User talk:Hikui87

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


Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --EncycloPetey 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi! Could you use the edit summaries when making edits to non-talk pages? If you look at your contributions, you get little idea of what was changed without looking inside each edit. The edit summary doesn't need to be long. E.g. if you add compounds, then something like "added compounds" tells what the edit is about. Edit summaries e.g. make browsing the history of a page easier. -- Coffee2theorems 07:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Happy New Year! When you have a moment, could you please add Japanese translations to the entry for hinder (both verb and adjective)? Thanks. --EncycloPetey 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


The "Compounds" header is only for single character entries, and only under "Hanzi"/"Kanji" etc. The headings under parts of speech should always be "Related terms" or "Derived terms" as appropriate. Robert Ullmann 16:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


I found you've added "especially East Asia" into the definition of アジア. do you have some resource? according to 三省堂大辞林, there is no description that you wrote. could you show us the resource that you based on? --Carl Daniels 08:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah... if you're using only jdic as your reference, please be aware that it has some entries that don't exist, inaccuracies, etc. See カーマ which jdic gives as karma, 馬鈴薯 which jdic has a reading じゃがいも, and some others that I can't think of off the top of my head. I can't find evidence of these in other sources. Cynewulf 02:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Hikui87 :) please read my reply. thanks :) --Carl Daniels 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


According to our Wiktionary:About_Japanese/Transliteration standard, っ is romanized as nothing when there is no following letter. しっ with things following it could be ship-pai, shik-kari, shic-chi in addition to shit-tai. (and if っ is t here, what is it in "あっ!"?) Cynewulf 02:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the romanization of "っ" is problematic. Here are my reasons for transliterating it as "t."
romaji is by definition a romanization of a foreign language. It's purpose is therefore twofold.
  1. It is a formula with which one who is familiar with it can "decode" back into the original language.
  2. More importantly, it is a representation of the sounds in a foreign language in a script that people can read and speak easily. The formula aspect of romanization should never override this part. When you put "black" and "guard" together, you don't pronounce it blac-gard, you'd sound like an idiot. What happens when you transliterate that into another language? Imaging if we tried to romanize Korean that way. A straightforward "simplified" way of doing it would completely misrepresent the language.
This is why we have a fluid rendering of "っ." It's hotchikisu not hotsuchikisu, juppun not jutpun, etc.
However, this little bugger "っ" is more important than we give it credit for. In Japanese phonology, it is considered as a mora unto itself (!?). It's function and formation do not really change depending on what mora follows it, only how the sound is perceived, which itself will be different between speakers of different languages. It is a stop of air, not a "pre-consonant." According to w:Japanese_phonology, IPA renders it "ː." The reason its romanization is inconsistent is because we do not have a letter sufficiently representing its function.
Also, no other romanization system I've seen or used renders "っ" simply as nothing. They all use either "t" (most) or "q" (very few). "q" is more accurate as far as how the sound is made, but "t" is closer to the actual sound produced. if the reason the Wiktionary:About_Japanese/Transliteration standard is nothing is because of inconsistency, that is not a very good reason.
I know it seems like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here, but I think its important we have a consistent and accurate romanization system. Change it back if you wish, but I don't think its an accurate representation. If someone with more authority changes it, I won't have a problem; One reason I did so was because whoever changed it to begin with was not logged in.
Also, "ah" and "ack" have similar functions in English.--Hikui87 15:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
IPA ː is a postfix, and it's really more a long vowel mark than a geminate consonant mark. ʃiː is しい, a long I. あっ in IPA is , with a glottal stop. But anyway, we don't use roundtrip lossless romanization, we use one built around English speakers' perception of the sounds: じ and ぢ are ji, ず and づ are zu, は is wa when it's the topic particle. This is all from revised Hepburn. I can't find how it handles final っ; can you point me to a reference? I'd much rather throw out AJ/Translit and be consistent with the rest of the world than make our own system, even if this system is more "accurate" according to just us. Cynewulf 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I found this, Kana romanization tables. I'm not sure how authoritative it is. Using ' makes sense, it just might not be as readily obvious as it seems. If this is really the Hepburn standard, it would be a good idea to adopt it.
I also ran across this, japanese.pdf. It's a more extensive version of what we already use; it may be worth looking at.--Hikui87 22:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Alternative spellings[edit]

