User talk:TAKASUGI Shinji

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


User translations badly formatted[edit]


Do you have time to check and fix some Japanese and Korean translations made by User:Somnipathy (Special:Contributions/Somnipathy) (sorry, nothing personal), e.g. plangent, apologetic, etc., etc.? (Chinese are not standard either). They are awful but I'm not sure if I can just revert all of them. It would probably take less time to revert and make new ones rather than fixing. @Nibiko, Whym pls address them if you can. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, those translations really need to be checked. Some of them are okay though. I will check them. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Yes, no doubt some are OK. I think Korean adjectives need to be brought to their "adjectival verb" forms - -da forms, not -(eu)n forms, like I did with [[fickle]]. BTW, it would be great if you added hiragana readings to translations. They are important, IMO, for multiple reasons. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Shinji,

Sorry, I have reverted your edit because |py= is for display. Roman letters are not transliterated. The actual pronunciation of Q is "kiùr" [kʰjɤʊɻ⁵¹]. See also 卡拉OK (expand) and some other terms that have been reformatted by User:Wyang. Do you agree? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert is okay, but I find only ā Qiū and ā Kiū without r as pinyin. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
That's what I heard too (kiū, not qiū, "qi" gives /t͡ɕʰ/, not /kʰ/). Not sure if there is standard for pronouncing English letters. I've added "Ā-kiū jīngshén". Generated IPA doesn't seem right, though: /ˀa̠⁵⁵ kʰjɤʊɻ⁵¹ t͡ɕiŋ⁵⁵ ʂən³⁵ ˀa̠⁵⁵ kʰi̯oʊ̯⁵⁵ t͡ɕiŋ⁵⁵ ʂən³⁵/ - shouldn't the two pronunciations be split? Asking @Wyang to check/fix. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Wyang (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Takasugi. Is the definition given in this entry accurate? I don't doubt it per se, I'm just checking because I see the word in a lot of lists of "cool words English should borrow", and those lists often include made-up or mis-defined words, which sometimes make their way into Wiktionary. (See Talk:mamihlapinatapai and Talk:tingo.) If our entry is accurate, the word seems like a great candidate for Appendix:Terms considered difficult or impossible to translate into English. - -sche (discuss) 00:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I have found the definition accurate. (By the way, call me Shinji, which is my given name.) — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

レターボックス, 郵便箱, 郵便受け, 우체통, 우편함[edit]

Hi Shinji,

Could you clarify senses for these Japanese and Korean terms, which ones are mailbox and which ones are letterbox (sense 1 or 2), please? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

レターボックス : mailbox, in which you receive mail sent to you (= メールボックス).
郵便箱 : 1. mailbox. 2. post box (= 郵便ポスト).
郵便受け : mailbox.
우체통 : post box.
우편함 : mailbox.
TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Assuming "mailbox" is for receiving correspondence only. By "post box" do you mean a box for sending letters? Which ones apply to "(EMAIL) mailbox" sense? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I mean a receiving box by “mailbox” and a sending box by “post box”. A mailbox of email is メールボックス, 受信箱, 受信フォルダ in Japanese and 수신함, 받은 편지함 in Korean. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'll make entries later on. Some were more obvious to me, like 郵便受け, for others I've got sample sentences. I needed to make sure I got it right, anyway, since dictionaries often give translations but no clarifications of senses. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Shinji, I have made the above entries. I'd appreciate if you could check them, when you have a moment. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

을/ㄹ 거예요[edit]

