Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hiya. Would you mind checking the Japanese translation provided here? The Chinese one happened to be inaccurate, so it's possible the Japanese one is as well. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
You mentioned at RFVN that you don't know how to archive discussions to talk pages. Here's how: go to WT:PREFS, select the gadget 'A Wondefool Archiver', and you'll get archive links that are pretty intuitive (though feel free to ask should you need help). Bear in mind that we generally let closed discussions sit for about a week before archiving them, in case there are any last-minute objections. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
You could fix it by hand, but it's probably faster to revert your edit and try again when conditions are better (not sure if it's due to client-side conditions or the page itself). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion
Hi, this is Dine2016. The Japanese conjugation tables ({{ja-go-u}}, etc.) currently label desu/masu forms as "formal". But I think such forms should be labeled "polite", while "formal" should be used for the written style that substitutes de aru for da, the continuative stem for the -te form (for mid-sentence pauses), etc.
Similarly, I think the different kinds of conditional forms can be called "-ba conditional" and "-tara conditional" (with nara and to regarded as particles), because assignment of labels like "conditional", "provisional" and "hypothetical" to the forms can be arbitrary. For example, {{ja-adj-infl}} labels -ba "conditional" and -tara "provisional", but exactly the opposite assignment appears in Samuel E. Martin's Reference Grammar of Japanese, which also has "hypothetical" for the older -(a)ba form (as in isogaba maware).
@2409:894C:3C3C:161:7AD6:AF84:B254:35CC: You can use {{subst:wgping|ja}} to notify all Japanese editors. By the way, I don't think anyone will blame you for using your old account. I personally hate to reply to an IP because I am not sure whether they will receive the notification. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, the ～たら and ～ば endings have nothing to do with grammatical tense (when something occurs, in relation to the contextual "now"), and instead express aspect (～たら expresses a conditional aspect, derived historically from a conditional predicated on the assumption that the action completed [this completion aspect isn't so prevalent in modern usage]; ～ば expresses a conditional with more of a nuance of necessary precondition for the following statement).
For that matter, ～たら is a truncation of older ～たらば, itself a contraction of ～て + あらば. The ～て ending indicates completion, not any kind of infinitiveness. The completion aspect is less in modern usage than in the past, but it's still there. Compare:
ご飯を食べテレビを見る -- [I] eat and watch TV (possibly at the same time)
ご飯を食べてテレビを見る -- [I] eat and then watch TV (as distinct actions, possibly separated in time)
Looking at Huhu9001's table, there is some terminological confusion in the labeling, and perhaps a bit more blank space than would be ideal. That said, I like that Huhu9001's table includes more forms than our current setup. I wonder if we couldn't include even more useful forms, like the causative-passive, polite conditional, etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig04:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Agreed on including more useful forms. But I don't think "polite conditional" is useful. I've only seen -mashitara in super-polite speech (like man'ichi furyōhin ga arimashitara ...) and -masureba and -maseba are very rare.
I prefer "-te form", since the て is essentially a verb suffix, and suffix notation in English contexts is to include the hyphen before the suffix.
If this "-te form" were to be used as a compound modifier, qualifying some other noun, then the general rule in English is to hyphenate the compound modifier: "-te-form hypothesis", "-te-form-related sound changes", etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig04:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
In traditional Japanese grammar te is not a suffix but a particle (joshi). The traditional grammar offers two levels of word division, phonologically ("kodomoni | benkyōsasete") and morphologically ("kodomo | ni | benkyō-sa | se | te" -- the "a" properly belongs to the next morpheme), neither of which corresponds to our usual notion of a word as reflected in our romanization (kodomo ni benkyō sasete). Maybe it's better to avoid the issue ("te form") whenever the grammars disagree? --2409:894C:3C12:285D:82F1:9FDB:E8CC:643A06:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
We are used to regarding た (← てある) and たら (← てあらば) as two separate endings, but in the traditional 六活用形 system たら is not a 接続助詞 but the 仮定形 of the 助動詞た. (That's why you won't find it under たら in a kokugo dictionary.) @Huhu9001's label "past" may be an allusion to this.
My opinion is that we should follow the 六活用形 system when it's convenient, but deviate from it when alternative explanations are better. The 六活用形 system used to be popular in teaching Japanese in China, but recent Chinese textbooks treat た and たら as distinct endings, which I guess English textbooks also do, and that's what we should do too. (Similarly, I have also deviated from the 六活用形 system at り#Etymology 2.) --2409:894C:3C30:12FB:8466:2481:7893:D51F03:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: I think you might be misreading the JA WP article. Here's the text that I think you're referring to, from the first sentence at ja:w:痛車#概要 (bolding mine):
痛車とは「見ていて痛々しい車」という意味からきた俗語であり...
This is a description of the meaning behind the term. That's not the same as saying it's a shortening of 見ていて痛々しい車(mite ite itaitashii kuruma). A shortening might produce itaitaguruma, even itaguruma, but not itasha.
The very next clause in the sentence clarifies that this term is not directly from 痛々しい(itaitashii), and is instead composed using 痛い(itai):
...恥ずべき行いを「痛い」と表現する俗語に由来するものである。
I don't have access to the referenced book, 『オタクのことが面白いほどわかる本』, but based on the text of the Wikipedia article, this is clearly 痛い(itai) used in a slangy "cringeworthy" sense rather than literally "painful", plus 車(sha) in reference to vehicles.
Re: 痛い(itai), I did some further digging and found that the mentioned slang-y sense with semantic overlap with 痛々しい(itaitashii) is called out in the Daijisen entry here:
Your additional source brings an additional angle, regarding Ferrari cars and イタリア車, which is quite interesting: using 痛(ita) in both its "cringeworthy" sense, and in a pun on the イタ(ita) in イタリア(Itaria). The last sentence there:
@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: I was hoping someone else might chime in, but since no one else has :), here's my take.
A term can be a straightforward shortening of another term if the phonological elements of the shortened derivation are present in some form in the parent etymon. That's my generalized understanding for all languages. Since sha as a phonological element doesn't exist in the phrase mite ite itaitashii kuruma, itasha cannot be just a shortening of the phrase. A shortening of mite ite itaitashii kuruma through simple mora deletion might result in mite ite itaitashii kuruma → ita-guruma (assuming here that any such product would include rendaku).
For Japanese more specifically, we can also consider the type of reading for any kanji included in the etymon. Shortening might give rise to sandhi phenomenon like gemination, rendaku, or renjō, but the resulting shorter form should still use the same reading types for all of the kanji as in the longer etymon. Since kuruma in mite ite itaitashii kuruma is kun'yomi while sha is on'yomi, this can't be just a shortening. If this is indeed directly from the phrase mite ite itaitashii kuruma, we could instead describe it as derived from shortening, plus a shift in reading (due perhaps to nuance, allusion, perceived coolness, other social register, etc.).
As a side note, the change from reading 日本 as Hi no Moto to Nihon is not a shortening, but rather a shift in reading, probably influenced by the consideration that Chinese was the prestige language of the region at the time, so Chinese-based readings were regarded more highly. Compare 決まり(kimari) versus 規定(kitei), or 追加する(tsuika suru) versus 付け加える(tsukekuwaeru). This is vaguely similar to the dynamic in English, were Latinate words are regarded as higher-register -- more formal, more academic, fancier -- while the Germanic synonyms are regarded as lower-register -- homier, more intimate, less formal, less academic. Consider "nosesurgery" versus "rhinoplasty", or "scatologicalhumor" versus "poopjoke".
See more at the Wikipedia article for w:Clipping_(morphology), and for good examples of Japanese clipping, see also w:Clipped_compound. The Clipped compound place names section of this latter page describes some of the reading shifts that happen in kanji-based clippings. Since these often involve changes in kanji reading types, for our purposes at Wiktionary, we cannot class these as just shortenings. Simple shortenings would include things like モンスターハンター(Monsutā Hantā) → モンハン(Monhan), ポケットモンスター(Poketto Monsutā) → ポケモン(Pokemon), or 国際連合(Kokusai Rengō) → 国連(Kokuren).
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
する#Usage notes says that you cannot say 日本語を勉強をする in Japanese, but you can say 일본어를 공부를 하다 in Korean. I added that note after searching the web for "일본어를 공부를" as well as some other "…어를 공부를". Are you able to help confirm this construction, or explain why it works(?) in Korean but not in Japanese? --2409:894C:3C16:275D:F128:9123:41:E4E09:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't think this question of object particles 를 (reul) / 을 (eul) in Korean or を(o) in Japanese has anything to do with vowel harmony -- the particles are outside scope for that phenomenon in Korean, and Japanese doesn't currently have vowel harmony, and historical linguists are divided on whether it ever did.
For Japanese at least, there's a general stricture that any object particle must correlate with one verb. Occasionally that verb is implied and not explicitly stated, but it still works out to one を(o), one verb. And Chinese-derived verbs like Japanese勉強(benkyō) are treated as compounds with the following する(suru), forming a single grammatical unit. It is possible to say 勉強をする(benkyō o suru), but in this case, the 勉強(benkyō) is treated as the object of する(suru), so no other object can be stated for this instance of する(suru).
I'm not as familiar with Korean grammar, but to extrapolate from what Dine2016 says above, it seems that Chinese-derived verbs are not treated as single grammatical units together with 하다 (hada), so apparently the transitivity is treated as separate for each piece, with one object for the 공부 (gongbu), and then another object for the 하다 (hada).
Latest comment: 2 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Dine2016, I agree with (what I think is) your edit comment at よう. At that time, I had referenced w:Japanese_godan_and_ichidan_verbs#Japanese_language_education, which uses the "Group" notation instead of the "type" notation, and which aligns with past materials I've used in both learning and teaching Japanese. I have no strong preference either way, but we should be mindful that Wikipedia's wording might inform the expectations of our other readers and editors. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
The terms "type 1" and "type 2" come from our categories cat:Japanese type 1 verbs and cat:Japanese type 2 verbs. Maybe we should favor "godan" and "ichidan", and put everything else in mouseover text?
@Eirikr One thing I wanted to ask: I've subcategorised ichidan verbs into upper (-iru) and lower (-eru) conjugations (in addition to the main ichidan category, not instead of), but there is one (1) irregular ichidan verb, which I wasn't sure what to do with: すぐる(suguru). Given it's a slang form of 過ぎる(sugiru), it seems very plausible, but it's still a weird oddity nonetheless. Are there any more of these? I've set the headword module to put any nonstandard ichidan verbs in Category:Japanese irregular verbs as well as the ichidan category, in any event. Theknightwho (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho, I'm not familiar with any すぐる(suguru) as either slang or as an ichidan verb?
This is attested since at least the Man'yōshū of 759; Japanese references list it as arising from the kami nidan verb すぐ(sugu), whence also すごす(sugosu), すぎる(sugiru), すげる(sugeru), and すがる(sugaru).
In terms of conjugation paradigms, I've only ever seen this listed as yodan (for classical senses now obsolete) or godan (for senses still current).
There is the shimo nidan verb すぐる(suguru) that became modern shimo ichidan verb すぐれる(sugureru). But that seems like a straightforward case of classical nidan becoming modern ichidan?
Although すぐる#Etymology_2 lists this as modern internet slang for すぎる(sugiru), presumably in the intransitive "to surpass; to exceed" sense, this seems more like a repurposing of the classical shimo nidan verb, which has a similar sense – see すぐれる(sugureru, “to excel, to surpass”). Without seeing usage examples that clarify this purported modern slang meaning, and that clearly show different conjugated forms, I can't see how this is all that distinct from the classical verb.
@Whym, looks like you added that section to the すぐる(suguru) entry in this diff. Could you add any clarity here? For instance, do you have any usage examples? And could you explain how すぐる(suguru) is an ichidan verb, when all other such verbs end in either -iru or -eru? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I appreciate your explanation.
I thought that, given that there have been Catholics in Japan since the days of St. Francis Xavier (so, the latter part of the 16th century), who did persist on their own even through notable times of persecution (and, thus, did not disappear and have to be totally re-established from nothing) there has to be some sort of established terminology for the kind of thing that I was talking about.
Hence why I brought it up. My thought was "「死の天使」 or some similar term must have some level of currency at least in certain communities in Japan, right? How could it not, given how long certain communities have existed there."
I tried doing some brief searching myself to see what, if anything, there might be on the subject. But I didn't find all that much. Most of what I found were translations of film and song titles.
Given that we list certain terms in a number of other languages that are largely confined to specific groups (ex. "하느님" and "천주" v. "하나님"), I thought that it wouldn't be especially strange for us to note the existence of a term in a language if it does indeed have actual currency in that language at least in some communities. Tharthan (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Tharthan: Perhaps as a translation of the Western concept, yes, I think that 「死の天使」 is citable. Whether it's lexical or not is another matter, as this is basically just 天使(tenshi, “angel”, literally “heaven + envoy”) with a qualifier stuck on front, and there are various other kinds of 天使(tenshi). I do not see any entries for 「死の天使」 in my go-to references, online or dead-tree -- c.f. the lack of any hits at all at the Kotobank page at https://kotobank.jp/word/死の天使, and note too that all the hits at Weblio's https://www.weblio.jp/content/死の天使 page are either the Japanese Wikipedia, or in the 短編小説作品名辞典 (Tanpen Shōsetsu Hinmei Jiten, “Short Novel Title Dictionary”), and are thus the titles of various published books.
The phrase angel of death in English has wider use, whereas my impression is that 「死の天使」 is limited to the Christian sense, and the metaphorical senses or "embodiment of death" senses are expressed using the native concept 死神(shinigami). The translation tables at both Englishangel of death and Grim Reaper are headed by "embodiment of death", in which case shinigami is the only correct term, so far as I'm aware. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig02:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Eirikr. I see that Digital Daijisen derives せとか from 早崎瀬戸. I saw that elsewhere, too, but I also saw others attribute it to 瀬戸町 in 愛媛県. I therefore left the English etymology deliberately vague, as "one or more Japanese place names". I'll leave it to you or others do decide what to do. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: There's a small handful of terms where a final ん shifted to み or に. Consider 銭(zeni, “money”) from older regular on'yomi of sen. This 灯心(tōshin) shift to tōshimi is another manifestation of this same phonological process.
In terms of reading type, zeni evolved from on'yomi, but is itself treated as kun'yomi. Since shimi is a much rarer reading for 心 than zeni is for 銭, I would suggest treating shimi as an irregular reading instead.
しみ can be a "regular" reading, because しむ is an ancient reading. Compare いち and いつ for 一. I think this is go-on buddism word, but no evidence, so I've added it to "on=". EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
The shimu reading is ancient and is not considered to be an on'yomi in any modern context I've encountered.
The various mu kana in ancient texts were used to spell both /mu/ (modern む) and /ɴ/ (modern ん). Consequently, every word that contained an ん sound was spelled with one of the kana for む. The modern kana ん in fact derives from a hentaigana for む. The ancient on'yomi of shimu for 心 is itself a reconstruction, based on the reconstructed pronunciation of Middle Chinese 心 (MC sim).
Even if we decided to treat shimu as a modern on'yomi, there's the problem that shimu is not shimi: the reading shimi is an irregular change.
@EdwardAlexanderCrowley, good find, yes, that's just after the 934 text shown in the KDJ entry I linked above. That said, this しみ reading for 心 is treated as irregular, as a rare phonological shift from しん. I'm not aware of any Japanese reference work that lists the kanji 心 with the reading しみ as an on'yomi. If you see any such reference, by all means please share the link with us, that would be a very useful comparison.
I suspect the word "ancient" might be the source of some confusion here. For single-kanji entries like 心, the ===Readings=== section shows the readings by category (on, kun, etc.). The "ancient" label on certain superscripted readings is in contrast to the "historical" label, and is intended to show readings that are not attested historically, but which are reconstructed for the ancient stage of the language (i.e. prehistoric, i.e. before we have any textual evidence). It seems it might be a good idea for us to update the {{ja-readings}} template to clarify what this use of "ancient" is meant to convey. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Eirikr!
I'm trying to make the edittools script work for my purpose, and I saw you had worked on maintaining the original work by Conrad Irwin. I tried to import your edittools.js and the associated section of your common.js. So this does add my customized edittools to the top of the MediaWiki edittools, but the blue link characters don't add their content to my edit view when I click on them. Does this script work at all for you, or am I missing something else? Thanks a lot for your help!
Sitaron (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Sitaron: Unfortunately, edittools hasn't worked for me in some long while, and I haven't had the bandwidth or interest to puzzle out what's happened. I found myself particularly disheartened by the way the underlying MediaWiki framework has been changing, making it difficult to build upon, without investing a much greater time commitment than I can reasonably afford. For what it's worth, my symptoms are similar to yours -- my customized list appears, but none of the items are clickable.
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
寿司 has three counters, but ja-noun only accept one. Also, for 光, there're いくつかの光, いくつもの光, 一つの光, 一筋の光, 二筋の光, so つ and 筋. 光 is "usually uncountable" or "usually without counter", though there's no plural form. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: Was your post intended purely to be informative? It's not clear to me what you want from posting this?
Pretty much every noun can be counted using the hitotsu, futatsu counters. It sounds a bit funny for some things like animals, and it's insulting for humans, but aside from a few cases like this, these -tsu counters are pretty flexible.
Separately, there is no plural form for any Japanese noun. Japanese doesn't do plurals. The closest thing is use of the 達(-tachi) suffix, but that's not just a simple plural.
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Eirikr, I have a question about the etymology of うまい. You wrote that "the term occasionally appears in texts from the Heian period (794–1185 CE) with the phonetic spelling mumashi". Could let me know what it looks like in the original script (and perhaps add it to the entry)? I've got no access to the cited source. Kpalion (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I'm pretty sure 怪我 only means injuries instead of those injured, so the Japanese for "Luckily, no one was hurt." should be 幸、怪我人はでなかった or something similar and 幸、怪我はなかった only means "Luckily, I am or he is not hurt." --Hzy980512 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Hzy980512, thank you for the ping! I saw two issues with your edit, and upon further review, I've realized that I was mistaken about one of them.
It looked like you had introduced a grammar error -- I visually mis-parsed your edit to read 怪我人 は で なかった, which might be a beginner mistake for 怪我人 で は なかった. But that was my mistake, not yours -- you had correctly entered でなかった as a single word, not as a particle usage error.
Separately, the change ultimately demonstrates the word 怪我人, which is not the same as the headword 怪我. The resulting sentence would be a good usex (usage example) in the 怪我人 entry, but not for the 怪我 entry.
Thanks for your reply! But I was actually editing the entry 幸い instead of 怪我, so I think it wouldn't matter that I change 怪我 to 怪我人 XD. Secondly, I thought it would be a bit confusing to translate 幸、怪我はなかった into English without context since there's no explicit mention in the Japanese text as to who is not injured, and that's why I edited the original Japanese text so that it actually fit the English translation. --Hzy980512 (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Hzy980512: I'm just on a roll tonight! Sheesh. Sorry for my ぼけぼけさ. I'll blame the heat -- it's been over 105°F / 40°C in Seattle today. Carry on, and please feel free to revert my earlier reversion. 😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig04:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Eirikr. You removed the definition "transom window" from 欄間 and linked to 欄間窓. That does indeed refer to a transom window. But 欄間 is also used for a window above an interior door, either covered with 和紙 or filled with a lattice of bamboo or wood sticks, without the fancy carving. Cnilep (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Cnilep, I tried to express that "lattice" option by adding the word "screen" to the definition line. Rewording may be warranted. :)
Re: "window", I avoided that for a few reasons.
