for da, the continuative stem for the -te form (for mid-sentence pauses), etc.

Similarly, I think the different kinds of conditional forms can be called "-ba conditional" and "-tara conditional" (with nara and to regarded as particles), because assignment of labels like "conditional", "provisional" and "hypothetical" to the forms can be arbitrary. For example, {{ja-adj-infl}} labels -ba "conditional" and -tara "provisional", but exactly the opposite assignment appears in Samuel E. Martin's Reference Grammar of Japanese, which also has "hypothetical" for the older -(a)ba form (as in isogaba maware).

What do you think? Is there a set of universally acceptable grammatical terms for Japanese? (@Suzukaze-c, Huhu9001, Cnilep and others - I've long forgotten) --2409:894C:3C3C:161:7AD6:AF84:B254:35CC 06:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is my idea: User:Huhu9001/001. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@2409:894C:3C3C:161:7AD6:AF84:B254:35CC: You can use {{subst:wgping|ja}} to notify all Japanese editors. By the way, I don't think anyone will blame you for using your old account. I personally hate to reply to an IP because I am not sure whether they will receive the notification. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Um... I don't think the difference between -ba and -tara can be framed as "present-future" and "past". --2409:894C:3C34:33D6:24BB:3652:152B:9525 02:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, the ~たら and ~ば endings have nothing to do with grammatical tense (when something occurs, in relation to the contextual "now"), and instead express aspect (~たら expresses a conditional aspect, derived historically from a conditional predicated on the assumption that the action completed [this completion aspect isn't so prevalent in modern usage]; ~ば expresses a conditional with more of a nuance of necessary precondition for the following statement).
For that matter, ~たら is a truncation of older ~たらば, itself a contraction of ~て + あらば. The ~て ending indicates completion, not any kind of infinitiveness. The completion aspect is less in modern usage than in the past, but it's still there. Compare:
  • ご飯を食べテレビを見る -- [I] eat and watch TV (possibly at the same time)
  • ご飯を食べてテレビを見る -- [I] eat and then watch TV (as distinct actions, possibly separated in time)
Looking at Huhu9001's table, there is some terminological confusion in the labeling, and perhaps a bit more blank space than would be ideal. That said, I like that Huhu9001's table includes more forms than our current setup. I wonder if we couldn't include even more useful forms, like the causative-passive, polite conditional, etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Agreed on including more useful forms. But I don't think "polite conditional" is useful. I've only seen -mashitara in super-polite speech (like man'ichi furyōhin ga arimashitara ...) and -masureba and -maseba are very rare.
But I'm suggesting changes that can be applied to the current templates now. A complete overhaul probably won't take place in a year, given the current situation. --2409:894C:3C12:1CA0:F108:1AA4:C327:7ADD 05:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
WTF? て has lots of senses and many of them do not have a so-called "completion aspect".
2 原因・理由を表す。…ので。…ために。「頭が痛くて寝ていた」
3 手段・方法を表す。「歩いて通学する」「泣いて抗議する」
5 並立・添加を表す。「雨が降って風が吹く」「大きくて甘い柿」
6 逆接を表す。「わかっていて答えない」「見て見ぬふり」
7 (「…て…て」の形で)強調の意を表す。「売って売って売りまくる」
8 (「…について」「…に関して」「…に関して」「…にとって」などの形で)次の動作・作用の行われる事態・状況・関係事物などを提示する意を表す。「この問題に関して触れるならば」「我々にとって大事なことは」
9 補助動詞に続けて、動作・作用の内容を具体的に示す意を表す。「思い出してみる」「嫌になってしまう」
This is even true for Classical Japanese.
出典土佐日記 一二・二一
[訳] 住んでいる官舎から出て、船に乗ることになっている所へ移る。
出典徒然草 一九「六月(みなづき)のころ、あやしき家に夕顔の白く見えて、蚊遣(かや)り火ふすぶるもあはれなり」
[訳] 陰暦六月のころ、粗末な家(の塀)に夕顔の花が白く見えて、そして蚊遣り火がくすぶっているのももの寂しく心ひかれる。
出典徒然草 一三七「さはることありてまからで」
[訳] さしつかえる事があるので、(花見に)参りませんで。
出典徒然草 一四一「都の人は言承(ことう)けのみよくて、実(まこと)なし」
[訳] 都の人は口先の返事だけは感じがよくても、誠実味がない。
出典万葉集 三七一二「ぬばたまの(=枕詞(まくらことば))妹(いも)が乾(ほ)すべくあらなくにわが衣手を濡(ぬ)れていかにせむ」
[訳] 妻が(そばにいて)干してくれるわけでもないのに、私の袖(そで)がぬれたらどうしよう。
出典竹取物語 かぐや姫の生ひ立ち
[訳] (竹の中に)三寸(=約九センチ)ほどである人が、とてもかわいらしいようすで座っている。
出典土佐日記 一二・二一「男もすなる日記(にき)といふものを、女もしてみむとてするなり」
[訳] 男も書くという日記というものを、女(である私)も書いてみようと思って書くのである。
Did you ever read Japanese grammar books? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  1. Re-read what I posted. My core point is that this is in not an infinitive.
  2. Work on your social awareness skills and civility. Abusiveness is not tolerated.
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
So you chose not to read my post, while asking me to read yours? You are so good at social awareness skills and civility. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Huhu9001: It seems you would prefer to be blocked rather than to engage in civil communication. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Mamma mia. The admin is furious. I am so scared. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
As you wish. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

By the way, "-te form" vs "te-form", which should be preferred? --2409:894C:3C34:33D6:24BB:3652:152B:9525 02:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I prefer "-te form", since the て is essentially a verb suffix, and suffix notation in English contexts is to include the hyphen before the suffix.
If this "-te form" were to be used as a compound modifier, qualifying some other noun, then the general rule in English is to hyphenate the compound modifier: "-te-form hypothesis", "-te-form-related sound changes", etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
In traditional Japanese grammar te is not a suffix but a particle (joshi). The traditional grammar offers two levels of word division, phonologically ("kodomoni | benkyōsasete") and morphologically ("kodomo | ni | benkyō-sa | se | te" -- the "a" properly belongs to the next morpheme), neither of which corresponds to our usual notion of a word as reflected in our romanization (kodomo ni benkyō sasete). Maybe it's better to avoid the issue ("te form") whenever the grammars disagree? --2409:894C:3C12:285D:82F1:9FDB:E8CC:643A 06:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@2409:894C:3C12:285D:82F1:9FDB:E8CC:643A: I'm fine with using "te form" with no hyphen. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I haven't read any grammars and cannot provide input. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Suzukaze-c: Thanks all the same.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

We are used to regarding (← ある) and たら (← あらば) as two separate endings, but in the traditional 六活用形 system たら is not a 接続助詞 but the 仮定形 of the 助動詞 . (That's why you won't find it under たら in a kokugo dictionary.) @Huhu9001's label "past" may be an allusion to this.

My opinion is that we should follow the 六活用形 system when it's convenient, but deviate from it when alternative explanations are better. The 六活用形 system used to be popular in teaching Japanese in China, but recent Chinese textbooks treat and たら as distinct endings, which I guess English textbooks also do, and that's what we should do too. (Similarly, I have also deviated from the 六活用形 system at り#Etymology 2.) --2409:894C:3C30:12FB:8466:2481:7893:D51F 03:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply



jawiki says it's from 見ていて痛々しい. Though the spelling is different(kuruma vs. sha), the words made up of pure kanji tend to change to 音読み. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: I think you might be misreading the JA WP article. Here's the text that I think you're referring to, from the first sentence at ja:w:痛車#概要 (bolding mine):


This is a description of the meaning behind the term. That's not the same as saying it's a shortening of ()いて痛々(いたいた)しい(くるま) (mite ite itaitashii kuruma). A shortening might produce itaitaguruma, even itaguruma, but not itasha.
The very next clause in the sentence clarifies that this term is not directly from 痛々(いたいた)しい (itaitashii), and is instead composed using (いた) (itai):


I don't have access to the referenced book, 『オタクのことが面白いほどわかる本』, but based on the text of the Wikipedia article, this is clearly (いた) (itai) used in a slangy "cringeworthy" sense rather than literally "painful", plus (しゃ) (sha) in reference to vehicles.
I hope that better explains my edit? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think 痛々しい is just a stronger version of 痛い, so means cringeworthy as well, because "painful car" makes no sense.
Another reference: [1]
For my sense of Japanese, this is exactly shortening. Anyway, I'd like to invite @Suzukaze-c. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: I welcome input from others. @TAKASUGI Shinji, perhaps as a native speaker, you might have additional perspective?
Re: (いた) (itai), I did some further digging and found that the mentioned slang-y sense with semantic overlap with 痛々(いたいた)しい (itaitashii) is called out in the Daijisen entry here:

4 俗に、さも得意そうな言動がひどく場違いで、見るに堪えないさま。また、状況や立場・年齢にふさわしくない言動が周囲をあきれさせるさま。

Your additional source brings an additional angle, regarding Ferrari cars and イタリア車, which is quite interesting: using (いた) (ita) in both its "cringeworthy" sense, and in a pun on the イタ (ita) in イタリア (Itaria). The last sentence there:


That article has a copyright notice at the bottom of 2009, so I wonder if that might count as "durably archived" for purposes of WT:CFI. Worth looking into. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I’m not sure about the etymology of 痛車, but I think otakus use only 痛い in that context. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be simple, can 痛車(sha) be a shortening form of 見ていて痛々しい車(kuruma), even if the spelling mismatch? I know that 日本 was spelled as hinomoto before nihhon. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: I was hoping someone else might chime in, but since no one else has :), here's my take.
  • A term can be a straightforward shortening of another term if the phonological elements of the shortened derivation are present in some form in the parent etymon. That's my generalized understanding for all languages. Since sha as a phonological element doesn't exist in the phrase mite ite itaitashii kuruma, itasha cannot be just a shortening of the phrase. A shortening of mite ite itaitashii kuruma through simple mora deletion might result in mite ite itaitashii kurumaita-guruma (assuming here that any such product would include rendaku).
For Japanese more specifically, we can also consider the type of reading for any kanji included in the etymon. Shortening might give rise to sandhi phenomenon like gemination, rendaku, or renjō, but the resulting shorter form should still use the same reading types for all of the kanji as in the longer etymon. Since kuruma in mite ite itaitashii kuruma is kun'yomi while sha is on'yomi, this can't be just a shortening. If this is indeed directly from the phrase mite ite itaitashii kuruma, we could instead describe it as derived from shortening, plus a shift in reading (due perhaps to nuance, allusion, perceived coolness, other social register, etc.).
  • As a side note, the change from reading 日本 as Hi no Moto to Nihon is not a shortening, but rather a shift in reading, probably influenced by the consideration that Chinese was the prestige language of the region at the time, so Chinese-based readings were regarded more highly. Compare ()まり (kimari) versus 規定(きてい) (kitei), or 追加(ついか)する (tsuika suru) versus ()(くわ)える (tsukekuwaeru). This is vaguely similar to the dynamic in English, were Latinate words are regarded as higher-register -- more formal, more academic, fancier -- while the Germanic synonyms are regarded as lower-register -- homier, more intimate, less formal, less academic. Consider "nose surgery" versus "rhinoplasty", or "scatological humor" versus "poop joke".
See more at the Wikipedia article for w:Clipping_(morphology), and for good examples of Japanese clipping, see also w:Clipped_compound. The Clipped compound place names section of this latter page describes some of the reading shifts that happen in kanji-based clippings. Since these often involve changes in kanji reading types, for our purposes at Wiktionary, we cannot class these as just shortenings. Simple shortenings would include things like モンスターハンター (Monsutā Hantā)モンハン (Monhan), ポケットモンスター (Poketto Monsutā)ポケモン (Pokemon), or 国際連合(こくさいれんごう) (Kokusai Rengō)国連(こくれん) (Kokuren).
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's ok to distinguish this from shortening, then how to include this in the article? EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: We still don't have evidence of anyone saying that this is a shortening of ()いて痛々(いたいた)しい(くるま) (mite ite itaitashii kuruma). The JA WP article doesn't say this, nor does the additional source that you found at That page also mentions a phrase similar to ()いて痛々(いたいた)しい(くるま) (mite ite itaitashii kuruma) (as quoted above), but not as the origin of 痛車(いたしゃ) (itasha), sourcing that instead to 痛い (itai, in the sense of "cringeworthy", see also sense 4 from Daijisen) + (sha, vehicle, most often encountered as a suffix).
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Moved to tea. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

double object in Japanese and Korean


する#Usage notes says that you cannot say 日本語を勉強をする in Japanese, but you can say 일본어를 공부를 하다 in Korean. I added that note after searching the web for "일본어를 공부를" as well as some other "…어를 공부를". Are you able to help confirm this construction, or explain why it works(?) in Korean but not in Japanese? --2409:894C:3C16:275D:F128:9123:41:E4E 09:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maybe because Korean has more w:vowel harmony parts. Or one may think 日本語の勉強をする is already vowel harmony. (Totally based on my sense of language, no evidence from ancient languages at all) EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't think this question of object particles (reul) / (eul) in Korean or (o) in Japanese has anything to do with vowel harmony -- the particles are outside scope for that phenomenon in Korean, and Japanese doesn't currently have vowel harmony, and historical linguists are divided on whether it ever did.
For Japanese at least, there's a general stricture that any object particle must correlate with one verb. Occasionally that verb is implied and not explicitly stated, but it still works out to one (o), one verb. And Chinese-derived verbs like Japanese 勉強 (benkyō) are treated as compounds with the following する (suru), forming a single grammatical unit. It is possible to say 勉強する (benkyō o suru), but in this case, the 勉強 (benkyō) is treated as the object of する (suru), so no other object can be stated for this instance of する (suru).
I'm not as familiar with Korean grammar, but to extrapolate from what Dine2016 says above, it seems that Chinese-derived verbs are not treated as single grammatical units together with 하다 (hada), so apparently the transitivity is treated as separate for each piece, with one object for the 공부 (gongbu), and then another object for the 하다 (hada).
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Verb terminology


Dine2016, I agree with (what I think is) your edit comment at よう. At that time, I had referenced w:Japanese_godan_and_ichidan_verbs#Japanese_language_education, which uses the "Group" notation instead of the "type" notation, and which aligns with past materials I've used in both learning and teaching Japanese. I have no strong preference either way, but we should be mindful that Wikipedia's wording might inform the expectations of our other readers and editors. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The terms "type 1" and "type 2" come from our categories cat:Japanese type 1 verbs and cat:Japanese type 2 verbs. Maybe we should favor "godan" and "ichidan", and put everything else in mouseover text?
By the way, I've aligned う#Etymology 2 and よう#Etymology 3 so that they have the same senses (currently six). But I wonder if sense 6 is really a special case of sense 5. --2409:894C:3C12:15EB:F610:7E0F:74ED:F1C8 12:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree that godan and ichidan are more descriptive and less ambiguous -- even if someone doesn't know the terms, they are more distinct than "type 1" and "type 2". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response.


I appreciate your explanation.

I thought that, given that there have been Catholics in Japan since the days of St. Francis Xavier (so, the latter part of the 16th century), who did persist on their own even through notable times of persecution (and, thus, did not disappear and have to be totally re-established from nothing) there has to be some sort of established terminology for the kind of thing that I was talking about.

Hence why I brought it up. My thought was "「死の天使」 or some similar term must have some level of currency at least in certain communities in Japan, right? How could it not, given how long certain communities have existed there."

I tried doing some brief searching myself to see what, if anything, there might be on the subject. But I didn't find all that much. Most of what I found were translations of film and song titles.

Given that we list certain terms in a number of other languages that are largely confined to specific groups (ex. "하느님" and "천주" v. "하나님"), I thought that it wouldn't be especially strange for us to note the existence of a term in a language if it does indeed have actual currency in that language at least in some communities. Tharthan (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tharthan: Perhaps as a translation of the Western concept, yes, I think that 「死の天使」 is citable. Whether it's lexical or not is another matter, as this is basically just 天使 (tenshi, angel, literally heaven + envoy) with a qualifier stuck on front, and there are various other kinds of 天使 (tenshi). I do not see any entries for 「死の天使」 in my go-to references, online or dead-tree -- c.f. the lack of any hits at all at the Kotobank page at死の天使, and note too that all the hits at Weblio's死の天使 page are either the Japanese Wikipedia, or in the 短編小説作品名辞典 (Tanpen Shōsetsu Hinmei Jiten, “Short Novel Title Dictionary”), and are thus the titles of various published books.
The phrase angel of death in English has wider use, whereas my impression is that 「死の天使」 is limited to the Christian sense, and the metaphorical senses or "embodiment of death" senses are expressed using the native concept 死神 (shinigami). The translation tables at both English angel of death and Grim Reaper are headed by "embodiment of death", in which case shinigami is the only correct term, so far as I'm aware. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Etymology of せとか


Hello, Eirikr. I see that Digital Daijisen derives せとか from 早崎瀬戸. I saw that elsewhere, too, but I also saw others attribute it to 瀬戸町 in 愛媛県. I therefore left the English etymology deliberately vague, as "one or more Japanese place names". I'll leave it to you or others do decide what to do. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cheers @Cnilep, thanks for dropping a line! I've also found a bit more information, and will update the JA entry. I'll have a look at the EN later as time allows. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Cnilep, my Google-fu must be wonky today -- I can't find anything specifically about 愛媛県瀬戸町 and the origins of the name せとか. Do you have links? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, sorry – as I often do, I noticed the thing but didn't keep a note of where I saw it. Cnilep (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

