Talk:人

"さね (kine)"

Unless there's some Japanese writing rule I'm missing, that actually reads "sane" and not "kine". Kine would be きね.

Korean

On my mobile phone (Samsung Galaxy II, Android 4.1.2, Opera Classic) the Korean section is not visible until the Japanese section is expanded. I tried editing the page as there was an inconsistency but it didn't help. Any ideas? Danielklein (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Cantonese

@Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c What's the difference between jan4, jan4-2 and jan4-1? (from here) Thanks! Wyang (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kc_kennylau Wyang (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: 一個人(jan4) means a person. 一個人(jan4-2/jan4-1) means alone. I have no idea what the difference between 一個人(jan4-2) and 一個人(jan4-1) is. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang, Kc kennylau: I think 一個人(jan4-2) can also mean "a person" (e.g. 有(一)個人坐咗喺嗰度), but not 一個人(jan4-1). Take 三個人 as another example: 三個人(jan4) would mean "three people" (human beings?), while 三個人(jan4-2) would mean "three people" (guys?). We can also compare 一個人(jan4-1) with 自己(gei2-1) - not sure if there's any semantic difference with the tone change. BTW, I don't think we should include jan4-1 in this entry because it's not used independently; it must be in a compound or phrase, like 一個人 or 捉伊人. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both! I was also told that jan1 carries a sense of childishness and moe (萌え) in declarative sentences - not sure if that is true. Wyang (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: Possibly. The usage note at 一個人 also mentions "aloneness". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Lua memory

@Erutuon, Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c, Wyang Hi. The page ran out of memory after I added up to one hundred Korean hanja compounds. I found that I was able to reduce the memory to 43.79 MB by removing the 24 usages of {{zh-x}}. I wonder if there is a way to reduce the memory of {{zh-x}}, e.g. by using manual transliteration? KevinUp (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Japanese counter -tari is not a separate etymology

I'm not convinced etymology 5 (-tari, counter for humans) is separate from etymology 4 (-ri, counter for humans).

Consider futago (twins), futatsu (two [generic counter]), and Old Japanese putayö (two nights, see w:Japanese numerals#Old Japanese). Puta > futa is the numeral root for 2 and -ri is the counter suffix. Mitari, the only example given for the -tari etymology, most likely arose by assimilation of pronunciation to futari, rather than suggesting a separate -tari suffix. Deryck Chan (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: Agreed. Looks like that was added by User:Poketalker in this edit in January 2019. @Poketalker, could you clarify? I've never encountered any resource stating that -tari is a separate lexeme -- I think the -ta- portion is only apparent in futari, where every derivation I've read so far parses this as futa- ("two") + -ri (person counter). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I have now seen the rest of the argument regarding 三人 mitari, 四人 yotari, 幾人 ikutari. I still think it's one etymology, but I see the point that the proto-form could have been -tari and the 1 and 2 forms being contractions, in addition to the possibility that the 3+ forms are coined by analogy to 2. We'll need an expert to tell us if an archaic form exists to help settle the debate... Deryck Chan (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan, thank you for the additional examples. That does indeed make it look like the root form was -tari wherein -tori would be the shifted form. Interesting though that monolingual JA sources break out hitori as hito- + -ri, as seen at the DJS entry in Kotobank, or the KDJ entry, for instance. Perhaps hitori was a blend somehow of hito + tari?

After further digging (further than my earlier reply above), here are the ancient forms I've found. I'm not sure about the 甲・乙 for many of these.

1. [from 712] hi₁to₂ri -- See also Ryūkyūan chui.
2. [from 712] futari -- See also Ryūkyūan tai.
3. [from late 900s] mitari -- See also Ryūkyūan mitchai.
4. [from 720] yotari -- See also Ryūkyūan yuttai.
5. [from 720] itori -- also has itsutari attested from 1477, and there are Japonic congates like Ryūkyūan itutai and ichitai
6. [from 1809] mutari -- very late attestation. See also Ryūkyūan muttai.
7. [unattested] *nanatari -- included in the JA Wiktionary, but missing from any reference I have. Ryūkyūan nanatai points to the apparent existence of a potential nanatari form in OJP.
8. [from 1170] yatari -- See also Ryūkyūan yattai.
9. [unattested] *kokonotari -- also hinted at by Ryūkyūan kukunutai.
0. [from 1000] *ikutari -- See also Ryūkyūan ikutai.

The main outlier is 一人, manifesting as hitori in Japanese and chui in Ryūkyūan. I think the Ryūkyūan develops as:

• /pitori/ → /fitori/ (regular lenition) → /fituri/ (regular /o/ → /u/ vowel shift for Ryūkyūan) → /fitui/ (regular /r/ elision for Ryūkyūan) → /chui/ (weak vowel dropping out, and initial fricative and following stop combining to produce a fused fricative)

What I mean by "outlier" is that both Japanese and Ryūkyūan branches show evidence that the second-to-last vowel for 一人 was /o/, unlike all the other words where it was probably /a/.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we rewrite thus: Reconstruction from Old Japanese and Ryukyuan suggests a proto-form *-tari which becomes contracted in the singular and the plural (pitö- + -tari > hitori; puta + -tari > futari). See examples for the uncontracted form in the plural. Since only the singular and dual forms remain in use, Modern Japanese dictionaries tend to reanalyse the suffix as -ri. --Deryck Chan (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

On'yomi etymology

I've rewritten the etymology sections for Japanese etymology 2 and 3, and removed the scriptorium request. The borrowing of Middle Chinese 日母 into Go-on n- and Kan-on z- > j- is almost completely regular. 人 is no exception so I don't think any entry-specific explanation for the sound changes is needed here. If anything, this particular correspondence between 日母 and modern Japanese n- vs j- is one of the key pieces of evidence used in the reconstruction of the phonetic values of 日母 in Middle Chinese so we shouldn't be explaining it the other way round! Deryck Chan (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Glyph origin on derived terms subpage

@-sche, Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c The glyph origins being located at 人/derived terms seems very incongruous to me. I understand sche you did it because of memory constraints, but I want to ask if there's anything else that can be done. In part because I feel that 人 is such a basic word and the glyph origin is very understandable, yet also very helpful because it appears in so many other characters.

Firstly, perhaps we could have a dedicated forms subpage so that it's not in derived terms. Also, would it be possible to select only a couple of historical forms to show on the main page, and exclude the "more" dropdown? Because if those "more" pictures are being loaded at the same time as the rest of the page, I can imagine that using a lot of memory (I think it's almost 200 pictures, mostly oracle bone script). But if we were to remove those "more" forms and put them on a subpage, then I think the problem might be fixed while still having the most represenative graphics on the main page? ChromeGames923 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

hot (extremely cooled down) take: including ~190 pictures directly on the main entry like this was a terrible idea in the first place. i wont miss it —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Chinese displays incorrect pinyin

Chinese definition 10 uses the example 長大 and displays incorrect pinyin chángdà, but rather should be zhǎngdà. I'm unable to edit pinyin as it does not display in the edit box. Kangtw (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! To see how I did it: [1]. 70.172.194.25 01:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)