In English contexts, "window" in common parlance generally refers to something that is covered in glass and either always closed, or able to open and close, whereas 欄間 are (so far as I've seen and understood) always open, with no glass and no moving elements.
In bilingual contexts, there are separate entries for 欄間 and 欄間窓, indicating that these are different things. See Eijiro, which includes both terms on one page, and 欄間 at Weblio E-J J-E and also 欄間窓.
In Japanese contexts, the only places I've encountered 欄間窓 so far are cases of exterior walls that have transom windows. 欄間窓 does not appear to be a term used for these openings in interior transoms. In addition, descriptions of 欄間 in Japanese don't seem to mention 窓 at all, such as the varied entries at Kotobank. The JA WP article at ja:w:欄間 also specifically describes this as a feature of interior walls: 「部屋と部屋との境目や、部屋と廊下や縁側との境目に設けられ、」
All that said, the more I've looked into this term over the past couple days, the more I'm thinking that the base sense is simply transom in the non-nautical sense, most specifically an open transom, and the carving, or shōji, or screen, etc. is simply what goes in this space. The EN WP article at w:Transom_(architecture)#Japan appears to conflate the "transom opening" with the "dividers or ... carvings" that go in this opening. I'll do some more digging, see if I can find anyone specifically describing the term derivation any more clearly. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think maybe something like transom or transom opening gets at it better than transom window. Thanks for this! Cnilep (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Marlin Setia1: I could have sworn that my electronic copy is the 2006 edition that's listed in the {{R:Daijirin}} reference template. It took a while of digging, but I see now that this might be an older edition -- I can't seem to find an actual publication date, but certain of the data files are displayed in my file browser as unchanged since 1998. I think now that the 2006 edition must have been the electronic version that was formerly available via Kotobank, but which vanished from there not quite a year ago, which I'm guessing may have been due to a change in licensing terms.
@Suzukaze-c, apologies for my mistake. If you do indeed see 痴女 in your copy, and if yours is the 2006 edition, please restore the DJR ref there. If you see the entry, but your DJR is not the 2006 edition, we should probably create a separate template for whatever edition you do have, and maybe standardize the reference template names as something like {{R:Daijirin-[YEAR]}}.
@Marlin Setia1: I'm sorry you were offended. Since a couple weeks ago, probably around that time, I've been trying to limit how much time I spend on Wiktionary and Wikipedia (though admittedly with only limited success). As part of that, I've been doing less patrolling in general. Plus I just noticed that that particular page isn't on my watchlist, so I actually wouldn't have seen your change anyway. Be that as it may, I recognize that you're doing good work here -- to the point that I added the "autopatrolled" flag to your account on June 14, since I have seen no reason to distrust your edits. Thank you for your contributions, and I sincerely hope you continue! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig22:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
You created it at 器械, and soft-redirected 機械 to it.
You then listed both 器械 and 機械 in the {{ja-see-kango}} of きかい.
You found that listing 器械 gave you both 器械 and 機械, while listing 機械 gave you nothing but an error message. You deleted 機械 from the {{ja-see-kango}} list and solved the problem.
If so, it's because {{ja-see}} and {{ja-see-kango}} distinguished between two concepts: words and spellings.
In this case, we have a single word with three spellings: 器械, 機械 and きかい. We've chosen to denote the word as 器械. Therefore きかい should redirect to the word 器械, and have the template automatically display the spellings 器械 and 機械. It shouldn't redirect to 機械 because there is no word called 機械.
Do you find this intuitive? If so, could you help me update the documentation? I'm unable to update it myself because I can't write good English. (The concept of words sketched above corresponds to entries in Japanese monolingual dictionaries, therefore it isn't always a “word”; sometimes it's a suffix, sometimes a Sino-Japanese morpheme, etc.) If many editors don't find this intuitive, I suggest deprecating the soft-redirect templates and return to the good old {{alternative spelling of}}, which doesn't require editors to think of words. --2409:894C:3C2A:3F5:5CB1:8EEB:ECC0:9C5E11:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Could you create this problematic entry? My impression is that it is usually an adnominal word meaning 悩んでいる (e.g. 悩める少女) and occasionally a transitive verb (e.g. 頭を悩める).
Most Japanese monolingual dictionaries confirm the latter sense, but only Shinmeikai Kokugo Jiten confirm the former. In addition, NKD gives a 1921 example where 悩める is used as an intransitive verb. I'm a bit confused about the relationship between this intransitive verb (which inflects) and the progressive/stative adnominal form (which doesn't inflect). --2409:894C:3C3C:2317:4559:5C68:DA69:90F509:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Heya anon (Dine?), I'm on the road and with limited time, so I probably won't be able to get to this entry right away. That said, I wanted to give you a quick reply and some brief findings, such as this entry from my local copy of Daijirin:
なや・める [3] 【悩める】 （動マ下一）[文]マ下二 なや・む
（１）「悩む{■一■（２）}」に同じ。「体じゅう―・めてならない」
（２）悩ます。苦しめる。「出家をとらまへて―・めたが/狂言記・悪坊」
I'm not sure what distinct adnominal sense you might be referring to; any verb in Japanese can be used adnominally, and the lemma form is common for that, but not the only form we can find in the wild. Search results for me at https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q="悩めた" currently show the fourth hit as something from an Amazon.com customer review with an inflected adnominal use:
もう、おねしょやら何やらに悩むことのない大人にも、ちゃんと悩めた少年時代があった。
If you have any examples where this 悩める is somehow not just the intransitive verb used adnominally, I'd be very interested to see those, as well as any analyses as to why 悩める isn't the intransitive verb in those cases.
Hi, yes, this is Dine2016. You don't need to give a quick reply before fully researching the term. I'll just point out that Shinmeikai gives a different analysis from Daijirin:
Ah, apologies for confusion -- I'm traveling and don't have access to my dead-tree resources like Shinmeikai, and thus I haven't been able to do fuller research. :)
Given what you've said above, I'd argue that that particular instance of 悩める is actually an inflected form -- at a bare minimum, the perfective / stative suffix ～り is inflected into the 連体形.
The verb stem is itself also inflected, as described in fuller detail at り#Japanese-ri-verb-suffix, and in even fuller detail in the wikicode (content that is currently commented out and doesn't render in reading mode).
Whenever we get around to creating the 悩める entry, we'll need an additional etym section to fully account for this form, which derives from 悩む but is homographic and (mostly) homophonic with the lemma for 悩める. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig04:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry I commented out the etymology you wrote. I have restored it just now.
Traditional Japanese grammar analyzes forms like 悩めり as /nayame-ri/, with -ri attaching to an inflected stem. The inflection of the stem itself is difficult to describe. The linguistic analysis is /nayam-eri/ and therefore much simpler. I probably commented out your etymology (which used the traditional analysis) because of “Occam's Razor”. --2409:894C:3C32:2292:6F72:70CB:4B2D:B07F14:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes it is indeed in the dictionaries, but those don't say anything about the etymology for which these references are given. 8ya (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@8ya: I'm sorry I misunderstood you. You'd initially stated that "[t]he references you gave for the etymology ... don't seem to be in the dictionaries given", whereas those dictionaries -- which are the references -- do indeed include this term.
I suspect your confusion might stem from unfamiliarity with the dictionary conventions? Japanese dictionaries tend to use particular layouts and notational conventions that can take a while to get used to.
The kana representation shows that the underlying morphemes are ひと(hito), と(to), and なり(nari). This is followed by the spelling 為人. The kanji are not directly correlated to the morphemes, so this would be an example of jukujikun.
Japanese monolingual dictionaries are often guilty of extreme abbreviation. Here, the dictionary editors do not explicitly spell out what the morephemes are, and assume that the reader will understand. Based on the definitions given and the possible terms that match ひと(hito), と(to), and なり(nari), we can tell that ひと(hito) must be 人(“person”); since と(to) and なり(nari) are separate, we know that this is not 隣(tonari, “next to, next door”), so と(to) must be the adverbial / coordinating particle, and なり(nari) must be 形 or 態(“shape; character; disposition”, particularly of a person; derived from 成る(naru, “to become”)), a term which may be spelled in hiragana, as the kanji spellings are often associated with different readings.
We have the same underlying morphemes, ひと(hito), と(to), and なり(nari), and we are given two spellings: 人となり and 為人. The latter has that special symbol ＝ in the middle; most such symbols in kanji spellings denote various kinds of "rare" or "non-standard" spellings. The KDJ as a reference tends to be more conservative, whereas the Daijisen is more current, relatively speaking. In this particular case, the Daijisen legend explains that the ＝ indicates jukujikun that are not included in the Jōyō appendices.
With the Daijisen spelling 人となり, we have corroborated the morphemes ひと(hito), と(to), and なり(nari). We have also corroborated that the initial ひと(hito) is 人(“person”).
While Daijirin is no longer available online, I have my own local copy. Here's the headline from that:
ひと-と-なり [0] 【人となり・為人】
Again, the same morpheme breakdown, and also both spellings as listed in Daijisen. (The [0] part indicates the pitch accent pattern -- zero here, as this word has no downstep.)
My print copy of the Shinmeikai 5th Edition has the following.
ひとと なり⓪【人となり】
The Shinmeikai tends to omit spaces in [WORD]+[PARTICLE] combinations when showing morpheme boundaries, as we see with the kana ひとと(hitoto). The kanji spelling clarifies that this is noun 人(hito, “person”) and particle と(to). (The ⓪ is again the pitch accent pattern, with zero to indicate a lack of any downstep.)
The body of the entry includes a note about kanji spellings, providing more detail than the others above:
表記古来の用字は「《性・｛天性｝・｛天生｝」。のちには、「｛為性｝・｛為人｝」とも書いた。
Ultimately, through an analysis of these various references, we can tell that all agree that this term is comprised of the morphemes ひと(hito), と(to), and なり(nari): that is the consensus derivation of the term 為人・人となり(hitotonari). Native speakers would presumably understand immediately what these morphemes signify; for us learners, we can do further research into these morphemes (simply by looking them up in turn in our dictionaries), and thereby determine that these morphemes must be 人(hito, “person”), と(to, particle), and 形・態(nari, “shape; character; disposition”).
Thank you so much for the detailed reply, and sorry for completely missing that! I was expecting to see something like the usual inline etymology^^ On a side note, and sorry if it sounds imposing, but could you please help with 呉#Etymology_2? The KDJ you gave also includes another possible etymology, however I am not sure how to best rewrite it – both which word to use for 文采 and how to go on about the Korean 「クル」. Also I think it might be better if we just write that it's from 暮れ? (interestingly enough this etymology is removed from the KDJ found on Kotobank). --8ya (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Re: 呉#Japanese, I've just updated the entry with a bit more detail. I've found that the online KDJ sometimes doesn't include all the detail in the print version, nor even all the detail in an older digital version I have from 1988 (well, technically, the digital version is from 1998, but it was made using the 1988 version of KDJ data, hence the copyright).
I presume you might also have a printed copy, given your mention of the クル link? About that, I have no clear idea what the KDJ might be talking about, but then, my Korean knowledge is quite limited. I suspect they might mean 글(geul, “writing”), but that's a more general sense than 文采・文彩(bunsai, “figure of speech, bon mot, turn of phrase; colorful writing”). Without more detail about what the KDJ editors might have intended, my gut sense is that this isn't worth getting into -- it comes across as speculation, and without even any clear Korean term to connect this to. If we were certain about the intended Korean term, and there were any more reason to expect that the Japanese term really derives from that directly (which, phonologically, seems unlikely), then I'd be more inclined to include this. Pinging @Tibidibi, Suzukaze-c, TAKASUGI Shinji as editors with more Korean expertise.
Thank you! I thought it might be better to include it, as the 暮れ etymology seems to also just be speculation, which the article makes it not seem like. I might be missing something again, but doesn't it not say nothing about the first appearance being in the 書紀? Although I guess it's unlikely to find older mentions than that 8ya (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@8ya: You're right that the entry came across as too authoritative -- I've tweaked the wording to clarify that this is a "likely" derivation. Re: first appearance, see the KDJ entry at Kotobank and scroll down to the くれ【呉】 section -- that includes the Nihon Shoki quote, as indicated by:
@8ya: Oh, and to clarify re: your comment, "I thought it might be better to include it [the mention of クル]" -- if we had any idea what Korean term the KDJ entry was talking about, I'd be more open to including something about that in the entry. But with no clear identity for the Korean term, we have nothing to point to: Korean doesn't use katakana, and クル(kuru) doesn't map phonologically to any Korean term that appears to fit the sense indicated by the 文采・文彩(bunsai, “figure of speech, bon mot, turn of phrase; colorful writing”) term mentioned in the KDJ entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You may have noticed some overlap in the contributions of this user and a certain IP. That is not a coincidence. I'm not sure why they decided to start editing logged out, but when Wiktionairy picked up the edit war as a logged-in user after you blocked them as an IP, they crossed the line into abusing multiple accounts, so I blocked them.
They've been doing some legitimate work adding IPA, so I made it only a month. If you want to change that, I won't mind- it was an arbitrary, spur-of-the-moment decision. If it weren't for their obsession with certain words they might be a decent editor, but they've been at it since at least March- it may be part of a deeper problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz: Yes, I noticed and was considering dropping a line on your Talk page to ask about that, but you've beaten me to it. :)
Unless there's some background I'm missing, their edit comments as an anon such as, "Removing the forbidden word", make me think that there's something rather strange going on with them. If/when they decide to talk about things, and we can come to some amicable compromise, I'm open to the possibility of changing / lifting the block, but until such time, my gut sense is to err on the side of caution: as a project, I think we do better when we lack information that a problematic editor might add but can't due to a block, rather than when we have misinformation from that same editor who hasn't been blocked.
@Suzukaze-c: Thanks for the ping. Multiple sources list "adult [gender] human" as a separate sense, so I've restored these to the respective entries. The anon did have a valid point, that these words also mean just "[gender] human" separately from any "adult" sense, so I've made sure that these senses are also listed.
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Eirikr, I am a native Irish speaker and teacher of Irish. The greater bulk of the "List of English words of Irish (O)rigin" has a great many inaccuracies due to reliance on the OED. I am trying to update the page with links and references from Foclóir Nua Béarla–Gaeilge (New English-Irish Dictionary as established by Foras na Gaeilge) and three digitized versions of published English-Irish and Irish-English dictionaries, a digitized version of a published grammar reference and pronunciation guide.
Hello @JPatrickMalone, cad é mar atá tú? Go raibh maith agat for reaching out. I'm a native speaker of US English, a long-time studier and speaker of Japanese, with functional German, less-functional Dutch and Spanish, and with additional forays into Hungarian, Māori and Hawaiian, Danish, Mandarin Chinese, Korean, Navajo, and a smidgen of Ulster-dialect Irish.
⇒ Regarding the giggle entry here at the EN Wiktionary, your edit is problematic for a number of reasons.
You remove the attested Middle English antecedents, as well as the Dutch and German comparanda. When adding another derivation, especially one that is speculative, it is generally poor form to remove existing content about other possible derivations.
Your proposed derivation doesn't make much sense semantically (in terms of meaning) or grammatically:
gíog means "squeak", and geal means "bright". "Squeakbright" doesn't mean anything much in English, and I'd be surprised if it does in Irish.
gíog is a verb, and geal is an adjective. I'd expect the adverb instead, no?
There are derivational problems:
Why would an English term be coined as a compound of Irish words? Is there any evidence within Irish for some term gíog-geal? If so, a case might be made that the English is a borrowing of that compound -- but it is extremely unlikely for Language A to coin a term wholesale as a compound of words from Language B, when those words have not already been borrowed individually into Language A.
There are derivational uncertainties too:
Irishgíog may well share the same Germanic root seen in GermanGeige, Icelandic and Old Norsegígja, and Englishgig. With the Old Norse term gígja, we have attestations there going back to at least the 1200s. Alternatively, the Irish might share the same Germanic root as we see in Dutchgiechelen(“to giggle”), explained here in Dutch as deriving from frequentative suffix -elen (cognate with English-le) + an onomatopoeic root gīg-, which the Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands analyzes as cognate with Dutch verb hijgen(“to gasp, to pant”) and late Old High Germangiga(“fiddle”). It's worth noting that a poorly played fiddle emits squeaks, creeks, and similar sounds.
Our etymology currently given at Geige traces this back through Proto-Germanic all the way to PIE. It does appear that there is a Germanic root at work here, shared across multiple branches of modern Germanic languages. While an early Irish → Norse borrowing would be feasible, and such a Norse term might well have made it into English, an Irish → Proto-Germanic borrowing would require time travel.
⇒ Regarding the List of English words of Irish origin page on Wikipedia, I reverted your edit earlier as it included many things that are absolutely not from Irish, such as avocado (ultimately from Nahuatl), begrudgery (ultimately from known Germanic roots), boycott (ultimately from an English surname), dig (ultimately from known Germanic roots), etc.
I hope this helps clarify the situation. Please feel free to engage in conversation. The WT:TEA and WT:ES pages are good places to talk about etymologies.
So, the problems you and "Robbie" are creating is that you neither have any of the culture, understand the history, or any facility with the language to understand what you are trying to do with these Irish-derrived words. Take for example your statement, "... and a smidgen of Ulster-dialect Irish." Well, the fact is very clear that you have 'no' Irish beyond having picked up a phrase or two. The most *basic* undersanding of the langauge would tell you that the adjectives come AFTER the noun, as with MANY other languages. The resut is "bright squeak". Basal-level understanding of European history would tell you why this is important; it is not merely that giggles from young children actually are bright squeaks, but there is a very long tradition throughout Europe to "mice" much like a similie for "children". This likely originates from the inicident in Hamelin, Germany (yes - the Pied Piper was a real occurrence, on St. John's day in 1284). Since that time, you have "Nibble, nibble like a mouse. Who is nibbling at my house?" from Hansel and Gretel, and your own American prodution of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" should take you back to the Child Catcher scene where Sir Robert Helpmann refered to the "little children" as mice.
All of that said, what niether you or "Robbie" seem to understand is that WE know where these terms came from, largely in part because ... well, it's our language, it's our culture, it's our history, and therefore it's our subtleties that neither of you would understand (beyond which, many of these terms originated quite recently - as in within living memory ... like my own). An example is when you ask, "Why would an English term be coined as a compound of Irish words?" Well - it's NOT an English term! It's an Irish term used by Irish people, including those living all throughout the British Isles and those immigrants to Canada, American, and Australia. MANY Irish words were picked up - and often altered by the unknowing - and used as slang. For example, "Can you dig it?" "Dig", as in to understand, appeared during the 1960s in the Civil Rights Movement, when hippies came to Derry/Londonderry to protest the British occupation (guess when the "troubles" suddenly ramped up?). In Ireland we still say, "Do ya'/can ya' tig?" or even "Do ya'/can ya' dig" or even (rarely) "do ya'/ can ya' twig?"
Why? Well, because one of the first things you learn when exploring any language, including Irish, is the word "understand", as in "Do you understand me?" and "I'm sorry. I don't understand."
Tuigim - I understand.
Tuigeann tú - You understand.
An dtuigeann tú? - Do you understand?
Can you dig it? (Which, by the way, first appears as the question in "Grazing In The Grass" by The Friends Of Distinction.
