Talk:彼の

RFV discussion: April–July 2014

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

彼の

Rfv-sense genitive of 彼 (kare, “he”); his. It's a SoP. We don't make entries for noun, pronoun + の. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It had been an article about the adnominal "彼の" (kano) until I added the noun sense raised above. When you encounter a phrase "彼の" in written modern Japanese, it is much more likely to read as the noun-genitive "彼の" (kareno) than the adnominal. Failing to explain that is not interest of our readers, in my opinion. Could we perhaps add the explanation into the usage note? Same might apply to 此の. Whym (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

For this you could use {{&lit|lang=ja|彼|の}}, I think you could even pronunciation right after it, add a short definition ("his") and a usex on the next line. See 得了, etymology 2--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Can it be used for a pair that are not exactly the same in the surface form (in pronunciation), but are closely related in the etymology? (I don't know which is the "original" form for that matter.) I am feeling that it is a bit stretching to call one "idiom" in this case. --Whym (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure at the moment how best to reformat the JA entries, but my general thought is that, if a particular JA spelling merits inclusion as a term, then we should include etyms and senses for all readings and meanings that apply to that spelling. Since 彼の does merit inclusion as a valid spelling of non-POS terms あの and かの, we should include etyms etc. for those readings, as well as for any other readings, in this case, for かれの. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

{{&lit}} has this flaw that it makes the entry's other senses "idiomatic". What about # (literal) his, see かれ, の.

Is the term "genitive" used often to refer to Japanese possessive の?--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Re: literal, that sounds good. We probably also ought to add a link to a page or pages about Japanese grammar and how particles function.
• Re: genitive, some authors might, but it's not that prevalent from what I've seen (anecdotal and subjective evidence, but there you go). “Genitive” implies a case system and declension, which Japanese doesn't really have, strictly speaking; Japanese grammarians, at least, consider nouns (of which JA pronouns are a subset) to be invariable and unchanging. I think possessive might be more appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree to Eiríkr Útlendi on that possessive is more common, and if one does not wish to liken it to case systems in other languages, they normally avoid genitive. I didn't carefully choose the term when writing "genitive", sorry. Whym (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologise. Guys, please edit the entry you see fit as per discussion, you can take out the RFV as well. I'm busy with other stuff :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, here is my attempt. Whym (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I made more changes. Please check this revision. Please note headword and template changes as well. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Finally got around to reworking 彼の to split everything out by etymology. Have a look, see what you all think. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank a lot, Eiríkr Útlendi. This organization makes much more sense to me. Can we maybe remove the pronoun sense, unless there is an adequate quote to support? If that was derived from what I wrote, [1] I would regard this now subsumed by the adnominal sense above (that [one] (distant from both speaker and listener). Explaining by (deprecated template usage) you-know-who might have not been a good idea. I just meant that it refers to an object not introduced previously but already known in the dialogue; there is no connotation whether they want to mention it explicitly or not, and it cannot stand as a pronoun as far as I know. A typical use I had in mind is found in 「岩波茂雄 読書子に寄す ――岩波文庫発刊に際して――」(1927): 吾人は範をかのレクラム文庫にとり. Whym (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The pronoun sense does show up as an independent nominal in two quotes I have to hand, both dating to the Edo period. I'll add those to the entry for illustration purposes. That said, I haven't done any further research into how current this usage is, so it might be archaic or even obsolete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I am pretty sure that the sense is obsolete. Or more precisely, as Nihon Kokugo Daijiten puts it, 近世の隠語的用法. Whym (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Duly marked as such. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Closed, as the issue has been dealt with. Untagged by Whym (talk • contribs) ([2]). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)