Talk:鋭アクセント

RFV discussion: March–April 2020

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

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.

---

鋭アクセント

Apparently the spelling is based on the Japanese Wikipedia article. 27,500 results on Google seem small... ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 03:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a term, but the 鋭 is not pronounced アキュート (akyūto).

That entry was created just last week by Shen233 (talk • contribs). They are apparently not a native speaker / reader of Japanese, and I suspect that they were confused by the notation in the JA WP article, specifically the last bolded bit:

アキュート・アクセント（´）または アクサンテギュは、おもにラテン文字を用いる言語の表記に用いられるアクセント符号で、ダイアクリティカルマーク（発音区別符号）の一種。揚音符（ようおんぷ）、揚音符号（ようおんふごう）、鋭アクセントと呼ばれることもある。

Note that the description here does not assign any reading or pronunciation to the 鋭 character in 鋭アクセント. Assuming that the reading is アキュート (akyūto) is a mistake.

Poking around elsewhere online, I find scanty but likely evidence (see this Chiebukuro post, search the page for 鋭) that this is instead read as 鋭(えい)アクセント (ei akusento), where 鋭 (ei) is a gloss or partial calque of οξεία (oxeía), i.e. sharp, which is the base meaning of the 鋭 character. Barring any other evidence, I believe this is the correct reading.

@TAKASUGI Shinji, do you have any further insight? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You are right. 鋭(えい)アクセント (ei akusento) is correct. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Eirikr, I initially thought that way because in the 锐 page, one of the derived terms is 鋭アクセント does has "アキュート" on top of 鋭. My assumption was that 鋭 is for semantic purposes and just a variant of アキュート・アクセント. Shen233 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Aha, ya, it looks like I'm so meta even this acronym (talk • contribs) added that compound in November 2016, but without any ruby, with KevinUp (talk • contribs) adding the ruby that following April 2017. Perhaps then KevinUp was the one initially misled by the JA WP article. Well, mystery mostly solved, and confusing content corrected, so all's well that ends well.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• RFV-resolved. Apparently the term itself was never in doubt? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)