The somewhat Anglecized version ((Do ya' t(d)ig) <-- the letter is often pronounced more as an English 'd') has been in use at least since Cromwell (1599-1658). These things are well known amongst even my elementary students in the Gaeltacht (Irish speaking communities) and you don't because you weren't alive like I was to see it, to read about it in Time Magazine, and to enjoy the hippie culture as it moved out over the Atlantic, stirring up trouble everywhere.
Now, it had already appeared within the Black community in the US by the turn of the 20th century. Why? Because the Irish and African-Americans were working together for years, starting in the middle of the 1800s, in coal mines and railroads (hence, the origin of many dozens of Irish last names in the Black community). Irish terms used often mixed with English as slang found its way into the Black community vernacular.
One of the problems I've seen all over this page is complete lack of understanding regarding how Irish is pronounced (the letters are not all used the same as they are in English and this has caused many misunderstandings):
Starting with the consonants:
Broad consonants are pronounced with a “-w” off-glide, and slender consonants are pronounced with a “-y” off-glide. Broad consonants are always written with the letters a, o, or u next to them. Slender consonants are always written with the letters i or e next to them.
bh (broad) = w
bh (slender) = v
ch (broad) = ch as in German “Bach”, Scottish “loch”
ch (slender) = ch as in German “ich”, or h
dh (broad) = gh as the g in Spanish “abogado” or Greek “avgolemono” (this is the voiced equivalent of the “ch” in “Bach”); usually silent except at beginning of words; see a textbook on this!
dh (slender) = y
fh (broad) = silent
fh (slender) = silent
gh (broad) = same as broad dh
gh (slender) = y
mh (broad) = w
mh (slender) = v
ph (broad) = fw
ph (slender) = fy
sh (broad) = h
sh (slender) = h
th (broad) = h
th (slender) = h
Irish also has another set of consonant combinations at the beginning of words that result from an initial mutation called eclipsis. These are pronounced as follows (with broad and slender versions in each case):
mb = m as in “na mban” (nuh mahn)
gc = g as in “i gcarr” (uh gawr)
nd = n as in “i ndán” (uh nawn)
bhf = w as in “an bhfuil” or v as in “a bhfile” (uh will)
ng = ng as in “i ngairdín” (ng as in English “king”) (uhNGAHR-jeen)
bp = b as in “na bplátaí” (nuh BLAW-tee)
dt = d as in “i dteach” (uh dyakh)
In every case of eclipsis, all you do is pronounce the first consonant and ignore the second, except for “ng”, which is pronounced together as the “ng” in “thing”.
The long vowels are:
í as in "sí" pronounced “shee”
é as in "sé" pronounced “shay”
ú as in "tú" pronounced “too”
ó as in "bó" pronounced “boe”
á as in "tá" pronounced “taw”
ae as in "lae" pronounced “lay”
eo as in "ceol" (music) pronounced “key-ohl” (to rhyme with “hole”)
ao as in "lao" pronounced either “lay” or “lee”, depending on dialect
The short vowels are:
i as in "in" pronounced “in” (as in English)
e as in "te" pronounced “teh” (more about the “t” sound below!)
u as in "rud" pronounced “rud” (like the u in Enlgish “put”)
o as in "cos" pronounced “cos” (o as in German “Gott”, or in English “goat” said without rounding the lips)
a as in "mac" pronounced “mahk” (like the a in “father”)
ea as in "bean" pronounced “ban” (like the a in “cat”)
Short vowels differ from long vowels in one important respect. They are given their full pronunciation ONLY in the first syllable of a word. In all other syllables, they are all reduced to the neutral “uh” sound of English “but”. The same thing happens in English, where “Benjamin” is pronounced “BEN-juh-muhn”. Thus the Irish word for Irish, “éireannach”, is pronounced “AY-ruh-nuhkh”.
There are two important diphthongs that you should recognize, both written using a combination of vowels and consonants:
The “ow” diphthong, as in “ow, I stubbed my toe”:
abha as in abhann pronounced “own” (to rhyme with “clown”)
amha as in samhradh pronounced “sow-ruh” (like a female pig)
...and the “eye” diphthong:
agha as in aghaidh pronounced “eye”
adh as in Tadhg pronounced “tiger without the -er”
THIS is why I inserted links that provide pronunciation in all three major dialects to all words and terms used - directly to the online system that currently represents the Irish standard employed by the government and private corporations seeking to fulfill Irish language needs. Without understanding how the words are written, and therefore pronounced, it becomes a challegne "hearing" how words like the portmanteau, "giggle" are supposed to work.
THAT brings up another salient point; the portmanteau.
It was the famed Irish author, Lewis Carroll (he was of an Irish family (Ó Cearbhaill) though born in Cheshire) who first put the word "portmanteau" to use the way we most typically employ it today (not referencing large suitcases), as words that have been made by blending two words together. Think 'brunch' (breakfast and lunch), 'smog' (smoke and fog) and 'spork' (spoon and fork). This approach to making 'fanciful' words was not new, though quite common amongst both English and Irish authors at the time. Carroll himself created many, such as "vorpal" (as in a terrible sharp and unbreakable sword) and "chortle" (somewhere between a chuckle and a laugh). Another to do this often was the great British author, Lord Byron, who appears to be the first to insert a wonderful portmanteau into his work, "The Siege of Corinth" - the word "giggle", a term that was literally in use all over Great Britian as this was the time of two Irish rebellions and the Acts of Union that resulted in more of the Irish diaspora into the U.K. and abroad.
Now, you really put your foot into it with this one...
"Irish gíog may well share the same Germanic root seen in German Geige, Icelandic and Old Norse gígja, and English gig. With the Old Norse term gígja, we have attestations there going back to at least the 1200s. Alternatively, the Irish might share the same Germanic root as we see in Dutch giechelen (“to giggle”), explained here in Dutch as deriving from frequentative suffix -elen (cognate with English -le) + an onomatopoeic root gīg-, which the Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands analyzes as cognate with Dutch verb hijgen (“to gasp, to pant”) and late Old High German giga (“fiddle”). It's worth noting that a poorly played fiddle emits squeaks, creeks, and similar sounds.
Our etymology currently given at Geige traces this back through Proto-Germanic all the way to PIE. It does appear that there is a Germanic root at work here, shared across multiple branches of modern Germanic languages. While an early Irish → Norse borrowing would be feasible, and such a Norse term might well have made it into English, an Irish → Proto-Germanic borrowing would require time travel."
"Our etymology..."
OUR etymology...?
Who is the WE in your OUR???
You are not doing the original research in Irish ethnology, history, archaeology, anthropology, philology nor etymology.
So, to update your understanding of world history; Rome fell twice. The first time it fell in a single day in the Battle of the Allia (c. 387 BC) between the Senones – a Gallic tribe led by Brennus and the Roman Republic. From the 5th century B.C. forward, the people the Greeks called "Keltoi" (People of the Forest - in reference to those tribes north of the Alps - Germany, Austria and the Scandanavian countries) and those the Romans called the Galli (Gauls) in today’s France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg).
"...to at least the 1200s"
Are you serious? Do you not understand why there are variants on the bag-pipes found all the way out to Turkey? It was all Celtic/Gallic lands, and so was the language - in dozens of dialects kept interconvertible by the seanchaidhthe wandering from village to village, county to county, and country to country. When two or more met on the roads, great celebrations went up with mummers dancing and story-telling for a week or more as news, lore, and dialectical variants were shared - as it does still today. The advent of advanced printing of school books and modern media has entrenched the dialects as reliance on seanchaidhthe has all but disappared, favoring now only the storytelling that persists in rural (and some urban) public houses for family entertainment.
Do you know that Rome fell to the Visigoths in 410 AD? Guess who they were? The descendants of the La Tène culture, who were the descendants of the Hallstatt culture who were one of the most successful and wealthy Celtic groups for centuries to follow. Their influence completely dominated German and the low land countries. The languages some want to call "Germanic" are the descendants of the same early Indo-European languages that ultimate gave rise to things like Welsh and Breton (the French peninsula of Brittany), but developed in isolation due to Caesar and so somewhat Latinized with Asian influence due to Atilla. After that, they continued to evolve on their own, separate from what became the Celtic languages in the British isles toay
"Norse borrowing"?
Okay. So you know the name, "Erik Thorvaldsson" ( c. 950 – c. 1003)? He was also known as Erik the Red. A Norse explorer, right? He had one son of particular note, Leif Erikson. Right?
Erik Thorvalsson carried the gene of haplogroup R1b-L21, or its subclade R1b-M222, typical of northwestern Ireland and Scotland (the so-called lineage of Niall of the Nine Hostages in Ulster). It is considered almost certain that native Irish and Scottish Celts were were a part of the broader "Viking" community of southwest Norway, and that they increased the frequency of red hair there.
But beyond all of that...
Okay, you and this guy Robbie are trying to rely largely upon English dictionaries, apparently totally unaware this is exactly like trying to rely on Iranian scholars writing a dictionary in Farsi about slang terms originally from Hebrew and Yiddish (a dialect of German).
I mean - what?
I put in definitions, examples of use and discussions of origins from IRISH dictionaries ... IRISH! You and "Robbie" want to change that work back to work from ENGLISH dictonaries - entirely different langauges. What's worse, the references posted are from a country that openly espoused and practiced genocide on the Irish people's for a few hundred years. Men in Parliament were openly speaking with satisfaction that a million people died during the Great Starvation. <--- Yes, that's correct. It's not "The Potato Famine", that's an English fabrication. It was calculated starvation. Ireland was the "Garden of Europe" at the time and grew much more than potatoes, but English landlords refused other vegetables for sale (SALE) to the Irish, directed to sell them in Scotland, Wales, England and abroad. If a landholder determined that other vegetables were taken into Irish homes, the starving would be executed as thieves.
This continues amongst the British establishment still today. Need evidence? Go look for an interview with the great 80s rocker, Rod Stewart, and listen to his story of what happened when he was going to do a BBC live broadcast concert - and wanted to sing "Grace" (a gorgeous ballad from Ireland about a signator of the Irish Proclimation (Declaration of Independence) who was executed at Kilmainham Gaol (jail). Listen to *why* they wouldn't let him sing that amazing love song.
In Ireland, we are *all* quite aware that great works such as the OED were composed by authors going well out of their way to remain willfully ignorant of most Irish word origins (unknown, slang, etc.). They would *never* actually pick up the phone (or before, write letters) to native speakers of Irish working at Trinity College in Dublin, or the National University of Ireland in Galway. The first Oxford English Dictionary was writting in 1841. What was happening at that time?
In Ulster, there were repeated outbreaks of sectarian violence, such as the riot at Dolly's Brae, between Catholics and the nascent Orange Order. Elsewhere, tensions between the rapidly growing rural population on one side and their landlords and the state on the other, gave rise to much agrarian violence and social unrest. Secret peasant societies such as the Whiteboys and the Ribbonmen used sabotage and violence to intimidate landlords into better treatment of their tenants. The most sustained outbreak of violence was the Tithe War of the 1830s, over the obligation of the mostly Catholic peasantry to pay tithes to the Protestant Church of Ireland. The Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) was set up to police rural areas in response to this violence. The Great Starvation ran from 1845–1851, in which about one million people died and another million emigrated. In the new Whig government (from 1846), Charles Trevelyan became assistant secretary to the Treasury and it was the policies of his party that left the rural population entirely without food, dependent upon handouts. Some members of the Repeal Association, called the Young Irelanders, formed the Irish Confederation and tried to launch a rebellion against British rule in 1848. This coincided with the worst years of the famine and was contained by British military action.
Okay ... so, like I said ... what you and "Robbie" are doing is exactly like looking for accurate information regarding the origins and usage of Yiddish by Jews in Farsi dictionaries.
And you actually think that's best. BEST! That the information contained with the oldest and most important Irish dictionaries (IRISH) just somehow doesn't measure up to ... understanding the Irish language.?!?!?!
What?
Now, you can play games with words like "Boycott", which was coined after IRISH tenants followed Parnell’s suggested code of conduct and effectively ostracized a British estate manager, Charles Cunningham Boycott, during the Irish land agitation of 1880.
Cool - it's not an "Irish" word, but it was coined in Ireland by the Irish. Okay? That's a game we don't need to play.
Please - you don't know the history, you don't know the literature, you don't know the culture, you don't know how the dialects actually relate you don't know how those actually relate to Gaelic or Manx or Welsh or Breton (I mean in a practical sense - not whether or not those languages arise from a PIE root), you don't know the songs and poetry (or how those work in Irish - because there's no direct translations (as transliterations), you don't know the archaeology, you don't know the anthropology...
...and the work you are trying to base everything off of is not only NOT your own, but gleaned from an institutional culture that still today does not recognize the Irish as equal citizens of this earth.
So, PLEASE, let me finish working on the page. I am still learning how to properly set up references and links ... but you genuinely have no business jumping in and changing anything. You just simply do not know enough about what you are trying to write about and your information is not entirely correct.
I will pass this along to the administrators as well to ensure they are well aware of the situation, including the antics of "Robbie" and his behavior. JPatrickMalone (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Pinging also @Robbie SWE since he is also mentioned and relevant to include here.
Many problems with your post here.
Wall-o'-text is not an effective communication style. Try organizing your thoughts better, even visually here on the page.
Ad hominem is also not an effective communication style. Insults are much less convincing than persuasion.
In your past additions to the giggle entry, it was not clear that gíog is a noun. Hence my confusion as to the construction, since you appeared to be suggesting that [VERB] + [ADJ] was somehow a workable construction for Irish. Rather that gíog is apparently a noun, this is problematic in a different way -- why would English borrow a nominal phrase as a verb? And how would this unlikely phenomenon also give rise to apparent cognates in Germanic tongues further east than the Irish language could be reasonably expected to influence?
Regarding dig, you haven't edited our entry, so I must assume that you are referring to your previous addition to the Wikipedia page at w:List of English words of Irish origin. Your edit there was problematic in that you simply listed the word with no further detail -- this implies that the term derives in its entirety from Irish. This is patently incorrect.
The possibility of an Irish origin for the specific sense of understand is already mentioned in the Wiktionary entry at dig#Etymology_2. That said, this sense and usage may just as feasibly derive from Wolof instead. Listing dig as an Irish derivative, without any further qualification, is misleading.
You mistake familiarity with expertise. Many native English speakers are not aware that cease comes from French, or that skosh comes from Japanese. And your personal native-speaker familiarity with Irish does not necessarily equate to expertise in the etymologies of English words.
In the context of talking about Wiktionary entries, "our" should be understood to mean "belonging to Wiktionary". I am surprised at your confusion on this point, but I am happy to clarify my intent.
You confuse the modern Irish language with ancient, sometimes partially-attested or only-reconstructed, Celtic languages. Modern Irish, as the label is used here at Wiktionary and as described at w:History of the Irish language as arising in the 1700s, cannot possibly be the source of any Old Norse terms, unless you propose time travel.
"Okay ... so, like I said ... what you and "Robbie" are doing is exactly like looking for accurate information regarding the origins and usage of Yiddish by Jews in Farsi dictionaries."
Not even remotely. Robbie SWE and I rely on English dictionaries for their descriptions of English terms. It is all fine and well that gíog is an Irish term; that is irrelevant to English unless that term has been borrowed into English. So far, the only record I've encountered of Englishgiggle(verb) coming from Irishgíoggheal(nominal phrase) is the derivation that you added to the giggle entry. Considering the time issues, the existence of Germanic cognates further east, and the problematic semantics and grammar, that seems unlikely. Given also that no scholarly English work that I've yet encountered agrees with your theory, I am not highly inclined to accept your provided derivation as the only etymology (since you insisted on removing any mention of the Germanic connections).
"And you actually think that's best. BEST! That the information contained with the oldest and most important Irish dictionaries (IRISH) just somehow doesn't measure up to ... understanding the Irish language.?!?!?!"
The entry that sparked all of this is Englishgiggle. English. Not Irish. No Irish dictionary is remotely relevant, unless and until we can find solid evidence that Englishgiggle is indeed a borrowing from Irish. Even a strong suggestion might suffice. So far, you have not provided sufficient evidence to convince Robbie, Surjection (who also reverted your initial edit there as an anonymous editor), or myself. The happenstance existence of discrete Irish words that happen to combine to produce a phonologically similar cluster of syllables is not enough. I note too that searching the internet at large for the combined phrase google:"gíog gheal" produces a meager six hits, of which three—a full half of the hits—describe this as an invention by Daniel Cassidy, and not a long-standing turn of phrase. It's near-complete absence from the world wide web suggests that it is certainly not common.
You're welcome to strike up a thread at WT:BP to bring your concerns to the attention of Wiktionary administrators. I'll point out that both Robbie and I are administrators, as is Surjection, and that your approach to date has been in violation of several community norms, so I'm not sure you'll get the kind of traction you might be hoping for.
Thanks for the ping Eiríkr Útlendi! After ploughing through what can only be considered a rant above, I can conclude that nothing of any true linguistic value was presented to convince us to change the etymology of giggle, or for that matter, to take anything that JPatrickMalone says seriously. I encourage them to engage in discussions at the Etymology Scriptorium, but I doubt that anything meaningful will come from it – relying on childhood memories, daily lingo and an ethnocentric worldview will only get you so far. Robbie SWE (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Re: [noun] + な, I'm not sure of the utility of such a category? Literally *any* nominal phrase may take な in certain situations, particularly any explanatory statement, which then is followed by の + whatever comes next -- another particle, the copula, etc. I'm not sure about the utility of the category listing のだ(no da) and のだった(no datta) and ので(no de), for instance? In addition, ん(n) in this context is an abbreviation of の(no), and thus of limited lexicality...
Thanks for your reply. The category is to list not what nouns may take な, but rather what may follow such an unusual combination (noun + な). Maybe the current name of the category doesn't make this clear?
I created the category because I also found noun + な + 訳. Examples from the internet:
My misunderstanding. The question is, is "noun + な" restricted to occuring only before certain words (の, 訳, etc.), or is it unrestricted and can occur before all kinds of nouns? For example, can one say [noun]な理由 for [noun]である理由? If not, then I think the category has some utility.
As for ん, some textbooks treat なんです as a single sentence pattern but traditional Japanese grammar treat it as な + ん + です and regard ん as a full-fledged 準体助詞 reduced from の. That's why I included it in the category. And のだ(no da), のだった(no datta) and ので(no de) are phrases. Since the category contains both nouns and particles, I named it as Category:Japanese terms modified by "noun + な", and that warrants inclusion of phrases. --2409:894C:C36:B2AF:7D23:70A4:FFA4:DF4D04:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the additional detail. (And sorry for the abbreviated reply earlier, things IRL pulled me away.)
Scanning through the googits for google:"な理由", I do see a few here and there that appear to be [noun] + な理由, such as 金子な理由 (apparently the title of an album), or キッズスマホとしておすすめな理由 (I'm not accustomed to seeing おすすめ treated as an adjective), or 悪口、気にしたら負けな理由 (where similarly I'm not accustomed to seeing 負け treated as an adjective).
While rare, this usage of [nominal] + な + [nominal] does seem to show up. I wonder if this pattern for な is on the cusp of fossilizing? That may account for the rarity, but not complete lack, of its appearance in other constructions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me for cutting in. Isn't it rentaikei(連体形) of だ?