とうすみ for 灯心


Hello, I want to add this to 灯心 and 心. But I don't know which on-yomi exactly is すみ (or しみ, [2]), can you help me? EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: it's a sound shift from shimi, so it should be an irregular reading of the heart kanji. For the latter placement, you can put it either the Compounds header or Derived terms header below the Affix header of shin for the same reason. ~ POKéTalker04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
しみ should be some kind of on-yomi. But I don't know what this is. しみ may be related to Buddism, because 灯明(トウミョウ) and 灯油(トウユ) in [3] are Buddism words. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • @EdwardAlexanderCrowley: There's a small handful of terms where a final ん shifted to み or に. Consider (zeni, money) from older regular on'yomi of sen. This 灯心 (tōshin) shift to tōshimi is another manifestation of this same phonological process.
In terms of reading type, zeni evolved from on'yomi, but is itself treated as kun'yomi. Since shimi is a much rarer reading for than zeni is for , I would suggest treating shimi as an irregular reading instead.
The tōsumi reading in turn developed from tōshimi, and is first attested several decades later if the KDJ entry is anything to go by. The sumi reading for should likewise be treated as irregular. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
しみ can be a "regular" reading, because しむ is an ancient reading. Compare いち and いつ for 一. I think this is go-on buddism word, but no evidence, so I've added it to "on=". EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
  1. The shimu reading is ancient and is not considered to be an on'yomi in any modern context I've encountered.
  2. The various mu kana in ancient texts were used to spell both /mu/ (modern む) and /ɴ/ (modern ん). Consequently, every word that contained an ん sound was spelled with one of the kana for む. The modern kana in fact derives from a hentaigana for む. The ancient on'yomi of shimu for is itself a reconstruction, based on the reconstructed pronunciation of Middle Chinese (MC sim).
  3. Even if we decided to treat shimu as a modern on'yomi, there's the problem that shimu is not shimi: the reading shimi is an irregular change.
In light of the above, I have reverted your addition of shimi as an on'yomi in the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
per [4] page 10 止宇之美(とうしみ), already this reading as of AD 938. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • @EdwardAlexanderCrowley, good find, yes, that's just after the 934 text shown in the KDJ entry I linked above. That said, this しみ reading for is treated as irregular, as a rare phonological shift from しん. I'm not aware of any Japanese reference work that lists the kanji with the reading しみ as an on'yomi. If you see any such reference, by all means please share the link with us, that would be a very useful comparison.
I suspect the word "ancient" might be the source of some confusion here. For single-kanji entries like , the ===Readings=== section shows the readings by category (on, kun, etc.). The "ancient" label on certain superscripted readings is in contrast to the "historical" label, and is intended to show readings that are not attested historically, but which are reconstructed for the ancient stage of the language (i.e. prehistoric, i.e. before we have any textual evidence). It seems it might be a good idea for us to update the {{ja-readings}} template to clarify what this use of "ancient" is meant to convey. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply



Hello Eirikr! I'm trying to make the edittools script work for my purpose, and I saw you had worked on maintaining the original work by Conrad Irwin. I tried to import your edittools.js and the associated section of your common.js. So this does add my customized edittools to the top of the MediaWiki edittools, but the blue link characters don't add their content to my edit view when I click on them. Does this script work at all for you, or am I missing something else? Thanks a lot for your help! Sitaron (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • @Sitaron: Unfortunately, edittools hasn't worked for me in some long while, and I haven't had the bandwidth or interest to puzzle out what's happened. I found myself particularly disheartened by the way the underlying MediaWiki framework has been changing, making it difficult to build upon, without investing a much greater time commitment than I can reasonably afford. For what it's worth, my symptoms are similar to yours -- my customized list appears, but none of the items are clickable.
I wish you luck! And if you do get it to work, please share your findings.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

ja-noun counter


寿司 has three counters, but ja-noun only accept one. Also, for , there're いくつかの光, いくつもの光, 一つの光, 一筋の光, 二筋の光, so つ and 筋. 光 is "usually uncountable" or "usually without counter", though there's no plural form. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: Was your post intended purely to be informative? It's not clear to me what you want from posting this?
Pretty much every noun can be counted using the hitotsu, futatsu counters. It sounds a bit funny for some things like animals, and it's insulting for humans, but aside from a few cases like this, these -tsu counters are pretty flexible.
Separately, there is no plural form for any Japanese noun. Japanese doesn't do plurals. The closest thing is use of the (-tachi) suffix, but that's not just a simple plural.
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
ja-noun only accept one counter, but 寿司 has three. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: Yes.  ???
In cases where a template doesn't support a particular edge case, we often use the ====Usage notes==== section to explain the details.
See also 寿司#Usage_notes for one such example. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply



Hi Eirikr, I have a question about the etymology of うまい. You wrote that "the term occasionally appears in texts from the Heian period (794–1185 CE) with the phonetic spelling mumashi". Could let me know what it looks like in the original script (and perhaps add it to the entry)? I've got no access to the cited source. Kpalion (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, about that edit of mine on 幸い you reverted


Hi. I'm pretty sure 怪我 only means injuries instead of those injured, so the Japanese for "Luckily, no one was hurt." should be 幸、怪我人はでなかった or something similar and 幸、怪我はなかった only means "Luckily, I am or he is not hurt." --Hzy980512 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Hzy980512, thank you for the ping! I saw two issues with your edit, and upon further review, I've realized that I was mistaken about one of them.
  • It looked like you had introduced a grammar error -- I visually mis-parsed your edit to read 怪我人 は で なかった, which might be a beginner mistake for 怪我人 で は なかった. But that was my mistake, not yours -- you had correctly entered でなかった as a single word, not as a particle usage error.
  • Separately, the change ultimately demonstrates the word 怪我人, which is not the same as the headword 怪我. The resulting sentence would be a good usex (usage example) in the 怪我人 entry, but not for the 怪我 entry.
As a suggestion, how about tweaking the translated English instead? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your reply! But I was actually editing the entry 幸い instead of 怪我, so I think it wouldn't matter that I change 怪我 to 怪我人 XD. Secondly, I thought it would be a bit confusing to translate 幸、怪我はなかった into English without context since there's no explicit mention in the Japanese text as to who is not injured, and that's why I edited the original Japanese text so that it actually fit the English translation. --Hzy980512 (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Hzy980512: I'm just on a roll tonight! Sheesh. Sorry for my ぼけぼけさ. I'll blame the heat -- it's been over 105°F / 40°C in Seattle today. Carry on, and please feel free to revert my earlier reversion. 😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

欄間 as transom window


Hello, Eirikr. You removed the definition "transom window" from 欄間 and linked to 欄間窓. That does indeed refer to a transom window. But 欄間 is also used for a window above an interior door, either covered with 和紙 or filled with a lattice of bamboo or wood sticks, without the fancy carving. Cnilep (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Cnilep, I tried to express that "lattice" option by adding the word "screen" to the definition line. Rewording may be warranted.  :)
Re: "window", I avoided that for a few reasons.
  • In English contexts, "window" in common parlance generally refers to something that is covered in glass and either always closed, or able to open and close, whereas 欄間 are (so far as I've seen and understood) always open, with no glass and no moving elements.
  • In bilingual contexts, there are separate entries for 欄間 and 欄間窓, indicating that these are different things. See Eijiro, which includes both terms on one page, and 欄間 at Weblio E-J J-E and also 欄間窓.
  • In Japanese contexts, the only places I've encountered 欄間窓 so far are cases of exterior walls that have transom windows. 欄間窓 does not appear to be a term used for these openings in interior transoms. In addition, descriptions of 欄間 in Japanese don't seem to mention 窓 at all, such as the varied entries at Kotobank. The JA WP article at ja:w:欄間 also specifically describes this as a feature of interior walls: 「部屋と部屋との境目や、部屋と廊下や縁側との境目に設けられ、」
All that said, the more I've looked into this term over the past couple days, the more I'm thinking that the base sense is simply transom in the non-nautical sense, most specifically an open transom, and the carving, or shōji, or screen, etc. is simply what goes in this space. The EN WP article at w:Transom_(architecture)#Japan appears to conflate the "transom opening" with the "dividers or ... carvings" that go in this opening. I'll do some more digging, see if I can find anyone specifically describing the term derivation any more clearly. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think maybe something like transom or transom opening gets at it better than transom window. Thanks for this! Cnilep (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply



Can I know which copy of Daijirin do you have? (regarding diff) Marlin Setia1 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was asking because it was on Weblio's Daijirin. Marlin Setia1 (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
(after edit conflict)
@Marlin Setia1: I could have sworn that my electronic copy is the 2006 edition that's listed in the {{R:Daijirin}} reference template. It took a while of digging, but I see now that this might be an older edition -- I can't seem to find an actual publication date, but certain of the data files are displayed in my file browser as unchanged since 1998. I think now that the 2006 edition must have been the electronic version that was formerly available via Kotobank, but which vanished from there not quite a year ago, which I'm guessing may have been due to a change in licensing terms.
@Suzukaze-c, apologies for my mistake. If you do indeed see 痴女 in your copy, and if yours is the 2006 edition, please restore the DJR ref there. If you see the entry, but your DJR is not the 2006 edition, we should probably create a separate template for whatever edition you do have, and maybe standardize the reference template names as something like {{R:Daijirin-[YEAR]}}.
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Marlin Setia1: Crikey, I didn't realize WebArchive had stored all of Weblio -- that's wonderful! It was most annoying when Daijirin vanished from the online aggregators. Thanks for the resource lead! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Eirikr: No problem. Also thanks for the response. Unrelated, but you literally stop thanking my edits since after I editted ロリータ・コンプレックス, and I was offended by that. Marlin Setia1 (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Marlin Setia1: I'm sorry you were offended. Since a couple weeks ago, probably around that time, I've been trying to limit how much time I spend on Wiktionary and Wikipedia (though admittedly with only limited success). As part of that, I've been doing less patrolling in general. Plus I just noticed that that particular page isn't on my watchlist, so I actually wouldn't have seen your change anyway. Be that as it may, I recognize that you're doing good work here -- to the point that I added the "autopatrolled" flag to your account on June 14, since I have seen no reason to distrust your edits. Thank you for your contributions, and I sincerely hope you continue! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oh, okay. Thanks for added me to autopatrolled list (and sorry for not thanking you earlier). Marlin Setia1 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Eirikr: I use(d) Weblio's copy of the Daijirin, and after its disappearance, the other copy which must not be spoken of. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Suzukaze-c: Thanks! I can't find 痴女 in that other copy either, FWIW... ?? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Nope 🙃 It must also be outdated. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reply to your question


This is Dine2016. I saw that you asked a question at Template talk:ja-see#Oddness at きかい.

Is this what happened?

  1. You decided that 器械 and 機械 are one word.
  2. You created it at 器械, and soft-redirected 機械 to it.
  3. You then listed both 器械 and 機械 in the {{ja-see-kango}} of きかい.
  4. You found that listing 器械 gave you both 器械 and 機械, while listing 機械 gave you nothing but an error message. You deleted 機械 from the {{ja-see-kango}} list and solved the problem.

If so, it's because {{ja-see}} and {{ja-see-kango}} distinguished between two concepts: words and spellings.

In this case, we have a single word with three spellings: 器械, 機械 and きかい. We've chosen to denote the word as 器械. Therefore きかい should redirect to the word 器械, and have the template automatically display the spellings 器械 and 機械. It shouldn't redirect to 機械 because there is no word called 機械.

Do you find this intuitive? If so, could you help me update the documentation? I'm unable to update it myself because I can't write good English. (The concept of words sketched above corresponds to entries in Japanese monolingual dictionaries, therefore it isn't always a “word”; sometimes it's a suffix, sometimes a Sino-Japanese morpheme, etc.) If many editors don't find this intuitive, I suggest deprecating the soft-redirect templates and return to the good old {{alternative spelling of}}, which doesn't require editors to think of words. --2409:894C:3C2A:3F5:5CB1:8EEB:ECC0:9C5E 11:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping! I've replied at Template_talk:ja-see#Oddness_at_きかい. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply



Could you create this problematic entry? My impression is that it is usually an adnominal word meaning 悩んでいる (e.g. 悩める少女) and occasionally a transitive verb (e.g. 頭を悩める).

Most Japanese monolingual dictionaries confirm the latter sense, but only Shinmeikai Kokugo Jiten confirm the former. In addition, NKD gives a 1921 example where 悩める is used as an intransitive verb. I'm a bit confused about the relationship between this intransitive verb (which inflects) and the progressive/stative adnominal form (which doesn't inflect). --2409:894C:3C3C:2317:4559:5C68:DA69:90F5 09:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Heya anon (Dine?), I'm on the road and with limited time, so I probably won't be able to get to this entry right away. That said, I wanted to give you a quick reply and some brief findings, such as this entry from my local copy of Daijirin:

なや・める [3] 【悩める】 (動マ下一)[文]マ下二 なや・む

I'm not sure what distinct adnominal sense you might be referring to; any verb in Japanese can be used adnominally, and the lemma form is common for that, but not the only form we can find in the wild. Search results for me at"悩めた" currently show the fourth hit as something from an customer review with an inflected adnominal use:


If you have any examples where this 悩める is somehow not just the intransitive verb used adnominally, I'd be very interested to see those, as well as any analyses as to why 悩める isn't the intransitive verb in those cases.
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi, yes, this is Dine2016. You don't need to give a quick reply before fully researching the term. I'll just point out that Shinmeikai gives a different analysis from Daijirin:
2409:894C:3C3C:5CE:3E13:D0FA:E23D:95A2 08:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ah, apologies for confusion -- I'm traveling and don't have access to my dead-tree resources like Shinmeikai, and thus I haven't been able to do fuller research.  :)
Given what you've said above, I'd argue that that particular instance of 悩める is actually an inflected form -- at a bare minimum, the perfective / stative suffix ~り is inflected into the 連体形.
The verb stem is itself also inflected, as described in fuller detail at り#Japanese-ri-verb-suffix, and in even fuller detail in the wikicode (content that is currently commented out and doesn't render in reading mode).
Whenever we get around to creating the 悩める entry, we'll need an additional etym section to fully account for this form, which derives from 悩む but is homographic and (mostly) homophonic with the lemma for 悩める. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry I commented out the etymology you wrote. I have restored it just now.

Traditional Japanese grammar analyzes forms like 悩めり as /nayame-ri/, with -ri attaching to an inflected stem. The inflection of the stem itself is difficult to describe. The linguistic analysis is /nayam-eri/ and therefore much simpler. I probably commented out your etymology (which used the traditional analysis) because of “Occam's Razor”. --2409:894C:3C32:2292:6F72:70CB:4B2D:B07F 14:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply



Hiya! The references you gave for the etymology at為人#Etymology don't seem to be in the dictionaries given from what I could find in online versions of them. Could you please double check them again? 8ya (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@8ya: I'm not sure what you mean. Granted, Daijirin has disappeared from many online sites (perhaps due to a change in licensing terms), but the KDJ is still easily available via Kotobank, as at Daijisen has the same term lemmatized under 人となり, as at
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes it is indeed in the dictionaries, but those don't say anything about the etymology for which these references are given. 8ya (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@8ya: I'm sorry I misunderstood you. You'd initially stated that "[t]he references you gave for the etymology ... don't seem to be in the dictionaries given", whereas those dictionaries -- which are the references -- do indeed include this term.
I suspect your confusion might stem from unfamiliarity with the dictionary conventions? Japanese dictionaries tend to use particular layouts and notational conventions that can take a while to get used to.


The kana representation shows that the underlying morphemes are ひと (hito), (to), and なり (nari). This is followed by the spelling 為人. The kanji are not directly correlated to the morphemes, so this would be an example of jukujikun.
Japanese monolingual dictionaries are often guilty of extreme abbreviation. Here, the dictionary editors do not explicitly spell out what the morephemes are, and assume that the reader will understand. Based on the definitions given and the possible terms that match ひと (hito), (to), and なり (nari), we can tell that ひと (hito) must be (person); since (to) and なり (nari) are separate, we know that this is not (tonari, next to, next door), so (to) must be the adverbial / coordinating particle, and なり (nari) must be or (shape; character; disposition, particularly of a person; derived from 成る (naru, to become)), a term which may be spelled in hiragana, as the kanji spellings are often associated with different readings.


We have the same underlying morphemes, ひと (hito), (to), and なり (nari), and we are given two spellings: 人となり and 為人. The latter has that special symbol = in the middle; most such symbols in kanji spellings denote various kinds of "rare" or "non-standard" spellings. The KDJ as a reference tends to be more conservative, whereas the Daijisen is more current, relatively speaking. In this particular case, the Daijisen legend explains that the = indicates jukujikun that are not included in the Jōyō appendices.
With the Daijisen spelling 人となり, we have corroborated the morphemes ひと (hito), (to), and なり (nari). We have also corroborated that the initial ひと (hito) is (person).
  • While Daijirin is no longer available online, I have my own local copy. Here's the headline from that:

ひと-と-なり [0] 【人となり・為人】

Again, the same morpheme breakdown, and also both spellings as listed in Daijisen. (The [0] part indicates the pitch accent pattern -- zero here, as this word has no downstep.)
  • My print copy of the Shinmeikai 5th Edition has the following.

ひとと なり⓪【人となり】

The Shinmeikai tends to omit spaces in [WORD]+[PARTICLE] combinations when showing morpheme boundaries, as we see with the kana ひとと (hitoto). The kanji spelling clarifies that this is noun (hito, person) and particle (to). (The ⓪ is again the pitch accent pattern, with zero to indicate a lack of any downstep.)
The body of the entry includes a note about kanji spellings, providing more detail than the others above:


Ultimately, through an analysis of these various references, we can tell that all agree that this term is comprised of the morphemes ひと (hito), (to), and なり (nari): that is the consensus derivation of the term 為人人となり (hitotonari). Native speakers would presumably understand immediately what these morphemes signify; for us learners, we can do further research into these morphemes (simply by looking them up in turn in our dictionaries), and thereby determine that these morphemes must be (hito, person), (to, particle), and (nari, shape; character; disposition).
HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much for the detailed reply, and sorry for completely missing that! I was expecting to see something like the usual inline etymology^^
On a side note, and sorry if it sounds imposing, but could you please help with 呉#Etymology_2? The KDJ you gave also includes another possible etymology, however I am not sure how to best rewrite it – both which word to use for 文采 and how to go on about the Korean 「クル」. Also I think it might be better if we just write that it's from 暮れ? (interestingly enough this etymology is removed from the KDJ found on Kotobank). --8ya (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@8ya: No worries, happy to help! :D
Re: 呉#Japanese, I've just updated the entry with a bit more detail. I've found that the online KDJ sometimes doesn't include all the detail in the print version, nor even all the detail in an older digital version I have from 1988 (well, technically, the digital version is from 1998, but it was made using the 1988 version of KDJ data, hence the copyright).
Here's what I see in my printed copy:

くれ【呉】 (日本からみて日の没する、すなわち「くれ(暮)」)の国という意からとも、「文」の意の朝鮮語「クル」の変化ともいう)

I presume you might also have a printed copy, given your mention of the クル link? About that, I have no clear idea what the KDJ might be talking about, but then, my Korean knowledge is quite limited. I suspect they might mean (geul, writing), but that's a more general sense than 文采文彩 (bunsai, figure of speech, bon mot, turn of phrase; colorful writing). Without more detail about what the KDJ editors might have intended, my gut sense is that this isn't worth getting into -- it comes across as speculation, and without even any clear Korean term to connect this to. If we were certain about the intended Korean term, and there were any more reason to expect that the Japanese term really derives from that directly (which, phonologically, seems unlikely), then I'd be more inclined to include this. Pinging @Tibidibi, Suzukaze-c, TAKASUGI Shinji as editors with more Korean expertise.
At any rate, have a look and adjust as deemed appropriate. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I thought it might be better to include it, as the 暮れ etymology seems to also just be speculation, which the article makes it not seem like. I might be missing something again, but doesn't it not say nothing about the first appearance being in the 書紀? Although I guess it's unlikely to find older mentions than that 8ya (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • @8ya: You're right that the entry came across as too authoritative -- I've tweaked the wording to clarify that this is a "likely" derivation. Re: first appearance, see the KDJ entry at Kotobank and scroll down to the くれ【呉】 section -- that includes the Nihon Shoki quote, as indicated by:


... at the start of the second line of that entry. The KDJ is pretty good about including earliest uses where available, and as you note, there's not much older than the Nihon Shoki when it comes to written Japanese. HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • @8ya: Oh, and to clarify re: your comment, "I thought it might be better to include it [the mention of クル]" -- if we had any idea what Korean term the KDJ entry was talking about, I'd be more open to including something about that in the entry. But with no clear identity for the Korean term, we have nothing to point to: Korean doesn't use katakana, and クル (kuru) doesn't map phonologically to any Korean term that appears to fit the sense indicated by the 文采文彩 (bunsai, figure of speech, bon mot, turn of phrase; colorful writing) term mentioned in the KDJ entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply



You may have noticed some overlap in the contributions of this user and a certain IP. That is not a coincidence. I'm not sure why they decided to start editing logged out, but when Wiktionairy picked up the edit war as a logged-in user after you blocked them as an IP, they crossed the line into abusing multiple accounts, so I blocked them.

