User talk:Eirikr

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. ~ POKéTalker) 04:02, 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 siɪm).
  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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.
    • I will pass this along to the administrators as well to ensure they are well aware of the situation, including the antics of "Robbie" and his behavior. JPatrickMalone (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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[edit]

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]