@Naggy Nagumo, yes! :) The odd thing about this pattern (turning a declarative sentence into an adnominal construction) is that its usage appears to be so restricted -- it seems like there are only certain things that come after this な. Changing だ to である and using that as the adnominal looks like it's more common -- for instance, to pick a random example, google:"教科書である場合" gets 17 hits, but google:"教科書な場合" gets zero. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Cheers, Dine! Looking at that Ninjal site, and idly throwing in a few other nouns on the end (after 人な), I see potential evidence for 理由・場合・状態・状況・体験・経験・理解・考え・思考・思い・印象... I must shift gears (things IRL are requiring my attention). The few that produced no hits for me just now were 分かり・分かち合い・思慮・影響.
@Ffffrr: No worries! On reviewing the entry, I realized the problem was that we had <ref name="DJR"/>, but no full definition of what "DJR" was supposed to be. Often, the DJR (Daijirin) reference is defined in the ===Pronunciation=== section as the reference for the pitch accent -- but the terms you edited didn't have any pitch accent, so there wasn't any reference for the pitch accent. :)
I reverted your removal simply because it was easier to keep all of the <ref name="DJR"/> bits in place, and just edit the first one to add in the missing definition, as <ref name="DJR">{{R:Daijirin}}</ref>
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yes, that was me. I simply forgot to login. I logged in immediately after posting and fixed some typos, but somehow didn't think of adding my signature. I know this fixing up posted content is poor form, but it feels much less comfortable in the preview, perhaps because I tend to edit much more than typos if going over the text in detail, and I just want to get it over with instead. That my mind kept revolving around the topic is also likely why I forget the missing signature, leaving the page to search further.
Indeed I had not fully checked out sushi. It was fully intended to be an overstatement.
I appreciate your sanity check, but I'm afraid that you would have said nothing if you knew it was me, and that your appeal is unconvincing indeed. I was of course refering to the diminutive sense of '-shi', as the diminutive category seems to be a terminal element of semantic errosion. Afterwards I began to worry, and it's almost comical how this topic could get me superficially interested in Japanese, but enough about me. There's another word on which I'd like to know your angle.
The details of my exploration on the Chinese side that led up to recognizing 'shi' in an unrelated topic about Japanese are written up, if it matters, but it's rather indulgent. The second part that's trying to correlate any Japanese is hazy and hindered by the fact that Japanese does not at all offer as many far reaching etymologies. Now here's the kiker:
chow is collocated in "chow chop svey [sic!]". This, chow-chow and Chow Chow are possibly of pidgin origin. So I went on to read our dog-translations. There's e- + diminutive suffix in some lects, but the character combination (or word) means only "puppy" in others. This resembles Japanese inu in the case that (i)nu may be compared to some South East Asian word for 'child', which has comparands in Chinese but could be dadaistic (either you know which one, or you may safely ignore it). I am not completely up to date with Vovin, but Taiwanese Chinese is one of those lects where the word means "dog".
The funny part is where I went off on inuyasha first because of the sybilant. The sad part is that I have not proceeded to study in morphology or pre-grammar, though there's a fine question to work out in it too. For now, the problem is that this is effectively long-range territory and I know you do not like Eurasiatic and whatnot, though you do like to talk it down, it seems. But the dog was domesticated not to long ago, for all I know, so the assumption of a wanderword should not be unreasonable. It should be reasonable to ask if you have any opinion on this,not the least because it is not remotely in question for the foodstuffs (I hope) and simple enough that I don't need to copy-paste anything. ApisAzuli (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@ApisAzuli: I got a little lost here reading your post, but I'll try to respond to each of your points. :)
Re: "diminutive sense of '-shi'" -- it's not a diminutive in native Japanese vocabulary. See し(shi) -- the sense applicable to the 酸し(sushi, “sour”, terminal or predicative conjugation) is (currently) Etymology 6 there.
Was there some other context where '-shi' shows up as a diminutive suffix in Japanese, and not as part of a borrowing from Chinese that includes 子(-shi)?
Japanese 犬(inu) has no senses at all related to child. The etymology is regarded as "unknown" in monolingual JA sources that I've seen, with speculation only that it might be related to this or that (as at 犬#Japanese). None of the native-Japanese derivations seem very likely to me, honestly speaking. We know that it's not a borrowing from Ainuseta(“dog”), nor Korean개(gae, “dog”), just from the phonology. The oldest attested Japonic forms all start with a vowel, /i-/ or /e-/, followed by nasal /-n-/, lending itself to no likely matches in the list at dog/translations#Translations.
Re: inuyasha, I'm not sure what you mean by "where I went off"? Whatever the case, this term is a compound of 犬(inu, “dog”) + 夜叉(yasha, “demon”), where the yasha portion is not native to Japanese, and is instead a borrowing via Chinese, ultimately from Sanskritयक्ष(yakṣa).
Re: dog domestication, I recall reading that the current guess is some 20-40,000 years ago, based on DNA differences from wolves and other evidence. See also w:Origin of the domestic dog. This is considerably beyond any seriously considered comparative linguistics horizon that I'm aware of. I wouldn't characterize this as "not too long ago". By way of comparison, the w:Proto-Indo-European language is only dated to 4,500 BC, or only 6,500 years ago. Dog domestication is some three to six times older than PIE.
No argument about Japanese馬(uma) or 梅(ume). These are well-known derivations.
Your proposed derivation of modern Mandarin reading èyú becoming Japanese wani is problematic purely on phonetic grounds -- "Y" doesn't just suddenly become "N" in other terms, so this is not a reasonable expectation for wani either. The very different vowel values are also difficult to reconcile.
However, Japanese鰐(wani) is first attested in the Kojiki of 712 -- so the modern Mandarin reading of èyú is wholly irrelevant. We have to look instead at the Middle Chinese pronunciation of the characters 鰐 / 鳄(è) (or actually the lemma form, 鱷 / 鳄(è)) and 魚 / 鱼(yú) -- which would have been something like /ŋɑk̚ ŋɨʌ/. The expected Japanese reflex would instead be gakugyo, which indeed is the modern Japanese reading for 鰐魚, as we see here at Goo or here at Kotobank or here at Weblio.
Some of the suppositions given as attempted corroboration of the author's theory don't hold together. For instance:
They claim that Middle Chinese我 (MC ngaX) equates to Old Japanese我(wa, “I, me”). However, wa is the native pronunciation, and ga is the Middle-Chinese-derived pronunciation. If the author is claiming that Old Japanese wa is a nativized borrowing from Chinese, they must back that up -- which they don't do.
The author also claims that Middle Chinese岳 (MC ngaewk) is the source of Old Japanese丘(woka, “hill”). However, the Chinese-derived pronunciation is gaku, not woka, and any alignment here requires not just that Middle Chinese initial ŋ- matches Old Japanese initial w-, but also that the vowels correspond so flexibly that no sound-correspondence rules can be derived. Without additional evidence and corroboration, this is just sloppy scholarship.
Their attempt at showing that Middle Chinese initial ŋ- instead corresponds with Old Japanese initial n- is also deeply flawed. They claim that Middle Chinese魚 (MC ngjo) is the root of Old Japanese魚(na). However, the OJP-derived word na relating to the "fish" sense is instead from a meaning of "side dish", in turn cognate with the plant-greens term 菜(na). The core meaning had to do with "food", not "fish". See also the KDJ entry. The author's phonological musings here are also comically wrong-headed, in that they undermine their own argument about the purported source of Old Japanese鰐(wani) — if Middle Chinese魚 (MC ngjo) is the root of Old Japanese魚(na), then Middle Chinese魚 (MC ngjo) cannot simultaneously be the source of the latter -ni element in Old Japanese鰐(wani).
Similarly, the author claims that Middle Chinese業 (MC ngjaep) is the root of Old Japanese業(nari, “work, what one does to make a living”). However, the OJP term is from verb naru, in turn likely cognate with native verb 成る(naru, “to become”). This is part of a cluster of related verbs that has no accepted roots outside of Japonic, a possible connection to supposed pre-Japonic copular element nu, and some (very) speculative connections to verbs in Koreanic.
If and when we can find a serious academic work or reference that supports the theory that Old Japanese鰐(wani) is from Middle Chinese鱷魚 (MC ngak ngjo), then we can include this in our entry. The provided blog post does not suffice, so I have again removed this from the etymology of the Japanese term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Hello @TongcyDai, thanks for the message. See the relevant entries at Kotobank and Weblio, showing the spelling 大君 with the reading おおいぎみ, with zero okurigana.
In general, the o1, o2, ... parameters for {{ja-kanjitab}} are intended to show characters that are optionally spelled out or omitted. In this case, the term 大君(ōigimi) derives from 大い(ōi, from older reading opoki; cognate with 多い(ōi)) + 君(kimi), but it lexicalized into an integral term as a single unit. I see from the KDJ entry at Kotobank that this is cited already in a text from 947–957, quite early on -- older terms are more likely to exhibit odd developments like this.
See also 大 at Weblio and 大 at Kotobank, particularly the おおい reading for the 接頭辞(settōji, “prefix”) part of speech, describing this as an element that compounds with a noun. I see both this term 大君(ōigimi) and 大殿(ōidono) as examples, and a quick look in my copy of Daijirin also finds 大子(ōiko, “eldest daughter”), 大御(ōigo, “eldest daughter”, honorific), 大臣(ōimōchigimi, “minister”, in ancient Japan), and 大納言(ōimonomōsutsukasa, apparently an imperial office in ancient Japan).
Whether to treat this おおい(ōi) reading for 大 as "kun" or "irregular", I'm less certain. It's not listed in kanji-specialist resources that I've seen, so by that measure it would be "irregular", but at the same time, this is a long-established reading that derives from native Japanese vocabulary and not Middle Chinese, so by that measure it would be "kun". I'm open to either categorization.
Thank you for giving the details above! As you mentioned, the reading おおい < おほい is listed alone in both Weblio and Kotobank (I confused this with other adjectives... my bad), and if we treat it as irr, it will not generate a category of this reading, so mark it as kun seems to be a good idea. --TongcyDai (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
If you make an assertion, you must back it up. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove an assertion. See also w:Russell's teapot.
Setting aside your logical fallacy, there's also the simple issue that we already have an entry for Korean節 with the hanja pronunciation of 절(jeol). Note the initial consonant: this is not 설(seol). That initial ㅈ is consistent with other Korean terms borrowed from Middle Chinese terms with similar onsets, such as 櫛 (MC tsrit) → 즐(jeul), 即 (MC tsik) → 즉(jeuk), 左 (MC tsaX|tsaH) → 좌(jwa), 脂 (MC tsyij) → 지(ji). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig05:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In case you haven't seen the post at WT:Requests for checkuser, there's really no mystery here: During the 90-day period I had data for, Mare-Silverus made two monthly visits to Wiktionary, no doubt checking whether they were still blocked. Then, on January 4, the same device using the same IP as Mare-Silverus tried twice to edit 魔導師 and failed due to the abuse filter specifically designed to keep them from making such edits. Within the same minute, the same device using the same IP showed up logged in as GinNike0000. There's no way they could have made it more obvious without actually pinging me in their first edit summary to say "I'm a sockpuppet of Mare-Silverus and I'm block-evading- please block me, too".
And of course, as you know, Mare-Silverus is the same magic-obsessed editor who started out making bad Japapanese edits more than a decade ago using Sky UK IPs, then switched to BT years later.
After all this time and all the mountains of evidence to the contrary, they're still suffering from the delusion that they can figure out enough from manga, anime, and clueless people's guesswork on various websites (not to mention Google- or Bing- Translate!) to contribute anything of any value whatsoever to a dictionary.
As I've said before, the best way to limit the carnage is to simply remove everything so they have nothing to show for their efforts. If you spend too much time trying fix the distorted gibberish they keep adding, you're basically letting them set your priorities and acting as their unpaided assistant. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Oh, dear. None of those are correct, and the couple I've dug into were added to that category by mistaken edits from a known-problematic editor. The kanji 二 is read as futsu in compounds like 二日(futsuka). See the Kokugo Dai Jiten entry here at Kotobank, for instance, where the editors clearly parse this as futsu + ka. The kanji is only read as fu in names, and nanori readings shouldn't be generating categories like this -- except that editor incorrectly specified the reading as kun.
Glad I've asked first, and thanks for the reply! Could you let me know when you finish cleaning these? I'd like to add more content, but in case of making more mistakes, I'd better know how to deal with these categories first. --TongcyDai (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TongcyDai: Given my day (crazy schedule), I'm unlikely to finish going through all of these today. No worries about adding content though. :)
Your query has prompted me to take a deeper dive into how categories are generated, and I've realized that even nanori get added to Category:Japanese terms spelled with [KANJI] read as [KANA]. I think this didn't use to happen in the past. No matter, though, so long as the calls to {{ja-kanjitab}} on the relevant pages all categorize the readings correctly -- because that template also automatically adds pages to categories like Category:Japanese terms with kun reading [KANA] or Category:Japanese terms with nanori reading [KANA].
Thanks a lot! I've just fixed another entry, 薬缶頭, and I am not sure to mark 薬 (ya) as irregular or on'yomi (what is the basis for judgment?) Also, what is the criteria for Japanese names' inclusion? There are often dozens or even hundreds of Kanji spellings for a single name, are they all allowed to be created? And most importantly, how can I tell if one reading should be marked as irregular or nanori? --TongcyDai (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TongcyDai: Heya, various questions, let me try to address them all. :)
"I am not sure to mark 薬 (ya) as irregular or on'yomi (what is the basis for judgment?)"
The division between regular and irregular is more cut-and-dried for on'yomi. To judge, check a good kanji resource. Weblio has decent results for single-kanji lookups, such as there page for 薬. The Digital Daijisen section is at the top, and the third section shows the following line:
［音］ヤク（呉）（漢） ［訓］くすり
Further down that same page, we have the section for the 漢字辞典(Kanji Jiten), listing:
None of these (or any other reference I've consulted) lists や as an on'yomi for this. That, combined with the etymology of yakan (from 薬(yaku, “medicine”) + 缶(kan, “container, pot, cannister”)), points to the や reading here being irregular: the oldest yakukwan reading shifted, losing the middle ku.
"Also, what is the criteria for Japanese names' inclusion?"
Names are a bit of a thorny mess, which we haven't really delved into all that deeply. I'd suggest striking up a thread at WT:BP and inviting the regular JA editors. I know that Fish bowl (talk • contribs) is active, I think Atitarev (talk • contribs) might still be interested in JA stuff, among others.
My gut sense -- we should lemmatize names at the kana spellings, since the kanji spellings are -- as you note -- various and sundry. And, in most cases, the names trace to yamato kotoba roots anyway, which are separate from the kanji.
"There are often dozens or even hundreds of Kanji spellings for a single name, are they all allowed to be created?"
As for which kanji spellings to include, we could gain some insight from ENAMDICT (such as their entry here for めぐみ), but we would want to be careful not to run afoul of copyright, so just copy-pasting from other sources would be a big no-no.
Since the EN Wiktionary mandate is "all words in all languages", and names are a kind of word, I don't see any particular reason why we couldn't include all attested kanji spellings. But again, best to lemmatize at the hiragana spellings, and list the kanji spellings there as alternative forms. Have a look at the ふみお entry for an example that I recently reworked as the lemma, and the 二三男 kanji spelling as an example of a redirection stub.
"how can I tell if one reading should be marked as irregular or nanori?"
WWWJDIC's single-kanji entries are pretty good for including nanori information. Here's their entry for 二, listing various nanori.
Basically speaking, if you run across a kanji reading -- particularly a non-on'yomi reading -- that isn't included in kanji dictionaries in the list of usual on and kun, then it's likely to be irregular (if in a regular word) or nanori (if appearing in a name).
But be careful! Names are sometimes spelled in a jukujikun fashion, where the kanji and the reading have nothing directly to do with each other. One case was an application to use the name spelling 騎士 meaning knight, mountedwarrior with the reading naito from English instead of the expected kishi from on'yomi. (From what I've read, this application was turned down.)
I don't have much more information on さんぽう as a reading of 三方, except to note that Kenkyusha's 新和英大辞典 says:
さんぽう1【三方】 ＝さんぼう1 1.
The heading さんぼう1, in turn, gives:
【三方】 1. 〔三面〕 three sides.
三方山に囲まれている be surrounded by hills on three sides.
2. 〔神前の道具〕 a small wooden 「stand [table] […]
So I guess, at least, according to 新和英大辞典, the word can be read as さんぽう when it means "three directions", but not when it means "a four-sided stand"? Cnilep (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
https://furigana.info/w/三方 has instances of "placing things upon a sanpou". (And for clarifying my edit summary: I was too lazy at the moment to repair ぼう into ほう|k2=ぼう|r=y and add another ja-kanjitab for さんぽう. :()
精選版 日本国語大辞典 and 明鏡国語辞典 apparently make the same implications that さんぽう is not applicable to the "table" sense. Maybe it is obsolete in modern language. —Fish bowl (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I tried to add the readings of 一日千秋 but failed to make it look properly. It does not seem that {{ja-pron}} can handle this type of pitch accent. (Also, I don't know if I can add two 歷史的假名遣 in {{ja-noun}} XD) What would you do? --TongcyDai (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TongcyDai: Ya, multiple readings in one etym section generally doesn't work out so well. And, as you've discovered, {{ja-noun}} only supports one hhira value.
This is one of several reasons why the best practice for JA entries is (usually) to split out each reading into a separate etym section. Often, different readings carry different nuances, and often have reading-specific details -- like the historical hiragana spellings -- that cannot be displayed cleanly if we try to lump everything together into one etym section.
@TongcyDai: PS: the yomi argument for {{ja-pron}} is effectively deprecated -- that information should be included in {{ja-kanjitab}} instead, since that information is about the classification of the kanji reading, rather than anything about the pronunciation itself. :)
I got it, thanks for all the information! I think we should update the pronunciation template so as to handle compound pitch accent (otherwise, it is difficult to add and maintain), but I have no idea how to do so. Who should I contact? --TongcyDai (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: That'd be either 脇引 or 腋引 (alternative spellings), with the first one more common. It's literally "armpit drawers". 😆
Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry here at Kotobank with a line-art illustration.
According to the JA WP article section at w:ja:小具足#胴部, another name for this is 脇当(wakiate), literally something like "armpit placement". That said, there's no image, and the Daijisen entry at Kotobank lists this as an alternative for 脇盾(waidate, literally “armpit shield”), and makes this sound like it's something slightly different, used only on the right side to cover where the breastplate and backplate are tied together. A Google Images search for "脇引" "鎧" is surprisingly unhelpful -- I guess there's just not that much online about Japanese armor, in Japanese, and that Google has crawled?
@The Young Prussian: Your edits were problematic in various ways (moving subsections to the wrong locations, including the wrong readings, mistaken formatting, etc.), so it was actually easier to revert your changes and then add the correct content back in.
As a side note, the existence of anything in the Japanese Wiktionary or Wikipedia does not "prove" anything -- the Japanese versions are editable by anyone, same as here, so we cannot use any Wiktionary or Wikipedia page as "proof".
That said, the gami reading is listed in various reputable resources. The reason I removed your addition was because it was in the wrong place: gami is a nanori reading, not a kun reading. I then re-added that in the correct readings section.
Regarding your most recent edit to the 尻 entry, I reverted that because it is confusing -- your edit seems to be talking about the gami reading, which is not relevant anywhere within the shiri section.
Please also note that Wiktionary is not Wikipedia: if you add non-existent template calls to pages, your edits will be reverted, as at we saw here on the Talk:尻 page.
Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
No, I'm not alright. It should suffice if I am just a little right. My methods may be questionable, inasmuch as I limit my research to these pages, but there are some honest concerns to be addressed.
For a start, do you find "harbour wave" a sensible description of a Tsunami which can drown entire coast lines?
Second, 水 is madness, or do you see through the etymolog-y/ies?
Third of all, I said: "This makes more sense to me because tsunami waves would not be limited to harbours." (Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium#対馬)
"This" refers to "「水」(ad finis)", you follow?
Note that, for some reason, [[水#Etymology|水]] goes to Korean, which wasn't my intention.
@ApisAzuli: I'm happy to answer questions, as best I understand them.
Regarding the above:
Re: tsunami derivation:
Tsunami do indeed affect coastal areas in general. However, it is notable how inlets funnel the power of a tsunami, and cause much greater damage. This is the derivation of the term: most tsunami that are dangerous happen in inlets.
I see. The graphematic information about Chinese "Thai" perfectly proves the point I was making in ES. I did of course not intend to provide perfect phonologic analyses, so I have to give it a rest. ApisAzuli (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I mean, I checked out STEDS for the first time today, which cleared up some misunderstandings that I had, but only after skimming Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan by Sagart et al., to put things into perspective. They cite Gray and Atkinson (Language-tree divergence times support the anatolian theory, 2003), as if that wasn't widely rejected. Money quote [6]:
the tree topologies in these [prior] proposals are based on an investigator’s perception of relative proximities between branches, with no quantification of uncertainty.
... and a series of specific sound changes generally make cognate judgments very difficult, except for a few well-investigated cases.
Thai (the language) compunds with the same first character 泰 + 語. So it's difficult to tell which is which, ... island people or just Thailand people, whether in Chinese, Japanese or what. In the latter case, 'Thai-land' is a compound like 'Thai-language', whereas in the former case, my hunch maintains that it is indeed '... water land'.
big; great, built on 人, is what I have mistakenly called "dao".
The two hands (廾), at least in Liushutong, may be reminiscent of wings and feathers (羽, 羽毛) and equivalently a sail (翼, 帆). This is entirely ad-hoc and confusing because I have no idea what I'm talking about, or how to write about it. The top part of 翼 is closer to the idea of a frame to which cloth may be fastened. Later I also saw a cute drawing in advertizing of a sail boat with sail implied with mast and horizontal bars (whatchmacallit, truss?). Most interestingly, 翼 really shows what looks like the two hands in the bottom.
水 appears pretty much as predicted. I don't trust the common identifications of phonetic or semantic parts in compounds, but if "大 (OC *daːds" is phonetic for the semantics of 水, I can have my cake and eat it too, if you will.
國 -- "No obvious outside cognate exists". I think I can see a hand but there's no character analysis given. That's a chance, not a fault in my analysis. The cognate 閾 appears again with what looks like hands, or the wings of a door, a "gate". Dunno. In the bronce inscription, it looks like a simplified "cart" and a path with threshold.
Pinging @ApisAzuli on the assumption that the anon was you.)
... all of which has almost nothing to do with Japanese Tsushima...??
I'm baffled where you're getting "island" from in your Chinese. 泰 (tài) semantically refers to "great", not "island". The connection with Thailand appears to be a relatively recent development from simply using this character for its sound value.
Etymologically, I see little grounds for assuming that Chinese泰(tài) and Thaiไทย(tai) are related.
Modern Mandarin泰(tài) pronunciation tài is traced back to an w:Old Chinese pronunciation of something like /*tʰaːds/.
Thai pronunciation /tʰaj˧/ seems like it's probably mostly consistent at least back through the putative borrowing into and back from Pali, which dates this to at least a few centuries BCE. This overlaps with the tail end of the Old Chinese period, up through the Qin unification in 221 BCE. Phonologically, this seems to argue against relatedness.
The Thai term also has meanings of "free, independent", not shared with the Chinese. I have no idea when these senses showed up; if both "free" and "Thai person / ethnicity" have been around for a long time, this is further suggestive evidence that the Thai and Chinese terms are not related.
The "two hands" glyph 廾 and the "wings" glyph 羽 have been distinct throughout recorded Chinese, so I don't think there are any grounds for assuming a conflation of these two.
The reconstructed phonetics for neither 大 nor 泰(tài) have anything to do with 水(shuǐ). Compare:
The relation between the top two is explicitly called out in the etymology for 泰(tài): "derived from 大 (OC *daːds, *daːds, “big”)."
The etym text for Chinese國 / 国(guó) about "no outside cognate" is talking about the word or phoneme, not the glyph or grapheme. The glyph components are a bounding box, plus the inner portion which itself is comprised of an axe around a bounded area, presumably indicating someone defending a place. No cart, no path, no threshold.
I know it's dense. I am not getting "island" from Chinese. Let's take a step back.
I said "cp. *-an, Taiwan." Because, Japonic etymologies as of the words that you have brought into focus are typically either just-so (*sima) or not given at all (津). Therefore I'd hope for tangential evidence from the East and South-East Asian language area. Admittedly, this attempt is both having an ask to grind (w.r.t. to Proto-Japonic morphology, Japanese origins, the islands' history, a lexem that definitely means "water-land") and wheel-waring (opposing the subliminal suggestion that the name belongs to the language in which it has a transparent analysis, predicting the semantics; but not really: you have not come down with a fundamental verdict and neither have I, so I consider the issue still open for interpretation).
I recognize 氵 at least, so between a place and a hard rock I cannot help but think of island if "water-" and "-place" are of concern. You'll notice that that's not phono-semantic matching (the similarity of *-an to -land may be a happy coincidence). Rosenfelder's essay does not apply here, when I am first of all exploring the semantics of island names. Although, I might have thought about *-an between yama and shima (which also means more generally "-land"). I am of two minds about island, as indicated by my denoting island "waterworld": I don't fully believe the etymology of *awjōlandą. Folk etymology is the name of the game in top-onomastics, so the proposition is ambivalent: Either you find "water" + "land" disagreeable or it is somehow more reasonable (typologically likely) than I had thought. The second option is imperative if I have to assume good faith. A survey of island toponomastics should of course not end there, but it is a start. I might add that Cebu, Sumatra and Siam look like interesting comparisons as well. The same good faith demands that somebody provide parallel evidence if they can help it, but the lack of such contributions, your insult as well as the good points that you made are slightly discouraging.
Moreover, with regards to Rosenfelder, something as small and broad as -an "place" has a high chance of finding fleeting similarities in any event. Worse, however, as insignificant as it is, it may be easily lost to sound change. But the omnipresence of nasals is a net-benefit for language contact situations because it facilitates adoption. Better yet, morphology is usually considered a stronger argument than lexicon alone. TL;DR: you might argue that comparison to *-an is not warranted at all, and comparison to water thus not justified, not at all.
The entire tangent is of course ad-hoc since Taiwan as a prior does not by itself suggest water. So far that's arbitrary. Focusing on "water" instead of "Thai", "human" (or "free") avoids speculating about the demonym (that followed in the second bullet point) and any immediate involvement of Thai people. Rather, since "water" is understood to be likely the first topic of exchange when visiting a new place, literally a wanderword. That's why I went on pointing out a few loose ends, where tacit suggestions of loaning are warranted by the sources. With regards to Japanese note that Nanori tsu(tsu) and mitsu(mitsu) are already listed under 水. What the ...
Wait, it only says that "tsu" is a nanori reading of 水 without giving it a meaning. The entry itself only indicates "saliva". The other may mean "juice". I understand that nanori readings can be difficult in onomastics. ApisAzuli (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
This is the first mention of Taiwan anywhere in this thread. So from what I can see, no, you did not say anything about Taiwan until just now.
That said, looking at the etymology section at Chinese臺灣 / 台湾(Táiwān), it seems like this derives from Sirayatayw(“man”) + an(place marker suffix). Still nothing about "island", nor anything about "water". (This does suggest a possibility that Sirayatayw(“man (person?)”) and Thaiไทย(tai, “person”) might be related...)
“Because, Japonic etymologies as of the words that you have brought into focus are typically either just-so (*sima) or not given at all (津).”
Re: Japanese津(tsu, “inlet; harbor; spring, water source”), this term is attested in Japanese sources back to at least 712, when this was likely realized phonetically as something like /tu/. I'm not familiar with any cognates identified in non-Japonic languages (Korean has nòlò, Middle Chinese has t͡siɪn, Ainu has moi, Mongolian has boomt...), so given the state of current research, that's all we've got.
“Japanese origins, the islands' history, a lexem that definitely means "water-land"”
Presumably you're talking about the 氵 radical in the 津 character? This is relevant to the derivation of the glyph (grapheme), but irrelevant to the derivation of the Japanese word tsu meaning "inlet; harbor; spring". Always remember that Japanese kanji are borrowed from Chinese, and how things are spelled in Japanese often has absolutely nothing to do with Japanese etymologies.
“Although, I might have thought about *-an between yama and shima (which also means more generally "-land").”
Not sure what you mean about which also means more generally "-land"?
山(yama) may well be derivationally related to noun 黄泉(yomi, “the underworld, the land of the dead”) and a cluster of verbs and nouns beginning with yam-, such as 病む(yamu, “to fall ill”), 闇(yami, “darkness”), 止む(yamu, “to halt, to cease (such as rain)”), 止める(yameru, “to cease doing something”), 辞める(yameru, “to quit, to resign”). Nothing about "land" as a counterpart to "sea".
Re: 島(shima, “island”), I've just explained that more fully above.
“I might add that Cebu, Sumatra and Siam look like interesting comparisons as well.”
Honestly no idea what you're talking about here.
“The same good faith demands that somebody provide parallel evidence if they can help it, but the lack of such contributions, your insult as well as the good points that you made are slightly discouraging.”
I am frankly confused where you think I intended insult. I apologize if you've taken offense, and assure you that none was intended.
“Rather, since "water" is understood to be likely the first topic of exchange when visiting a new place, literally a wanderword.”
I don't agree, and I am not aware of any evidence for this. C.f. the Chinese term 水 (shuǐ) and the unrelated Japanese水(mizu). Or the wide gap between Latinate words like Spanishagua or Frencheau and Germanic words like GermanWasser and Englishwater -- and this is just within the PIE family.
“With regards to Japanese note that Nanori tsu(tsu) and mitsu(mitsu) are already listed under 水... Wait, it only says that "tsu" is a nanori reading of 水 without giving it a meaning.”
Basically, nanori (literally "name-riding", as in "put on top of a name") readings are usually wholly unrelated to the derivation of other words with that same spelling.
The nanori reading of tsu for Japanese水 may well have originally been the same tsu as for 津(“inlet; harbor; spring”), and in some name for someone somewhere, someone decided to use 水 for its meaning of "water" and apply that to the phoneme tsu with its vaguely-in-the-same-ballpark water-related meanings.
Meanwhile, the nanori reading of mitsu for Japanese水 is probably mi (an older compounding form of mizu "water") plus the Old Japanese genitive particle tsu. Another possibility is that it is a "spelling pronunciation" from older texts that did not always reliably distinguish between voiced and unvoiced consonants. Modern mizu is from older midu, and the unvoiced /d/ would produce modern mitsu.
At any rate, nanori should be ignored for any exploration of etymologies.
This is clarifying not "Tsushima" but clarifying my rambling in the Etymology Scriptorium thread about "Tsushima", where I invited comparison to Taiwan, *-an.
What lexeme?
I do not know! I'm browsing for hours after words like 州 or 湿地 or 美津島町 (-cho) but nothing quotable to translate "waterworld" appears. I have perhaps misunderstood what "-land" means in "island".
... the 氵 radical in the 津 character? This is relevant to the derivation of the glyph (grapheme), but irrelevant to the derivation of the Japanese word tsu meaning "inlet; harbor; spring".
You cannot say that the derivation of the glyph is irrelevant to the (reconstruction of) the derivation of the word. First, the base may be Austroasiatic (Schuessler). Second, the radical may be phonetic, depending on whichever word it continued in this glyph. See, sea-port, sea-fare, sea-men, etc. are fairly natural constructions, analytic or synthetic. This may be less relevant for the Japanese derivation of the word unless they have it from a same source.
Not sure what you mean about which also means more generally "-land"?
@ApisAzuli: Heh, I'm enough of a "down the rabbit hole" nerd myself when it comes to etymologies that I'm happy to ride along for a while when someone else is on a hunt. :)
Re: tsu. The derivation of the Chinese glyph 津(jīn) is only relevant to the Japanese word tsu if, and only if, we can show that the Japanese is derived somehow from the Chinese. However, the phonology of the Old Chinese 津 (OC *ʔslin) and the Middle Chinese 津 (MC tsin) make it quite unlikely that the Japanese is related -- aside from the onset consonant of the Middle Chinese form matching the modern Japanese ts-, 1) Old Japanese would have rendered this as tu, not tsu, 2) the vowel values don't match, 3) Chinese final -n is reflected as Japanese final -n in other borrowed terms.
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Would it be desirable to also display the katakana in headword templates like {{ja-noun}} if it is provided as an argument? An example would be 噂 for which we actually have the entry ウワサ which is however not linked to by the kanji entry. I also noticed that 蜜柑 actually contains ミカン as a headword template argument but the template somehow discards it? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fytcha: The mere existence of a katakana entry somewhere should probably not be deemed reason enough to include that katakana spelling in the lemma entry -- for 噂(uwasa), the katakana spelling is not lexical. I don't view its existence as problematic (it may be a slight usability gain, in terms of the discoverability of the lemma entry), but I also don't view it as relevant enough to include in the lemma.
For entries like 蜜柑(mikan) that do actually include the katakana right in the lemma, I'm not sure about best presentation. The ====Usage notes==== section includes {{U:ja:biology}} which does display the katakana spelling, with an explanation of the context in which it's often used, so not having the katakana shown on the headword line itself doesn't seem like much of an issue.
Yeah, I wasn't satisfied with 増し, and I gave up. It's hard to notice mistakes if these spellings are hidden, so I do think they should be shown somehow. Currently, I'm thinking either Module:ja-headword should be fixed so that the headword line for 蜜柑 displays "蜜柑orミカン • (mikan)" or ミカン should be moved to the alternative spellings box. But then there are some tricky cases like タンパク質 ({{ja-noun|たんぱくしつ|タンパクしつ}}), 鼠捕り ({{ja-noun|ねずみとり|ネズミとり}}), and くノ一 ({{ja-noun|くのいち|くノいち}}). Rdoegcd (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I try to respond to your questions separately:
How do we get from "to shoo" to "to run"?
The etymology was entered by Lisztrachmaninovfan without sources. The etymology dictionaries provide "to caper, jump, run" as a meaning for the Proto-Uralic *pukta-, they do not mention "to shoo".
And how do the two modern HU senses relate? "To run" and "to suffice" don't have any clear semantic connection.
I did not find any reference about this. Perhaps this image might help: Imagine money, food, time or other objects to be able to run only for a certain distance or duration. It is either enough or not depending on the situation.
Also, "to suffice, to be able to afford" are neither of them transitive, but the verb sense is transitive? How does that work?”
The dictionary marks this sense as "transitive verb form without an object". So for this sense only the definite forms of the verb will work. Example: Három könyvet szeretnék venni, de arra nem futja a pénzemből. - I'd like to buy three books but I can't afford it (I don't have enough money for three). It would be incorrect to say "erre nem *fut a pénzemből".
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I edited your annotation about the Poker meaning of the Japanese word 豚 probably being from the "undesirable" meaning. I think it is probably from an earlier term for a "worthless" card hand, used in other games (a high-card hand is also 'worthless' in terms of not containing a combination). I've added one quotation but don't have a translation for it; the source article is linked from my edit. Porges (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Originally gonna post to the Etymology Scriptum (nani discussion), but I thought it'd be better to post on your talk page.
About your edits:
Thank you for the edits in 甘い(amai, “sweet”) and からだ(karada, “body”).
Apparently in order to search for adjective derived from Old Japanese on Kotobank, I must search the kanji itself, not the full adjective. Could only find the adjective definition and classical conjugation. Also I searched for からだ(karada) in Kotobank but only found compound definitions and kanji forms. Guess I didn't look further
I thought as well that a particle is strange to form nouns. Anything about 宝(takara, “treasure”) and 力(chikara, “power”)? Can't find anything on Kotobank.
They seem like the final -kara element has a meaning of "source" rather than "from". Since the particle から itself is derived from that.
Yes, that was my surface analysis. Factors that contributed to this:
The historical existence of /to2ko2/ since OJP, with respected monolingual JA sources indicating that this is etymologically identical to "place"
The historical existence of /to2/ since OJP, with respected monolingual JA sources indicating that this is etymologically identical to "place"
The historical existence of /ko2/ since OJP, with respected monolingual JA sources indicating that this is a locative suffixing element
The only part that is all that speculative in that analysis is about the final /ro2/ element, since those same respected monolingual JA sources don't have anything much to say about this -- the NKD entry, for instance, doesn't discuss the ろ(-ro) found in tokoro, kokoro, uturo, etc. The mention of 「語調を整える」 appears in a number of NKD entries for shorter one-mora elements like this, and it is consistently frustrating -- it basically reads to me that the entry editors didn't know how to define it and just お手上げ, and decided "well, it's just a sound". Weak, in my opinion: it would have been better to state explicitly something like 「意味合いは未だに不明」.
Looking beyond what the NKD editors had to say, this final -ro element in various terms does appear to indicate some kind of "location" sense, possibly generalized, that includes senses of "interior".
I suspect that this is related to pluralizing / genericizing nominalization suffix ら(-ra). There are a number of terms at the very oldest stages of recorded Japanese that appear to evidence an /a/ ↔ /o/ alternation, where the a variants have overtones of "outward; appearance" and the o variants have overtones of "inward; intrinsic quality". I describe a bit more about this, with some examples, in this answer post on the Japanese Stack Exchange site.
Your edit comment was "Unnatural, Japanese speakers don't make a pause before saying /n/". How speakers pause is irrelevant to orthography. The romanization is intended to show word boundaries. The ん(n) in the affected text is a separate word. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig20:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix: We have two phonological problems here.
How does Proto-Japonic medial -tu- become Proto-Ryukyuan -be-? This is completely unexplainable.
How does Proto-Japonic final -i become Proto-Ryukyuan -a? This is not as bizarre as the -tu- → -be- proposal, but still an issue.
The latter vowel shift might be explainable by other processes, such as fusion with another element. We see such fusion in inflecting terms, such as JA adjective asai reflecting in Okinawan as asasan.
However, there is nothing to tie Japonic -tu- to Ryukyuan -be-. There are zero phonological processes that could cause such a shift: the initial consonants are wholly different, with incompatible places of articulation, and the vowels are also unrelated and without any relevant mechanism for transformation. We must conclude that these are different elements -- which means that the Proto-Ryukyuan term cannot be an inheritance from the Proto-Japonic term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello.
I ask that you please not revert my contribution about article Seonbi again. There is no proof that the word "Seonbi" is derived from Sinic or any other Chinese dialect, and the user Fish bowl’s conspiracy is based on zero evidence and is offensive.
If you don't get back to me in a day, I'll restore the version I edited.
Calling another editor's work "conspiracy" in your first contact with me immediately informs me that I should be wary of you. I'm not sure that's the first impression you intend to give.