They've been doing some legitimate work adding IPA, so I made it only a month. If you want to change that, I won't mind- it was an arbitrary, spur-of-the-moment decision. If it weren't for their obsession with certain words they might be a decent editor, but they've been at it since at least March- it may be part of a deeper problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Yes, I noticed and was considering dropping a line on your Talk page to ask about that, but you've beaten me to it.  :)
Unless there's some background I'm missing, their edit comments as an anon such as, "Removing the forbidden word", make me think that there's something rather strange going on with them. If/when they decide to talk about things, and we can come to some amicable compromise, I'm open to the possibility of changing / lifting the block, but until such time, my gut sense is to err on the side of caution: as a project, I think we do better when we lack information that a problematic editor might add but can't due to a block, rather than when we have misinformation from that same editor who hasn't been blocked.
Thank you for being proactive, and for posting here! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Template talk:R:Honzō Wamyō


Hi Eirikr. Could you please take a look at Template talk:R:Honzō Wamyō? Thanks Bendono (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply



wdyt? I note that the Dajisen has "adult male" as a separate sense. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Suzukaze-c: Thanks for the ping. Multiple sources list "adult [gender] human" as a separate sense, so I've restored these to the respective entries. The anon did have a valid point, that these words also mean just "[gender] human" separately from any "adult" sense, so I've made sure that these senses are also listed.
Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply



Eirikr, I am a native Irish speaker and teacher of Irish. The greater bulk of the "List of English words of Irish (O)rigin" has a great many inaccuracies due to reliance on the OED. I am trying to update the page with links and references from Foclóir Nua Béarla–Gaeilge (New English-Irish Dictionary as established by Foras na Gaeilge) and three digitized versions of published English-Irish and Irish-English dictionaries, a digitized version of a published grammar reference and pronunciation guide.

Please let me fix the issues - more than 80% are at least somewhat incorrect. JPatrickMalone (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello @JPatrickMalone, cad é mar atá tú? Go raibh maith agat for reaching out. I'm a native speaker of US English, a long-time studier and speaker of Japanese, with functional German, less-functional Dutch and Spanish, and with additional forays into Hungarian, Māori and Hawaiian, Danish, Mandarin Chinese, Korean, Navajo, and a smidgen of Ulster-dialect Irish.
⇒ Regarding the giggle entry here at the EN Wiktionary, your edit is problematic for a number of reasons.
  • You remove the attested Middle English antecedents, as well as the Dutch and German comparanda. When adding another derivation, especially one that is speculative, it is generally poor form to remove existing content about other possible derivations.
  • Your proposed derivation doesn't make much sense semantically (in terms of meaning) or grammatically:
  • gíog means "squeak", and geal means "bright". "Squeakbright" doesn't mean anything much in English, and I'd be surprised if it does in Irish.
  • gíog is a verb, and geal is an adjective. I'd expect the adverb instead, no?
  • There are derivational problems:
  • Why would an English term be coined as a compound of Irish words? Is there any evidence within Irish for some term gíog-geal? If so, a case might be made that the English is a borrowing of that compound -- but it is extremely unlikely for Language A to coin a term wholesale as a compound of words from Language B, when those words have not already been borrowed individually into Language A.
  • There are derivational uncertainties too:
  • Irish gíog may well share the same Germanic root seen in German Geige, Icelandic and Old Norse gígja, and English gig. With the Old Norse term gígja, we have attestations there going back to at least the 1200s. Alternatively, the Irish might share the same Germanic root as we see in Dutch giechelen (to giggle), explained here in Dutch as deriving from frequentative suffix -elen (cognate with English -le) + an onomatopoeic root gīg-, which the Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands analyzes as cognate with Dutch verb hijgen (to gasp, to pant) and late Old High German giga (fiddle). It's worth noting that a poorly played fiddle emits squeaks, creeks, and similar sounds.
Our etymology currently given at Geige traces this back through Proto-Germanic all the way to PIE. It does appear that there is a Germanic root at work here, shared across multiple branches of modern Germanic languages. While an early Irish → Norse borrowing would be feasible, and such a Norse term might well have made it into English, an Irish → Proto-Germanic borrowing would require time travel.
⇒ Regarding the List of English words of Irish origin page on Wikipedia, I reverted your edit earlier as it included many things that are absolutely not from Irish, such as avocado (ultimately from Nahuatl), begrudgery (ultimately from known Germanic roots), boycott (ultimately from an English surname), dig (ultimately from known Germanic roots), etc.
I hope this helps clarify the situation. Please feel free to engage in conversation. The WT:TEA and WT:ES pages are good places to talk about etymologies.
Kind regards, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
So, the problems you and "Robbie" are creating is that you neither have any of the culture, understand the history, or any facility with the language to understand what you are trying to do with these Irish-derrived words. Take for example your statement, "... and a smidgen of Ulster-dialect Irish." Well, the fact is very clear that you have 'no' Irish beyond having picked up a phrase or two. The most *basic* undersanding of the langauge would tell you that the adjectives come AFTER the noun, as with MANY other languages. The resut is "bright squeak". Basal-level understanding of European history would tell you why this is important; it is not merely that giggles from young children actually are bright squeaks, but there is a very long tradition throughout Europe to "mice" much like a similie for "children". This likely originates from the inicident in Hamelin, Germany (yes - the Pied Piper was a real occurrence, on St. John's day in 1284). Since that time, you have "Nibble, nibble like a mouse. Who is nibbling at my house?" from Hansel and Gretel, and your own American prodution of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" should take you back to the Child Catcher scene where Sir Robert Helpmann refered to the "little children" as mice.
All of that said, what niether you or "Robbie" seem to understand is that WE know where these terms came from, largely in part because ... well, it's our language, it's our culture, it's our history, and therefore it's our subtleties that neither of you would understand (beyond which, many of these terms originated quite recently - as in within living memory ... like my own). An example is when you ask, "Why would an English term be coined as a compound of Irish words?" Well - it's NOT an English term! It's an Irish term used by Irish people, including those living all throughout the British Isles and those immigrants to Canada, American, and Australia. MANY Irish words were picked up - and often altered by the unknowing - and used as slang. For example, "Can you dig it?" "Dig", as in to understand, appeared during the 1960s in the Civil Rights Movement, when hippies came to Derry/Londonderry to protest the British occupation (guess when the "troubles" suddenly ramped up?). In Ireland we still say, "Do ya'/can ya' tig?" or even "Do ya'/can ya' dig" or even (rarely) "do ya'/ can ya' twig?"
Why? Well, because one of the first things you learn when exploring any language, including Irish, is the word "understand", as in "Do you understand me?" and "I'm sorry. I don't understand."
Tuigim - I understand.
Tuigeann tú - You understand.
An dtuigeann tú? - Do you understand?
Can you dig it? (Which, by the way, first appears as the question in "Grazing In The Grass" by The Friends Of Distinction.
The somewhat Anglecized version ((Do ya' t(d)ig) <-- the letter is often pronounced more as an English 'd') has been in use at least since Cromwell (1599-1658). These things are well known amongst even my elementary students in the Gaeltacht (Irish speaking communities) and you don't because you weren't alive like I was to see it, to read about it in Time Magazine, and to enjoy the hippie culture as it moved out over the Atlantic, stirring up trouble everywhere.
Now, it had already appeared within the Black community in the US by the turn of the 20th century. Why? Because the Irish and African-Americans were working together for years, starting in the middle of the 1800s, in coal mines and railroads (hence, the origin of many dozens of Irish last names in the Black community). Irish terms used often mixed with English as slang found its way into the Black community vernacular.
One of the problems I've seen all over this page is complete lack of understanding regarding how Irish is pronounced (the letters are not all used the same as they are in English and this has caused many misunderstandings):
Starting with the consonants:
Broad consonants are pronounced with a “-w” off-glide, and slender consonants are pronounced with a “-y” off-glide. Broad consonants are always written with the letters a, o, or u next to them. Slender consonants are always written with the letters i or e next to them.
bh (broad) = w
bh (slender) = v
ch (broad) = ch as in German “Bach”, Scottish “loch”
ch (slender) = ch as in German “ich”, or h
dh (broad) = gh as the g in Spanish “abogado” or Greek “avgolemono” (this is the voiced equivalent of the “ch” in “Bach”); usually silent except at beginning of words; see a textbook on this!
dh (slender) = y
fh (broad) = silent
fh (slender) = silent
gh (broad) = same as broad dh
gh (slender) = y
mh (broad) = w
mh (slender) = v
ph (broad) = fw
ph (slender) = fy
sh (broad) = h
sh (slender) = h
th (broad) = h
th (slender) = h
Irish also has another set of consonant combinations at the beginning of words that result from an initial mutation called eclipsis. These are pronounced as follows (with broad and slender versions in each case):
mb = m as in “na mban” (nuh mahn)
gc = g as in “i gcarr” (uh gawr)
nd = n as in “i ndán” (uh nawn)
bhf = w as in “an bhfuil” or v as in “a bhfile” (uh will)
ng = ng as in “i ngairdín” (ng as in English “king”) (uhNGAHR-jeen)
bp = b as in “na bplátaí” (nuh BLAW-tee)
dt = d as in “i dteach” (uh dyakh)
In every case of eclipsis, all you do is pronounce the first consonant and ignore the second, except for “ng”, which is pronounced together as the “ng” in “thing”.
The long vowels are:
í as in "sí" pronounced “shee”
é as in "sé" pronounced “shay”
ú as in "tú" pronounced “too”
ó as in "bó" pronounced “boe”
á as in "tá" pronounced “taw”
ae as in "lae" pronounced “lay”
eo as in "ceol" (music) pronounced “key-ohl” (to rhyme with “hole”)
ao as in "lao" pronounced either “lay” or “lee”, depending on dialect
The short vowels are:
i as in "in" pronounced “in” (as in English)
e as in "te" pronounced “teh” (more about the “t” sound below!)
u as in "rud" pronounced “rud” (like the u in Enlgish “put”)
o as in "cos" pronounced “cos” (o as in German “Gott”, or in English “goat” said without rounding the lips)
a as in "mac" pronounced “mahk” (like the a in “father”)
ea as in "bean" pronounced “ban” (like the a in “cat”)
Short vowels differ from long vowels in one important respect. They are given their full pronunciation ONLY in the first syllable of a word. In all other syllables, they are all reduced to the neutral “uh” sound of English “but”. The same thing happens in English, where “Benjamin” is pronounced “BEN-juh-muhn”. Thus the Irish word for Irish, “éireannach”, is pronounced “AY-ruh-nuhkh”.
There are two important diphthongs that you should recognize, both written using a combination of vowels and consonants:
The “ow” diphthong, as in “ow, I stubbed my toe”:
abha as in abhann pronounced “own” (to rhyme with “clown”)
amha as in samhradh pronounced “sow-ruh” (like a female pig)
...and the “eye” diphthong:
agha as in aghaidh pronounced “eye”
adh as in Tadhg pronounced “tiger without the -er”
THIS is why I inserted links that provide pronunciation in all three major dialects to all words and terms used - directly to the online system that currently represents the Irish standard employed by the government and private corporations seeking to fulfill Irish language needs. Without understanding how the words are written, and therefore pronounced, it becomes a challegne "hearing" how words like the portmanteau, "giggle" are supposed to work.
THAT brings up another salient point; the portmanteau.
It was the famed Irish author, Lewis Carroll (he was of an Irish family (Ó Cearbhaill) though born in Cheshire) who first put the word "portmanteau" to use the way we most typically employ it today (not referencing large suitcases), as words that have been made by blending two words together. Think 'brunch' (breakfast and lunch), 'smog' (smoke and fog) and 'spork' (spoon and fork). This approach to making 'fanciful' words was not new, though quite common amongst both English and Irish authors at the time. Carroll himself created many, such as "vorpal" (as in a terrible sharp and unbreakable sword) and "chortle" (somewhere between a chuckle and a laugh). Another to do this often was the great British author, Lord Byron, who appears to be the first to insert a wonderful portmanteau into his work, "The Siege of Corinth" - the word "giggle", a term that was literally in use all over Great Britian as this was the time of two Irish rebellions and the Acts of Union that resulted in more of the Irish diaspora into the U.K. and abroad.
Now, you really put your foot into it with this one...
"Irish gíog may well share the same Germanic root seen in German Geige, Icelandic and Old Norse gígja, and English gig. With the Old Norse term gígja, we have attestations there going back to at least the 1200s. Alternatively, the Irish might share the same Germanic root as we see in Dutch giechelen (“to giggle”), explained here in Dutch as deriving from frequentative suffix -elen (cognate with English -le) + an onomatopoeic root gīg-, which the Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands analyzes as cognate with Dutch verb hijgen (“to gasp, to pant”) and late Old High German giga (“fiddle”). It's worth noting that a poorly played fiddle emits squeaks, creeks, and similar sounds.
Our etymology currently given at Geige traces this back through Proto-Germanic all the way to PIE. It does appear that there is a Germanic root at work here, shared across multiple branches of modern Germanic languages. While an early Irish → Norse borrowing would be feasible, and such a Norse term might well have made it into English, an Irish → Proto-Germanic borrowing would require time travel."
"Our etymology..."
OUR etymology...?
Who is the WE in your OUR???
You are not doing the original research in Irish ethnology, history, archaeology, anthropology, philology nor etymology.
So, to update your understanding of world history; Rome fell twice. The first time it fell in a single day in the Battle of the Allia (c. 387 BC) between the Senones – a Gallic tribe led by Brennus and the Roman Republic. From the 5th century B.C. forward, the people the Greeks called "Keltoi" (People of the Forest - in reference to those tribes north of the Alps - Germany, Austria and the Scandanavian countries) and those the Romans called the Galli (Gauls) in today’s France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg).
" at least the 1200s"
Are you serious? Do you not understand why there are variants on the bag-pipes found all the way out to Turkey? It was all Celtic/Gallic lands, and so was the language - in dozens of dialects kept interconvertible by the seanchaidhthe wandering from village to village, county to county, and country to country. When two or more met on the roads, great celebrations went up with mummers dancing and story-telling for a week or more as news, lore, and dialectical variants were shared - as it does still today. The advent of advanced printing of school books and modern media has entrenched the dialects as reliance on seanchaidhthe has all but disappared, favoring now only the storytelling that persists in rural (and some urban) public houses for family entertainment.
Do you know that Rome fell to the Visigoths in 410 AD? Guess who they were? The descendants of the La Tène culture, who were the descendants of the Hallstatt culture who were one of the most successful and wealthy Celtic groups for centuries to follow. Their influence completely dominated German and the low land countries. The languages some want to call "Germanic" are the descendants of the same early Indo-European languages that ultimate gave rise to things like Welsh and Breton (the French peninsula of Brittany), but developed in isolation due to Caesar and so somewhat Latinized with Asian influence due to Atilla. After that, they continued to evolve on their own, separate from what became the Celtic languages in the British isles toay
"Norse borrowing"?
Okay. So you know the name, "Erik Thorvaldsson" ( c. 950 – c. 1003)? He was also known as Erik the Red. A Norse explorer, right? He had one son of particular note, Leif Erikson. Right?
Erik Thorvalsson carried the gene of haplogroup R1b-L21, or its subclade R1b-M222, typical of northwestern Ireland and Scotland (the so-called lineage of Niall of the Nine Hostages in Ulster). It is considered almost certain that native Irish and Scottish Celts were were a part of the broader "Viking" community of southwest Norway, and that they increased the frequency of red hair there.
  • But beyond all of that...
Okay, you and this guy Robbie are trying to rely largely upon English dictionaries, apparently totally unaware this is exactly like trying to rely on Iranian scholars writing a dictionary in Farsi about slang terms originally from Hebrew and Yiddish (a dialect of German).
I mean - what?
I put in definitions, examples of use and discussions of origins from IRISH dictionaries ... IRISH! You and "Robbie" want to change that work back to work from ENGLISH dictonaries - entirely different langauges. What's worse, the references posted are from a country that openly espoused and practiced genocide on the Irish people's for a few hundred years. Men in Parliament were openly speaking with satisfaction that a million people died during the Great Starvation. <--- Yes, that's correct. It's not "The Potato Famine", that's an English fabrication. It was calculated starvation. Ireland was the "Garden of Europe" at the time and grew much more than potatoes, but English landlords refused other vegetables for sale (SALE) to the Irish, directed to sell them in Scotland, Wales, England and abroad. If a landholder determined that other vegetables were taken into Irish homes, the starving would be executed as thieves.
This continues amongst the British establishment still today. Need evidence? Go look for an interview with the great 80s rocker, Rod Stewart, and listen to his story of what happened when he was going to do a BBC live broadcast concert - and wanted to sing "Grace" (a gorgeous ballad from Ireland about a signator of the Irish Proclimation (Declaration of Independence) who was executed at Kilmainham Gaol (jail). Listen to *why* they wouldn't let him sing that amazing love song.
In Ireland, we are *all* quite aware that great works such as the OED were composed by authors going well out of their way to remain willfully ignorant of most Irish word origins (unknown, slang, etc.). They would *never* actually pick up the phone (or before, write letters) to native speakers of Irish working at Trinity College in Dublin, or the National University of Ireland in Galway. The first Oxford English Dictionary was writting in 1841. What was happening at that time?
In Ulster, there were repeated outbreaks of sectarian violence, such as the riot at Dolly's Brae, between Catholics and the nascent Orange Order. Elsewhere, tensions between the rapidly growing rural population on one side and their landlords and the state on the other, gave rise to much agrarian violence and social unrest. Secret peasant societies such as the Whiteboys and the Ribbonmen used sabotage and violence to intimidate landlords into better treatment of their tenants. The most sustained outbreak of violence was the Tithe War of the 1830s, over the obligation of the mostly Catholic peasantry to pay tithes to the Protestant Church of Ireland. The Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) was set up to police rural areas in response to this violence. The Great Starvation ran from 1845–1851, in which about one million people died and another million emigrated. In the new Whig government (from 1846), Charles Trevelyan became assistant secretary to the Treasury and it was the policies of his party that left the rural population entirely without food, dependent upon handouts. Some members of the Repeal Association, called the Young Irelanders, formed the Irish Confederation and tried to launch a rebellion against British rule in 1848. This coincided with the worst years of the famine and was contained by British military action.
Okay ... so, like I said ... what you and "Robbie" are doing is exactly like looking for accurate information regarding the origins and usage of Yiddish by Jews in Farsi dictionaries.
And you actually think that's best. BEST! That the information contained with the oldest and most important Irish dictionaries (IRISH) just somehow doesn't measure up to ... understanding the Irish language.?!?!?!
Now, you can play games with words like "Boycott", which was coined after IRISH tenants followed Parnell’s suggested code of conduct and effectively ostracized a British estate manager, Charles Cunningham Boycott, during the Irish land agitation of 1880.
Cool - it's not an "Irish" word, but it was coined in Ireland by the Irish. Okay? That's a game we don't need to play.
Please - you don't know the history, you don't know the literature, you don't know the culture, you don't know how the dialects actually relate you don't know how those actually relate to Gaelic or Manx or Welsh or Breton (I mean in a practical sense - not whether or not those languages arise from a PIE root), you don't know the songs and poetry (or how those work in Irish - because there's no direct translations (as transliterations), you don't know the archaeology, you don't know the anthropology...
...and the work you are trying to base everything off of is not only NOT your own, but gleaned from an institutional culture that still today does not recognize the Irish as equal citizens of this earth.
So, PLEASE, let me finish working on the page. I am still learning how to properly set up references and links ... but you genuinely have no business jumping in and changing anything. You just simply do not know enough about what you are trying to write about and your information is not entirely correct.
Pinging also @Robbie SWE since he is also mentioned and relevant to include here.
Many problems with your post here.
  • Wall-o'-text is not an effective communication style. Try organizing your thoughts better, even visually here on the page.
  • Ad hominem is also not an effective communication style. Insults are much less convincing than persuasion.
  • In your past additions to the giggle entry, it was not clear that gíog is a noun. Hence my confusion as to the construction, since you appeared to be suggesting that [VERB] + [ADJ] was somehow a workable construction for Irish. Rather that gíog is apparently a noun, this is problematic in a different way -- why would English borrow a nominal phrase as a verb? And how would this unlikely phenomenon also give rise to apparent cognates in Germanic tongues further east than the Irish language could be reasonably expected to influence?
  • Regarding dig, you haven't edited our entry, so I must assume that you are referring to your previous addition to the Wikipedia page at w:List of English words of Irish origin. Your edit there was problematic in that you simply listed the word with no further detail -- this implies that the term derives in its entirety from Irish. This is patently incorrect.
The possibility of an Irish origin for the specific sense of understand is already mentioned in the Wiktionary entry at dig#Etymology_2. That said, this sense and usage may just as feasibly derive from Wolof instead. Listing dig as an Irish derivative, without any further qualification, is misleading.
  • You mistake familiarity with expertise. Many native English speakers are not aware that cease comes from French, or that skosh comes from Japanese. And your personal native-speaker familiarity with Irish does not necessarily equate to expertise in the etymologies of English words.
  • In the context of talking about Wiktionary entries, "our" should be understood to mean "belonging to Wiktionary". I am surprised at your confusion on this point, but I am happy to clarify my intent.
  • You confuse the modern Irish language with ancient, sometimes partially-attested or only-reconstructed, Celtic languages. Modern Irish, as the label is used here at Wiktionary and as described at w:History of the Irish language as arising in the 1700s, cannot possibly be the source of any Old Norse terms, unless you propose time travel.
  • "Okay ... so, like I said ... what you and "Robbie" are doing is exactly like looking for accurate information regarding the origins and usage of Yiddish by Jews in Farsi dictionaries."
Not even remotely. Robbie SWE and I rely on English dictionaries for their descriptions of English terms. It is all fine and well that gíog is an Irish term; that is irrelevant to English unless that term has been borrowed into English. So far, the only record I've encountered of English giggle (verb) coming from Irish gíog gheal (nominal phrase) is the derivation that you added to the giggle entry. Considering the time issues, the existence of Germanic cognates further east, and the problematic semantics and grammar, that seems unlikely. Given also that no scholarly English work that I've yet encountered agrees with your theory, I am not highly inclined to accept your provided derivation as the only etymology (since you insisted on removing any mention of the Germanic connections).
  • "And you actually think that's best. BEST! That the information contained with the oldest and most important Irish dictionaries (IRISH) just somehow doesn't measure up to ... understanding the Irish language.?!?!?!"
The entry that sparked all of this is English giggle. English. Not Irish. No Irish dictionary is remotely relevant, unless and until we can find solid evidence that English giggle is indeed a borrowing from Irish. Even a strong suggestion might suffice. So far, you have not provided sufficient evidence to convince Robbie, Surjection (who also reverted your initial edit there as an anonymous editor), or myself. The happenstance existence of discrete Irish words that happen to combine to produce a phonologically similar cluster of syllables is not enough. I note too that searching the internet at large for the combined phrase google:"gíog gheal" produces a meager six hits, of which three—a full half of the hits—describe this as an invention by Daniel Cassidy, and not a long-standing turn of phrase. It's near-complete absence from the world wide web suggests that it is certainly not common.
  • You're welcome to strike up a thread at WT:BP to bring your concerns to the attention of Wiktionary administrators. I'll point out that both Robbie and I are administrators, as is Surjection, and that your approach to date has been in violation of several community norms, so I'm not sure you'll get the kind of traction you might be hoping for.
If you'd like to discuss the etymology of English giggle specifically, I suggest that you continue the thread at Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2021/September#gig,_giggle, or that you strike up a new such thread at Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2021/October.
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the ping Eiríkr Útlendi! After ploughing through what can only be considered a rant above, I can conclude that nothing of any true linguistic value was presented to convince us to change the etymology of giggle, or for that matter, to take anything that JPatrickMalone says seriously. I encourage them to engage in discussions at the Etymology Scriptorium, but I doubt that anything meaningful will come from it – relying on childhood memories, daily lingo and an ethnocentric worldview will only get you so far. Robbie SWE (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

