User talk:Poketalker

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

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Wyang (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Japanese etymologies[edit]

Discussion moved from User talk:104.191.66.91.

I'm afraid that your Japanese etymologies that I've looked at so far have been quite incorrect. For example, see the changes I've made to 交喙 and to 日向.

Please research more before adding or changing any more Japanese etymologies. I am happy to help if you have any questions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for inspecting that work; I've been so confused about these edits for some time as some of it made no sense so I brought it up to the Scriptorium. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 11:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll retract that barnstar. Especially after you tried to restore the most implausible of your etymologies, at . Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 21:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • The etymology at may have been backed by someone's publicly published work, but that work runs against the grain of most patterns I'm aware of in diachronic phonological change processes. None of the PIE descendants show any evidence of an initial /k/, and there is no process I know of for /l/ to turn into /k/. Atarashiya makes very bold claims that are not accepted in mainstream linguistics. The abstract of the paper you linked (PDF) states, “... the results of this study leave no doubt that Dravidian and Japanese belong to the Indo-European family.” There may or may not be anything there, but inasmuch as this is far off the beaten path, we should not be including such fringe theories in our etymologies. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • See also . @Poketalker, your information appears to be either invented, or very poorly sourced. You listed the kun'yomi as /tuki1/ invalid IPA characters (1). This is patently wrong. The term appears in the Man'yōshū in poem 3978 (text here) with the man'yōgana spelling 都奇. If you check the Man'yōgana page, you'll find that was used to represent the sound /ki2/ invalid IPA characters (2), not /ki1/ invalid IPA characters (1). This, in combination with the presence of older compounds that use with the reading tsuku, point to the tsuku reading as the older form, which changed to tsuki likely through the effect of ancient emphatic nominal particle (i): tsuku + itsukui*tsukwitsuki. See a similar phenomenon in the etymology of (kami), from older combining reading kamu. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The edit before yours (the , 尽きる) was directly from Gogen Allguide, that was in the past when finding any easy etymological resources online. Will try to be more careful. POKéTalker (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

To @Eirikr, Hillcrest98, and others reading: Did not mean to mislead everyone, because my research is mainly online (don't have any physical jiten at the moment) and still a beginner here at Wiktionary, hope everyone understands. Your corrections make it easier to understand; will try to do better. If there were any good online resources (or books in an online archive, like the National Diet Library), you can help me point to the right direction. Domo, POKéTalker (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(@Eirikr: To be fair, they were all tagged with {{rfv-etymology}}. —suzukaze (tc) 04:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC))
@Poketalker, I appreciate you explaining where you stand and what you're doing. As with many things in life, context is key :) -- and now I understand yours a bit better. Thank you.
FWIW, with very few exceptions that I'm aware of, any research purporting to show that Japanese terms are somehow from Proto-Indo-European is at best fringe work. The one exception that comes to mind right now is the likely source of (mitsu, honey), traced back through Chinese to Tocharian, a PIE family member. But for things like (koi, love) or (kai, clam; shellfish), any connection to PIE is speculative at best, given the current state of research. Such theories, if interesting enough, could merit inclusion on an entry's Talk page, but they probably don't belong in the entry itself.
In terms of resources, if you can read Japanese, please check sites like Weblio, Kotobank, Gogen Allguide, Nihon Jiten, and any dead-tree resources you might have to hand. I also commonly reference the online version of the Man'yōshū to check for a term's existence in that corpus, and to double-check man'yōgana spellings, as offered up here by the University of Virginia. This gives the text in three forms: ancient man'yōgana, somewhat modernized kanji + kana spellings, and all-kana (in the historical kana orthography). In addition, I might check the Chinese or Korean Wiktionary and Wikipedia sites, as well as John Batchelor's 1905 Ainu-Japanese-English dictionary and grammar.
As a general rule of thumb, if you're not sure about an etymology, omit it -- it's better for Wiktionary to be missing information, than to present readers with incorrect information. For questions about etymology, try posting in the Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium or the Wiktionary:Tea room.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, will try to post any etymological questions if there is anything hard-to-read during my exploration. Also, @Eirikr, thanks for any corrections, my unintentional misleading was without your help. POKéTalker (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Etymology at 札#Etymology_4 (the fuda reading) - a closer examination[edit]

I thought I'd post some of the details here to help explain some things.  :)

Previously, you'd added a derivation from PIE, probably based on Atarashiya's work, which argues that Japanese and Dravidian are both PIE languages.

Ultimate derivation probably from Proto-Indo-European root *bheudh- (to know, inform) (Can this(+) etymology be sourced?); cognate with  ()れる (fureru, to touch),  (ほとばし) (hotobashiru, to surge, gush out),  (ほど) (hodoku, to solve), and  (ほどく) (hodokusu, to apply).

I'll break this down, to show my reasoning.