I am terribly sorry. I thought the layout had to follow the same rules for all entries in the English Wiktionary. Normally, the Alternative spellings header would be immediately after the language header as described in the ELE. The Japanese entries I modified were marked with rfc-level - that's why I edited them. Sorry again. --Panda10 11:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology templates[edit]

I've fixed your entries (see [1])- you had put Japanese words into the main Category:German derivations. This only includes English words with a German origin. Using the etyl template I added the 'ja' parameter, putting them into the correct categories. Thanks. Nadando 19:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for that.--Hikui87 19:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


こんにちは。先ほど作られたエントリー、「比諭」は「比喩」を意図されたものではなかったでしょうか? 後者はTbot entryなので、Hikui87さんのエントリーから情報を移す余地がありそうです。前者の削除が必要であれば、{delete}を貼っていただければすぐに消しますので。それでは! --Tohru 02:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, but my conversational Japanese is a bit rusty. If you are saying I used the information from 「比喩」 to make 「比諭」, then no, I got it from my dictionary. I have a few dictionaries that I check through before making an entry. Now that I look closer, I realize that 「比喩」 is more commonly used than 「比諭」. I was under the impression that there should be entries for all words in every language. I will make a note in 「比諭」 that 「比喩」 is the more commonly used word. I realize you have been editing Wiktionary longer than I have and have a better grasp of Japanese than I ever will. I trust your judgment, but I see no reason for deletion. --Hikui87 15:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Japanese entry formats[edit]

Hello Hikui87 --

I saw that you've been adding JA entries lately. Thank you for your help.

I do want to draw your attention to a few entry format issues I've noticed. Have a look at this edit for an example. More specifically:

  • Don't forget to add the ====Conjugation==== header above conjugation tables.
  • Use the {{l}} (that's an "L") or {{term}} templates when linking Japanese entries. These make sure that:
    • Japanese fonts are properly handled (slightly enlarged, very useful for kanji)
    • Links go to the Japanese entries (very useful when a single page might have multiple languages)
  • Don't add links to sum-of-parts entries (phrases where the meaning of the whole is clear from the sum of its parts)
  • Use the {{der-top}} template for derived terms
  • In list format, use commas between shades of a single meaning; use semicolons between different meanings
  • Put idioms under the ====Idioms==== header instead of under ====Derived terms====

Also have a look at Wiktionary:About Japanese. That page is somewhat out of date, and a few of us have discussed making changes (most of that is still at Wiktionary Talk:About Japanese), but incomplete as it is, the page is still a useful reference.

I hope this helps. Feel free to drop a line on my Talk page or at Wiktionary Talk:About Japanese if you have any questions. -- Cheers, Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 22:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