noun + な


Hi. This is Dine. Thank you for creating the 悩める entry.

I just created Category:Japanese terms modified by "noun + な". Are you aware of any additions? In particular, I wonder whether one can say "noun + な" before all kinds of nouns (現実, 事実, 夢, ...) to mean "the fact/situation/hope/feeling/etc. that something is or will be something", not just before the nouns or particles listed in the category. --2409:894C:C34:34E6:C948:DE8D:89C0:D7DA 04:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dine, しばらくでした。 I hope all is well.
Re: [noun] + な, I'm not sure of the utility of such a category? Literally *any* nominal phrase may take な in certain situations, particularly any explanatory statement, which then is followed by の + whatever comes next -- another particle, the copula, etc. I'm not sure about the utility of the category listing のだ (no da) and のだった (no datta) and ので (no de), for instance? In addition, (n) in this context is an abbreviation of (no), and thus of limited lexicality...
Puzzled, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your reply. The category is to list not what nouns may take な, but rather what may follow such an unusual combination (noun + な). Maybe the current name of the category doesn't make this clear?
I created the category because I also found noun + な + 訳. Examples from the internet:
  • 医療従事者の「医」、「い」以外になんと読む?「や」な訳がない
  • ゲームだけ例外な訳がない
So "noun + な" isn't restricted to explanatory の / ん. --2409:894C:C36:B2AF:7D23:70A4:FFA4:DF4D 04:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it is restricted. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
My misunderstanding. The question is, is "noun + な" restricted to occuring only before certain words (の, 訳, etc.), or is it unrestricted and can occur before all kinds of nouns? For example, can one say [noun]な理由 for [noun]である理由? If not, then I think the category has some utility.
As for ん, some textbooks treat なんです as a single sentence pattern but traditional Japanese grammar treat it as な + ん + です and regard ん as a full-fledged 準体助詞 reduced from の. That's why I included it in the category. And のだ (no da), のだった (no datta) and ので (no de) are phrases. Since the category contains both nouns and particles, I named it as Category:Japanese terms modified by "noun + な", and that warrants inclusion of phrases. --2409:894C:C36:B2AF:7D23:70A4:FFA4:DF4D 04:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the additional detail. (And sorry for the abbreviated reply earlier, things IRL pulled me away.)
Scanning through the googits for google:"な理由", I do see a few here and there that appear to be [noun] + な理由, such as 金子な理由 (apparently the title of an album), or キッズスマホとしておすすめな理由 (I'm not accustomed to seeing おすすめ treated as an adjective), or 悪口、気にしたら負けな理由 (where similarly I'm not accustomed to seeing 負け treated as an adjective).
While rare, this usage of [nominal] + な + [nominal] does seem to show up. I wonder if this pattern for な is on the cusp of fossilizing? That may account for the rarity, but not complete lack, of its appearance in other constructions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me for cutting in. Isn't it rentaikei(連体形) of ?
  • 「や」 → 「や」訳がない
  • ゲームだけ例外 → ゲームだけ例外訳がない
  • 金子 → 金子理由
  • キッズスマホとしておすすめ → キッズスマホとしておすすめ理由
Probably, a sentence modifies the following noun. --Naggy Nagumo (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Naggy Nagumo, yes!  :) The odd thing about this pattern (turning a declarative sentence into an adnominal construction) is that its usage appears to be so restricted -- it seems like there are only certain things that come after this な. Changing だ to である and using that as the adnominal looks like it's more common -- for instance, to pick a random example, google:"教科書である場合" gets 17 hits, but google:"教科書な場合" gets zero. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I got the list from Samuel E. Martin's A Reference Grammar of Japanese. It seems that the list is outdated – ため should also be added to the list, at least. –2409:894C:C06:33E8:40DC:2936:7095:E644 11:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Cheers, Dine! Looking at that Ninjal site, and idly throwing in a few other nouns on the end (after 人な), I see potential evidence for 理由・場合・状態・状況・体験・経験・理解・考え・思考・思い・印象... I must shift gears (things IRL are requiring my attention). The few that produced no hits for me just now were 分かり・分かち合い・思慮・影響.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Japanese references


I removed that reference because it links to nothing and it ended up in so I tried to fix it Ffffrr (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

fixed ja-see in [5]Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Suzukaze-c: Thanks for the module fix!
@Ffffrr: No worries! On reviewing the entry, I realized the problem was that we had <ref name="DJR"/>, but no full definition of what "DJR" was supposed to be. Often, the DJR (Daijirin) reference is defined in the ===Pronunciation=== section as the reference for the pitch accent -- but the terms you edited didn't have any pitch accent, so there wasn't any reference for the pitch accent.  :)
I reverted your removal simply because it was easier to keep all of the <ref name="DJR"/> bits in place, and just edit the first one to add in the missing definition, as <ref name="DJR">{{R:Daijirin}}</ref>
Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok I see Ffffrr (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply



You've listed Hungarian twice in your babel boxes! PUC16:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@PUC: Ha! Thanks for the heads-up. Goes to show how much time I don't spend on my own user page. 😆 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

chop suey


Yes, that was me. I simply forgot to login. I logged in immediately after posting and fixed some typos, but somehow didn't think of adding my signature. I know this fixing up posted content is poor form, but it feels much less comfortable in the preview, perhaps because I tend to edit much more than typos if going over the text in detail, and I just want to get it over with instead. That my mind kept revolving around the topic is also likely why I forget the missing signature, leaving the page to search further. Indeed I had not fully checked out sushi. It was fully intended to be an overstatement.

I appreciate your sanity check, but I'm afraid that you would have said nothing if you knew it was me, and that your appeal is unconvincing indeed. I was of course refering to the diminutive sense of '-shi', as the diminutive category seems to be a terminal element of semantic errosion. Afterwards I began to worry, and it's almost comical how this topic could get me superficially interested in Japanese, but enough about me. There's another word on which I'd like to know your angle.

The details of my exploration on the Chinese side that led up to recognizing 'shi' in an unrelated topic about Japanese are written up, if it matters, but it's rather indulgent. The second part that's trying to correlate any Japanese is hazy and hindered by the fact that Japanese does not at all offer as many far reaching etymologies. Now here's the kiker:

chow is collocated in "chow chop svey [sic!]". This, chow-chow and Chow Chow are possibly of pidgin origin. So I went on to read our dog-translations. There's e- + diminutive suffix in some lects, but the character combination (or word) means only "puppy" in others. This resembles Japanese inu in the case that (i)nu may be compared to some South East Asian word for 'child', which has comparands in Chinese but could be dadaistic (either you know which one, or you may safely ignore it). I am not completely up to date with Vovin, but Taiwanese Chinese is one of those lects where the word means "dog".

The funny part is where I went off on inuyasha first because of the sybilant. The sad part is that I have not proceeded to study in morphology or pre-grammar, though there's a fine question to work out in it too. For now, the problem is that this is effectively long-range territory and I know you do not like Eurasiatic and whatnot, though you do like to talk it down, it seems. But the dog was domesticated not to long ago, for all I know, so the assumption of a wanderword should not be unreasonable. It should be reasonable to ask if you have any opinion on this,not the least because it is not remotely in question for the foodstuffs (I hope) and simple enough that I don't need to copy-paste anything. ApisAzuli (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ApisAzuli: I got a little lost here reading your post, but I'll try to respond to each of your points.  :)
  • Re: "diminutive sense of '-shi'" -- it's not a diminutive in native Japanese vocabulary. See (shi) -- the sense applicable to the 酸し (sushi, sour, terminal or predicative conjugation) is (currently) Etymology 6 there.
Was there some other context where '-shi' shows up as a diminutive suffix in Japanese, and not as part of a borrowing from Chinese that includes (-shi)?
  • Japanese (inu) has no senses at all related to child. The etymology is regarded as "unknown" in monolingual JA sources that I've seen, with speculation only that it might be related to this or that (as at 犬#Japanese). None of the native-Japanese derivations seem very likely to me, honestly speaking. We know that it's not a borrowing from Ainu seta (dog), nor Korean (gae, dog), just from the phonology. The oldest attested Japonic forms all start with a vowel, /i-/ or /e-/, followed by nasal /-n-/, lending itself to no likely matches in the list at dog/translations#Translations.
  • Re: inuyasha, I'm not sure what you mean by "where I went off"? Whatever the case, this term is a compound of (inu, dog) + 夜叉 (yasha, demon), where the yasha portion is not native to Japanese, and is instead a borrowing via Chinese, ultimately from Sanskrit यक्ष (yakṣa).
  • Re: dog domestication, I recall reading that the current guess is some 20-40,000 years ago, based on DNA differences from wolves and other evidence. See also w:Origin of the domestic dog. This is considerably beyond any seriously considered comparative linguistics horizon that I'm aware of. I wouldn't characterize this as "not too long ago". By way of comparison, the w:Proto-Indo-European language is only dated to 4,500 BC, or only 6,500 years ago. Dog domestication is some three to six times older than PIE.
I hope that addresses your queries. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Etymology of 鰐


馬 and 梅 are also transliterations of Chinese reading.

