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

Archive
Archives
(old, deprecated)
2006-2007
2011-2012

Archive
Archives

20062007201120122013201420152016201720182019



Special:Contributions/2409:8900:1D51:C835:45F0:E00:C7EC:C01Edit

User:M. I. Wright mentioned on the Wiktionary Discord server that these need a cleanup. It seems like you're good with historical stuff, so I leave you this message. —Suzukaze-c 01:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Thank you! Vetted and reworked as needed. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

天文Edit

Hi there. I was wondering if you could help me update the Japanese entry here with the reading and definition at Tenbun? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

山井Edit

Sorry to bother you again, but I have another question. Can 山井 also be read as Yamanoi? For example in the name of the Japanese scholar Yamanoi Tei 山井 鼎 (1670–1728)? If so, would you mind adding this reading when you get time? Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic: No worries. Expanded the entry. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Trying to resolve Proto-Japonic verb lemmasEdit

(Pinging @Kwékwlos for input too) I think we should move Proto-Japonic verb pages to their roots, instead of guessing their shūshikei. It not only illustrates the verb class better (e.g. we move *kaku to kak-, exposing it as a godan verb, and *intu to inte-, exposing it as ichidan) it saves us much wrangling on whether to apply syncope to the Proto-Japonic forms themselves (a massive issue when we run into ichidan verbs, again), and I haven't found a source that explicitly reconstructs specific forms (unlike say Indo-European languages), instead reconstructing roots and suffixes separately in a format "root-suffix-suffix". mellohi! (僕の乖離) 15:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@mellohi!, no strong thoughts here. I haven't read enough of the academic literature to know if there's any emerging consensus re: reconstructed shūshikei for Proto-Japonic. I'm fine moving these to the root forms.
However, when doing so, we should make sure we're moving to the right location. For instance, modern Japanese 出る (deru, to come out, intransitive) is from historical Old Japanese 出づ (idu), clearly showing that this is 下二段 with a Proto root form of int-. As an additional point, we would need the root int- in order to explain the existence of modern Japanese 出す (dasu, to take out, transitive).
There are various other cases where the modern language has an 一段 verb, but the lexicon as a whole has evidence of cognates that imply the existence of a 四段 root, even if that root no longer exists. I am reasonably certain that the 二段 and 一段 verbs are all defective derivatives of 四段 roots.
That said, if we have a 二段 or 一段 OJP verb without any such cognates, and where the Ryūkyūan branch also only evidences reflexes of that same 二段 or 一段 verb paradigm, then naturally we can only reconstruct a vowel ending for the Proto root form.
HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Proto-Japonic final *oEdit

We all know this yields OJp. o1, but in light of the comparison of OJp. ko1 and PR *kuwa for the word "child" (an irregular retention thereof), should they all be reconstructed as *-uwa (or *-ura)? In any case this would fit the Kara word twol if the given form for *to (door) was from an earlier *tuwa or *tura. I think this would also apply for the accusative *wo, which may come from an earlier *uwa. Cheers. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Kwékwlos, re: kuwa, I suspect the PR may be an innovation. Notably, the reconstruction of OJP ⟨o1 as /wo/ is not entirely settled, as we can see in the table at w:Old_Japanese#Vowels. For instance, Vovin reconstructs OJP ⟨o1 as /o/, contrasting with ⟨o2 as /ə/. See his 2011 paper Sources of Old Japanese i2.
We know that JA /o/ usually corresponds with RYU /u/. We also see various RYU terms that end in 子 that show this reflex ku instead of [k]kwa, as listed here at JLect (just search for 子), such as 船子 funaku, 団子 dāgu, 梃子 tiku, etc.
We also know that JA /wa/ usually corresponds with a longer vowel in RYU /a/, as in our discussion regarding Okinawan まーすん.
Thus, we'd expect Proto kuwa to become Okinawan , not kwa.
Further, we know that JA /ra/ is reflected in some Okinawan words as /wa/, as in Japanese (makura, pillow)Okinawan まっくゎ (makkwa, pillow).
I propose instead that the various Ryukyuan terms reflecting Proto-Ryukyuan *kuwa are derived not directly from Proto-Japonic *kuwa -- which I don't think existed for the meaning of "child; small thing" -- but instead from Proto-Japonic *ko ("child") + Proto-Japonic -ra (plural and generalizing suffix), with the suffix construed more as a generalizer in the Ryukyuan branch. This parallels the etymologically-plural modern Japanese 子供 (kodomo), also used as a singular.
I've discovered I'm not alone in the above argument: see also this essay on JLect similarly discussing the derivation of the Ryukyuan branch.
  • Re: Kara twol, the ⟨wo⟩ notation in Koreanic romanizations does not necessarily indicate /wo/, but may just mean /o/. See also the (dol) entry mentioned at w:Gaya_language, where the Middle Korean romanization ⟨twolh⟩ is spelled in Hangul as 돓, using the regular /o/ vowel character. I suspect this may be due to one of various possibilities:
  • The Middle Korean romanization at our (dol) entry is mistaken and should not include that "w".
  • The romanization is in accordance with English-language academia, and reflects a practice whereby "wo" is used to indicate /o/.
  • Modern Korean /o/ reflects older /wo/.
Whatever the case for the romanization or the underlying vowel value, any argument for cognacy between OJP ⟨to1 and MK 돓 (tolh? twolh?) would have to explain what happens to the final -lh in the Middle Korean -- was this a Korean innovation? What does it mean? If it's an integral part of the word, what happened to it in Japanese? In addition, Middle Korean final -h often evolved via lenition from earlier -k, if my memory is correct, which further complicates efforts to link these two. Add to that the fact that we really don't know the phonetic realization of the Kara word at all, due to the way that Chinese was used both phonetically and semantically for the various Koreanic pre-Hangul languages.
Anyway, it's been fun working on this. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
For kuwa: dango does not actually derive from a final *kwo, but rather an alteration of danki, so it has no relevance to the word. The kanji is used for its pronunciation, not its actual derivation. The term funaku may be correct in assuming PR *ko, but we cannot exclude a borrowing from Japanese. The form tiku may or may not be derived from an assumed PR *ko, or it could be simply a Japanese borrowing for such a lexically complex term.
When we reconstruct PJ, sometimes irregular correspondences show up. An example is EOJ nwozi, which would imply Japanese noji, but the actual form is niji, contrasting Okinawan nūji, which agrees with EOJ. Particularly notable is the case of *mi (three) with modern Ryukyuan reflexes of mi rather than m or n.
If my theory is correct, we can explain the o1 in so1ra as an earlier *suwara, as a form *sora would yield *sura.
About the alternate derivation with PJ *-ra, the PR form would be *kora, that would yield Okinawan *kura. But the form kkwa appears to have been from *kura, but if PR *ku existed it would have been derived from PJ *ku. So the irregular conservatism seems to be more likely for me.
About the word twol, perhaps it would make sense to derive a phonemic /dor/ from an earlier /*dora/. The Kara language you described may actually represent Peninsular Japonic, which of course a relationship to Korean is tenuous at best, and so the Koreanic romanizations are what I believe to be imperfect, since they may be based of sinograms that were transcribed centuries earlier. If the *l is to be expected, then it would make sense for me to derive *to from *tura via an intermediate *tuwa. Of course, for the word *tonari, EOJ has to1nari1, which directly implies a preform *tuwanari. Kwékwlos (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Kwékwlos --
  • Re: dango, apologies for my confusion, I'd forgotten that that was a more recent term. I'm not sure what you mean by "lever" being lexically complex. As a compound, it's "hand" + "diminutive thing". That said, we have other examples of JA 子 ko not corresponding to Ryukyuan kwa, such as Japanese 蟻子 (ariko)Okinawan あいこー (aikō), Japanese 女子 (onnago, wominago)Okinawan 女子 (winagu)Yoron 女子 (funagu).
  • Re: the reflexes of mi "three", I'm not sure how that's relevant? I also disagree with the statement at Proto-Japonic *mi that Proto mi "three" is cognate with Proto mu "six". "Related" I could agree with, but "cognate" means "these were originally the same word", which I doubt.
  • Re: the Kara term, if the Kara matched the Old Korean phonetics from which Middle Korean tolh arose, the term might have been something more like tolk. See also this discussion re: nara (search for "old Korean locative" to find the relevant bit discussing final -lh). There's no reason I can see to reconstruct any such tura.
  • Re: Eastern Old Japanese noji, I believe that's a hapax legomenon, appearing solely in Man'yōshū book 14, poem 3414, and thus to be taken with a grain of salt. The original spelling also uses the glyph , which you'll see over at w:Man'yōgana was confusingly used to represent both nu and no1.
  • Re: "irregular conservatism", I can't tell what you mean by that.
  • Re: this theory that OJP ⟨o1 derives from Proto-Japonic uwa, as best I can tell, the only rationale for reconstructing Proto-Japonic w here is the presumed /wo/ phonetic value for Old Japanese o1. Old Japanese o1 is not universally reconstructed as /wo/. Is there some other justification for this w that you keep introducing in the Proto terms? Also, the additional syllable seems ... problematic, at best.
Separately, and relatedly, I am growing concerned about your edits regarding Proto-Japonic forms, as they seem to be based on your personal thoughts (such as "if my theory is correct" above), without regard to broader academic research. While Wiktionary is not as strict as Wikipedia when it comes to original research, we do try to be clear about what is citable and what is conjecture or synthesis. I would be happier with some of your edits if you could clarify what is "probable" and what is actually citable to this or that academic author, ideally more than one.
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I've been paying more attention to mathematics, where they are actually defined: such as a cube being a square prism. To be fair, I am a very curious amateur linguist. You may want to pay attention to "The Language of the Old-okinawan Omoro Soshi: Reference Grammar, With Textual Selections" which will help alot in our studies regarding Japonic. Besides, Japonic linguistics is done mostly by Japanese speakers who have little experience in the English language, unlike those of the Indo-Europeanists who could atleast speak English, French, German, or Russian. Kwékwlos (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources to be trustedEdit