Separately, your edits so far at 선비(seonbi) have been objectively problematic. Just looking at your latest edit there:
Your etymology text did not actually describe the etymology of the word -- where it comes from, how it is derived, when it first appears, etc.
You stated that "[i]n Jilin leishi (鷄林類事), it is phonetically represented as 進, 寺 and 切" -- this makes no sense, as none of these three characters have any eum or hun pronunciation that matches either seon or bi:
Your edit did not address the question in the RFE (request for etymology), which also asked "surely this is sinitic from 先輩 or something?"
If the Korean term is not from any Sinitic term, explain how it derives from non-Sinitic roots.
This is a wiki. Please link to appropriate other terms and references. For instance, what is a "Yangban"? What is the "Jilin leishi"? There are relevant Wiktionary or Wikipedia articles that these should link to.
Honestly speaking, I tried to find out about the word seonbi’s origin but failed; it is true. And also, I learned today that the word "先輩" has been used since the Tang Dynasty in ancient China. But it still doesn’t mean that the user Fish bowl’s skepticism is accurate at all. Nothing change.
1. “You stated that it is phonetically represented as 進, 寺 and 切 -- this makes no sense, as none of these three characters have any eum or hun pronunciation that matches either seon or bi.”
>>>
We don’t need to know what Hanzi(Chinese character) actually means because it’s related to phonetics. It’s exactly the same as Japanese ateji or modern China’s borrowed words. Also, most of all, the book 鷄林類事 is published in 1103, so these are all followed by middle Chinese pronunciation, not followed by modern Sino-Korean pronunciation.
2. “If the Korean term is not from any Sinitic term, explain how it derives from non-Sinitic roots.”
>>>
This is totally nonsense. I'm sorry, does that mean if the Korean word’s origin is unclear, should it have a Sino-Xenic origin? Who knows? It could have been a native word of long history used before the spread of Chinese characters, or a nativization of the Tungusic, Mongolic, or Japanese languages, or even a Semitic or Indo-European, Bantu, etc. But without any evidence, the user Fish Bowl’s edit is just a denial and doubt without basis or source. In my personal impression, what he's questioning sounds like "people failed to find out about 'Who created the human being' so I suggest that humans were created by my dogs and cats, thus my claim is legitimate and logically correct."
I hope it is now clear enough to understand my thoughts on why the paragraph that was written by the user Fishbowl should be deleted or restored to the version that I edited. If you don't reply in 24 hours, I'll rollback the version I edited, but I guess it would be better if it were restored by yourself because I'm an anonymous user, so it's possible to rollback by him again.
PS:I tried to link to Wikipedia articles about Yangban and Jilin leishi in my contribution version, but only succeeded in connecting with the article on Yangban. — This unsigned comment was added by 180.69.120.182 (talk).
@180.69.120.182: Your comment about phonetics is still problematic.
We don’t need to know what Hanzi(Chinese character) actually means because it’s related to phonetics. It’s exactly the same as Japanese ateji or modern China’s borrowed words. Also, most of all, the book 鷄林類事 is published in 1103, so these are all followed by middle Chinese pronunciation, not followed by modern Sino-Korean pronunciation.
Let us look at the reconstructed Middle Chinese sound values, together with the Korean readings for sake of completeness:
None of these characters have any sound values that match either syllable /sʰʌ̹n/ or /bi/ of the modern Korean term 선비 (seonbi), nor indeed either syllable /sjən/ or /pʌj/ of the attested Middle Korean term 션ᄇᆡ(syenpoy). The closest we get might be 進 (MC tsinH) — but the onset consonant is problematic (reflecting as /t͡ɕ/ in Korean, not as /s/, and the vowel is also a mismatch (reflecting as /i/ in Korean, not as /ə/ or /ʌ/).
The Korean term is clearly two syllables. Your text lists three Chinese characters. The proposed correspondence between these is unclear.
Given the confusion apparent in your text, and the confusion it is likely to cause in readers, the entry is better off without that text.
Your comments about the term's potential origin includes some faulty logic.
...if the Korean word’s origin is unclear, should it have a Sino-Xenic origin?
Not necessarily. If a Korean word's origin is unclear, we cannot say that it has a Sino-Xenic origin. At the same time, we cannot say that it does not have a Sino-Xenic origin.
Your edit did nothing to address the RFE comment that @Fish bowl added: “surely this is sinitic from 先輩 or something?” Before removing the RFE, you must address the concerns raised: explain the derivation of 선비 (seonbi). If your research does not rule out the possibility of a Sinitic origin, your edit should mention that.
FWIW, I did find this web page that gives one theory about the origins of the term, describing the initial seon as possibly deriving from the Sinic word 士 (MC dzriX), and the final bi as possibly from Mongolian / Manchurian -- and I wonder if this latter element in turn might derive from Sinic 博士 (MC pak dzriX).
The term yangban as used in English text is generally not capitalized. There is a corresponding Wiktionary entry at yangban#English. Use the wikicode [[yangban]] to create a link.
The Joseon dynasty has a Wikipedia article at w:Joseon. Use the wikicode {{w|Joseon}} to create a link.
The Jilin leishi has a Wikipedia article at w:Jilin leishi. Use the wikicode ''{{w|Jilin leishi}}'' to create a link.
Before you read this, you should remember these two things:
The first is that the writer 孫穆(Sūn Mù) is not a native speaker of Korean, therefore it was impossible for him to catch the correct language perfectly.
Secondly, you should acknowledge that this book is written in an era between late-middle Chinese and early-old Mandarin. The Middle Chinese period was from the 4th century to the 12th century, and the Old Mandarin period was from the 12th century to the establishment of the Ming dynasty. Unfortunately, no one can revive the real sound of that era anymore.
1. According to w:Jilin leishi(https://zh.m.wikisource.org/wiki/雞林類事), the explanation of “seonbi” is written in 「士曰進寺儘切」. 進 is firstly written in big letters at the top, and the other three characters 寺,儘, and 切 are later written in very small(these four characters are separated and do not make up a syllable of the single term). It’s because, as you know, the word 進 is most similar to real Korean pronunciation compared to the other three characters(寺, 儘, and 切). As for myself, I’m not sure why the other syllable “bi” doesn’t exist but modern Korean linguists consider that it was either mistaken or later added.
2. “I did find this web page that gives one theory about the origins of the term, describing the initial seon as possibly deriving from the Sinic word 士 (MC d͡ʒɨX), and the final bi as possibly from Mongolian / Manchurian -- and I wonder if this latter element in turn might derive from Sinic 博士 (MC pwɑk̚ d͡ʒɨX).”
>>>
Of course, I don’t know which language you speak as your mother tongue, but I guess you misunderstood this article’s sentence because maybe you’re not a native speaker. In that webpage’s paragraph, it says that the meaning of 「선비」 is the same as the Chinese term 「士」, which means “work” or “serve”. Consequently, that article tells us Eum(sound) is NOT from Sinic, but Hun(meaning). Similar to the Japanese translation (Waseikango) "kagaku" of the western term "science". It’s debatable whether the syllable “bi” is from mongolic/tungusic, but it still remains just one of the theories of etymology.
I still hope that, if you don't mind, I can revert or rollback it to the version in which I deleted the sentence that the user Fishbowl wrote. Whether you agree or not, please leave a message within a day.
Thank you for pointing out my error about the initial seon and Chinese士(shì), re-reading that first paragraph at the link, I realized they were describing synonymy and not derivation.
Regarding any entry, you cannot just remove an RFE without responding to it. If you would like to remove @Fish bowl's RFE in the 선비 (seonbi) entry, you must respond to that RFE by entering an etymology that explains the term's derivation. Your past edits did not do that, so if you simply restore your past edits, you will likely be reverted again.
Regarding the term 선비 (seonbi), I understand your points about Song-era phonology and unknowables. There are some things we can surmise based on available evidence.
The Jilin leishi text correlates a monosyllabic Chinese term 士(shì) with a monosyllabic Middle Korean term. We know right from the start that the Jilin leishi description cannot be for seonbi, as this is bisyllabic.
As you note, this could be a description for the seon part of the term, which would still be useful information.
After I spent some time this morning reading up on the Jilin leishi, the format of w:rime tables, and w:fanqie, I've gained a better understanding of the notation used in the relevant line:
士曰進(寺儘切) / 士曰进(寺尽切)
The first three characters tell us that Chinese 士(shì, “gentleman; scholar; commendableperson”)曰(yuē, “is called”)進 / 进(jìn) in Middle Korean. As I'd noted above, this is problematic for reasons of reconstructed phonology. You are right to question that questioning, although maybe not for the reasons you first thought. :)
The key is the parenthetical comment. I didn't understand this part at first, and I think the meaning may have escaped you as well. According to the details at w:Fanqie#Function, we learn that the rime tables would indicate further details about a character's pronunciation using a specific notation style. The 切 in the parentheses is our hint here, that this is a 反切(fǎnqiè) notation.
Fanqie indicates the onset pronunciation (initial consonant, or lack thereof) using one character, and the coda pronunciation (final consonant, or lack thereof) using another character. I'm not entirely sure if the nucleus (the vowel) is meant to be indicated by the first or second character.
At any rate, with that fanqie notation style in mind, we can now successfully parse the parenthetical comment. This tells us that we should interpret 進 / 进(jìn) for Middle Korean as phonetically equivalent to the onset of 寺, and the coda of 儘 / 尽(jǐn). While we are uncertain of the Song-era pronunciation of these, we can at least look at Middle Chinese and modern Mandarin. (Note that we have no Middle Chinese for the 儘 / 尽(jǐn) form of that character, but we do for alternative form 盡 / 尽(jìn).) For comparison, let's include at the modern Korean eum pronunciation as well.
The fanqie details resolve my earlier concerns that the initial consonant in Chinese was a poor match for the initial /s-/ in seonbi — the initial for 寺 is /s-/ in both Mandarin and Korean, and while Middle Chinese voices this to /z-/, there is no sign of the dental fricative we otherwise see in 進 (MC tsinH).
However, we are still left with a mismatch in the vowel -- all of the Chinese vowels are some variant of /i/, and the Korean vowels are either /a/ or /i/, none of which resolves clearly to the /ʌ/ vowel in modern Korean선비(seonbi), nor the /jə/ vowel in Middle Korean션ᄇᆡ(syenpoy). The vowel reconstructed for Middle Chinese盡(d͡ziɪnX) at least has a diphthong, but this is not a perfect match with Middle Korean /jə/.
We can also look at other borrowings from Chinese with modern Korean readings of seon, and see how those Middle Chinese and modern Mandarin pronunciations compare. Here are the ones currently listed in our 선 (seon) entry:
None of the Chinese characters have any nucleus vowel value resembling the /iɪ/ value that we see for Middle Chinese 進 (MC tsinH) and 盡 (MC dzinX|tsinX), and the main vowel for all of them in modern Mandarin is /a/. This suggests that it would be unlikely for either of these to be the ancestor of modern seon as used in the term 선비 (seonbi), and circumstantially suggests that the Middle Korean term listed in the Jilin leishi is some other word.
Let's look at a few other Chinese characters that have /iɪ/ in Middle Chinese, and see how these are reflected in modern Mandarin and Korean.
All of these show Middle Chinese vowel /iɪ/ reflecting as modern Mandarin /i/ or /e/, and as modern Korean /i/. This is additional evidence that the term in the Jilin leishi is unlikely to be the same term as the seon in 선비 (seonbi).
So far, it seems like that Encyclopedia of Korean Culture article about the etymology of seonbi is the only source we have that unambiguously describes a possible derivation of this word. In an etymology in our entry at 선비 (seonbi), we could certainly mention the Jilin leishi, but only as a possibility, not as a definite derivation, and we should ideally mention that the Jilin leishi term is difficult to tie directly to seonbi due to various phonetic issues, as outlined above.
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
@Eirikr: About the information you gave me regarding the kuru with a problematic relation (probably not a relation at all) to OJ past auxiliary ki, it’s just a context (ordering) mistake. Kuru doesn’t seem related to the past auxiliary; plus it’s very weird and strange using a particle for a sense not relating to a particle. (past particle > go = ?) Chuterix (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Eirikr: There’s also semantic context “the day that had came by”, but an auxiliary would need to support the past relation. And I don’t know if a full singular word is derived from a phrase (similar to 愚か者(oroka-mono, “fool”), but no conjugation of oroka is actually found in oroka-mono; not talking about actual phrases (as in, spoken, not a word) such as 猿も木から落ちる(saru mo ki kara ochiru, “even an expert isn’t perfect/makes mistakes”, literally “monkeys also fall from trees”)). Chuterix (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Proto-Japonic words possibly borrowed from Proto-Indo-European list page
Cheers. Just as a technical consideration, note that it is not necessary to ping the owner of a User talk page -- the owner is already notified whenever a new post is created there. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I made a new comparison of 飼う(kau, “to feed (an animal)”) in case you didn't receive the ping on that page (we should move to a new talk page of the user page). Chuterix (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In Kotobank, the entries are using the 精選版, not the 第二版. This probably explains why so many etymologies are missing. I'd suppose the new site working wanted to change Daijiten editions due to the JapanKnowledge online web edition (which costs money), but don't count me on that.
There is an online dictionary containing the original NKD with the etymologies at Sakura Paris (see here). Click on the 日国(nikkoku) button and search a word (doesn't have to be an exact word unlike Kotobank). Chuterix (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix: Interesting. I'll dig out my big hard-backed version later (maybe tonight, time allowing) and see what the specific edition is -- and also see if I can figure out what version my local electronic one is. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
yodare is a shift from yodari, itself attested since 720 (but only in kun'yomi reading; so actually the Heian period) with unvoiced yotari, and from comparative Ryukyuan data (found here), I reconstruct PR *yodari and PJ *yəntari. Should the reconstruction be *yontari, it would probably be OJP *yudari.
The noun itself is derived as a compound of unknown element yo + taru ("to fall") in ren'yokei stem, according to the KDJ (on Sakura Paris; see here). I am going to update etymologies for yodare soon.
The Gogen Yurai Jiten entry (see here) suggests the yo element might be found in 弱い(yowai, “weak”, OJP reading yo1wasi) and 緩む(yurumu, “to be loose”); in this case it should be reconstructed as *yontari or *yauntari (?). The other theory is that the yo element is a sound of a baby crying "yoyo".
Hmm, looks like the RFV template isn't rendering the comment I included. Please have a look at the wikisource, I explain my reasoning there.
Re: the vowel value, it is clear that that tari is cognate with 垂る(taru), modern 垂れる(tareru), indicating that the yo is a morphemic unit unto itself -- could be a noun, could be an adverb, given the semantics and usual patterns of Japanese word formation.
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Could you take at look at this Japanese entry? It doesn't seem like dictionary material to me. There are thousands of hanzi that can form an infinite number of given names in Chinese. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Tooironic: I think the grapheme still merits an entry for Japanese, given the use as a spelling for native JA surname Kiyomoto. I've expanded the entry. Please have a look, especially the "historical" sense since I'm not entirely sure I read that right (and I'm pressed for time, if I'm honest). Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig01:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think the senses as they stand now are fine, except "Japanese reading of the Chinese given name 'Qingyuan'". Like I said, there are an infinite number of Chinese given names. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Tooironic: Sure. I think this might have been added originally due to the existence of one w:ja:呉清源 (Go Seigen), a famous player of go. See also w:zh:吳清源, w:Go Seigen, etc.
Since we already have good grounds for keeping an entry at 清原#Japanese, and since this Go Seigen is a somewhat famous person in certain circles, it seems perversely unhelpful not to include a sense line for the name -- but maybe I'm overthinking this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Tooironic: I fear that maybe I haven't been clear about my thoughts. Here's another try. :)
If we have a grapheme that meets CFI, then we list the appropriate senses under that heading.
If there is a name in that language that is spelled using that grapheme, then we include that as one of the senses.
Since 清源 is a valid grapheme for Japanese, we have an entry there.
Since 清源 is also a name in Japanese, or rather two different names, we include those senses. Since the Seigen name is also somewhat well-known due to the famous go player, I think there is an argument to be made that someone might look up the name in Japanese.
I have no interest in cataloguing all names as used in Japanese texts, so no worries there -- and I agree that Chinese name spellings are wide and varied enough, that any attempt to do so would likely be a fool's errand.
That said, as I read Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Given_and_family_names, I don't think we have any stated policy reason why we couldn't -- so long as those names are treated as lexemes, and we don't include encyclopedic content about people that have had those names. As a consequence, I don't see reason to remove the Seigen name from the Japanese清源 entry.
PS: Natsume Soseki uses various non-standard spelling + furigana combinations. Some of his spellings caught on, but others are not common at all. Using him as an authoritative source for spelling + furigana is not a good idea, unless you can corroborate in other sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, when should classical conjugation tables be added to Japanese verbs? I see that you’ve removed the classical conjugation table here, but I also see classical conjugation tables being added for their modern equivalents, like in 落ちる, even when there is the page for the corresponding classical verb(落つ). I don’t know the rules for these additions, so I hope you can tell me. Mcph2 (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
For any conjugation table in a Japanese entry, the form of the word used as the headword (the "main" or "dictionary" form of the verb) must be present in the conjugation table.
For all vowel-stem verbs, a.k.a. 一段活用動詞(ichidan katsuyō dōshi), we have two problems: 1) the headword form ending in -iru or -eru isn't included anywhere in the Classical conjugation paradigm, and 2) the "main" or "dictionary" form of the Classical verb differs from the headword.
By way of analogy, over at Englishdo, we don't include the conjugation table for Middle Englishdon -- even though older don became modern do.
I hope that's clear? Please feel free to ask me any questions. :)
Thank you for letting me know about 落ちる. I'll go fix that shortly.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Pellard (2008) does state that Proto-Japonic (PJ) diphthong *au goes to OJ o1. However, you deleted the PJ reconstruction there saying "PJ *au goes to Old Japanese (OJ) o2". OJ Co1 as Cwo is only reconstructed pronunciation. Chuterix (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix, what grounds do we have for assuming *kusau must be the proto form for OJP kuso2? As we have described over at w:Proto-Japonic#Vowels, word-final OJP ⟨o2⟩ would come from Proto-Japonic *ə. I don't see any particular reason to reconstruct the final vowel sound as *au.
If this is presented in an academic work, please add a reference.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Just noticed the following errors displays on the Japanese entry here: "Warning: Default sort key "さんげんしょく" overrides earlier default sort key "一02厂08色00"." Would you mind taking a look? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Looks like Baka Fumiko strikes again. She had a bad habit of using {{DEFAULTSORT:...}} in inappropriate places, and this looks like one more instance. I just fixed that, and added more detail to the JA entry.
(Not sure what I did, but somehow my edits to the JA side nuked the ZH portion, so I restored that as well.)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@Eirikr Where's your sources for "Recorded in the Nihon Shoki of 720 CE as having been brought over from the Korean peninsula kingdom of Baekje, with the earlier reading of ma."? Is it your local KDJ? If there's no source from you within 2 weeks I will change this attestation message. Chuterix (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The speed at which you rework entries and move pages around, sometimes multiple times within a single hour, gives the impression of someone who is impetuous, inconsiderate or unaware of the impact on other editors, and not doing sufficient research. If this is not the impression you wish to give, please change your behavior: slow down, do more research, and coordinate with others more before reworking and moving.
Nota bene: This thread that you have started here is a good step in coordinating.
This is a volunteer project. We all have other responsibilities in life. Not all of us can spend lots of time here. Demanding anything "ASAP" can come across as rather rude.