馬 ma(マ)→mma(ムマ)→uma(ウマ)

梅 mei(メイ)→mme(ムメ)→ume(ウメ)

鰐魚 èyú(ウァユイ)→wayui(ワユイ)→wani(ワニ) 12:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello anon.
  • No argument about Japanese (uma) or (ume). These are well-known derivations.
  • Your proposed derivation of modern Mandarin reading èyú becoming Japanese wani is problematic purely on phonetic grounds -- "Y" doesn't just suddenly become "N" in other terms, so this is not a reasonable expectation for wani either. The very different vowel values are also difficult to reconcile.
However, Japanese (wani) is first attested in the Kojiki of 712 -- so the modern Mandarin reading of èyú is wholly irrelevant. We have to look instead at the Middle Chinese pronunciation of the characters (è) (or actually the lemma form, (è)) and () -- which would have been something like /ŋɑk̚ ŋɨʌ/. The expected Japanese reflex would instead be gakugyo, which indeed is the modern Japanese reading for 鰐魚, as we see here at Goo or here at Kotobank or here at Weblio.
I see that an anonymous editor added a similar erroneous etymology to the JA WP article. I'll see about fixing that later. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@, Japanese (wani) cannot be from Middle Chinese 鱷魚 (MC ngak ngjo), as already described earlier. The reference you added earlier today,, appears to be a blog post. No references are included, and the text reads as supposition: 「ではなかろうか」 is explicitly supposition.
Some of the suppositions given as attempted corroboration of the author's theory don't hold together. For instance:
  • They claim that Middle Chinese (MC ngaX) equates to Old Japanese (wa, I, me). However, wa is the native pronunciation, and ga is the Middle-Chinese-derived pronunciation. If the author is claiming that Old Japanese wa is a nativized borrowing from Chinese, they must back that up -- which they don't do.
  • The author also claims that Middle Chinese (MC ngaewk) is the source of Old Japanese (woka, hill). However, the Chinese-derived pronunciation is gaku, not woka, and any alignment here requires not just that Middle Chinese initial ŋ- matches Old Japanese initial w-, but also that the vowels correspond so flexibly that no sound-correspondence rules can be derived. Without additional evidence and corroboration, this is just sloppy scholarship.
  • Their attempt at showing that Middle Chinese initial ŋ- instead corresponds with Old Japanese initial n- is also deeply flawed. They claim that Middle Chinese (MC ngjo) is the root of Old Japanese (na). However, the OJP-derived word na relating to the "fish" sense is instead from a meaning of "side dish", in turn cognate with the plant-greens term (na). The core meaning had to do with "food", not "fish". See also the KDJ entry. The author's phonological musings here are also comically wrong-headed, in that they undermine their own argument about the purported source of Old Japanese (wani) — if Middle Chinese (MC ngjo) is the root of Old Japanese (na), then Middle Chinese (MC ngjo) cannot simultaneously be the source of the latter -ni element in Old Japanese (wani).
  • Similarly, the author claims that Middle Chinese (MC ngjaep) is the root of Old Japanese (nari, work, what one does to make a living). However, the OJP term is from verb naru, in turn likely cognate with native verb 成る (naru, to become). This is part of a cluster of related verbs that has no accepted roots outside of Japonic, a possible connection to supposed pre-Japonic copular element nu, and some (very) speculative connections to verbs in Koreanic.
If and when we can find a serious academic work or reference that supports the theory that Old Japanese (wani) is from Middle Chinese 鱷魚 (MC ngak ngjo), then we can include this in our entry. The provided blog post does not suffice, so I have again removed this from the etymology of the Japanese term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

How we will see unregistered users



You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)



Hi there. Would you mind adding the Japanese entry here when you get time? I think it means key money. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

旦那 and ドナー are not doublets


You reverted my edit removing the doublet on 旦那. 旦那 is from PIE déh₃nom, while ドナー is from déh₃nom + -Hō + -tōr. In the same way Spanish hacer and factor are not doublets.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Simplificationalizer: Thank you for the post. Upon further review, I've reverted myself at 旦那 and パーカ and expanded the latter entry somewhat. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply



Can you give any sources that 大 has the reading おおい? I could not find one, so I thought い as an okurigana. --TongcyDai (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello @TongcyDai, thanks for the message. See the relevant entries at Kotobank and Weblio, showing the spelling 大君 with the reading おおいぎみ, with zero okurigana.
In general, the o1, o2, ... parameters for {{ja-kanjitab}} are intended to show characters that are optionally spelled out or omitted. In this case, the term 大君 (ōigimi) derives from 大い (ōi, from older reading opoki; cognate with 多い (ōi)) + (kimi), but it lexicalized into an integral term as a single unit. I see from the KDJ entry at Kotobank that this is cited already in a text from 947–957, quite early on -- older terms are more likely to exhibit odd developments like this.
See also 大 at Weblio and 大 at Kotobank, particularly the おおい reading for the 接頭辞 (settōji, prefix) part of speech, describing this as an element that compounds with a noun. I see both this term 大君 (ōigimi) and 大殿 (ōidono) as examples, and a quick look in my copy of Daijirin also finds 大子 (ōiko, eldest daughter), 大御 (ōigo, eldest daughter, honorific), 大臣 (ōimōchigimi, minister, in ancient Japan), and 大納言 (ōimonomōsutsukasa, apparently an imperial office in ancient Japan).
Whether to treat this おおい (ōi) reading for as "kun" or "irregular", I'm less certain. It's not listed in kanji-specialist resources that I've seen, so by that measure it would be "irregular", but at the same time, this is a long-established reading that derives from native Japanese vocabulary and not Middle Chinese, so by that measure it would be "kun". I'm open to either categorization.
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for giving the details above! As you mentioned, the reading おおい < おほい is listed alone in both Weblio and Kotobank (I confused this with other adjectives... my bad), and if we treat it as irr, it will not generate a category of this reading, so mark it as kun seems to be a good idea. --TongcyDai (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

설 and Tết


설 is "New Year" or "year of age", and if you have any evidence or proof that 설 isn't 節 than i won't post this again. 2001:EE0:4880:CB40:D119:AB59:1945:5BEF 13:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you make an assertion, you must back it up. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove an assertion. See also w:Russell's teapot.
Setting aside your logical fallacy, there's also the simple issue that we already have an entry for Korean with the hanja pronunciation of (jeol). Note the initial consonant: this is not (seol). That initial is consistent with other Korean terms borrowed from Middle Chinese terms with similar onsets, such as (MC tsrit) → (jeul), (MC tsik) → (jeuk), (MC tsaX|tsaH) → (jwa), (MC tsyij) → (ji). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply



In case you haven't seen the post at WT:Requests for checkuser, there's really no mystery here: During the 90-day period I had data for, Mare-Silverus made two monthly visits to Wiktionary, no doubt checking whether they were still blocked. Then, on January 4, the same device using the same IP as Mare-Silverus tried twice to edit 魔導師 and failed due to the abuse filter specifically designed to keep them from making such edits. Within the same minute, the same device using the same IP showed up logged in as GinNike0000‎. There's no way they could have made it more obvious without actually pinging me in their first edit summary to say "I'm a sockpuppet of Mare-Silverus and I'm block-evading- please block me, too".

And of course, as you know, Mare-Silverus is the same magic-obsessed editor who started out making bad Japapanese edits more than a decade ago using Sky UK IPs, then switched to BT years later.

After all this time and all the mountains of evidence to the contrary, they're still suffering from the delusion that they can figure out enough from manga, anime, and clueless people's guesswork on various websites (not to mention Google- or Bing- Translate!) to contribute anything of any value whatsoever to a dictionary.

As I've said before, the best way to limit the carnage is to simply remove everything so they have nothing to show for their efforts. If you spend too much time trying fix the distorted gibberish they keep adding, you're basically letting them set your priorities and acting as their unpaided assistant. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you @Chuck, I had indeed missed the checkuser post, and that context makes the situation much clearer. Much appreciated! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Category:Japanese terms spelled with 二 read as ふ


Should ふ be considered as a reading of 二? If so, is it appropriate to put 二日, 二日酔い in this category? --TongcyDai (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, dear. None of those are correct, and the couple I've dug into were added to that category by mistaken edits from a known-problematic editor. The kanji is read as futsu in compounds like 二日 (futsuka). See the Kokugo Dai Jiten entry here at Kotobank, for instance, where the editors clearly parse this as futsu + ka. The kanji is only read as fu in names, and nanori readings shouldn't be generating categories like this -- except that editor incorrectly specified the reading as kun.
I'll see about cleaning this up. Thanks for the ping! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Glad I've asked first, and thanks for the reply! Could you let me know when you finish cleaning these? I'd like to add more content, but in case of making more mistakes, I'd better know how to deal with these categories first. --TongcyDai (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TongcyDai: Given my day (crazy schedule), I'm unlikely to finish going through all of these today. No worries about adding content though.  :)
Your query has prompted me to take a deeper dive into how categories are generated, and I've realized that even nanori get added to Category:Japanese terms spelled with [KANJI] read as [KANA]. I think this didn't use to happen in the past. No matter, though, so long as the calls to {{ja-kanjitab}} on the relevant pages all categorize the readings correctly -- because that template also automatically adds pages to categories like Category:Japanese terms with kun reading [KANA] or Category:Japanese terms with nanori reading [KANA].
Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TongcyDai: I was able to go over the last few after all. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot! I've just fixed another entry, 薬缶頭, and I am not sure to mark 薬 (ya) as irregular or on'yomi (what is the basis for judgment?) Also, what is the criteria for Japanese names' inclusion? There are often dozens or even hundreds of Kanji spellings for a single name, are they all allowed to be created? And most importantly, how can I tell if one reading should be marked as irregular or nanori? --TongcyDai (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TongcyDai: Heya, various questions, let me try to address them all.  :)
  • "I am not sure to mark 薬 (ya) as irregular or on'yomi (what is the basis for judgment?)"
The division between regular and irregular is more cut-and-dried for on'yomi. To judge, check a good kanji resource. Weblio has decent results for single-kanji lookups, such as there page for 薬. The Digital Daijisen section is at the top, and the third section shows the following line:

[音]ヤク(呉)(漢) [訓]くすり

Further down that same page, we have the section for the 漢字辞典 (Kanji Jiten), listing:

音読み:ヤク 訓読み:くすり

Or there's WWWJDIC's kanji entry, listing:

[音] ヤク [訓] くすり [名]

None of these (or any other reference I've consulted) lists や as an on'yomi for this. That, combined with the etymology of yakan (from (yaku, medicine) + (kan, container, pot, cannister)), points to the や reading here being irregular: the oldest yakukwan reading shifted, losing the middle ku.
  • "Also, what is the criteria for Japanese names' inclusion?"
Names are a bit of a thorny mess, which we haven't really delved into all that deeply. I'd suggest striking up a thread at WT:BP and inviting the regular JA editors. I know that Fish bowl (talkcontribs) is active, I think Atitarev (talkcontribs) might still be interested in JA stuff, among others.
My gut sense -- we should lemmatize names at the kana spellings, since the kanji spellings are -- as you note -- various and sundry. And, in most cases, the names trace to yamato kotoba roots anyway, which are separate from the kanji.
  • "There are often dozens or even hundreds of Kanji spellings for a single name, are they all allowed to be created?"
As for which kanji spellings to include, we could gain some insight from ENAMDICT (such as their entry here for めぐみ), but we would want to be careful not to run afoul of copyright, so just copy-pasting from other sources would be a big no-no.
Since the EN Wiktionary mandate is "all words in all languages", and names are a kind of word, I don't see any particular reason why we couldn't include all attested kanji spellings. But again, best to lemmatize at the hiragana spellings, and list the kanji spellings there as alternative forms. Have a look at the ふみお entry for an example that I recently reworked as the lemma, and the 二三男 kanji spelling as an example of a redirection stub.
  • "how can I tell if one reading should be marked as irregular or nanori?"
WWWJDIC's single-kanji entries are pretty good for including nanori information. Here's their entry for 二, listing various nanori.
Basically speaking, if you run across a kanji reading -- particularly a non-on'yomi reading -- that isn't included in kanji dictionaries in the list of usual on and kun, then it's likely to be irregular (if in a regular word) or nanori (if appearing in a name).
But be careful! Names are sometimes spelled in a jukujikun fashion, where the kanji and the reading have nothing directly to do with each other. One case was an application to use the name spelling 騎士 meaning knight, mounted warrior with the reading naito from English instead of the expected kishi from on'yomi. (From what I've read, this application was turned down.)
HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply



Hello, Eirikr; @Fish bowl,

I don't have much more information on さんぽう as a reading of 三方, except to note that Kenkyusha's 新和英大辞典 says:

さんぽう1【三方】 =さんぼう1 1.

The heading さんぼう1, in turn, gives:

【三方】 1. 〔三面〕 three sides.
 三方山に囲まれている be surrounded by hills on three sides.
2. 〔神前の道具〕 a small wooden 「stand [table] []

So I guess, at least, according to 新和英大辞典, the word can be read as さんぽう when it means "three directions", but not when it means "a four-sided stand"? Cnilep (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply三方 has instances of "placing things upon a sanpou". (And for clarifying my edit summary: I was too lazy at the moment to repair ぼう into ほう|k2=ぼう|r=y and add another ja-kanjitab for さんぽう. :()
精選版 日本国語大辞典 and 明鏡国語辞典 apparently make the same implications that さんぽう is not applicable to the "table" sense. Maybe it is obsolete in modern language. —Fish bowl (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Japanese pronunciation template


Hi, I tried to add the readings of 一日千秋 but failed to make it look properly. It does not seem that {{ja-pron}} can handle this type of pitch accent. (Also, I don't know if I can add two 歷史的假名遣 in {{ja-noun}} XD) What would you do? --TongcyDai (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TongcyDai: Ya, multiple readings in one etym section generally doesn't work out so well. And, as you've discovered, {{ja-noun}} only supports one hhira value.
This is one of several reasons why the best practice for JA entries is (usually) to split out each reading into a separate etym section. Often, different readings carry different nuances, and often have reading-specific details -- like the historical hiragana spellings -- that cannot be displayed cleanly if we try to lump everything together into one etym section.
I'll have a go at splitting things out. Thanks for the message!  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TongcyDai: PS: the yomi argument for {{ja-pron}} is effectively deprecated -- that information should be included in {{ja-kanjitab}} instead, since that information is about the classification of the kanji reading, rather than anything about the pronunciation itself.  :)
(At some point, we should update the {{ja-pron}} template to notify editors about this...) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I got it, thanks for all the information! I think we should update the pronunciation template so as to handle compound pitch accent (otherwise, it is difficult to add and maintain), but I have no idea how to do so. Who should I contact? --TongcyDai (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TongcyDai: I'm not that familiar with Lua, and even less so with our specific coding conventions for modules. @Fish bowl, is this anything you could help with? If not, do you know who could? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply



...are part of historical Japanese armor, described at w:Auxiliary_armour_(Japan)#Wakibiki. What's the Japanese-script form? (I spotted this while reviewing armour words; we seem to have Japanese entries for many of them, but not this one.) - -sche (discuss) 01:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@-sche: That'd be either 脇引 or 腋引 (alternative spellings), with the first one more common. It's literally "armpit drawers". 😆
Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry here at Kotobank with a line-art illustration.
According to the JA WP article section at w:ja:小具足#胴部, another name for this is 脇当 (wakiate), literally something like "armpit placement". That said, there's no image, and the Daijisen entry at Kotobank lists this as an alternative for 脇盾 (waidate, literally armpit shield), and makes this sound like it's something slightly different, used only on the right side to cover where the breastplate and backplate are tied together. A Google Images search for "脇引" "鎧" is surprisingly unhelpful -- I guess there's just not that much online about Japanese armor, in Japanese, and that Google has crawled?
Anyway, HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

There was an error reversing mine and editing the page 沼 and 尻


Swamp (沼) + Bottom (尻) swamp bottom (沼尻)


= Rendaku

Lua error in Module:ja-pron at line 383: Mora count (1) is smaller than position of downstep mora (2). +

= Rendaku

Outside the Jouyou chart, 尻 is spoken "gami" (がみ). And the Japanese version of the page proves it.

And the same kanji can also be read in some terms like "ketsu" (けつ‎) by Ateji. Example: 馬尻 (ばけつ)

Reverse your reversals. The Young Prussian (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • @The Young Prussian: Your edits were problematic in various ways (moving subsections to the wrong locations, including the wrong readings, mistaken formatting, etc.), so it was actually easier to revert your changes and then add the correct content back in.
As a side note, the existence of anything in the Japanese Wiktionary or Wikipedia does not "prove" anything -- the Japanese versions are editable by anyone, same as here, so we cannot use any Wiktionary or Wikipedia page as "proof".
That said, the gami reading is listed in various reputable resources. The reason I removed your addition was because it was in the wrong place: gami is a nanori reading, not a kun reading. I then re-added that in the correct readings section.
Regarding your most recent edit to the entry, I reverted that because it is confusing -- your edit seems to be talking about the gami reading, which is not relevant anywhere within the shiri section.
Please also note that Wiktionary is not Wikipedia: if you add non-existent template calls to pages, your edits will be reverted, as at we saw here on the Talk:尻 page.
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Matsumura, Akira, editor (2006), 大辞林 [Daijirin] (in Japanese), Third edition, Tokyo: Sanseidō, →ISBN
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Kindaichi, Kyōsuke et al., editors (1997), 新明解国語辞典 [Shin Meikai Kokugo Jiten] (in Japanese), Fifth edition, Tokyo: Sanseidō, →ISBN



No, I'm not alright. It should suffice if I am just a little right. My methods may be questionable, inasmuch as I limit my research to these pages, but there are some honest concerns to be addressed.

For a start, do you find "harbour wave" a sensible description of a Tsunami which can drown entire coast lines?

Second, is madness, or do you see through the etymolog-y/ies?

Third of all, I said: "This makes more sense to me because tsunami waves would not be limited to harbours." (Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium#対馬)

"This" refers to "「水」(ad finis)", you follow?

Note that, for some reason, [[水#Etymology|水]] goes to Korean, which wasn't my intention.

