User talk:TAKASUGI Shinji

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



Could I ask you to check the definitions here? I am not confident that they are 100% right. —suzukaze (tc) 19:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: I have tried to improve it. Is it clear now? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I like it :D —suzukaze (tc) 23:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


Is this common enough to meet CFI? If so, would you mind creating the entry? - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn’t that プッシュする? I have modified Wiktionary:Requested entries:Japanese/Non-romaji. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


This entry seems very messy to me. Do you think you could take a stab at organising it and improving the definitions in line with our usual entries? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What are our usual entries? Since Japanese demonstrative locatives have two functions (deictic and anaphoric) and two kinds of referent (place and organization), isn’t it inevitable to have four definitions? You can perhaps merge the two kinds of referent. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, if nothing else the usage notes should probably be merged into the defs/alt forms, and the order of L3s is wrong. @Eirikr? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks like @Justinrleung and I had a go at it at the same time. Cleaned up and etym added. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr, thanks... there's still obvious work to be done (how can "genitals" be a pronoun sense?) and maybe a further etymology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge, have a look now. The genitals sense is by extension from the there sense, as is even sometimes encountered in English, usually with emphasis in tone of voice: down there. Since the core meaning is still there, I've left this under the Pronoun heading.
FWIW, as far as I've understood it, the "pronoun" distinction in Japanese is purely arbitrary: as a class, these behave as nouns. Their pronoun-iness comes from the way in which they're used to reference things. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, that's not how parts of speech work. They are determined by patterns of usage, not "core meaning". In English, I can say "There is no there there" and I have made the second there into a noun rather than a pronoun (and yes, we have a separate Noun section in our English entry). Japanese pronouns are not fundamentally different from English ones, so I don't see why we wouldn't treat them the same way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I was comparing the "Pronoun" usage at there#Pronoun versus what I see in monolingual Japanese dictionaries. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about the POS headers to be used at the あそこ entry. FWIW, the "Pronoun" usages for our English entry have no parallel in Japanese. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's weird to leave it as is, but I can live with it, especially if that's standard in Japanese lexicography. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I'm curious about your addition of reading jidensha. I've only ever heard this when the speaker has a stuffy nose. :) Is this a regional or historical variation? If so, could you add a clarification along those lines? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a nonstandard colloquial pronunciation ([1]), apparently common in Kanto. I personally pronounce so in casual conversation. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


Can you determine what part of speech header this should have? (Phrase, maybe?) - -sche (discuss) 16:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@-sche: most makurakotoba are grammatically adnominals. How about using Adnominal just like 小さな? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @-sche. If an adnominal "doesn't conjugate" according to Category:Japanese adnominals, a usage example there has ...akane sashi tereru tsukuyo (check one of the akane sasu quotations) defeats that. Verb, perhaps?

A better example for an adnominal may be any pillow word that ends in a possessive particle, such as 足引きの (ashihiki no) or 烏羽玉の (ubatama no). ~ POKéTalker) 02:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm I realy don’t understand this confusion between Japanese and Old Japanese on Wiktionary, and would like to change all Japanese entries containing Man’yōshū to Old Japanese entries. We don’t cite Old English for an English entry. As a surviving pillow word in Modern Japanese, it is just like verb-derived adnominals such as ある and いわゆる. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
You don't have to; for now, the OJP examples may remain there until ojp templates have been created. Feel free to move them (Citations page or OJP section) if you like.
Could 千早振る (chihayaburu) be considered an adnominal? This one does not conjugate and has examples after OJP, the POS is still Phrase since. Going to add more pillow words in the future, you can help decide which are adnominals or not. Domo, ~ POKéTalker) 06:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Pillow words generally don’t conjugate, and it is easier to classify them in adnominals. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Japanese months[edit]

Pinging @Atitarev, Cnilep, Eirikr, Fumiko Take, Naggy Nagumo, Suzukaze-c, Tsukuyone.

Category:ja:Japanese months (for the traditional ones)

Since the months in English are proper nouns, should the Japanese traditional months be proper nouns too (currently they're not)? Also the Chinese-derived ones. ~ POKéTalker) 10:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Month and weekday names are common nouns in the majority of languages. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Anatoli T.TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Understood your position. If romanized, do the months have to start with a small or capital letter? ~ POKéTalker) 03:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I would use a small letter. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


Hello, TAKASUGI Shinji. Following a page move, ぼうさん and 坊さん are now redirects. However, these are lexical items, as seen for example in the book title, Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg ボクは坊さん。 on the Japanese Wikipedia.Wikipedia ja The "beautified" お坊さん is probably more frequent, but in my opinion the bare forms should not be redirects. What do you think? Cnilep (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You are right, it is better to create an entry. I just moved it to the more frequent form to save time. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

already, not yet, not anymore, still, still not...[edit]

Hi. If I remember correctly, you made a little table with these words, with the positive items on one side and the negative ones on the other. I cannot find it back; could you tell me where it is? Per utramque cavernam 11:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: see Talk:not yet. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Per utramque cavernam 17:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Word clarification[edit]

Hello Shinji!

Do you have any more citations on how Japland is classified an ethnic slur? Yes, "Jap" is a pejorative word and can be used as an ethnic slur, but I've never heard "Japland" being used as an ethnic slur (and the example quotation from 1872 doesn't even seem too extreme to me).