Removing cited descriptions from an etymology, where those descriptions are germane and unproblematic, is generally frowned upon. It is not clear to me at all why you removed the comment about Pellard's reasoning, nor did you leave any edit comment. Please include edit comments explaining in brief what you did and why.
Given Pellard's comment, it is entirely possible that the shift from ma to uma was a Japanese innovation, possibly to differentiate ma "horse" from ma "space, room", ma "ramie", etc. Alternatively, uma may indeed be the underlying Japonic ancestral form. We see other instances of initial um- in Japanese reflected in Okinawan as ɴm- or shifted ɴb-, such as Japanese生まれる(umareru) → Okinawan ʔɴmarijuɴ, Japanese埋める(umeru) → Okinawan ʔɴbeejuɴ.
→ We don't have enough evidence to clearly reconstruct any proto-Japonic term *Mma. Moreover, your notation using the capitalized "M" is unexplained and confusing. Creating this entry at this spelling was premature and arguably in error.
When referring to another editor's specific edits, it is both polite and useful to link to the specific diff. I had to dig through the page history for 馬 for quite a while to find the specific edit from back in June 2012. If you are contacting an editor about a specific edit, please include a link to the diff.
Notably, I did not include any refs originally (modus operandi at that time did not require them), and when I did add refs in 2015, I placed the <ref> tags to try to indicate that the references themselves did not say anything about the Nihon Shoki.
Restoring a deletion is easy. Digging up what sources I used eleven years ago is complicated. This is why my recent edit at 馬 consisted of simply restoring the deleted etym details. I needed time to figure out 1) what edit you were referring to, 2) whether that edit was actually even mine, 3) when that edit happened, 4) what sources I would have had access to at that time, and 5) whether I can still access those resources now.
Due to various changes in the intervening 11 years, I do not currently have access to the edition of the 日本国語大辞典 that I likely used in June 2012. A different edition of mine includes the header note:
『(「馬」の字音「マ」の転じたものという。平安以降、「むま」と表記した例が多い)』
However, this edition does not include any quotes at all, so I cannot confirm anything from the 日本書紀.
I might be able to dig up an old laptop with the version I used in 2012, but that will also take some time, as I am in the middle of a move and I do not know specifically where that laptop is physically located in the house.
Checking the text of the Nihon Shoki as given over at the ZH WikiSource and searching for 馬 seems to find the section mentioning the Baekje:
『百濟使人中部奈率己連等罷歸。仍賜以良馬七十匹。船一十隻。』
No mention of pronunciation, though, and I do not have the time to dig through to see if any of the Nihon Shoki text phonetically describes how this 馬 was pronounced.
Separately, I see in ONCOJ that ma is one of the readings for 馬. Clicking through from there and searching for " ma " in my browser (exclude the quotes, include the space before and after) finds three hits, all in the Man'yōshū, indicating that ma was a valid, albeit uncommon, pronunciation for this term during the Old Japanese stage of the language.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, you changed a reference from {R:Daijisen} to {R:Digital-Daijisen} in this diff. I was using the 大辞泉 (小学館) dictionary at https://sakura-paris.org/dict/. I see that {R:Digital-Daijisen} automatically gives a link to https://kotobank.jp/, while {R:Daijisen} has no such link. Why did you change this reference, and what situations should I use these two reference templates in? Thank you. Mcph2 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Mcph2, I'm a fan of making things accessible where possible. :)
The Digital Daijisen reference available via Kotobank confirms the same details where you had added the non-digital Daijisen reference. Since the Kotobank version is accessible to anyone via clicking the link, this seems to me to be the better option, so I changed the reference template.
Meanwhile, I have sometimes kept the older non-linked {{R:Kokugo Dai Jiten}} ref and not replaced it with the newer {{R:Nihon Kokugo Daijiten 2}} one that links through to Kotobank, because the Kotobank version is missing certain details that are available in the older print version. (These details vanished from Kotobank's version a few years ago when they did a site redesign; I suspect that this was caused by a badly programmed data conversion during migration, accidentally stripping or omitting certain fields.) For those cases where the Kotobank version confirms the same details as the print version, I'll update to the newer {{R:Nihon Kokugo Daijiten 2}} reference, in favor of that one's improved accessibility.
Please don't remove pitch accent from Proto-Japonic reconstructions. Without accent they don't have any sense to be reconstructed, since the some tone groups themselves imply vowel lengthen in Northern Ryukyuan words. If the accent group do not match, it is possible that they did not diverge from a common ancestor, but are in some kind of borrowing relationship or made from more complex compound even if they look like one morpheme.
We don't know how these terms were pronounced. Therefore, adding pronunciation sections is misleading at best, flatly incorrect at worst.
The pitch accent information you were adding is confusing and unsourced. What are the accent classes? Who decided what accent class each word belongs to? None of this is explained or linked, which is unacceptably bad usability.
Better to have nothing than to have wrong information, or information that is so obscure as to be opaquely not-understandable.
As I noted on Kwékwlos's Talk page, you need to coordinate and achieve consensus first. Just announcing that you're going to rework entry structure and launching into that is insufficient and subject to reversion -- even more so when the content you're adding is problematic (as above). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
PS: Various Proto-Austronesian terms lack pronunciation sections, such as *baŋbaŋ₂, *laCəŋ, *lahud, *kurap.
Also, you quote Aramaki-san, but fail to cite: where do they say that? Context is important.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
When I saw this, I reverted all of Chuterix's edits in @Mellohi!'s userspace and gave them a 1-month hard block. I'd appreciate it if you would check their other recent contributions for similar abuses. I've seen lots of inconsiderate behavior around here, but this is a first. I wonder how old they really are- this is the sort of childish tantrum I would expect from someone in grade school. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Given their impatience, rashness, and penchant for ignoring others, my general impression has been of a younger person. I must admit that this current outburst surprises me, however.
Chuterix generally needs a stern reminder to just do his reconstruction work and stop pinging every Japonic editor on random talk pages. I am burdened by both my Celtic studies and other university work, so I can't put much attention to discussing Japonic queries with him. Him pinging me and other Japonic editors like 3+ times a week gets old fast, and he really needs to tone the pings down. But he seems to be a good-faith editor, just need to be taught boundaries, not be brash about feedback, and acknowledge that others may not agree with his initial views. His latest outbursts I think can be calmed down by the month block. He also needs to take heed of keeping the ranting down; the harder he rants the harder he is to understand.
I can understand how frustrated Chuterix is when he arrives at reconstruction roadblocks, expertise gaps, and etymology controversies. When I started out in reconstructions I struggled in many of the same areas. But I agree that however he's composing himself the past few weeks is unproductive and he needs a break. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It has been almost two weeks and this issue of "ゐ" being "i" hasn't been resolved. I noticed that "ヰャ" has been romanized as "ya" though it should really be romanized as "wya".
It is not consistent that its small counterparts are romanized as usual. Even though these kana are usually pronounced "i" and "e" respectively, and sometimes even serve as an alternative spelling, they are still used to romanize w-sounds, especially beforer 1946.
--MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have no particular opposition. However, I also lack the facility with Lua required to do anything about this.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think I know who this is. I've already asked elsewhere about their Chinese edits. Anything to worry about with their Japanese ones? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Would you mind checking the Japanese translation here? From what I can tell, 横隔膜 should be thoracic diaphragm, not midriff. While midriff did used to mean thoracic diaphragm, this translation table is for the modern sense, "mid section of the human torso", that is, the abdomen. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wow, ya. Any fashions that bare one's thoracic diaphragm would have to be called radically harmful at best. 😳
Baffling too that this was apparently added by a native-JA speaker in diff -- I can only assume that some kind of confusion was at play here.
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
The accent of Proto-Japonic and tone of Proto-Ryukyuan can be reconstructed well.
I'll simply introduce the monosyllables, while disyllables and trisyllables I'll instruct you soon.
For one mora noun, if the Tokyo Accent is 0, the Kyoto accent is 2, and the Kagoshima accent is A, then it belongs to 1.1 accent class, which is HIGH pitch (*H).
Some Tokyo-type Japanese dialects have 1 and thus belongs to accent class 1.2 (*F).
1.3 belongs to the LOW accent class (*R), if Tokyo and Kyoto have 1, and Kagoshima has B.
The accent data shall be taken from Hirayama Teruo's Zenkoku Akusento Jiten.
The accent of Proto-Ryukyuan tone class A corresponds to 1.1 and 1.2, while tone class B corresponds to 1.3.
Since my ban, I've been studying the accentual system of Japanese and dialects, and its history. The pJ reconstruction should soon change. Note in C type words, Shuri lengthens the first syllable of disyllables and second syllable of trisyllables. C type words correspond regularly to 2.4 and 2.5 nouns, and if stuff like Shuri súɾà (HL) 'sky (literary)' happens this is regarding to be a borrowing, while sùːɾà (LLL) 'treetop' is the real and inherited word for pJ *sora(“sky, top”) 2.4a.
I really don't understand what the numbering and lettering system is supposed to mean, and I think most readers will likely find themselves stymied. What is "1.2 (*F)"? That is entirely mysterious. Moreover, it is unclear how a one-mora word would possibly have a Kyoto accent of 2? This also needs explaining, since most materials that discuss Japanese pitch accent only describe how this works for Tokyo-based "standard" media Japanese, where a one-mora word could only ever have a pitch accent pattern of 0 (no downstep) or 1 (downstep after the single mora).
The categorization of the Tokyo monosyllabic (one mora) accent that you describe as 0 (no downstep) and 1 (downstep after one mora) are phonetically represented by the former being Ò(Ò) or L(L) and the latter being Ó(Ò) or H(L). The former can be represented by 名(na, “name”) where it's represented by ナ⸢カ゚ (/nà↑ŋá/) or L(H) and for 菜(na, “greens”) it's resembled by ナ⸣カ゚ (/ná↓ŋà/) or H(L).
In Kyoto monosyllables lengthen to two morae and the equivalent to 'name' is when not followed by a particle, it is [2] ナ⸣ー (ná↓à or /nâː/) and ナ⸣ーガ (ná↓à=gà or /nâːgà/), or called HL (standalone) ~ HL(L) (followed by particle) while 'greens' is being represented by [1] ナ⸢ー (nà↑á) or ナー⸢ガ nàà↑gá.
Summary is [1] is LH standalone or LL(H) when following a particle (parentheses indicate particle). Meanwhile [2] is HL(L).
Kagoshima monosyllable is represented by A or B, where A represents a falling pitch during the mora, called F, while B is a downstep after the mora, called H(L),
You can also read Shimabukuro (2007) The Accentual History of the Japanese and Ryukyuan Languages: A Reconstruction for the description (although not represented by numbers), or Martin (1987) The Japanese Language through Time. Chuterix (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the clarifications and title suggestion. Do we have this documented clearly anywhere on Wiktionary? We must provide some explanation for any notation we use; we cannot expect users to track down and read academic books just to understand how to parse our entries. 😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I want to put Kyoto and Kagoshima accent onto entries, but this requires programming modules, let alone painstakingly adding accent to all entries, using {{R:Zenkoku Akusento Jiten}} and maybe {{R:ja:Martin 1987}}.
It's why the accent stuff like Aramaki Morozov did appeared alien to me prior to the ban. When I got serious about Japonic I did an ILL of some Ryukyuan and Japanese books, while I have 3 dictionaries that are permanent copies, 1 in English, 2 in Japanese. Chuterix (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I believe you added the etymology information to etymology 2 of this term, 雄(o). This section states that this is cognate with the first element of 男(otoko), but the 男 article, as well as デジタル大辞泉, suggest that 男 is instead derived from おと, being cognate with 復つ(otsu), + 子(ko). I can't verify the sources, but is it possible they referred to 夫(otto), from をひと(wofito) or 男(onoko) instead? Horse Battery (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Looks like I made that edit back in March 2016. I don't currently have access to the versions of the references I used then, so I can't say with any certainty if my sources were wrong or if I misunderstood.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Accroding to National Institute of the Korean Language, it borrowed from Dutch "kabas". [8] And I can't find any reference you reverted in Korean sources. Dubukimchi (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Eirikr: A quick analysis of entries in the JapanKnowledge of Nihon Kokugo Daijiten 2 show that the etymologies that were in the first/revised edition of NKD are not there in the second edition. 嫌う(kirau, “to hate”), 胸(mune, “chest”), 棟(mune, “roof ridge”), 思う(omou, “to remember”), 袋(fukuro) has no etymology at the top of the page, while 怖い(kowai, “scary”) says 「こわい（強）」と同語源 (cognate with kowai 'hard'), 道(michi, “path, road”) only mentions 「み」は接頭語 (mi- is a prefix), 考える(kangaeru, “to consider”) only says older form is kamugafu, etc. They moved very few etymologies to the "word history" 語誌 and added attested etymological theories in the 語源説 'etymological theory' section, although some might be ranging from problematic to completely bizzare etymologies. The 語源説 is not available in the concise edition. Chuterix (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi!
Yes, I thought that was the case from WT:EL, but on Cherokee, you’ll see that the noun part comes after the proper noun part, and this makes sense because then the noun definition can refer to the proper noun above, which it does. That’s why I did it that way. But I will defer to you here.
PS, you may want to make the same edit on Cherokee, and I would guess that there are probably other similar types of entries that have the same (mis)ordering.
@Hermes Thrice Great — Cheers, ya, the [[Cherokee]] entry needs a similar rejiggering. There's a bot or two that does similar work, or at least has done in the past, but I can't recall who owns it or under what conditions it will "notice" an entry. I'll clean up [[Cherokee]] for now, but given my bandwidth limitations (in terms of time, not actual network connectivity 😄), I won't be able to do any broader searching.
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@Eirikr: Doesn't it seem very inappropriate to use kana glosses as Old Japanese "attestations"? They have been scattered along Wiktionary and I'm not going to edit all of them since I'm too tired to 働く right now.
If you're going to say a Nihon Shoki or Kojiki citation that is only cited via kana glosses, use something like "Attested in katakana glosses to the Nihon Shoki" or whatever. But I recommend you do not say it's from Old Japanese unless a proper Old Japanese attestation is done. Chuterix (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix — It's not clear what entry or entries you're talking about?
After taking the time to dig through your recent contributions, I suspect you might be referring to 訝しい(ibukashii). If so, the MYS has that too, both as rebus-style spelling 言借 and as full-phonetic 伊布可思・伊布可之.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is all definitions for 空 Japanese sora. It's weird to have a word with a single meaning when most dictionaries (even bilingual onew) have more meanings. Chuterix (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
First of all, the terms that have only mi- as first element are not attested in Ryukyuan; there is no source at all to derive 満つ(“to fill up”) (Ryukyuan cogs such as Yamatohama mitʰuɾi show pJ *mitu) from mi-; I've checked NKD1 and Daijirin already, and NKD2 only shows derivation from mizu for michiru (in etymology theory secton), All terms you are giving with exception of あなた(“you < that way”) are from vowel assimilation due to arisaka's law, causing this "apophonic" variant that got fossilized. -nata is from -nə-kata. Not just Vovin but also Frellesvig believe this, as in his book "History of the Japanese Language"; he says: "Konata, sonata, kanata are thought to have arisen from reductions of ko-no kata 'this side', etc." NKD2 etymology theories show konokata as well for various sources even as Myogoki despite Myogoki having bizzare etymologies. Literally no monolingual JA source (NKD1, NKD2, DJR, DJS) says this is ko-na-ta (this+GEN+DIR). I'll replace thenetymology for -nata soon. More in reply.
> "there is no source at all to derive 満つ (“to fill up”)"
Unsure why you're bringing this up? I haven't mentioned this. If you are proposing that this and 水 are related, that would have to be via the mi- initial -- suggesting then that the -zu in 水 is some kind of suffixing element, which could explain the appearance of mi on its own meaning "water". Otherwise the nasal that causes the voicing to -zu would have to be present, but then that rules out the unvoiced -t- in the verb root mit- for みつ・みちる・みてる・みたす.
Re: あなた etc, granted. That was a poor choice of example.
Na clearly existed as an apophonic form of no₂; Vovin's contention that na meant "water" appears to be tied entirely to the oddities of 涙(namida). Given Arisaka's law, no₂ would have to shift in the presence of a or o₁, which is consistent with what we see in minato₁.
> "how else can we derive 涙 (namida, “tear”) from?"
It's listed in derived terms for 水(mi-, “water”), so this is not derived term and must be removed.
> Na clearly existed as an apophonic form of no₂...
Indeed. Just saying this is how it's derived, and can explain why this is bound to a limited set of words, often adjacent to a, o(, or u). Chuterix (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix -- Ah, thank you. Re: 満つ and derivations, you're right, those should be removed from the 水 entry -- until and unless we can find a plausible theory that would connect 水 and 満つ, which currently seems to fall apart on phonological grounds. (I'm not too sure the semantics work all that well either, TBH.)
Re: 水 as just mi, there are also words like 泉(izumi, OJP idumi) and 澪・水脈・水尾(mio, OJP miwo) that are traced back to OJP, among other terms. With 水 appearing as mi as both the first and last element of compounds, this suggests that this might not be just deletion of -zu, but rather that mi on its own may be the core root of the word for "water". This would fit better with possible cognacy with Goguryeo買(*me, “river; water”), and suffixation could explain the variety of term endings for the other possible cognates:
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I mean spelling conventions. It's better to use *ui, not *uy as it's confusing to whether it transcribes *ui or *uj. Reconstructing *-ui is straightforward; Shiro Hattori and Thomas pellard also reconstruct *ui, but Vovin is only one to reconstruct *uy, and *uj by authors like Alexander Francis Ratte are probably inspired by this. Chuterix (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Re: ui or uy in general, thank you for explaining, I am now happy with ui.
Specifically to the etymon for Japanese箸(hashi), however, is there any evidence in Japanese or Ryukyuan for pasui? I am concerned that we might be basing too much on a poorly attested Ainu term (so far, I've only found evidence for Ainu pasuy in Ishikari materials), when the timing of the borrowing is unclear, and we are not certain of the possibility of either aberrant Japanese dialectal variations in the source Japanese term, or of phonetic shifts in Ainu at or after borrowing.
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I added etym 3 for the -か usage to this page (as in 在り処(arika)), and derived terms to etyms 2 and 3. Currently, however, I'm concerned about the related terms section for etym 1, which seems cluttered and confusing. Even if we suppose words like 住処(sumika) are related to 所(tokoro) via the medial -kV- element, I'm not sure if the current list is the best way to show that information. Should we instead separate usages into categories based on relation in some way, such as "via ところ/どころ", "related via intial と/ど", "related via medial こ"?
Also a more general question regarding entries. Should the compounds section under the kanji header contain only compounds written solely in kanji, without any okurigana? Horse Battery (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wow, that "Related terms" section is a mess. These all appear to be derived terms, anyway...
For those relateds based on tokoro, those should go on the lemma page for that reading, which is located at 所.
For those relateds based on ka, those should go in Etym 3, which is (currently, anyway) the lemma entry for the ka reading of this sense.
For those relateds based on do, those should go in 所#Japanese:_to, the lemma entry for the to reading of this sense.
About the "Compounds" section, years ago, that was just a flat list of (sometimes) every word that included this spelling, based on the idea that this was most relevant for single-kanji entries that have "kanji compounds" derived from this (I think regardless of okurigana). Over time, we expanded our entries, and it made more sense to move specific items from the generalized "Compounds" list to the "Derived terms" lists in the specific etym sections for the relevant kanji readings. We generally leave terms in the "Compounds" list for those compounds that don't correlate to any reading for which we have an etym.