Hi Shinji,

I'd like to make/have an entry on the future tense forms (as in 갈 거예요 or 찾을 거예요) + different styles but not sure what format or even part of speech will fit this. Any ideas? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It’s a suffix just like -ㄹ까, -ㄹ게, -ㄹ걸, etc. Spacing doesn’t matter. It doesn’t have a pause or an intonation change between -ㄹ and 거. It is a speculative marker rather than a future marker, as you can say 이미 끝났을 거에요 (“it must have been already finished”) with the past suffix -ㅆ-. It has different forms according to registers:
Short () Long ()
해라체 (formal non polite) -ㄹ 거다 -ㄹ 것이다
하십시오체 (formal polite) -ㄹ 겁니다 -ㄹ 것입니다
해체 (informal non polite) -ㄹ 거야
해요체 (informal polite) -ㄹ 거예요
-ㄹ 거에요
Quotation form -ㄹ 거라고 -ㄹ 것이라고
The informal polite form of 이다 after a vowel is officially 예요, but actually 에요 is equally common in written text and overwhelmingly commoner in speech. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Shinji! I'll make a suffix entry later, using your table and will ask you to review it. Yeah, I am aware of the speculative sense as well. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There are several other space-separated suffixes worth creating, such as -ㄹ 테니까, -ㄹ 텐데, -기 때문에. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I know that 에요 would become the standard in 10-20 years. It's because any common colloquial elements in Korean would eventually become standard forms over the phase of 10-20 years right after the National Institute of the Korean Language in Seoul recognized the colloquial changes. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it will. Since Wiktionary is not prescriptive but descriptive, we should have entries even for nonstandard forms. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Just looking at this lexicographically, is this really a suffix? Suffixes are typically defined as something that is fused morphophonemically to the preceding word or word stem. The 을/ㄹ portion looks and behaves as a suffix. (Side question: Why is 을/ㄹ missing from future forms? Is it fused with the ending ㄹ in the future determiner? Or does [FUTURE DETERMINER] + 거예요 express a separate, non-speculative or differently-speculative sense?)
However, the 거예요 portion does not look like a suffix to me: this is a separate phrase, constructed from (geot) → (geo) + copula form 예요 (yeyo) / 에요 (eyo).
Note: I definitely think we should have this information somewhere, just:
  1. I'm not sure it should be located at any 을 거예요 / ㄹ 거예요 page,
  2. I don't think ===Suffix=== is the right POS heading, at least for the entire construction,
  3. and something very similar to this construction appears in the usage example at 거#Etymology_3, sense 2.
My feeling is that sense 2 at 거#Etymology_3 should be substantially expanded to include this kind of speculative meaning. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The 거 in -ㄹ 거에요 has no nominal sense. You can compare the following two sentences:
  • 이건 먹을 거에요. (거 has a nominal sense: “This is a thing to eat = This is a food.”)
  • 나는 이걸 먹을 거에요. (거 has no nominal sense: “I will eat this.”)
It is best categorized as a suffix, because -ㄹ 거에요 is grammatically close to -ㄹ까요, -ㄹ게요 and -ㄹ걸요. If it shoud be separated, it is rather -ㄹ 거 + . “외국인을 위한 한국어 문법 2”, a Korean verb ending dictionary by the National Institute of the Korean Language, has an entry for -ㄹ 것, in which -ㄹ 거에요 is explained. And I don’t quite understand your side question. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Shinji, @KoreanQuoter, Eirikr, Wyang I had a go at another suffix - ㄹ게/을게 - pretty basic but it may still need attention. Single jamo are not transliterated (and the probably shouldn't) but {{ko-l}} doesn't allow manual transliteration either (tr= or nameless), e.g. ㄹ게 (ㄹge). I've omitted the pronunciation section, perhaps it should show tensification - actually pronounced "...께". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I’m not sure where I should put the alternate spellings -ㄹ께/-을께, which were official until 1988. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Shinji: About the headword, it appears to me that the lemma would be either ㄹ 거 or ㄹ 것. The 예요 or 에요 is just the copula , as you note.
The [VERB STEM] + 을/ㄹ construction can also modify some other nouns, such as in 어렸을 때, or 그럴 경우. This suggests that the 거 functions as a noun, albeit a grammaticalized noun. There are semantic parallels with the Japanese construction [VERB] こと, wherein the こと is nominally a noun, but it may convey no real nominal sense, functioning in a way vaguely similar to English case (sense 1), as in it is [or may be] the case that [VERB]. This is also parallel with the grammaticalized use of noun もの in Japanese, as in 食べるものだ. To rework your examples above,
  • 이건 먹을 거에요. (거 has a nominal sense: “This is a thing to eat = This is a food.”) ⇒ このものは食べるものだ。 → もの in both instances is a regular noun.
  • 나는 이걸 먹을 거에요. (거 has no nominal sense: “I will eat this.”) ⇒ 私はこのものを食べるものだ。 → もの in the first instance is a regular noun, but in the second instance, it functions grammatically as a noun, but it has been grammaticalized into a particle indicating intent or explanation.
The Korean construction -ㄹ 거 + thus appears to be a grammaticalization of 거 that requires the ㄹ ending for the preceding verb (similar to the ㄹ ending requirement for ). If you and other Korean editors are opposed to adding this information in the entry itself (and the Korean dictionary convention suggests grounds for not doing so), at a bare minimum, I think the entry should at least mention and link through to any ㄹ 거 entry. Would that be acceptable? My concern is that users might see that the in this construction appears to be a separate noun, and look up instead of ㄹ 거.
About the side question earlier, please ignore that -- I had gotten confused about how the verb form is derived. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not underestimating your knowledge in any way but if you know some Korean you must have studied -ㄹ 거에요 as a grammatical unit. Your analysis of 거 doesn’t seem to me true. The closest Japanese word for 거 is the nominal particle の, but there is no Japanese equivalent for -ㄹ 거. Spacing in Korean sometimes looks arbitrary, separating -ㄹ 뿐 while concatenating -ㄹ뿐더러. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My primary concerns are usability and discoverability. The suggestions below by you and KoreanQuoter address those concerns. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion, I think we need to include ㄹ 수 있다, ㄹ 수 없다, (을 수 있다, 을 수 없다). --KoreanQuoter (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that will be useful. We have be able to, and we explain the same thing in able. Likewise, we can explain -ㄹ 거다 in a dedicated entry and in . Advantages of having a separate entry are that it will appear in Category:Korean inflectional suffixes and that we can put it in the translation section of will. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A wise piece of idea right there. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