Please, just answer the questions. Don't question my sanity or I will go insane. ApisAzuli (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ApisAzuli: I'm happy to answer questions, as best I understand them.
Regarding the above:
  • Re: tsunami derivation:
Tsunami do indeed affect coastal areas in general. However, it is notable how inlets funnel the power of a tsunami, and cause much greater damage. This is the derivation of the term: most tsunami that are dangerous happen in inlets.
I'm not sure what you're talking about? The Chinese etymology doesn't say anything related to "waterworld" or "island", as best I can tell.
  • Re: "third of all":
No, I do not follow. I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you're saying.
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I see. The graphematic information about Chinese "Thai" perfectly proves the point I was making in ES. I did of course not intend to provide perfect phonologic analyses, so I have to give it a rest. ApisAzuli (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I mean, I checked out STEDS for the first time today, which cleared up some misunderstandings that I had, but only after skimming Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan by Sagart et al., to put things into perspective. They cite Gray and Atkinson (Language-tree divergence times support the anatolian theory, 2003), as if that wasn't widely rejected. Money quote [6]:
  • the tree topologies in these [prior] proposals are based on an investigator’s perception of relative proximities between branches, with no quantification of uncertainty.
  • ... and a series of specific sound changes generally make cognate judgments very difficult, except for a few well-investigated cases.
Of the water words it is "River" that is more likely an areal word, after Schuessler. (STEDT #298 [7]) That's where I stopped. ApisAzuli (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Allow me to spell it out for you, said graphematic analysis:
Thai (the people) compounds with "Thailand" + 人 (the people; ironically, "person" is "Thai" in Thai).
Thailand -- 泰國 is made up of (((大 + 廾) + 水) + 國).
Thai (the language) compunds with the same first character 泰 + 語. So it's difficult to tell which is which, ... island people or just Thailand people, whether in Chinese, Japanese or what. In the latter case, 'Thai-land' is a compound like 'Thai-language', whereas in the former case, my hunch maintains that it is indeed '... water land'.
  • big; great, built on , is what I have mistakenly called "dao".
  • The two hands (廾), at least in Liushutong, may be reminiscent of wings and feathers (羽, 羽毛) and equivalently a sail (翼, 帆). This is entirely ad-hoc and confusing because I have no idea what I'm talking about, or how to write about it. The top part of is closer to the idea of a frame to which cloth may be fastened. Later I also saw a cute drawing in advertizing of a sail boat with sail implied with mast and horizontal bars (whatchmacallit, truss?). Most interestingly, 翼 really shows what looks like the two hands in the bottom.
  • 水 appears pretty much as predicted. I don't trust the common identifications of phonetic or semantic parts in compounds, but if "大 (OC *daːds" is phonetic for the semantics of 水, I can have my cake and eat it too, if you will.
-- "No obvious outside cognate exists". I think I can see a hand but there's no character analysis given. That's a chance, not a fault in my analysis. The cognate 閾 appears again with what looks like hands, or the wings of a door, a "gate". Dunno. In the bronce inscription, it looks like a simplified "cart" and a path with threshold. 16:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @ApisAzuli on the assumption that the anon was you.)
... all of which has almost nothing to do with Japanese Tsushima...??
I'm baffled where you're getting "island" from in your Chinese. (tài) semantically refers to "great", not "island". The connection with Thailand appears to be a relatively recent development from simply using this character for its sound value.
Etymologically, I see little grounds for assuming that Chinese (tài) and Thai ไทย (tai) are related.
  • Modern Mandarin (tài) pronunciation tài is traced back to an w:Old Chinese pronunciation of something like /*tʰaːds/.
  • Thai pronunciation /tʰaj˧/ seems like it's probably mostly consistent at least back through the putative borrowing into and back from Pali, which dates this to at least a few centuries BCE. This overlaps with the tail end of the Old Chinese period, up through the Qin unification in 221 BCE. Phonologically, this seems to argue against relatedness.
  • The Thai term also has meanings of "free, independent", not shared with the Chinese. I have no idea when these senses showed up; if both "free" and "Thai person / ethnicity" have been around for a long time, this is further suggestive evidence that the Thai and Chinese terms are not related.
  • The "two hands" glyph and the "wings" glyph have been distinct throughout recorded Chinese, so I don't think there are any grounds for assuming a conflation of these two.
  • The reconstructed phonetics for neither nor (tài) have anything to do with (shuǐ). Compare:
  • (OC *daːds, *daːds)
  • (OC *tʰaːds)
  • (OC *qʰʷljilʔ)
The relation between the top two is explicitly called out in the etymology for (tài): "derived from (OC *daːds, *daːds, “big”)."
  • The etym text for Chinese (guó) about "no outside cognate" is talking about the word or phoneme, not the glyph or grapheme. The glyph components are a bounding box, plus the inner portion which itself is comprised of an axe around a bounded area, presumably indicating someone defending a place. No cart, no path, no threshold.
I remain confused as to your musings. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I know it's dense. I am not getting "island" from Chinese. Let's take a step back.
I said "cp. *-an, Taiwan." Because, Japonic etymologies as of the words that you have brought into focus are typically either just-so (*sima) or not given at all (). Therefore I'd hope for tangential evidence from the East and South-East Asian language area. Admittedly, this attempt is both having an ask to grind (w.r.t. to Proto-Japonic morphology, Japanese origins, the islands' history, a lexem that definitely means "water-land") and wheel-waring (opposing the subliminal suggestion that the name belongs to the language in which it has a transparent analysis, predicting the semantics; but not really: you have not come down with a fundamental verdict and neither have I, so I consider the issue still open for interpretation).
I recognize at least, so between a place and a hard rock I cannot help but think of island if "water-" and "-place" are of concern. You'll notice that that's not phono-semantic matching (the similarity of *-an to -land may be a happy coincidence). Rosenfelder's essay does not apply here, when I am first of all exploring the semantics of island names. Although, I might have thought about *-an between yama and shima (which also means more generally "-land"). I am of two minds about island, as indicated by my denoting island "waterworld": I don't fully believe the etymology of *awjōlandą. Folk etymology is the name of the game in top-onomastics, so the proposition is ambivalent: Either you find "water" + "land" disagreeable or it is somehow more reasonable (typologically likely) than I had thought. The second option is imperative if I have to assume good faith. A survey of island toponomastics should of course not end there, but it is a start. I might add that Cebu, Sumatra and Siam look like interesting comparisons as well. The same good faith demands that somebody provide parallel evidence if they can help it, but the lack of such contributions, your insult as well as the good points that you made are slightly discouraging.
Moreover, with regards to Rosenfelder, something as small and broad as -an "place" has a high chance of finding fleeting similarities in any event. Worse, however, as insignificant as it is, it may be easily lost to sound change. But the omnipresence of nasals is a net-benefit for language contact situations because it facilitates adoption. Better yet, morphology is usually considered a stronger argument than lexicon alone. TL;DR: you might argue that comparison to *-an is not warranted at all, and comparison to water thus not justified, not at all.
The entire tangent is of course ad-hoc since Taiwan as a prior does not by itself suggest water. So far that's arbitrary. Focusing on "water" instead of "Thai", "human" (or "free") avoids speculating about the demonym (that followed in the second bullet point) and any immediate involvement of Thai people. Rather, since "water" is understood to be likely the first topic of exchange when visiting a new place, literally a wanderword. That's why I went on pointing out a few loose ends, where tacit suggestions of loaning are warranted by the sources. With regards to Japanese note that Nanori tsu (tsu) and mitsu (mitsu) are already listed under . What the ...
ApisAzuli (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Wait, it only says that "tsu" is a nanori reading of 水 without giving it a meaning. The entry itself only indicates "saliva". The other may mean "juice". I understand that nanori readings can be difficult in onomastics. ApisAzuli (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @ApisAzuli:

I'll respond here as best I can.

  • “I said "cp. *-an, Taiwan."”
This is the first mention of Taiwan anywhere in this thread. So from what I can see, no, you did not say anything about Taiwan until just now.
That said, looking at the etymology section at Chinese 臺灣台湾 (Táiwān), it seems like this derives from Siraya tayw (man) + an (place marker suffix). Still nothing about "island", nor anything about "water". (This does suggest a possibility that Siraya tayw (man (person?)) and Thai ไทย (tai, person) might be related...)
  • “Because, Japonic etymologies as of the words that you have brought into focus are typically either just-so (*sima) or not given at all ().”
Our etymology for (shima) is lacking. This is very likely related to a cluster of verbs all starting with the same shim- element, with core meanings of "(en)close; shut off; seep in (and not come out); finish". (See also Reconstruction_talk:Proto-Japonic/sima, Talk:しまう, Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2021/July#*simü-.) Consider some parallel semantics in Latin insula and descendants English isle and insulate.
Re: Japanese (tsu, inlet; harbor; spring, water source), this term is attested in Japanese sources back to at least 712, when this was likely realized phonetically as something like /tu/. I'm not familiar with any cognates identified in non-Japonic languages (Korean has nòlò, Middle Chinese has t͡siɪn, Ainu has moi, Mongolian has boomt...), so given the state of current research, that's all we've got.
  • “Japanese origins, the islands' history, a lexem that definitely means "water-land"”
You've lost me here. What lexeme?
  • “I recognize at least”
Presumably you're talking about the radical in the character? This is relevant to the derivation of the glyph (grapheme), but irrelevant to the derivation of the Japanese word tsu meaning "inlet; harbor; spring". Always remember that Japanese kanji are borrowed from Chinese, and how things are spelled in Japanese often has absolutely nothing to do with Japanese etymologies.
  • “Although, I might have thought about *-an between yama and shima (which also means more generally "-land").”
Not sure what you mean about which also means more generally "-land"?
(yama) may well be derivationally related to noun 黄泉 (yomi, the underworld, the land of the dead) and a cluster of verbs and nouns beginning with yam-, such as 病む (yamu, to fall ill), (yami, darkness), 止む (yamu, to halt, to cease (such as rain)), 止める (yameru, to cease doing something), 辞める (yameru, to quit, to resign). Nothing about "land" as a counterpart to "sea".
Re: (shima, island), I've just explained that more fully above.
  • “I might add that Cebu, Sumatra and Siam look like interesting comparisons as well.”
Honestly no idea what you're talking about here.
  • “The same good faith demands that somebody provide parallel evidence if they can help it, but the lack of such contributions, your insult as well as the good points that you made are slightly discouraging.”
I am frankly confused where you think I intended insult. I apologize if you've taken offense, and assure you that none was intended.
  • “Rather, since "water" is understood to be likely the first topic of exchange when visiting a new place, literally a wanderword.”
I don't agree, and I am not aware of any evidence for this. C.f. the Chinese term (shuǐ) and the unrelated Japanese (mizu). Or the wide gap between Latinate words like Spanish agua or French eau and Germanic words like German Wasser and English water -- and this is just within the PIE family.
  • “With regards to Japanese note that Nanori tsu (tsu) and mitsu (mitsu) are already listed under ... Wait, it only says that "tsu" is a nanori reading of 水 without giving it a meaning.”
Basically, nanori (literally "name-riding", as in "put on top of a name") readings are usually wholly unrelated to the derivation of other words with that same spelling.
The nanori reading of tsu for Japanese may well have originally been the same tsu as for (inlet; harbor; spring), and in some name for someone somewhere, someone decided to use for its meaning of "water" and apply that to the phoneme tsu with its vaguely-in-the-same-ballpark water-related meanings.
Meanwhile, the nanori reading of mitsu for Japanese is probably mi (an older compounding form of mizu "water") plus the Old Japanese genitive particle tsu. Another possibility is that it is a "spelling pronunciation" from older texts that did not always reliably distinguish between voiced and unvoiced consonants. Modern mizu is from older midu, and the unvoiced /d/ would produce modern mitsu.
At any rate, nanori should be ignored for any exploration of etymologies.

I've lost track of what we're seeking to clarify in this thread. Is this all still in aid of your understanding of the derivation of Tsushima? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is clarifying not "Tsushima" but clarifying my rambling in the Etymology Scriptorium thread about "Tsushima", where I invited comparison to Taiwan, *-an.
  • What lexeme?
I do not know! I'm browsing for hours after words like or 湿地 or 美津島町 (-cho) but nothing quotable to translate "waterworld" appears. I have perhaps misunderstood what "-land" means in "island".
  • ... the 氵 radical in the 津 character? This is relevant to the derivation of the glyph (grapheme), but irrelevant to the derivation of the Japanese word tsu meaning "inlet; harbor; spring".
You cannot say that the derivation of the glyph is irrelevant to the (reconstruction of) the derivation of the word. First, the base may be Austroasiatic (Schuessler). Second, the radical may be phonetic, depending on whichever word it continued in this glyph. See, sea-port, sea-fare, sea-men, etc. are fairly natural constructions, analytic or synthetic. This may be less relevant for the Japanese derivation of the word unless they have it from a same source.
  • Not sure what you mean about which also means more generally "-land"?
I mean shima.
  • Honestly no idea what you're talking about here.
Me neither.
Thanks for your continued interest. ApisAzuli (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@ApisAzuli: Heh, I'm enough of a "down the rabbit hole" nerd myself when it comes to etymologies that I'm happy to ride along for a while when someone else is on a hunt.  :)
Re: tsu. The derivation of the Chinese glyph (jīn) is only relevant to the Japanese word tsu if, and only if, we can show that the Japanese is derived somehow from the Chinese. However, the phonology of the Old Chinese (OC *ʔslin) and the Middle Chinese (MC tsin) make it quite unlikely that the Japanese is related -- aside from the onset consonant of the Middle Chinese form matching the modern Japanese ts-, 1) Old Japanese would have rendered this as tu, not tsu, 2) the vowel values don't match, 3) Chinese final -n is reflected as Japanese final -n in other borrowed terms.
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Katakana in headword


Would it be desirable to also display the katakana in headword templates like {{ja-noun}} if it is provided as an argument? An example would be for which we actually have the entry ウワサ which is however not linked to by the kanji entry. I also noticed that 蜜柑 actually contains ミカン as a headword template argument but the template somehow discards it? — Fytcha T | L | C 23:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha: The mere existence of a katakana entry somewhere should probably not be deemed reason enough to include that katakana spelling in the lemma entry -- for (uwasa), the katakana spelling is not lexical. I don't view its existence as problematic (it may be a slight usability gain, in terms of the discoverability of the lemma entry), but I also don't view it as relevant enough to include in the lemma.
For entries like 蜜柑 (mikan) that do actually include the katakana right in the lemma, I'm not sure about best presentation. The ====Usage notes==== section includes {{U:ja:biology}} which does display the katakana spelling, with an explanation of the context in which it's often used, so not having the katakana shown on the headword line itself doesn't seem like much of an issue.
I'm not up on the details of {{ja-noun}} and Module:ja-headword, but I think @Fish bowl might be able to comment more knowledgeably. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I noticed the "discarding" a while ago, and @Rdoegcd actually fixed it in Module:ja-headword recently but then reverted the fix since () is odd (true, although personally I don't mind that much; better than nothing). —Fish bowl (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I wasn't satisfied with (), and I gave up. It's hard to notice mistakes if these spellings are hidden, so I do think they should be shown somehow. Currently, I'm thinking either Module:ja-headword should be fixed so that the headword line for 蜜柑 displays "()(かん) or ミカン • (mikan)" or ミカン should be moved to the alternative spellings box. But then there are some tricky cases like タンパク質 ({{ja-noun|たんぱくしつ|タンパクしつ}}), 鼠捕り ({{ja-noun|ねずみとり|ネズミとり}}), and くノ一 ({{ja-noun|くのいち|くノいち}}). Rdoegcd (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Etymology of Hungarian fut


Hi, I try to respond to your questions separately:

  • How do we get from "to shoo" to "to run"?
    • The etymology was entered by Lisztrachmaninovfan without sources. The etymology dictionaries provide "to caper, jump, run" as a meaning for the Proto-Uralic *pukta-, they do not mention "to shoo".
  • And how do the two modern HU senses relate? "To run" and "to suffice" don't have any clear semantic connection.
    • I did not find any reference about this. Perhaps this image might help: Imagine money, food, time or other objects to be able to run only for a certain distance or duration. It is either enough or not depending on the situation.
  • Also, "to suffice, to be able to afford" are neither of them transitive, but the verb sense is transitive? How does that work?”
    • The dictionary marks this sense as "transitive verb form without an object". So for this sense only the definite forms of the verb will work. Example: Három könyvet szeretnék venni, de arra nem futja a pénzemből. - I'd like to buy three books but I can't afford it (I don't have enough money for three). It would be incorrect to say "erre nem *fut a pénzemből".

Hope this helps. Panda10 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, Panda10. I might suggest a wording tweak or two in the entry, after thinking on this for a little while. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply



Again, please read this link I wrote before.

The 시 of 마시다 is not the honorific suffix -(으)시-, unlike 드시다 from 들다 + -으시-.

If the 시 of 마시다 the honorific suffix -(으)시-, the word 마시다's etymology must be 마다 or 말다, but these words for "drink" don't exist.

If you are unfamiliar with Korean honorific, please leave it as I edited. Dubukimchi (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

If there is no reply, I will take that to be understood what I am saying, and I will I will resume editing. --Dubukimchi (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

豚 = high-card


Hi, I edited your annotation about the Poker meaning of the Japanese word probably being from the "undesirable" meaning. I think it is probably from an earlier term for a "worthless" card hand, used in other games (a high-card hand is also 'worthless' in terms of not containing a combination). I've added one quotation but don't have a translation for it; the source article is linked from my edit. Porges (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Edits on 甘い and からだ, also some info


Originally gonna post to the Etymology Scriptum (nani discussion), but I thought it'd be better to post on your talk page.

About your edits:

Thank you for the edits in 甘い (amai, sweet) and からだ (karada, body).

Apparently in order to search for adjective derived from Old Japanese on Kotobank, I must search the kanji itself, not the full adjective. Could only find the adjective definition and classical conjugation. Also I searched for からだ (karada) in Kotobank but only found compound definitions and kanji forms. Guess I didn't look further

I thought as well that a particle is strange to form nouns. Anything about (takara, treasure) and (chikara, power)? Can't find anything on Kotobank.

They seem like the final -kara element has a meaning of "source" rather than "from". Since the particle から itself is derived from that.

Also by the way the pronoun/demonstrative plugins in (なに) (nani, what) are broken on your edits. Chuterix (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

EDIT: Is ONCOJ (Oxford-NINJAL Corpus of Old Japanese) reliable for finding Old Japanese entries? --Chuterix (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Regarding ところ (place)


Hey @Eirikr;

Did you do the surface analysis on your own for the etymology of (tokoro, place)?

This edit is when the surface analysis was first published: Chuterix (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that was my surface analysis. Factors that contributed to this:
  • The historical existence of /to2ko2/ since OJP, with respected monolingual JA sources indicating that this is etymologically identical to "place"
  • The historical existence of /to2/ since OJP, with respected monolingual JA sources indicating that this is etymologically identical to "place"
  • The historical existence of /ko2/ since OJP, with respected monolingual JA sources indicating that this is a locative suffixing element
The only part that is all that speculative in that analysis is about the final /ro2/ element, since those same respected monolingual JA sources don't have anything much to say about this -- the NKD entry, for instance, doesn't discuss the (-ro) found in tokoro, kokoro, uturo, etc. The mention of 「語調を整える」 appears in a number of NKD entries for shorter one-mora elements like this, and it is consistently frustrating -- it basically reads to me that the entry editors didn't know how to define it and just お手上げ, and decided "well, it's just a sound". Weak, in my opinion: it would have been better to state explicitly something like 「意味合いは未だに不明」.
Looking beyond what the NKD editors had to say, this final -ro element in various terms does appear to indicate some kind of "location" sense, possibly generalized, that includes senses of "interior".
I suspect that this is related to pluralizing / genericizing nominalization suffix (-ra). There are a number of terms at the very oldest stages of recorded Japanese that appear to evidence an /a//o/ alternation, where the a variants have overtones of "outward; appearance" and the o variants have overtones of "inward; intrinsic quality". I describe a bit more about this, with some examples, in this answer post on the Japanese Stack Exchange site.
HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Revert of だい


Why did you revert my edit? I gave you my reasoning but you didn't even reply. 05:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Japonic *petunsi and Proto-Ryukyuan *pebeza


Hello @Eirikr!

What makes the shift from PJ *petunsi to PR *pebeza unexplainable? Since you removed the PR as a descendant of *petunsi and say in the PR entry it’s distinct from PJ *petunsi. Chuterix (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Chuterix: We have two phonological problems here.
  • How does Proto-Japonic medial -tu- become Proto-Ryukyuan -be-? This is completely unexplainable.
  • How does Proto-Japonic final -i become Proto-Ryukyuan -a? This is not as bizarre as the -tu--be- proposal, but still an issue.
The latter vowel shift might be explainable by other processes, such as fusion with another element. We see such fusion in inflecting terms, such as JA adjective asai reflecting in Okinawan as asasan.
However, there is nothing to tie Japonic -tu- to Ryukyuan -be-. There are zero phonological processes that could cause such a shift: the initial consonants are wholly different, with incompatible places of articulation, and the vowels are also unrelated and without any relevant mechanism for transformation. We must conclude that these are different elements -- which means that the Proto-Ryukyuan term cannot be an inheritance from the Proto-Japonic term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

About article Seonbi



I ask that you please not revert my contribution about article Seonbi again. There is no proof that the word "Seonbi" is derived from Sinic or any other Chinese dialect, and the user Fish bowl’s conspiracy is based on zero evidence and is offensive. If you don't get back to me in a day, I'll restore the version I edited.