PS -- For the stem forms of verbs, the nomenclature is a bit muddled, but "nominative" is not it -- "nominative" is a grammatical case for nouns, and refers to sentence subjects. Better terms might be "stem form", "base form", or "noun form". Some description of this over on the 連用形 page. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 22:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with formatting. I have been going along with basically the same style and tweaking it as I came across problems using it. I try to follow the WT:AJA page as closely as I can without diminishing the quality of each entry. I agree completely that all entries should have some sort of uniformity to them, but I really feel that one-size-fits-all can cause problems. In particular I have a few questions about the guidelines.
To me the Conjugation header is redundant. When it's added, the very next line also says "conjugation." I also feel that having a drop bar with a title constitutes a header.
I like the {{l}} for the reasons you cited. I have been in the habit of simply formatting them myself, but I will start using it. What I don't like is linking hiragana and romaji forms of every entry. Also definitions of derived terms don't need to be linked. What results basically are entries for the derived terms. This clutters the pages they are on.
I disagree with not adding sum-of-parts entries. Since there is a Category:Japanese phrasebook, it should be used. It stands to reason that "parts" pages should link to "sum" pages and vice versa.
I had been using {{rel-top}} because I didn't know {{der-top}} existed. I'll start using it.
Should phrases also go under a different section? Or do they not belong on WT?
My overall goal is to create and format entries that are complete and not redundant, and as visually appealing as possible. When I started editing, Japanese pages were a mess, and kanji pages in particular were a sea of redlinks that were simply unnecessary. I for one prefer conciseness over redundancy. If there are discussions on these issues I would like to join them. Hikui87 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Ta, glad to run across another keen editor.  :) In response:
  • the Conjugation header is redundant:
I agree that it looks a touch redundant, but using the header does add the conjugation to the page TOC, and allows linking to it. The table alone carries no <a name="..."> tag, so linking directly isn't possible.
  • {{l}}:
Easier than manual formatting.  :) It's what got me using (and later learning about) templates -- generally quicker, easier, more consistent, and more concise than manual formatting.
  • What I don't like is linking hiragana and romaji forms of every entry:
I don't recall anymore where, but a point was made somewhere that having all three forms linked makes for better usability, particularly by learners, and makes it easier to tell at a glance what entries are still missing. I've been following along with this.
  • definitions of derived terms don't need to be linked:
I'd noticed that many entries did link through to the pertinent words of a gloss, so I've followed suit. I've occasionally found that useful myself, most often when a derived term entry didn't exist and I'm creating it anew, as I can then just copy the wikicode for the derived term gloss and use it on the new page. But linking English terms in glosses is certainly just optional, and not anything approaching a policy, as far as I know.
  • sum-of-parts entries:
That's a tricky one, and a matter of degree. As you note, there's the phrasebook. This initiative has been around a while, but work on it has been ... sporadic, as best I can tell. Looking at the category itself shows that most of these entries are kotowaza, a few more are set phrases, and a handful look like phrases that would actually be useful to a learner. Some appear particularly useless from a beginner's phrasebook perspective, such as 風林火山, suggesting that there's been some confusion about how to use the phrasebook category in connection with the {{ja-phrase}} template.
  • Relatedly, Should phrases also go under a different section? Or do they not belong on WT?:
I could see arguments to keep the phrases I removed from 仕える, though they would seem more appropriate if included on the page as usexes or idioms, since they're not really derived _terms_ per se so much as usages.
About creating actual pages, "not serve two masters" seems idiomatic enough to me to warrant a page; "serve God" is pretty bog-standard usage of ...に仕える, but is common enough as a phrase that folks might want to look it up. In contrast, "be devoted to a husband" doesn't strike me as either idiomatic or common enough to merit its own page, but I'm happy to admit that my perspective might not be all that prevalent.
This also takes an argument -- add the vertical bar | and then some text, and that text is used as the header of the collapsible section. I've been using {{der-top|Compounds using [word]}} for compound sections as well, as these can get quite large indeed and using a collapsible table for these makes the page much easier to navigate.
Use {{der-mid}} to make the derived terms table use two columns. For three, use {{der-top3}} for the head and two {{der-mid3}} in the middle; for four columns, use {{der-top4}} and {{der-mid4}}.
About compounds versus derived terms, WT:AJA says a bit about this, and between that and conversations in the WT:Beer parlor, I've been using compounds for on'yomi kanji strings and with minimal or no kana, and derived terms for terms or set phrases that have okurigana and / or particles included. Have a look at for one example of a JA entry page using both "Compounds" and "Derived terms".
  • conciseness over redundancy:
Yes.  :) Redundancy in links I'm fine with (to an extent -- such as linking salient English words in glosses -- wheras linking every word on a page would be ridiculously excessive), but the actual text content of a page should be concise and as non-redundant as possible, while still conveying complete information for the entry. A few of us have had a number of conversations about that, some on the WT:Beer parlor, some at Wiktionary talk:About Japanese, and some I don't recall where, with the upshot being that full information should *only* go on the lemma (i.e. main headword) page. So for , とう, and , the first two should only have a part of speech, a simple gloss, and a link to the main entry, where you'd put the etymology, usexes, full definitions, derivations, etc. etc. If a word only has kana, such as でぶでぶ, then that page would contain the full entry information, while debudebu would only have a POS, a gloss, and a link to the main entry page.
  • Japanese pages were a mess:
Yes, some of the formatting questions have settled down somewhat. Many of the editors most active in Japanese in the past appear to have been beginning- to intermediate-level learners, which might have led to some of the confusion (just in not being all that familiar with the various permutations of the grammar, POS, rendering, etc.).
Anyway, hope this helps explain things. -- Cheers, Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 22:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to help me out. I hope I don't come across as stubborn, because I really do appreciate it.
I've added the SOP terms back on 仕える under a "Phrases" section. If you still feel they don't belong, I won't be offended if you re-delete them. You're right in that they aren't derived terms, and I've honestly only been putting them in that section out of convenience. The best argument for keeping them is that scholarly dictionaries do include them as terms and not simply as usage examples. I can cite them if I need to. I've been wondering about that anyway.
I'm warming up to including kana and romaji forms of terms on other entries' pages. The profusion of redlinks on a page just looks ugly to me, but I guess that can be incentive to provide pages for them. It also still seems redundant to me, but I can certainly understand the usability for learners argument.