For decades Japanese was thought to be an Altaic language, but recently it is no longer thought of as an actual family, but rather a Sprachbund. Of course there may be relationships, but they must be borrowings. With the dissolution of Altaic as a reliable proposal some have turned to Korean or Koreanic. While words like seom and shima are obviously related, it strikes to me that some of these native Korean words may actually represent Japonic borrowings, or that the Japonic words are borrowed from Old Korean.

From what I know, Robbeets obviously wants a relationship with "Transeurasian", which is just a rebranded Altaic, and even proposes AN etymologies for some Japonic words.

Vovin, on the other hand, once supported the Altaic theory but later became a critic. An example of a redeemable decision, I must say. He now focuses on finding loan relationships among the former "Altaic" languages.

Among the amateur scholars, some even from Japan, people like Mayuki Kikasane (twitter @MajukyiSanapey) fancy a reconstruction of so-called "Yasiman", or even a "Kanade" PJ reconstruction. Of course they partner with people like (twitter @cicada3301_kig) who propose their own interpretation, clearly something that isn't to be trusted upon, as they love to study languages that are extinct or created.

With Robbeets and any amateur scholar out of the picture, what can you say about reliable sources on Japonic (with the rise of English-speaking Japanese and Okinawans and English words found predominantly in Japan used in their emerging English dialect, such as HP and busjacking)? Kwékwlos (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kwékwlos, by way of authors in English, my reading has been less extensive than I'd like, especially in recent years as things IRL have taken up more of my time. That said, I'm mostly familiar with Vovin, Martin, Robbeets, Starostin, Unger, Frellesvig (though only indirectly from what others have told me, I have yet to get my hands on his History of the Japanese Language). Subjectively, Vovin seems the most solid, perhaps joined by Unger and Martin. From what I've seen directly, and what I've read from others, Robbeets has been prone to some serious flaws in her analysis of Japanese and Japonic. I'd take anything from her with a large grain of salt, and seek to find agreement from other authors. Starostin doesn't know Japanese etymologies at all, and as best I can tell, his exploration of Japonic has been based purely on word lists and accidental resemblances -- occasionally he finds interesting things, but he's basically useless as a primary source, as everything needs further corroboration. Frellesvig, meanwhile, sounds to be savvier with regard to Japanese and Japonic, and more likely to be on-point and not just accidentally correct.
From my own perspective, Vovin's turnabout from Altaic proponent to opponent seems to be due to the sloppiness of past writings attempting to establish a Japonic—anything-else relationship, where further research into the claims made ultimately reveals a whole lot of not much. While I don't know that I yet fully accept Vovin's current statement that Korean and Japanese are wholly unrelated (claiming that Japonic and Koreanic grammatical and morphological similarities are due solely to areal proximity raises the question of why Korean is not a whole lot more like Chinese), I do take his core point that any attempt at showing a relationship must do more than simply point out resemblances, and must derive specific, repeatable, and predictive rules for sound correspondences, etc.
Another good English-language source I should mention is Shibatani's The Languages of Japan, part of the Cambridge language series. He provides a good overview of Japanese, Japonic, and Ainu. (For that matter, it's been several years, I should re-read that.) I particularly appreciated his analysis of accent patterns and dialectal shift, describing the "prestige" lects of the capital regions in the Kansai area and the less-prestigious provinces and explaining some of the mechanics of regional differences in a way that made more sense to me.
HTH as a good starting point. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

唐名Edit

Hey there. When you get time, would you mind creating a Japanese entry for this term? My Japanese dictionary provides the following definition: からな 【唐名】① 中国での名称。② 日本の官職を唐制の呼び名に当てたもの。太政大臣を相国(しようこく),中納言を黄門と称するなど。とうめい。③ あだ名。別名。「横車とはな…おのれがやうな女の―よ」〈浄瑠璃・十二段長生島台〉. Many thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Tooironic: Ya, will do! I see three readings for this: からな, とうみょう, and とうめい. I'll have a go some time in the next few days -- tomorrow even, if I can make the time. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    Look forward to seeing the fruits of your labour. Cheers! ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic, looks like @Poketalker created the entry before I got to it. I just added some minor details a moment ago. Hope that scratches your itch. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic: by the way, you're exactly quoting the Daijirin in which there is the equivalent online version available if you never checked. ~ POKéTalker) 06:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I see. Thank you! ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

OJP /yi/ and /wu/Edit

Vovin says that /yi/ and /wu/ are impossible sequences, and would preclude a PJ *wu (to sit) reconstruction. In fact it doesn't exist as a syllable in the Man'yōgana syllabary. Do you have any opinion on this? Kwékwlos (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Replied at Reconstruction_talk:Proto-Japonic/wu#Lemma_form. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

友達Edit

Thanks, I understand the system now. Hkbusfan (talk)

Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Japonic terms for restingEdit