Thanks. 09:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Calling another editor's work "conspiracy" in your first contact with me immediately informs me that I should be wary of you. I'm not sure that's the first impression you intend to give.
Separately, your edits so far at 선비 (seonbi) have been objectively problematic. Just looking at your latest edit there:
  • Your etymology text did not actually describe the etymology of the word -- where it comes from, how it is derived, when it first appears, etc.
  • You stated that "[i]n Jilin leishi (鷄林類事), it is phonetically represented as 進, 寺 and 切" -- this makes no sense, as none of these three characters have any eum or hun pronunciation that matches either seon or bi:
Eum 나아갈 (naagal) (jeol) 끊을 (kkeuneul)
Hun (jin) (sa) (jeol)
  • Your edit did not address the question in the RFE (request for etymology), which also asked "surely this is sinitic from 先輩 or something?"
If the Korean term is not from any Sinitic term, explain how it derives from non-Sinitic roots.
  • This is a wiki. Please link to appropriate other terms and references. For instance, what is a "Yangban"? What is the "Jilin leishi"? There are relevant Wiktionary or Wikipedia articles that these should link to.
I hope the above is helpful for you in adjusting your approach to editing here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Honestly speaking, I tried to find out about the word seonbi’s origin but failed; it is true. And also, I learned today that the word "先輩" has been used since the Tang Dynasty in ancient China. But it still doesn’t mean that the user Fish bowl’s skepticism is accurate at all. Nothing change.

1. “You stated that it is phonetically represented as 進, 寺 and 切 -- this makes no sense, as none of these three characters have any eum or hun pronunciation that matches either seon or bi.”

>>> We don’t need to know what Hanzi(Chinese character) actually means because it’s related to phonetics. It’s exactly the same as Japanese ateji or modern China’s borrowed words. Also, most of all, the book 鷄林類事 is published in 1103, so these are all followed by middle Chinese pronunciation, not followed by modern Sino-Korean pronunciation.

2. “If the Korean term is not from any Sinitic term, explain how it derives from non-Sinitic roots.”

>>> This is totally nonsense. I'm sorry, does that mean if the Korean word’s origin is unclear, should it have a Sino-Xenic origin? Who knows? It could have been a native word of long history used before the spread of Chinese characters, or a nativization of the Tungusic, Mongolic, or Japanese languages, or even a Semitic or Indo-European, Bantu, etc. But without any evidence, the user Fish Bowl’s edit is just a denial and doubt without basis or source. In my personal impression, what he's questioning sounds like "people failed to find out about 'Who created the human being' so I suggest that humans were created by my dogs and cats, thus my claim is legitimate and logically correct."

I hope it is now clear enough to understand my thoughts on why the paragraph that was written by the user Fishbowl should be deleted or restored to the version that I edited. If you don't reply in 24 hours, I'll rollback the version I edited, but I guess it would be better if it were restored by yourself because I'm an anonymous user, so it's possible to rollback by him again.

PS:I tried to link to Wikipedia articles about Yangban and Jilin leishi in my contribution version, but only succeeded in connecting with the article on Yangban. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk).


We don’t need to know what Hanzi(Chinese character) actually means because it’s related to phonetics. It’s exactly the same as Japanese ateji or modern China’s borrowed words. Also, most of all, the book 鷄林類事 is published in 1103, so these are all followed by middle Chinese pronunciation, not followed by modern Sino-Korean pronunciation.

Let us look at the reconstructed Middle Chinese sound values, together with the Korean readings for sake of completeness:
Eum 나아갈 (naagal) (jeol) 끊을 (kkeuneul)
Hun (jin) (sa) (jeol)
Middle Chinese (MC tsinH) (MC ziH) (MC tshejH|tshet)
The problems I see here:
  • None of these characters have any sound values that match either syllable /sʰʌ̹n/ or /bi/ of the modern Korean term 선비 (seonbi), nor indeed either syllable /sjən/ or /pʌj/ of the attested Middle Korean term 션ᄇᆡ (syenpoy). The closest we get might be (MC tsinH) — but the onset consonant is problematic (reflecting as /t͡ɕ/ in Korean, not as /s/, and the vowel is also a mismatch (reflecting as /i/ in Korean, not as /ə/ or /ʌ/).
  • The Korean term is clearly two syllables. Your text lists three Chinese characters. The proposed correspondence between these is unclear.
Given the confusion apparent in your text, and the confusion it is likely to cause in readers, the entry is better off without that text.
  • Your comments about the term's potential origin includes some faulty logic.

...if the Korean word’s origin is unclear, should it have a Sino-Xenic origin?

Not necessarily. If a Korean word's origin is unclear, we cannot say that it has a Sino-Xenic origin. At the same time, we cannot say that it does not have a Sino-Xenic origin.
Your edit did nothing to address the RFE comment that @Fish bowl added: “surely this is sinitic from 先輩 or something?” Before removing the RFE, you must address the concerns raised: explain the derivation of 선비 (seonbi). If your research does not rule out the possibility of a Sinitic origin, your edit should mention that.
FWIW, I did find this web page that gives one theory about the origins of the term, describing the initial seon as possibly deriving from the Sinic word (MC dzriX), and the final bi as possibly from Mongolian / Manchurian -- and I wonder if this latter element in turn might derive from Sinic 博士 (MC pak dzriX).
  • The term yangban as used in English text is generally not capitalized. There is a corresponding Wiktionary entry at yangban#English. Use the wikicode [[yangban]] to create a link.
  • The Joseon dynasty has a Wikipedia article at w:Joseon. Use the wikicode {{w|Joseon}} to create a link.
  • The Jilin leishi has a Wikipedia article at w:Jilin leishi. Use the wikicode ''{{w|Jilin leishi}}'' to create a link.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply


Before you read this, you should remember these two things:

The first is that the writer 孫穆(Sūn Mù) is not a native speaker of Korean, therefore it was impossible for him to catch the correct language perfectly.

Secondly, you should acknowledge that this book is written in an era between late-middle Chinese and early-old Mandarin. The Middle Chinese period was from the 4th century to the 12th century, and the Old Mandarin period was from the 12th century to the establishment of the Ming dynasty. Unfortunately, no one can revive the real sound of that era anymore.

1. According to w:Jilin leishi(雞林類事), the explanation of “seonbi” is written in 「士曰進寺儘切」. 進 is firstly written in big letters at the top, and the other three characters 寺,儘, and 切 are later written in very small(these four characters are separated and do not make up a syllable of the single term). It’s because, as you know, the word 進 is most similar to real Korean pronunciation compared to the other three characters(寺, 儘, and 切). As for myself, I’m not sure why the other syllable “bi” doesn’t exist but modern Korean linguists consider that it was either mistaken or later added.

2. “I did find this web page that gives one theory about the origins of the term, describing the initial seon as possibly deriving from the Sinic word 士 (MC d͡ʒɨX), and the final bi as possibly from Mongolian / Manchurian -- and I wonder if this latter element in turn might derive from Sinic 博士 (MC pwɑk̚ d͡ʒɨX).”

>>> Of course, I don’t know which language you speak as your mother tongue, but I guess you misunderstood this article’s sentence because maybe you’re not a native speaker. In that webpage’s paragraph, it says that the meaning of 「선비」 is the same as the Chinese term 「士」, which means “work” or “serve”. Consequently, that article tells us Eum(sound) is NOT from Sinic, but Hun(meaning). Similar to the Japanese translation (Waseikango) "kagaku" of the western term "science". It’s debatable whether the syllable “bi” is from mongolic/tungusic, but it still remains just one of the theories of etymology.

I still hope that, if you don't mind, I can revert or rollback it to the version in which I deleted the sentence that the user Fishbowl wrote. Whether you agree or not, please leave a message within a day.


Various points to respond to.
  • Thank you for pointing out my error about the initial seon and Chinese (shì), re-reading that first paragraph at the link, I realized they were describing synonymy and not derivation.
  • Regarding any entry, you cannot just remove an RFE without responding to it. If you would like to remove @Fish bowl's RFE in the 선비 (seonbi) entry, you must respond to that RFE by entering an etymology that explains the term's derivation. Your past edits did not do that, so if you simply restore your past edits, you will likely be reverted again.
  • Regarding the term 선비 (seonbi), I understand your points about Song-era phonology and unknowables. There are some things we can surmise based on available evidence.
  • The Jilin leishi text correlates a monosyllabic Chinese term (shì) with a monosyllabic Middle Korean term. We know right from the start that the Jilin leishi description cannot be for seonbi, as this is bisyllabic.
  • As you note, this could be a description for the seon part of the term, which would still be useful information.
  • After I spent some time this morning reading up on the Jilin leishi, the format of w:rime tables, and w:fanqie, I've gained a better understanding of the notation used in the relevant line:


The first three characters tell us that Chinese (shì, gentleman; scholar; commendable person) (yuē, is called) (jìn) in Middle Korean. As I'd noted above, this is problematic for reasons of reconstructed phonology. You are right to question that questioning, although maybe not for the reasons you first thought. :)
The key is the parenthetical comment. I didn't understand this part at first, and I think the meaning may have escaped you as well. According to the details at w:Fanqie#Function, we learn that the rime tables would indicate further details about a character's pronunciation using a specific notation style. The in the parentheses is our hint here, that this is a (fǎnqiè) notation.
Fanqie indicates the onset pronunciation (initial consonant, or lack thereof) using one character, and the coda pronunciation (final consonant, or lack thereof) using another character. I'm not entirely sure if the nucleus (the vowel) is meant to be indicated by the first or second character.
At any rate, with that fanqie notation style in mind, we can now successfully parse the parenthetical comment. This tells us that we should interpret (jìn) for Middle Korean as phonetically equivalent to the onset of , and the coda of (jǐn). While we are uncertain of the Song-era pronunciation of these, we can at least look at Middle Chinese and modern Mandarin. (Note that we have no Middle Chinese for the (jǐn) form of that character, but we do for alternative form (jìn).) For comparison, let's include at the modern Korean eum pronunciation as well.
Character Middle Chinese Modern Mandarin Modern eum
H (sa)
(jìn) d͡ziɪnX, t͡siɪnX jìn (jin)
The fanqie details resolve my earlier concerns that the initial consonant in Chinese was a poor match for the initial /s-/ in seonbi — the initial for is /s-/ in both Mandarin and Korean, and while Middle Chinese voices this to /z-/, there is no sign of the dental fricative we otherwise see in (MC tsinH).
However, we are still left with a mismatch in the vowel -- all of the Chinese vowels are some variant of /i/, and the Korean vowels are either /a/ or /i/, none of which resolves clearly to the /ʌ/ vowel in modern Korean 선비 (seonbi), nor the /jə/ vowel in Middle Korean 션ᄇᆡ (syenpoy). The vowel reconstructed for Middle Chinese (d͡ziɪnX) at least has a diphthong, but this is not a perfect match with Middle Korean /jə/.
We can also look at other borrowings from Chinese with modern Korean readings of seon, and see how those Middle Chinese and modern Mandarin pronunciations compare. Here are the ones currently listed in our (seon) entry:
Character Middle Chinese Modern Mandarin Modern eum
siᴇnH xiàn seon
None xiàn seon
ʑiuᴇn chuán seon
d͡ʑiᴇnX shàn seon
d͡ʑiᴇn, d͡ʑiᴇnH chán seon
siᴇn, siᴇnX, siᴇnH xiān seon
ɕiᴇn, ɕiᴇnH shàn seon
None of the Chinese characters have any nucleus vowel value resembling the /iɪ/ value that we see for Middle Chinese (MC tsinH) and (MC dzinX|tsinX), and the main vowel for all of them in modern Mandarin is /a/. This suggests that it would be unlikely for either of these to be the ancestor of modern seon as used in the term 선비 (seonbi), and circumstantially suggests that the Middle Korean term listed in the Jilin leishi is some other word.
Let's look at a few other Chinese characters that have /iɪ/ in Middle Chinese, and see how these are reflected in modern Mandarin and Korean.
Character Middle Chinese Modern Mandarin Modern eum
ʑiɪn shén sin
d͡ʑiɪn chén sin
d͡ʑiɪnX shèn sin
siɪnH xìn sin
siɪn xīn sin
ɕiɪn shēn sin
ɕiɪn shēn sin
All of these show Middle Chinese vowel /iɪ/ reflecting as modern Mandarin /i/ or /e/, and as modern Korean /i/. This is additional evidence that the term in the Jilin leishi is unlikely to be the same term as the seon in 선비 (seonbi).
  • So far, it seems like that Encyclopedia of Korean Culture article about the etymology of seonbi is the only source we have that unambiguously describes a possible derivation of this word. In an etymology in our entry at 선비 (seonbi), we could certainly mention the Jilin leishi, but only as a possibility, not as a definite derivation, and we should ideally mention that the Jilin leishi term is difficult to tie directly to seonbi due to various phonetic issues, as outlined above.
In conclusion, I cannot support any reversion to your previous edits, but I could support a rewrite of the etymology based on what we're finding together here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply



@Eirikr: About the information you gave me regarding the kuru with a problematic relation (probably not a relation at all) to OJ past auxiliary ki, it’s just a context (ordering) mistake. Kuru doesn’t seem related to the past auxiliary; plus it’s very weird and strange using a particle for a sense not relating to a particle. (past particle > go = ?) Chuterix (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr: There’s also semantic context “the day that had came by”, but an auxiliary would need to support the past relation. And I don’t know if a full singular word is derived from a phrase (similar to 愚か者 (oroka-mono, fool), but no conjugation of oroka is actually found in oroka-mono; not talking about actual phrases (as in, spoken, not a word) such as 猿も木から落ちる (saru mo ki kara ochiru, even an expert isn’t perfect/makes mistakes, literally monkeys also fall from trees)). Chuterix (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Japonic words possibly borrowed from Proto-Indo-European list page


See new list here, and please give a review on this list to see if these relations are well. Chuterix (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr ^ Chuterix (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Cheers. Just as a technical consideration, note that it is not necessary to ping the owner of a User talk page -- the owner is already notified whenever a new post is created there.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Any additional comments regarding the comparison itself? Chuterix (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix: See the #Comments section.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I made a new comparison of 飼う (kau, to feed (an animal)) in case you didn't receive the ping on that page (we should move to a new talk page of the user page). Chuterix (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix: New comments added. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Eirikr new response of yaku Chuterix (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply



Would you mind adding the Japanese entry here? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: Done.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

About NKD


In Kotobank, the entries are using the 精選版, not the 第二版. This probably explains why so many etymologies are missing. I'd suppose the new site working wanted to change Daijiten editions due to the JapanKnowledge online web edition (which costs money), but don't count me on that.

There is an online dictionary containing the original NKD with the etymologies at Sakura Paris (see here). Click on the 日国 (nikkoku) button and search a word (doesn't have to be an exact word unlike Kotobank). Chuterix (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chuterix: Interesting. I'll dig out my big hard-backed version later (maybe tonight, time allowing) and see what the specific edition is -- and also see if I can figure out what version my local electronic one is. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Japonic *yəntari


Why did you put an RFV on this reconstruction entry?

yodare is a shift from yodari, itself attested since 720 (but only in kun'yomi reading; so actually the Heian period) with unvoiced yotari, and from comparative Ryukyuan data (found here), I reconstruct PR *yodari and PJ *yəntari. Should the reconstruction be *yontari, it would probably be OJP *yudari.

The noun itself is derived as a compound of unknown element yo + taru ("to fall") in ren'yokei stem, according to the KDJ (on Sakura Paris; see here). I am going to update etymologies for yodare soon.

The Gogen Yurai Jiten entry (see here) suggests the yo element might be found in 弱い (yowai, weak, OJP reading yo1wasi) and 緩む (yurumu, to be loose); in this case it should be reconstructed as *yontari or *yauntari (?). The other theory is that the yo element is a sound of a baby crying "yoyo".

ありがとう。 Chuterix (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I saw the hidden RFV message, but for some reason it doesn't appear in the main entry page. Chuterix (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

(After edit conflict...)
"Why did you put an RFV on this reconstruction entry?"
Hmm, looks like the RFV template isn't rendering the comment I included. Please have a look at the wikisource, I explain my reasoning there.
Re: the vowel value, it is clear that that tari is cognate with 垂る (taru), modern 垂れる (tareru), indicating that the yo is a morphemic unit unto itself -- could be a noun, could be an adverb, given the semantics and usual patterns of Japanese word formation.
I don't give the GYJ theories much credence; their contortions in phonology and semantics are sometimes quite strange. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply



Hi. Could you take at look at this Japanese entry? It doesn't seem like dictionary material to me. There are thousands of hanzi that can form an infinite number of given names in Chinese. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic: I think the grapheme still merits an entry for Japanese, given the use as a spelling for native JA surname Kiyomoto. I've expanded the entry. Please have a look, especially the "historical" sense since I'm not entirely sure I read that right (and I'm pressed for time, if I'm honest). Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think the senses as they stand now are fine, except "Japanese reading of the Chinese given name 'Qingyuan'". Like I said, there are an infinite number of Chinese given names. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Tooironic: Sure. I think this might have been added originally due to the existence of one w:ja:呉清源 (Go Seigen), a famous player of go. See also w:zh:吳清源, w:Go Seigen, etc.
Since we already have good grounds for keeping an entry at 清原#Japanese, and since this Go Seigen is a somewhat famous person in certain circles, it seems perversely unhelpful not to include a sense line for the name -- but maybe I'm overthinking this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Again, you'd be opening the can of worms to adding every single infinite combination of characters as given names. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Tooironic: I fear that maybe I haven't been clear about my thoughts. Here's another try.  :)
  • If we have a grapheme that meets CFI, then we list the appropriate senses under that heading.
  • If there is a name in that language that is spelled using that grapheme, then we include that as one of the senses.
Since 清源 is a valid grapheme for Japanese, we have an entry there.
Since 清源 is also a name in Japanese, or rather two different names, we include those senses. Since the Seigen name is also somewhat well-known due to the famous go player, I think there is an argument to be made that someone might look up the name in Japanese.
I have no interest in cataloguing all names as used in Japanese texts, so no worries there -- and I agree that Chinese name spellings are wide and varied enough, that any attempt to do so would likely be a fool's errand.
That said, as I read Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Given_and_family_names, I don't think we have any stated policy reason why we couldn't -- so long as those names are treated as lexemes, and we don't include encyclopedic content about people that have had those names. As a consequence, I don't see reason to remove the Seigen name from the Japanese 清源 entry.
Does that make sense? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for clarifying. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply




The つと-める reading of 力 is well-substantiated. You may find examples readily in older literature like in Google Books, or if you prefer Aozora.