Info overload?[edit]

I added a good bit of info to the 仕える entry, but it occurs to me that it might be too much, or might be organized poorly for folks who aren't up to their eyeballs in Japanese all day.  :) Your user page shows that you rate yourself at level 2 for Japanese; from that perspective, how does the 仕える page look to you? Useful? Confusing? Something else? -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I've seen your edits on a lot of Japanese pages on WT predating mine, so I'd like to start off saying pleased to wiki-meet you. I wanted to ask about 没収の. Looking at the history I think I rather rudely deleted your link and you added it back, sorry about that! It's because I and Eirikr have taken words ending in -ni, -na, and -no generally to be sums of their parts. From what I understand, -no adjectives fall into a grey area of Japanese grammar that isn't completely settled, so many sources like EDICT present them as adjectives. Most of the other editors on WT who are active right now including myself think of them as nouns with a -no particle, and since their meaning is easily derived noun + particle, that might make them sums of their parts. I think they are listed in J<->E dictionaries to make translations clearer, but in Japanese itself they aren't actually grammatically adjectives by themselves. On the other hand, I think they would be OK on WT as form-of definitions, namely the genitive case of such-and-such noun. If we do that though, probably everybody should get on board with it and decide how best to format entries like that. The active editors are pretty much Eirikr, you and me right now, but there are a few others who are fairly inactive but still involved. There's another editor who is obsessed with magic and religion (check out old versions of 魔法), and if you see any of their edits, shoot them on the spot (笑) Thanks --Haplology (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As an addendum, grammatical case is generally reserved for languages where the form of the word clearly changes in different grammatical roles, such as the shift from he to him in English, or from mein to meinem in German. Most analyses of Japanese that I'm aware of treat the genitive の or the nominative が as particles, i.e. *distinct* from the modified word, and this would make 没収の a phrase as the noun 没収 + the genitive particle の, rather than a single word 没収の in the genitive case.
Consequently, although the English terms forfeited or seized could be glossed into Japanese as 没収の, the Japanese is still a phrase, and not particularly idiomatic enough to warrant a full entry page. It could be argued that the adjectival meaning in English of 没収の might not be easily derived by English speakers from its constituent parts, but in such a case, I would counter that this could be covered by means of a usage note on the 没収 page (and indeed this could apply to all the compound-kanji words used as transitive verbs that I can think of at the moment).
Moreover, the past tense inherent in the English forfeited or seized is not present in the Japanese 没収の -- the Japanese phrase could be used to mean "*will be* forfeited", or "*is now being* forfeited", just as much as it could mean "*has been* forfeited", as the time aspect is wholly dependent on context.
The upshot of this is that I am nominating 没収の for deletion, and removing links to this entry from other pages. I hope the reasoning for this is clear, but please ask if it isn't. -- Cheers, Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 18:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)