こんにちは、 磨瑠と申します。

宜しければ、「」とうい文字について、一つだけ提案したいことがあります。 ご存知のとおり、「加」という漢字には、音読みと訓読み以外に、「カ」という名乗り読みもあるんですが、それを指摘したらいいんじゃないかと私は思います。 例えば、加井妻「かいづま」や加尾谷「かおたに」という名前を例として挙げられます。


Ikemen maru (トーク) 2015年4月26日 (日) 15:56 (UTC) Ikemen maru

It is just an on-reading, as it is explained in Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/April#About 加. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • 了解です。

Ikemen maru (トーク)


Hi Shinji,

Should 원룸 use |nn=y, like 그린란드 or nothing like 핀란드? In other words, is it pronounced (transliterated) as "wonnum" or "wollum"? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It’s wonnum. If a speaker feels a morpheme boundary (원룸 and 그린란드), the coda of the first constituent is kept; otherwise (핀란드 where 핀 has no meaning to Koreans), the nl becomes ll. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I see, thanks. It makes sense. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)



According to Naver, it should be pronounced as [써클]. Do you know, which parameter in Template:ko-IPA is required for this, if it exists? @Wyang, KoreanQuoter. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is pronounced as [써클] but 써클 is also acceptable. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Loanwords from English with an initial ㅅ are generally pronounced with an initial ㅆ. I don’t know why but it is just so. The name of the letter C is officially 시 but actually 씨. —
@KoreanQuoter I think you meant "서클" (is also acceptable). Thank you both.
Currently, {{ko-IPA}} doesn't allow this, only if tensification is on syllables other than the first. Someone should probably enhance the Korean module to allow this? I think the reason for this is that a single "ㅅ" is an aspirated [sʰ] but foreign [s] is (often) perceived as "ㅆ" [s͈] has no aspiration. [s͈ʌ̹kxɯɭ] must sound more "English" than [sʰʌ̹kxɯɭ]. This happen with other languages as well, when cognate sounds are replaced with something else. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It's basically mimicking North American English accents, since North American English is the "standard" English in South Korea. In the initial position, 사이버 (cyper) in Korean is almost always pronounced as 싸이버. Additionally, when ㅅ is in between vowels, even PC방 (internet cafes) is almost always 피씨방. As far as I know, ㅅ to ㅆ pronunciation change started in the early 90s when English (read: American English) became mandatory in schools. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@KoreanQuoter I’m curious why it is so. To my ears ㅅ is closer to the English /s/. The Japanese syllables (su) and (tsu) are transcribed as 스 and 쓰 respectively. In addition, ㅆ is not always used even for English loanwords. Sistar (sic) is 스타 while Stellar is 스텔라. It seems to me the key is rather the word stress of an original English word. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think your "the word stress of an original English word" is correct and there's a weird tendency among Koreans to hyper-correct any English words with /s/ to ㅆ. And by the way, the Korean literation of Japanese words no longer use ㅆ, ㄸ, ㄲ, ㅃ (any double Korean consonants). For example さゆり (사유리, a famous Japanese celebrity in Korean TV shows). They never use or pronounce ㅆ in her name. But there's a very unfortunate and unorthodox tendency among Koreans to write か (ka) and が (ga) as simply 가. No distinctions. Same goes for other plosives. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a digression but they do use 쓰 for the Japanese tsu such as 쓰나미 (see w:ko:일본어의 한글 표기). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Most likely came from English, since American news outlets like CNN was the main news source that introduced the word to Koreans. Since native Japanese words (not Sino-Korean) into Korean were mostly household words. And the greatest example would be 냄비 (pot) and 담배 (tobacco). by the way, I'm taking this from a very prescriptive attitude, since Koreans tend to dislike government-based Koreanization guidelines, hence Korean online dictionaries have so many non-standard English and Japanese loanword entries. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
A household word example is the now-obsolete 쓰메끼리, which is from 爪切り. The use of ㄲ was common in the middle of a word. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
And cherry blossom is called 사쿠라 among young people here. ㄲ other double plosive consonants are not very favored among them. They would think it's kinda old-fashioned used among old people. I know this since my grand-uncle (now dead) spoke both fluent Japanese and Korean. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I’m afraid you are misunderstanding. 사유리 and 사쿠라 are no problems. What I am saying is that the Japanese /s/ is transcribed by ㅅ while /ts/ is transcribed by ㅆ both officially and actually. The use of ㅆ for a foreign /s/ is found only in modern English loanwords, as you know. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Then you're correct. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And one more thing for that matter, you will find many doublets in Korean words of English origin. For example, service center in Korean: 센타 and 센터. 센타 is based on the Japanese pronunciation, but 센터 is based on American English pronunciation. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

On the technical side, you can now use |com= for this matter. If tensification occurs word-initially, |com= can be set to '0'. Wyang (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)