A surface inspection seems to uncover a root yoko/yuko for resting. It is amply attested, in Okinawan yukuyun, Kunigami yuhurun and yuhumin, Amami yuhumuri, Miyako yukū, Yonaguni dugun, and Japanese ikou. This root, when used verbally, doesn't seem to appear bare and is generally combined with a derivational suffix. In Japanese it appears with -pu, in Okinawan and Kunigami it appears with *-aru, in Amami and Kunigami it appears with the denominative verbalizer *-amu. Does this establish the existence of a primary root meaning "to rest" or are there secondary natures in the way? mellohi! (僕の乖離) 17:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@mellohi! -- Very interesting. I haven't encountered this term before.
Looking this up in Daijirin, I see a note 〔漢文訓読系の語〕, suggesting that this may have been a higher-register or more formal term. I searched through the Man'yōshū, which tends more towards poetry rather than academia, and found no instances of the word, which might reinforce the DJR comment's suggestion. Meanwhile, in the KDJ, we see that the term appears in the Nihon Shoki of 720, so it's quite old. We also see senses and spellings that point towards the root ik- as in (iki, breath, breathing).
There appears to be a strong correlation between ik- "breath" and ik- "living", as in 生きる (ikiru, to live, to be alive, older form iku), 生き (iki, living, alive). I suspect this also overlaps with 行く (iku, yuku, to go), from the basic idea that living things move. The Ryukyuan cognates you've found would seem to reinforce the idea of a y- initial, not just for 行く (iku, yuku) but also for ([y]iki).
There are various terms in Japanese that may have a lingering initial y- at the root level that disappears in certain forms, since the yi phoneme doesn't really happen in Japanese. See for instance the likely cognacy of (ine) and (yone), the alternation in 行く (iku, yuku), etc. I think I recall seeing a paper or two about that recently... here's one, The Syllable yi in Old Japanese, Thomas Dougherty, 2011. Vovin's 2011 paper On one more source of Old Japanese i2 doesn't discuss yi directly, but he does have some examples showing how a yu phoneme might collapse in certain contexts into i. I think I've seen this discussed elsewhere as well, but I can't find it at the moment. (Plus, my Chrome installation blew a tire the other day when my laptop battery crapped out, and I lost tons of history, including two windows with multiple tabs that had various papers open in them... so much for persistent session management, I'm back to Firefox now.)
Anyway, I hope that provides some leads for further exploration. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Currently the usage notes start with "In Old Japanese and continuing in classical and later Japanese, the ending -nu and the ending -ta", but this is anachronistic. -ta suffix certainly has not existed yet in Old Japanese and Middle Japanese. -nu suffix should be compared here not with -ta suffix, but with -tu (つ) suffix (which I would rather prefer to romanize as -tu, not -tsu which does not match reconstructed Old/Early Middle Japanese pronunciation). I am aware that t part of -ta is distantly cognate with t of -tu (-ta < -taru < -tari < -te + ari, where -te is 連用形 of -tu), but -ta suffix appeared probably in Early Modern Japanese. The other part of the usage notes ("mainly for verbs that indicated transitive or intentional actions") also matches classical -tu suffix and not modern -ta suffix.

Would you prefer to just change -ta to -tu, without {{lang|ja|...}? —This unsigned comment was added by Arfrever (talkcontribs).

@Arfrever: Apologies, I thought you were only replacing the romanization with the kana. Best practice for Japanese is to specify the reading in romaji unless the text is specifically talking about the graphemes, so other templates like {{ja-r}} or {{m}} should be used instead of {{lang}}. Also, I didn't catch that the description had -ta instead of -tsu. I've just fixed the text; please have a look.
Separately, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

p- reintroduction in onomatopoeic wordsEdit

Hey! Thanks for explaining the thing, it's really what I could not even dare think about. Could you say if there is any literature on the topic I can get familiar with? —Fayanzar (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  • @Fayanzar: Glad that was helpful for you. I don't have my usual English-language references to hand, but if you can read Japanese, the JA WP article at w:ja:半濁音 describes the outlines. That explains the /p-/ initial as arising during the Edo period, but I'm pretty sure I've read elsewhere that it probably started showing up -- in some words at least -- during the preceding Muromachi period. It's also possible that I got my wires crossed, and I may be mixing this up with the word-medial /-p-/, which the JA WP article does mention as starting during the Muromachi.
If you're interested in the history of the Japanese language, I've read Shibatani's The Languages of Japan, which was a good solid academic overview, and that also touches upon Ainu. I've also heard good things about Bjarke Frellesvig's A History of the Japanese Language, but I haven't read that one myself. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

