Talk:デュエル
Is the extended etymology really necessary? This word is a Latin derivation the same way English has words from Latin, i.e. through another language. Besides, this is almost verbatim from the English page for duel. Seems like this would belong on the actual Japanese page for this entry. Any thoughts?--Hikui87 13:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I've extended the etymology in order to remove the need for this (that category is now rfd'd). There are in principle no constraints on the "length" of etymological hierarchy I'm aware of. I don't comprehend what you meant with your next-to-last sentence. When en.wikt gets support for "transcludable content", extended etymology (+list of cognates and comments) will hopefully be automagically derived from other etymologies in NS:0 or properly formated pages in the Appendix: namespace. --Ivan Štambuk 16:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
By that I meant a good place for it would be on the ja.wiktionary.org page for this entry. And I understand that wiktionary allows for unlimited quantity of relevant material. It just seemed odd to claim that a Japanese word came from Latin. — This unsigned comment was added by Hikui87 (talk • contribs).
- It's fine to have it here, too. If we knew as much about Middle/Old Chinese as we do about Indo-European languages, words like typhoon and tycoon would have etymologies just as complex. Cynewulf 17:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Quick googling suggests that this word is used in Japanese only because it sounds cool as it's English, and that the overwhelming majority of uses are in recent popular art (comics, cartoons, as jargon in collectible card games, etc.). If that is true, usage notes would be useful to explain that the word is not used in quite the same way in Japanese as in English. I'm not entirely sure of this assessment though, as it's based on just a quick googling, so I'm leaving the entry as it is for now. Interestingly there's also a (fairly old) company called Duel which makes fishing lures, of all things. "Dueling" with the fishes, eh? -- Coffee2theorems 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)