Thank you. 19:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, there are other examples where the hurigana are specified, like in それから as 力めて. 20:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@ The edit came from IP 2601:CB:2:E180:A5A5:4085:6DD9:6056 (talk), almost all of which were unconfirmable and uncorroborated by references. I probably reverted their edit to Japanese without looking closely enough, as part of a flood of poor-quality edits.
That said, you are correct that つとめる (tsutomeru) (and inflected forms) is confirmable for . I have since reverted my reversion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
PS: Natsume Soseki uses various non-standard spelling + furigana combinations. Some of his spellings caught on, but others are not common at all. Using him as an authoritative source for spelling + furigana is not a good idea, unless you can corroborate in other sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Japanese classical conjugation


Hi, when should classical conjugation tables be added to Japanese verbs? I see that you’ve removed the classical conjugation table here, but I also see classical conjugation tables being added for their modern equivalents, like in 落ちる, even when there is the page for the corresponding classical verb(落つ). I don’t know the rules for these additions, so I hope you can tell me. Mcph2 (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Mcph2, thank you for reaching out!
For any conjugation table in a Japanese entry, the form of the word used as the headword (the "main" or "dictionary" form of the verb) must be present in the conjugation table.
For all vowel-stem verbs, a.k.a. 一段活用動詞 (ichidan katsuyō dōshi), we have two problems: 1) the headword form ending in -iru or -eru isn't included anywhere in the Classical conjugation paradigm, and 2) the "main" or "dictionary" form of the Classical verb differs from the headword.
By way of analogy, over at English do, we don't include the conjugation table for Middle English don -- even though older don became modern do.
I hope that's clear? Please feel free to ask me any questions.  :)
Thank you for letting me know about 落ちる. I'll go fix that shortly.
Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for explaining! Mcph2 (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply


Pellard (2008) does state that Proto-Japonic (PJ) diphthong *au goes to OJ o1. However, you deleted the PJ reconstruction there saying "PJ *au goes to Old Japanese (OJ) o2". OJ Co1 as Cwo is only reconstructed pronunciation. Chuterix (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chuterix, what grounds do we have for assuming *kusau must be the proto form for OJP kuso2? As we have described over at w:Proto-Japonic#Vowels, word-final OJP ⟨o2 would come from Proto-Japonic . I don't see any particular reason to reconstruct the final vowel sound as *au.
If this is presented in an academic work, please add a reference.
If this is your own reconstruction, please explain, as this does not seem to fit with the phonological rules presented by others. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

My Personal Proto-Japonic (and other Japonic stuff) Documentation User Page Feedback


please give feedback on talk page of my japonic user page Chuterix (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr Chuterix (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply



Just noticed the following errors displays on the Japanese entry here: "Warning: Default sort key "さんげんしょく" overrides earlier default sort key "一02厂08色00"." Would you mind taking a look? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tooironic --
Looks like Baka Fumiko strikes again. She had a bad habit of using {{DEFAULTSORT:...}} in inappropriate places, and this looks like one more instance. I just fixed that, and added more detail to the JA entry.
(Not sure what I did, but somehow my edits to the JA side nuked the ZH portion, so I restored that as well.)
Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply


@Eirikr Where's your sources for "Recorded in the Nihon Shoki of 720 CE as having been brought over from the Korean peninsula kingdom of Baekje, with the earlier reading of ma."? Is it your local KDJ? If there's no source from you within 2 weeks I will change this attestation message. Chuterix (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr You restored Pellard's reconstruction info but did not resolve the {{rfv-etym|ja}} issue. Please do this ASAP. Chuterix (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix --
Please slow down.
The speed at which you rework entries and move pages around, sometimes multiple times within a single hour, gives the impression of someone who is impetuous, inconsiderate or unaware of the impact on other editors, and not doing sufficient research. If this is not the impression you wish to give, please change your behavior: slow down, do more research, and coordinate with others more before reworking and moving.
Nota bene: This thread that you have started here is a good step in coordinating.
  • This is a volunteer project. We all have other responsibilities in life. Not all of us can spend lots of time here. Demanding anything "ASAP" can come across as rather rude.
  • Removing cited descriptions from an etymology, where those descriptions are germane and unproblematic, is generally frowned upon. It is not clear to me at all why you removed the comment about Pellard's reasoning, nor did you leave any edit comment. Please include edit comments explaining in brief what you did and why.
  • Given Pellard's comment, it is entirely possible that the shift from ma to uma was a Japanese innovation, possibly to differentiate ma "horse" from ma "space, room", ma "ramie", etc. Alternatively, uma may indeed be the underlying Japonic ancestral form. We see other instances of initial um- in Japanese reflected in Okinawan as ɴm- or shifted ɴb-, such as Japanese 生まれる (umareru)Okinawan ʔɴmarijuɴ, Japanese 埋める (umeru)Okinawan ʔɴbeejuɴ.
→ We don't have enough evidence to clearly reconstruct any proto-Japonic term *Mma. Moreover, your notation using the capitalized "M" is unexplained and confusing. Creating this entry at this spelling was premature and arguably in error.
Notably, I did not include any refs originally (modus operandi at that time did not require them), and when I did add refs in 2015, I placed the <ref> tags to try to indicate that the references themselves did not say anything about the Nihon Shoki.
  • Restoring a deletion is easy. Digging up what sources I used eleven years ago is complicated. This is why my recent edit at consisted of simply restoring the deleted etym details. I needed time to figure out 1) what edit you were referring to, 2) whether that edit was actually even mine, 3) when that edit happened, 4) what sources I would have had access to at that time, and 5) whether I can still access those resources now.
  • Due to various changes in the intervening 11 years, I do not currently have access to the edition of the 日本国語大辞典 that I likely used in June 2012. A different edition of mine includes the header note:
However, this edition does not include any quotes at all, so I cannot confirm anything from the 日本書紀.
I might be able to dig up an old laptop with the version I used in 2012, but that will also take some time, as I am in the middle of a move and I do not know specifically where that laptop is physically located in the house.
Checking the text of the Nihon Shoki as given over at the ZH WikiSource and searching for 馬 seems to find the section mentioning the Baekje:
No mention of pronunciation, though, and I do not have the time to dig through to see if any of the Nihon Shoki text phonetically describes how this was pronounced.
Separately, I see in ONCOJ that ma is one of the readings for 馬. Clicking through from there and searching for " ma " in my browser (exclude the quotes, include the space before and after) finds three hits, all in the Man'yōshū, indicating that ma was a valid, albeit uncommon, pronunciation for this term during the Old Japanese stage of the language.
That is already more time than I can easily afford today. I hope this helps to clarify things for you. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
GYT link:
you linked wrong one Chuterix (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Daijisen/Digital Daijisen references


Hello, you changed a reference from {R:Daijisen} to {R:Digital-Daijisen} in this diff. I was using the 大辞泉 (小学館) dictionary at I see that {R:Digital-Daijisen} automatically gives a link to, while {R:Daijisen} has no such link. Why did you change this reference, and what situations should I use these two reference templates in? Thank you. Mcph2 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mcph2, I'm a fan of making things accessible where possible.  :)
The Digital Daijisen reference available via Kotobank confirms the same details where you had added the non-digital Daijisen reference. Since the Kotobank version is accessible to anyone via clicking the link, this seems to me to be the better option, so I changed the reference template.
Meanwhile, I have sometimes kept the older non-linked {{R:Kokugo Dai Jiten}} ref and not replaced it with the newer {{R:Nihon Kokugo Daijiten 2}} one that links through to Kotobank, because the Kotobank version is missing certain details that are available in the older print version. (These details vanished from Kotobank's version a few years ago when they did a site redesign; I suspect that this was caused by a badly programmed data conversion during migration, accidentally stripping or omitting certain fields.) For those cases where the Kotobank version confirms the same details as the print version, I'll update to the newer {{R:Nihon Kokugo Daijiten 2}} reference, in favor of that one's improved accessibility.
I hope that answers your question? If not, please reply and I'll be happy to explain further.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I understand now, thank you for explaining! Mcph2 (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do not remove PJ pron sections



As aramaki morozofu said:


Please don't remove pitch accent from Proto-Japonic reconstructions. Without accent they don't have any sense to be reconstructed, since the some tone groups themselves imply vowel lengthen in Northern Ryukyuan words. If the accent group do not match, it is possible that they did not diverge from a common ancestor, but are in some kind of borrowing relationship or made from more complex compound even if they look like one morpheme.


I tried to do a way of including pitch accent for Proto-Japonic, and restoring the pron sections. I even added rules that says you could add them. See Reconstruction:Proto-Austronesian/Sapuy and many other PAN IPA sections at Category:Proto-Austronesian terms with IPA pronunciation. Chuterix (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Various problems, as I noted at User_talk:Kwékwlos#Proto-Japonic_pronunciation_sections. The biggest issues:
  • We don't know how these terms were pronounced. Therefore, adding pronunciation sections is misleading at best, flatly incorrect at worst.
  • The pitch accent information you were adding is confusing and unsourced. What are the accent classes? Who decided what accent class each word belongs to? None of this is explained or linked, which is unacceptably bad usability.
Better to have nothing than to have wrong information, or information that is so obscure as to be opaquely not-understandable.
As I noted on Kwékwlos's Talk page, you need to coordinate and achieve consensus first. Just announcing that you're going to rework entry structure and launching into that is insufficient and subject to reversion -- even more so when the content you're adding is problematic (as above). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
PS: Various Proto-Austronesian terms lack pronunciation sections, such as *baŋbaŋ₂, *laCəŋ, *lahud, *kurap.
Also, you quote Aramaki-san, but fail to cite: where do they say that? Context is important.
Slow down. Coordinate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, you quote Aramaki-san, but fail to cite: where do they say that? Context is important.

@Eirikr: On my talk page. Chuterix (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Accent class and accent reconstruction is from Martin (1987). Chuterix (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Eirikr Chuterix (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

my block


@Eirikr: I can add sources for accent if you want, but I'm blocked. Chuterix (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI


When I saw this, I reverted all of Chuterix's edits in @Mellohi!'s userspace and gave them a 1-month hard block. I'd appreciate it if you would check their other recent contributions for similar abuses. I've seen lots of inconsiderate behavior around here, but this is a first. I wonder how old they really are- this is the sort of childish tantrum I would expect from someone in grade school. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Given their impatience, rashness, and penchant for ignoring others, my general impression has been of a younger person. I must admit that this current outburst surprises me, however.
Thank you for the heads-up. I'll have a look at their other edits. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Chuterix generally needs a stern reminder to just do his reconstruction work and stop pinging every Japonic editor on random talk pages. I am burdened by both my Celtic studies and other university work, so I can't put much attention to discussing Japonic queries with him. Him pinging me and other Japonic editors like 3+ times a week gets old fast, and he really needs to tone the pings down. But he seems to be a good-faith editor, just need to be taught boundaries, not be brash about feedback, and acknowledge that others may not agree with his initial views. His latest outbursts I think can be calmed down by the month block. He also needs to take heed of keeping the ranting down; the harder he rants the harder he is to understand.
I can understand how frustrated Chuterix is when he arrives at reconstruction roadblocks, expertise gaps, and etymology controversies. When I started out in reconstructions I struggled in many of the same areas. But I agree that however he's composing himself the past few weeks is unproductive and he needs a break. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply



@Eirikr: This is Chuterix; sorry for ban evading, and sorry for annoying Mellohi and Kwekwlos on PJ reconstructions. I will try to calm down and not annoy them. Can I please have an unblock or at least access to my talk page at User talk:Chuterix please? 2600:8803:760B:B200:B44C:E381:F10B:E1B0 01:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

"ゐ" and "ゑ" should be respectively "wi" and "we"


It has been almost two weeks and this issue of "ゐ" being "i" hasn't been resolved. I noticed that "ヰャ" has been romanized as "ya" though it should really be romanized as "wya". It is not consistent that its small counterparts are romanized as usual. Even though these kana are usually pronounced "i" and "e" respectively, and sometimes even serve as an alternative spelling, they are still used to romanize w-sounds, especially beforer 1946. --MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no particular opposition. However, I also lack the facility with Lua required to do anything about this.
Where was the other discussion thread about this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think I know who this is. I've already asked elsewhere about their Chinese edits. Anything to worry about with their Japanese ones? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz, thanks for the heads-up. I'm underwater IRL for the next few days (in terms of time commitments, not physical location 😄), but I will definitely take a look at this anon's JA edits as time allows. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply



Hello. Would you mind checking the Japanese translation here? From what I can tell, 横隔膜 should be thoracic diaphragm, not midriff. While midriff did used to mean thoracic diaphragm, this translation table is for the modern sense, "mid section of the human torso", that is, the abdomen. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wow, ya. Any fashions that bare one's thoracic diaphragm would have to be called radically harmful at best. 😳
Baffling too that this was apparently added by a native-JA speaker in diff -- I can only assume that some kind of confusion was at play here.
Fixed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

An introduction to Proto-Japonic accent; what do you think?


The accent of Proto-Japonic and tone of Proto-Ryukyuan can be reconstructed well.

I'll simply introduce the monosyllables, while disyllables and trisyllables I'll instruct you soon.

For one mora noun, if the Tokyo Accent is 0, the Kyoto accent is 2, and the Kagoshima accent is A, then it belongs to 1.1 accent class, which is HIGH pitch (*H).

Some Tokyo-type Japanese dialects have 1 and thus belongs to accent class 1.2 (*F).

1.3 belongs to the LOW accent class (*R), if Tokyo and Kyoto have 1, and Kagoshima has B.

The accent data shall be taken from Hirayama Teruo's Zenkoku Akusento Jiten.

The accent of Proto-Ryukyuan tone class A corresponds to 1.1 and 1.2, while tone class B corresponds to 1.3.


(ke, hair): H-0-2-A = 1.1

Shodon kʰɨ̂ː (HL), Yoron ɕìː (LL), Shuri kîː (HL), Yonaguni kʰíː (HH), etc. = pR *ke A

Note: Many Ryukyuan dialects lengthen monosyllabic words.

J ke2 1.1 + pR *ke A = pJ *kay 1.1

(ki, tree): L-1-1-B (Kyoto accent is irregular) = 1.3

Shodon kʰɨ̀ː (LL), Yoron ɕǐː (LH), Shuri kìː (LL), Yonaguni kʰìː (LL), etc. = pR *ke B

J ki2/ko2- 1.3 + pR *ke B = pJ *kəy 1.3

Since my ban, I've been studying the accentual system of Japanese and dialects, and its history. The pJ reconstruction should soon change. Note in C type words, Shuri lengthens the first syllable of disyllables and second syllable of trisyllables. C type words correspond regularly to 2.4 and 2.5 nouns, and if stuff like Shuri súɾà (HL) 'sky (literary)' happens this is regarding to be a borrowing, while sùːɾà (LLL) 'treetop' is the real and inherited word for pJ *sora (sky, top) 2.4a.

I am sleepy, so I think that's all I'll type. おやすみ... Chuterix (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I really don't understand what the numbering and lettering system is supposed to mean, and I think most readers will likely find themselves stymied. What is "1.2 (*F)"? That is entirely mysterious. Moreover, it is unclear how a one-mora word would possibly have a Kyoto accent of 2? This also needs explaining, since most materials that discuss Japanese pitch accent only describe how this works for Tokyo-based "standard" media Japanese, where a one-mora word could only ever have a pitch accent pattern of 0 (no downstep) or 1 (downstep after the single mora).
If we can come up with a clear notation system that is easy to understand and does not alienate readers, I would be supportive of including this information. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
The categorization of the Tokyo monosyllabic (one mora) accent that you describe as 0 (no downstep) and 1 (downstep after one mora) are phonetically represented by the former being Ò(Ò) or L(L) and the latter being Ó(Ò) or H(L). The former can be represented by (na, name) where it's represented by ナ⸢カ゚ (/nà↑ŋá/) or L(H) and for (na, greens) it's resembled by ナ⸣カ゚ (/ná↓ŋà/) or H(L).
In Kyoto monosyllables lengthen to two morae and the equivalent to 'name' is when not followed by a particle, it is [2] ナ⸣ー (ná↓à or /nâː/) and ナ⸣ーガ (ná↓à=gà or /nâːgà/), or called HL (standalone) ~ HL(L) (followed by particle) while 'greens' is being represented by [1] ナ⸢ー (nà↑á) or ナー⸢ガ nàà↑gá.
Summary is [1] is LH standalone or LL(H) when following a particle (parentheses indicate particle). Meanwhile [2] is HL(L).
Kagoshima monosyllable is represented by A or B, where A represents a falling pitch during the mora, called F, while B is a downstep after the mora, called H(L),
You can also read Shimabukuro (2007) The Accentual History of the Japanese and Ryukyuan Languages: A Reconstruction for the description (although not represented by numbers), or Martin (1987) The Japanese Language through Time. Chuterix (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the clarifications and title suggestion. Do we have this documented clearly anywhere on Wiktionary? We must provide some explanation for any notation we use; we cannot expect users to track down and read academic books just to understand how to parse our entries. 😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I want to put Kyoto and Kagoshima accent onto entries, but this requires programming modules, let alone painstakingly adding accent to all entries, using {{R:Zenkoku Akusento Jiten}} and maybe {{R:ja:Martin 1987}}.
It's why the accent stuff like Aramaki Morozov did appeared alien to me prior to the ban. When I got serious about Japonic I did an ILL of some Ryukyuan and Japanese books, while I have 3 dictionaries that are permanent copies, 1 in English, 2 in Japanese. Chuterix (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply


I believe you added the etymology information to etymology 2 of this term, () (o). This section states that this is cognate with the first element of (おとこ) (otoko), but the 男 article, as well as デジタル大辞泉, suggest that 男 is instead derived from おと, being cognate with () (otsu), + () (ko). I can't verify the sources, but is it possible they referred to (おっと) (otto), from をひと (wofito) or (おのこ) (onoko) instead? Horse Battery (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I believe it's the wo meaning 'man', not the wotoko Chuterix (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Horse Battery, you are correct.
Looks like I made that edit back in March 2016. I don't currently have access to the versions of the references I used then, so I can't say with any certainty if my sources were wrong or if I misunderstood.
Referring now to various current references, yes, 雄 appears as a deriving element in (onoko) and (otto), but not (otoko). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply