Talk:親切に

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


Tagged by Haplology on 16 April 2011, but not added here. FWIW, I strongly agree with Haplology's request for deletion. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what reasons? As a non-Japanese speaker, I can't possibly understand without a reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RFD for a couple reasons: as Hap noted in the RFD note, this could be viewed as an inflected form, which is itself not included in any Japanese-Japanese dictionaries; or, as an alternate analysis, it could be seen as a sum-of-parts entry of the base 親切 + the particle . Particles in Japanese are (very loosely) a bit like articles and prepositions in English; they are standalone morphemes that help tie things together grammatically.
I suspect this entry was created by someone looking for a nice one-to-one correspondence from English into Japanese; however, Japanese is not English and works quite differently, so there often is no one-to-one match, not even in parts of speech. Although nicely or kindly are indeed single words, 親切に is not one word but two; に in this context equates to the -ly in the English, but it is not the same thing. Sample sentences to illustrate some of how the particle に works:
  • 親切に行ってくれた。
  • [She / He / They] kindly went for [me / us / her / etc.]
vs:
  • お店に行ってくれた
  • [She / He / They] went to the store for [me / us / her / etc.]
Many things can take に afterwards, but adding the に does not create a new separate Japanese word any more than adding articles or prepositions creates a new separate word in English. Sometimes a Japanese word + に translates to a single English word, and sometimes it does not; but this should have no bearing on how to evaluate SOP Japanese entries. -- Hope this helps explain things, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]