The "-land" suffix is used sometimes in both formal and colloquial English without any hate, eg "Aussieland" (Australia, land of the Aussie), England (land of the Angles), Finland (land of the Finns), Poland (land of the Poles), etc.

So is it truly an ethnic slur to colloquially say "Japland" -- referring to the land of the Japanese?

Thank you in advance for your insight, and have a great day! MikkeLund (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

How can it not be a slur when Jap is a slur? ([2], [3]) Google Books also gives some examples of Gookland and Chinkland. On the other hand Aussie is not a slur at all. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


Why was my edit removed? I have seen the country Cambodia spelled out this way as well, it's just rare nowadays, is all. Johnnysama (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Google Books shows only explanations of 柬埔寨. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps RFV would be a more appropriate venue. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. We'll see how this goes. Johnnysama (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yomi types at 彼処[edit]

Hello Shinji, I noticed you recently changed the yomi types at 彼処. For the ako and kako readings, I notice that dictionaries seem to list with kun readings of a and ka, so presumably ako and kako would be kun'yomi, no? Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn’t it strange for a word to be a patial gikun?
 () (kore)  () (sore)  () (are)  () (dore)
 () (kono)  () (sono)  () (ano)  () (dono)
 () () (koko)  () () (soko) 彼処 (あそこ) (asoko)  () () (doko)
此方 (こちら) (kochira) 其方 (そちら) (sochira) 彼方 (あちら) (achira) 何方 (どちら) (dochira)
Here Japanese demonstratives are systematic and kanji are assigned systematically. It is not the case that 処 is read こ or 方 is read ちら. Gikun must be understood as a whole. They are the same as  (きょ) () (kyō) and 明日 (あした) (ashita). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I may not have expressed myself clearly. I apologize for the confusion.
For asoko, achira, etc., yes, your point about gikun is relevant and applicable, and I wholly agree with and support your change of the relevant yomi to "irregular".
For ako and kako, however, the KDJ analyzes these as a + ko and ka + ko respectively. These two compounds exhibit no sound shift as in 今日, nor any subsumed particles or other morphemes as in 明日 or the asoko or achira readings. Considering that both a and ka are kun readings for 彼, and that ko is a kun reading for 処, that would make the compounds ako and kako straightforward kun'yomi compounds.
Am I missing something? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted my edits for あこ and かこ. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Historical kana for [edit]

Your edit at (​kōnotori) is a headscratcher: why かう instead of こふ? One theory says that the development was from the on-reading kan then adding no tori, and then kankau. ~ POKéTalker) 11:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Both are attested. こふのとり is probably an established hypercorrection. It is indicated on Goo Dictionary, perhaps influenced by くぐひ. It is more common than かうのとり as furigana. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Linguistic question[edit]

Hi. I have never studied linguistics before and I would like to know the name of a concept I had in mind. let's call it “word”, then:

  • かえる, 帰る, 返る and kaeru are different spellings of the same “word”
  • kaeru “to return” and kaeru “frog” are different “words”
  • kaeru “to return” and kaetta “returned” are different “words”

Do you know what such a concept of “word” is called in linguistics? (Also pinging @Suzukaze-c)

By the way, what do you think about this suggestion (adapted from my userpage)?

Don't overuse the word “reading” in etymology sections like this:

The sora reading for changes to zora as an instance of rendaku (連濁). The reading was aosora until roughly the mid-Meiji Period.

Someone who is raised up in a Japanese-speaking family, but has never been exposed to the Japanese writing system, will still pronounce the word as aozora. This makes it clear that sora undergoes rendaku whether it is a “reading”. A better wording would be:

The sora changes to zora as an instance of rendaku (連濁). The word was phonographically attested in the shape aosora until roughly the mid-Meiji Period.

--Dine2016 (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Also pinging @Poketalker. --Dine2016 (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Kaeru and kaetta are different forms of the same word.
Reading probably means “pronunciation” there, but it is not a good word to describe a phonological change. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dine2016: Important: "kaeru" is not a Japanese word or a "spelling". It's a romanisation of Japanese words written in kana or kanji. You can use it in a discussion if you don't feel like entering native script or copying but it's an important distinction. The fact that we keep romanisation for two languages made this fact blurred. I thought I'd mention, since your 2nd line looks weird to me. :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Actually what I had in mind was this:

For each Japanese word (e.g. ikikaeru “to revive”), one spelling (e.g. 生き返る) is chosen by the editors as the main entry on Wiktionary to hold all the information of the word. The main entry uses {{ja-spellings}} to list and link to the alternative spellings (e.g. いきかえる), and the alternative spellings use {{ja-see}} to provide soft redirects to the main entry. (In the case of multiple etymology sections, each etymology section could be a main entry or a soft redirect, as is the case at 貴方.)

Here the definition of a “word” is obviously different from the lexeme in linguistics, and “main entry” different from the lemma form, because the soft redirection is between different spellings of a given form instead of between different forms of a word. However, using the term “forms” might sound strange (e.g. “The Japanese section describes n word forms if it has n etymology sections”). Do you have better terms?
@Atitarev: You're right. I was under the mistaken belief that romaji was an official writing system of Japanese. However, it can transcribe speech directly rather than from kana or kanji. --Dine2016 (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)