薔薇Edit

But it's biological organism which is usually written with katakana?Shen233 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Shen233: Biology terms are only usually written in katakana in biology contexts. In other contexts, kanji or hiragana generally prevail. See also ja:w:ネコ科, for instance, where we find katakana ネコ used in the context of taxonomy and biology, but 猫 or ねこ in pretty much everything else. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
True, but for 薔薇 in particular, at least in my experience, バラ is seems more common than ばら. what do you think? Shen233 (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Shen233: Checking stats at Google Books, I get 198K for the kanji spelling, 230K for hiragana, and 184K for katakana.
However, hit counts are still a separate issue. For the yomi of native or nativized words (such as Middle-Chinese derived on'yomi terms, not strictly native), Wiktionary uses hiragana for kana renderings and for ruby text. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Would you mind explaining what ruby text is? Shen233 (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

See ruby character. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

続くEdit

This term is usually rendered in the hiragana つづく; the form w/the kanji is seldom seen. That's why I put it there. WorldwideBallcaps (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@WorldwideBallcaps: ... except the kanji spelling is not rare. Checking a couple conjugation forms, the kanji spelling is actually more common on Google Books. What context are you describing? If manga, that's a special case and is generally not relevant for much of what we do here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It's also used in non-anime media, such as movies and live action shows, so it should merit some mention, I feel. WorldwideBallcaps (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have seen both and it seems interchangeable for me, though in media toward younger people つづく is more common, but that shouldn’t be an issue? Shen233 (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Shen233: Indeed, media targeting younger audiences will use fewer kanji as a general trend. That is not lexically important, however, and has no bearing on Wiktionary.
@WorldwideBallcaps: Again, the kanji spelling is not rare. Please stop adding usage notes that erroneously state that it is. This is trivially confirmable in Google searches. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

下午Edit

Would you mind fixing this Japanese entry when you get the chance? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Done. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

重箱読みEdit

quick question on 重箱読み, I know it's 2-kanji compound where first is on and second is kun,but does it apply to a yojijukugo where first two is on and second two is kun like in 滅多矢鱈? Shen233 (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shen233: Ya, for 重箱読み or 湯桶読み, we only consider two-kanji compounds, same structure as the source words 重箱 or 湯桶. Anything bigger is no longer 重箱読み or 湯桶読み.
(As a minor point, please don't forget to add -- or keep -- whitespace lines in the wikicode. Wiktionary convention is to keep some whitespace in the code to make it easier for editors to read.)
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thanks, and as for the adjective/adjectival noun business, I think it's just the use of terminology. Adjectival noun is same as na-adjectives, and I seen many entries uses "adjectival noun" for na-adjectives like 綺麗 or 安静. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjectival_noun_(Japanese) Shen233 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@Shen233: Cheers, ya, those are stale entries. In past discussions, the consensus emerged to use more standard POS vocabulary, considering that our readership consists of English readers who may not be familiar with alternative labeling schemes like "adjectival noun" or "stative verb" (one idea I've run into for what to call -i adjectives, since they can be used predicatively), but who are probably familiar with the basic English terms for parts of speech like "adjective". I've been slowly cleaning up "adjectival noun" entries to use "adjective" instead, but I haven't been actively looking for them. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

こたえる reading for 堪えるEdit

I tried adding another reading for 堪える, would you mind clean that up if you have time, thanks! Shen233 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

賦能 - any possibility from Japanese?Edit

Hi there. I was wondering if there is any possibility the Chinese term 賦能 might have come from Japanese? The term does not exist natively in Chinese, and for now I can only assume it was calqued from English empower. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic: FWIW, I've never encountered this. Doesn't seem to be used at all in JA. See lack of any entry at https://kotobank.jp/word/賦能 or at https://www.weblio.jp/content/賦能 and the lack of any likely meaning in our single-character entry at Japanese . ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank for checking that. I guess is not a common character in Japanese at any rate. In my Japanese-English dictionary, the only entries that come up are for 賦課, 賦与 and 賦課, which are red links for now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)