  • At first glance, Proto-Indo-European *bheudh- and (fuda) might appear to at least potentially be related -- the phonology isn't outside the bounds of reason, as we have a bilabial as the initial consonant in both, a vowel in the /u/ neighborhood, and a coronal as the final consonant.
However, this breaks down almost immediately as soon as we realize that the Japanese fuda is not the original form. Once we trace fuda back to its origins as a compound of (fumi, writing) + (ita, board, plank), any possible connection to PIE is wholly severed: fuda is a compound formation native to Japanese.
Even attempting to relate the underlying etyma, fumi and ita, to PIE *bheudh- falls apart. Ita, “board”, has no apparent phonetic or semantic relationship to *bheudh-. While fumi does have a potential semantic relationship to *bheudh- (albeit somewhat distant), this again fails to demonstrate any PIE - Japanese connection, inasmuch as Japanese (fumi, writing) may well be a nativized borrowing traced to Middle Chinese (MC mɨun) (possibly a dialectal variant or later development; compare modern Min Nan reading bûn), and thus not originally Japanese to begin with.
  • Since fuda is a composed term and not the original form, attempts to link fuda to other Japanese terms with fVd or hVd structures are destined to fail -- ruling out any cognate relationship to 迸る (hotobashiru), 解く (hodoku), or 施す (hodokosu, incidentally, not hodokusu). And considering that the initial fu in fuda comes from (fumi, writing), we can also rule out any cognate cognate relationship to 触れる (fureru).
  • Lastly, when looking at possible cognates, one must again evaluate whether the candidate terms themselves are compounds or derivatives. When listing cognates, it's best practice to include the root term rather than derivatives. Exploring the history of 迸る (hotobashiru), we find that it is a compound of hoto + hashiru, with hoto probably (hodo, also found as hoto in some ancient sources, amount) and hashiru clearly 走る (hashiru, to run; (of liquid) to flow with force). Meanwhile, 施す (hodokosu) is derived from 解く (hodoku).

Even outside any discussion of the PIE root *bheudh-, cognate or root relationships to fuda simply fall apart on the basis of fuda's own derivation. I hope that helps explain why I removed the PIE-related etymology section from the entry at (fuda). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

なるほど (​I see), Atarashiya's claims should be set aside for now, unless someone wants to take up the challenge looking deep into the repository about Eurasian comparative linguistics. POKéTalker (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Heading levels[edit]

I've noticed a trend in your edits with regard to heading levels (how many = symbols to use).

The custom here for entries with multiple etymology sections is to have all POS, pronunciation, "see also", and alternative form headings at level four -- one deeper than the ===Etymology=== header itself. However, if there is only one etymology section, then the POS, etc. headings are all at level three -- the same as for the ===Etymology=== header.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the information (was busy with , took a while). POKéTalker (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on additions to 候#Japanese[edit]

I had a look at your recent additions to 候#Japanese, and I wanted to provide some feedback.

  • It's better organizationally to keep all kun'yomi together, and all on'yomi together. There's been some back-and-forth about whether on'yomi or kun'yomi should come first, and I'm not certain what the consensus is. So long as they're grouped, I'm not sure it matters too much.
  • You use /d͡zo/ for ぞ. The Japanese pronunciation module is currently generating [d͡z] as the initial consonant for phonetic descriptions. However, phonemic /d͡zo/ would match づぉ instead of ぞ, which is not a phonemic sound in Japanese. For the ざ・ず・ぜ・ぞ kana, the correct phonemic IPA would be /za/ /zu/ /ze/ /zo/ invalid IPA characters (//////).
  • In Etymology 3, you state that this is the imperative form. No imperative form ends in い, aside from highly irregular forms such as なさい and ください. The imperative of  () () is  () (soe).  () (soi) derives from the  () (soe) imperative form as a sound shift, but the soi reading is not itself the imperative form.
  • In Etymology 3, you list two different readings with different derivations under one etymology. This is confusing and is poorly organized. In general, different readings with different derivations belong under separate etymology headings.
  • In general, conjugational endings are spelled separately. As such, the soi reading would be spelled canonically (i.e., in a dictionary) as 候い, soe as 候え, sou as 候う, sourou as 候う, etc.
  • Attestations in the Nihon Shoki are useful for determining if a word existed, but dictionaries are quite vague on which spellings were used, in part due to the various editions that have appeared over the centuries. Moreover, Daijirin's entry for うかみ lists three different possible spellings, none of which is specified in the purported quote from the Nihon Shoki. Consequently, the Nihon Shoki attestation for the ukami reading currently listed for Etymology 1 is irrelevant as evidence for the 候 spelling. Given also that I cannot find other sources that list 候 with a reading of うかみ, this should probably be removed.
  • I can find no kizasu reading for nanori. ENAMDICT's entry doesn't include this reading, for instance.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Got them, @Eirikr. Found kizasu on the Nichi-Ei proper noun dictionary (日英固有名詞辞典). Do you suggest separate okurigana-added entries, and what is soi then? POKéTalker (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Re: soi, if you mean "what part of speech", it would be a suffix. If you mean etymologically, it's not the 命令形 itself, and instead is a sound shift from the 命令形 of sōe.
For that matter, my digging suggests that I was wrong earlier in this thread -- 候え would be the spelling of the 命令形, but the kana rendering would be そうえ, as the correct 命令形 and 已然形 for auxiliary verb  () (), which appears to have been irregular -- the expected form would ordinarily be そえ without the う, but the dictionaries I've consulted all say some version of:

〔自特活〕(活用形は、未然・連体・終止・連用の四形は「さう」の形、已然・命令形は「さうへ」の形。...)

Consequently, the そえ reading would similarly be derived from the 命令形, and not the 命令形 itself.
Re: kizasu, interesting. I wonder where they got that reading. I cannot yet find any other name dictionary that includes this reading -- searching each of them for 候, none of them list kizasu.
Re: entries with okurigana as the headword, yes, that's generally what's done.
Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"Compounds" versus "Derived terms"[edit]

In general, the ====Compounds==== header should only be used as part of the ===Kanji=== section. The original idea appears to have been to provide a list of all kanji compounds using the character.

By contrast, ====Derived terms==== should be used as part of a specific ===Etymology=== section, in order to list any words derived from that specific etymology (i.e. reading), regardless of whether or not the derivations actually use the same kanji spelling. For instance, the entry for includes an ===Etymology=== section for the tsuki reading, and the list of derived terms includes  (つい) (たち) (tsuitachi), as this derives from the tsuki reading of . As a minor additional point, the location of the {{der-top}} template means we do not add any additional text -- "terms derived from XXX reading" is obvious if the derived terms are under the heading for XXX reading.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)