Latest comment: 9 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I noticed you reverted my edits without any explanation here and here. That is per se a reason to revert your revert, but you left a message to contact you on your talk page, so here I am.
Anyway, I'm not sure why you reverted, but "America" to refer to the United States is informal synecdoche, so it should not be used in official definitions, especially when the definition already has a link to the proper, official term right next to it. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
You mention, "America" to refer to the United States is informal synecdoche. I agree. The Japanese terms are similarly used in informal synecdoche. Thus, the glosses as "America" are correct.
FWIW, I found your removal of "America" from these glosses to be puzzling, and I even wondered if this was a subtle attempt at minor vandalism (not intended as insult, simply an explanation of what I saw). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Japanese term might be used as such, but its definition as translated into English would be "the United States", not "America". Doing so otherwise would imply that terms used in Japanese are used in the same way as they are in English, which is not correct. Moreover, the tone of Wiktionary itself is that of a formal one, so it is inappropriate even in this sense.
It is not vandalism at all; if anything, the current state would be something that resembles a vandalized page that I was attempting to fix. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
If Word A in Language X is used to express something where we would say fuck in English, then translating Word A solely as sexual intercourse is inaccurate.
If you're saying it's used in the same sense as it is in English (i.e., it's even translating the contexts in which it would be used), then it needs to have the appropriate label indicating as much (e.g., "informal", "proscribed", etc.). Getsnoopy (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
アメリカ(Amerika) in Japanese is certainly not proscribed, and it's not particularly informal either. メリケン(Meriken) is obsolete, and is already marked as such in the entry. Although, now that I think about it, that should probably be changed to "archaic", per Wiktionary:Obsolete_and_archaic_terms, as modern readers will understand the term, even if they don't use it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just added etymology to this term based on what I saw here, but I'm not sure what version of the 日本国語大辞典 this site uses, or how to reference it properly, hence the rfv. Horse Battery (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Greetings, Eiríkr. Do you know how to add ancient readings to {{ja-pos}}, {{ja-noun}}, etc.? The |hhira= parameter works for historical readings, but I'm unaware of an equivalent for ancient readings. Fish bowl objects to the conflation, which I can sympathise with, but ignores requests to work toward a solution, choosing to edit-war instead (see Special:History/江 and Special:History/裔). Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 0DF (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@0DF (This is a minor sidepoint, but the correct parameter you should be using is actually hist=, since it's replacing hhira and hkata because there's no reason to have distinct parameters for each.) Theknightwho (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
As you note here, hhira (or the hist that @Theknightwho mentions) is specifically for historical kana spellings, as provided in many monolingual Japanese dictionaries. While I understand your frustration in your recent interaction with @Fish bowl, I agree with Fish bowl's reversion.
Currently, the only place in our Japanese entry infrastructure that is specifically for ancient readings is in {{ja-readings}}, where any third-level kana strings are interpreted as "ancient". Over on the 江#Japanese entry, we see that in the {{ja-readings}} line:
|kun=え-<え-<𛀁-
Another place where ancient readings could be mentioned is in the ===Etymology=== section, where phonological development is sometimes explained.
If you feel that ancient readings should be included somewhere else, or have other suggestions or concerns about Japanese entry structure, it would probably be best to strike up a more widely-visible thread at WT:BEER. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Would you mind taking a look at the Japanese translation here? I have already corrected the Chinese translation — 血栓 is thrombus, not blood clot, which is 血凝塊. I imagine it might be the same in Japanese. Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
My understanding is that "blood clot" is a generic term, while "thrombus" is "a blood clot formed in situ within the vascular system of the body and impeding blood flow" (OECD). ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As 招縄, you added that the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten cites Nippo Jisho (the quotation is only in the full second edition, but not the concise edition), but you could not find it in the original. Chances are it exists in the translated version (https://archive.org/details/hoyakunippojisho58doit).
@Bendono: When you add a translated Nippo Jisho entry that has a cross mark (†), in it, I recommend to add that to it. Otherwise, someone who is not familiar with Japanese linguistics could possibly be confused (as Google Books has one facsimile copy of the original, but Internet Archive has both another facsimile copy and a translated to Japanese copy). For note in the original Japanese:
語頭に†印をつけたものは,新たに訳者の立てた仮見出し語であり,次のような場合に属する.
i. 原本の見出し語以外のところに現われた日本語で、 見出し語としては立てられていないもの。
ii. 原本の見出し語のローマ字綴りが異例であったり, 誤ったりしているものは、 検索に便するために正しい形を仮見出し語に立てる。
iii. オ段の長音節を,開音は~iǒ, 合音は~eô と綴るという通則に従わないものは,通則による形を仮見出し語に立てる。
A mark † preceding a headword is a tentative addition by the translator, and belongs to the following cases:
i. The word appears in places other than the actual entry itself. It does not appear as an individual entry in the original.
ii. To facilitate searching, if there is a headword whose romaji spelling is strange or misspelled in the entry, then a corrected version will be made available.
iii. A word with a long o (ō) that violates an orthographic rule where ~iǒ is used for au while ~eô for eu is made as a new entry.
Use is not deemed aggressive, so much as 1) casual, 2) primarily masculine, and 3) young. Hence the "informal" label, and the usage note stating "Generally only used by young males.".
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have been doing some editing for Japanese lately, and the possibility of using {{ja-see}} for romaji entries occurred to me. I tried to find discussions on it, and the most relevant one I could find was one opened by you here. It does not appear there was consensus on it, but I am wondering if there was further discussion elsewhere and/or if the possibility could be raised again... İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 20:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Heya, thanks for the interest. As a simple usability / accessibility improvement, I still think this would be a good idea: not duplicating data on romaji entries, but simply providing a view from the romaji entries to the relevant main entries.
Given the larger size of some Latin-alphabet pages, we must bear in mind that certain Japanese romaji entries might encounter Lua memory issues — pages like [[o]] with 104 languages, or [[a]] with 171 — so an approach similar to {{ja-see}}, which relies on Lua to extract the information from other entries, probably won't work on all romaji headwords. But I still think it's worth implementing (even as I lack the skills myself to do so).
About the past thread, I don't think there was any real opposition, once we had clarified specifically what we were all talking about. I also don't recall any further discussion after that thread.
Latest comment: 4 months ago90 comments7 people in discussion
Hello, I was curious about the claim that the Shincho Koki had the following quote on Yasuke:
A black man was taken on as a vassal by Nobunaga-sama and received a stipend. His name was decided to be Yasuke. He was also given a short sword and a house. He was sometimes made to carry Nobunaga-sama's tools.
I decided to look through my copy of the Lord Nobunaga Chronicles (the J.S.A Elisonas and J.P. Lamers English translated version), and found this quote, or any similar, to be missing. There is no mention of Yasuke's actual name, that any other mentions of Yasuke are actually from his retainers, and made clear that it isn't the same Yasuke, from before 1581. I have to ask, since I don't have the original Japanese text on me right now, if this quote or something similar is even in the book? The only mention of a black man was the first one, quote:
On the 23rd of the Second Month, a blackamoor came from the Kirishitan Country. He appeared to be twenty-six or twenty-seven years old. Black over his whole body, just like an ox, this man looked robust and had a good demeanor. What is more, his formidable strength surpassed that of ten men. The Bateren brought him along by way of paying respects to Nobunaga. Indeed, it was owing to Nobunaga's power and his glory that yet unheard-of treasures from the Three Countries and curiosities of this kind came to be seen here time and again, a blessing indeed.
Is this not an odd omission? There is absolutely no mention of a black man after this. So I want to ask you if you could do me a favor and see if this quote is indeed actually in the Lord Nobunaga Chronicles. Thank you. Hexenakte (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The only times that Yasuke is even mentioned by name is through Danny Chaplin and Thomas Lockley. Lockley we already know, but I am also reading that Danny Chaplin is no better than Stephen Turnbull as he puts a lot of pop history in his books, but I can't say for sure since I haven't read Chaplin yet. Chaplin also seems to flip flop on calling him a page and a samurai, which is probably where this idea came from?
I'm serious though, where did the quote of Yasuke come from where he is named, given a stipend, a short sword and a private residence, while also carrying Nobunaga's tools? It is not anywhere within the English version. Was this a misattributed claim? I see ParallelPain claimed it was the "Maeda version of Shincho Koki", so if that includes the missing quote, what version is the English version on? Which one is more correct? I am very concerned with how this hasn't been called into question. Hexenakte (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not to berate your talk page but I think the missing quote is attributed to "Shincho-ki" or commonly known as "Nobunaga-ki" by Oze Hoan, which is considered to be a historical fiction romanticizer.[9][10][11]
Moreover, it is described that the lines "さや巻之のし付" from the Shincho-ki do not refer to a short ceremonial katana.[12]
Essentially because of this we should be questioning the validity of Shincho-ki and not refer it as Shincho Koki, considering they are two different works, which the Wikipedia article clearly misattributes. Not only that but it is potentially a fabrication as well. We should be sticking by the Shincho Koki as the reliable primary source and not derivative works such as Shincho-ki. Do you agree with this? I am honestly surprised this has not been brought up, and even been positioned as a part of Shincho Koki when it is not.
Edit: This is also mentioned in the preface of the English translated version, specifically addressing Oze Hoan's complete fabrication of events and that it is unanimously denied by historians today, seen down below:
"This reason is the existence of a close contemporary, materially overlapping, but substantially different account of Nobunaga's career that bears the title Shinchōki. That other book is from the pen of the physician Oze Hoan (1564-1640), a Confucianist who cast his design of Nobunaga in the mould of a Confucian exemplar. Hoan based himself on Gyūichi's work. Hoan's prefatory statement acknowledges that fact and expresses his desire to improve on his predecessor. Indeed, his book is full of embellishments. Because it subordinates historical fact to interpretation, falsifies events and documents, and is essentially a work of fiction, scholars today unanimously regard his Shinchōki to be of far less value than Gyūichi's Shinchō-Kō ki. In the Tokugawa period, however, Hoan's was the widely read work. Printed on that novel apparatus, the movable type press, it was first published no later than June 1612. In other words, Gyūichi must have experienced the dubious pleasure of seeing himself plagiarized in his lifetime. Whereas Hoan's Shinchōki was reprinted repeatedly during the Tokugawa period, Gyūichi's chronicle, available only in manuscript form until the Meiji era, did not reach as large a readership."
Quite possibly a smoking gun, would like to hear your thoughts.
Heya @Hexenakte, sorry to be incommunicado, have been away for a couple days. No time at the moment to dive in at any depth, just wanted to reply quickly to let you know I've gotten your messages and will reply more fully when I'm able to — maybe tonight, more likely tomorrow. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for giving a heads up. I just wanted to post these here to review with you before presenting them in the Yasuke talk page, so I'll hold off anything until then. Hexenakte (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough, I did catch the noshi-tsuke part, but not the sayamaki, it sounded like Nobunaga gave him an empty saya, but I guess it really was a wakizashi. Regardless though, this quote was not found in the Shincho Koki as I mentioned earlier, so when you get the time I will await your response. Hexenakte (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I haven't had time to work through all of that and be certain of my understanding; I think he's saying that he has based his text of some 16 volumes on a manuscript kept (in secret? 秘蔵) by w:ja:町田久成. This copy is mentioned in the list at w:ja:信長公記#写本, and this is also the version made available via Wikisource at wikisource:ja:信長公記. The JA WP article clearly distinguishes between the Ōta version and the more embellished Oze version, FWIW, so I am inclined to think that the 町田 text is the Ōta version (with perhaps some minor deviations due to copyist errors, as opposed to the broad reworking that Oze did).
Please have a look at page 189, and see what you think of editor 近藤's description. At any rate, this printed version first came out in Meiji 34 / 1901, if the colophon on page 413 is anything to go by: https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1920322/1/413
PS: In the ndl.go.jp reader, you can click the 全文検索 tab on the right to search this text (as opposed to the main search bar on top, that searches the entire library). HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't able to make out much of the text at the moment but just a quick question, since you said it is a collection of historical texts, is both Oze's and Gyuichi's work included in this text? And I checked Kondo's description as you said, from what I could make out, it sounds like according to him, Oze was trying to discredit Gyuichi (小瀬甫庵が調饀して刻せしもの世に備はる甫庵が太閣記に和泉守ハ見聞に偏執するの八なりと苦し史の, roughly getting the idea that Oze thought Gyuichi was biased about his observations (which sounds on point with him considering the J.P. Lamers version states that Oze called Gyuichi an idiot)), although I may be wrong, my Japanese is still pretty green, would like to hear if you got anything from that or to add. That being said, I could not find the missing quote through a quick search (used "弥助" for the term), so this may just be the Gyuichi version as you said, but as I already said I haven't really gotten into the text beyond page 189. Thanks for taking the time to figure this out though. Hexenakte (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also another thing to add, I have seen the claim that the quote from Luis Frois Annual Report where it says "Some people in the town thought he would make him tono (lord)" from another Japanese speaker, that this quote never existed and was likely mistranslated.[13] I am not claiming this but I just want to bring it to your attention since I found it interesting, and according to ParallelPain this is where the quote came from https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/127.[14] I'm just currently looking through this now. Hexenakte (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
From what I am getting, it sounds like the people are just calling him "Tono" and not that Nobunaga said he was gonna make him one. Would like to hear your thoughts, check the link and tell me what you think, it starts at the very end of 127 and beginning of 128. Hexenakte (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
In your quote, I'm seeing a slightly different rendering — perhaps just misrecognized characters? I dug up a different scan of another printing of the same work, slightly clearer, with your quoted text starting from the bottom left of this page: https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1918977/1/131. Here's the text, differences from yours above bolded by me (done not at all as criticism, but instead simply to zero in on the intended meaning of the text):
Some of the typos / scannos in your version were quite humorous, like
屁鑑(hikan, literally, “fart” + “mirror”) instead of 庇護(higo, “[as a noun] protection under someone else, such as a parent or patron; [as a verb] to protect in such a manner”), or 恐らせる(osoraseru, “to make someone fearful”, causative form of verb osoru "to be afraid") instead of 巡らせる(meguraseru, “to show someone around, to take someone around the different parts of a place”, causative form of verb meguru "to go around [to the different parts of a place]").
As a rough-and-ready translation, here's my take:
Nobunaga himself saw this and was surprised, the first black man [he'd seen] in his life, and he could not easily believe that [he] wasn't painted with India ink, and he looked at him frequently; since he understood some Japanese, [Nobunaga] spoke with him without losing interest, and he was strong and had some technique / could do some tricks, so Nobunaga was greatly pleased by this and took him under his protection, and assigned a person to show him around. There are even some people saying they thought that [Nobunaga] might make him a tono ("lord").
The term 藝(gei, “technique; performance; trick”) is a bit vague, as there are various kinds of gei, such as 武芸(bugei, “military / martial techniques”) as well as the kinds of tricks you'd teach your dog to do. I suspect that, whatever this was, it was something flashy that would go over well with a crowd, perhaps like juggling or tumbling.
Separately, I am not savvy on double-entendre and slang of the Sengoku period, but I do note that tono was also a word used by women to address their husbands since at least the 1200s, leading to some interesting alternative interpretations. 😄
Sticking just to the literal "lord" meaning, this seems to be less a specific rank or marker of any hereditary status, and more something like "a man with a manor / estate of his own". That's certainly on the road to becoming something more. That said, Frois's comment here is simply relating the gossip he heard at the time, nothing that Nobunaga himself personally stated to Frois.
My bad, I was using OCR scans to get it on ASCII script and some of them I had to manually detect some of the ones that were missed by hand (which sometimes they were really blurry I couldn't even tell what it was suppose to be) so thats why there are typos, but I guess it was really bad. That being said, it just didn't sound like a literal title and that it originated from the common people and not Nobunaga, so thank you for double checking for me. Hexenakte (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Hexenakte — Cheers! Ya, I figured it was probably OCR, since the errors were exactly the kinds that OCR makes, and your earlier summary above suggests that you'd read the saner version in the source text. 😄 But ya, this mention of tono seems to be 1) not a specific title, and 2) gossip from around town. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig22:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe the quote about Yasuke going to be made a lord originated from Francois Solier's History of the Japanese Church published in 1627. Not from the annual report. 49.149.172.22316:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not to sound like I'm rushing you; but I'd like to know if you are still working on this, were you able to figure it out? Thanks. Hexenakte (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Per X0n's comment:
"Just wanted to provide you an update. The Japanese Wikipedia article for Yasuke I noticed has:
The source which they list for the information Re: the Shinchō Kōki is listed as "織田信長という歴史 『信長記』の彼方へ』、勉誠出版、2009年、311-312頁."
Which is a book by Hiraku Kaneko, so I had the book wrong in my initial comment."
As stated, the name is established as "Shincho Ki" (信長記) and even reflected in the title, and it seems that it also reflects its place in the Maeda records as seen elsewhere. However it's claimed that it's an "original manuscript" by Ota Gyuichi, so we would have to look at the contents of Kaneko's book, which seems to be the only place claiming it. But one thing is for sure that the quote does not belong from the "Shincho Koki".
Thanks for the additional comment; when you wrote the one previous ("Not to sound like I'm rushing you..."), I confess I'd lost track enough to not be sure exactly what you were asking about.
In ParallelPain's post here (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1css0ye/comment/l4cyr51/?context=3), he gives a snippet at the beginning that is not in the Shinchō Kōki version that he links to later in his post (https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1920322/1/70) — at any rate, the quoted Japanese is not found when searching that text. ParallelPain gives the Japanese, and an English translation by Lockley. I take issue with Lockley's translation, and the recurring English label of "weapon bearer" possibly based on Japanese phrasing we see in the JA WP article (道具持ち), but that notably isn't in the source text.
This black man called Yasuke was given a stipend, a private residence, etc., and was given a short sword with a decorative sheath. He is sometimes seen in the role of weapon bearer.
I've posted earlier (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYasuke&diff=1224194632&oldid=1224192539) that Lockley's translation is flawed, and I stand by that: the Japanese does not say that Yasuke was 道具持ち / "weapon bearer" as any kind of title, and instead says that he 依時御道具なともたさせられ候 / "was sometimes allowed to / made to carry [Nobunaga's] dōgu [however we want to translate that] and other things". That phrase — 道具なともたさせられ / "was made to carry dōgu and other things" — reads to me less like Yasuke was given a formal position, and more like Yasuke was a generic gofer, where Nobunaga would say "hey kid, go carry my whatever" in the moment.
I did find mention online that the Maeda manuscript is also called the 安土日記 / Azuchi Nikki, which is indeed listed on the JA WP page for the Shinchō Kōki, at w:ja:信長公記#信長公記#諸本と刊本. While the name 前田 / Maeda doesn't appear anywhere on that page, nor are there any links for the Azuchi Nikki entry there, there is a JA WP page for the w:ja:尊経閣文庫 / Sonkeikaku Bunko, the library that has the manuscript — and if this other page is correct, that library belongs to the Maeda family. So this Azuchi Nikki is very likely the one that ParallelPain mentions and (presumably for that first excerpt) quotes from.
The description of the Azuchi Nikki in the listing at w:ja:信長公記#信長公記#諸本と刊本 says:
This is an incomplete work [bits are missing] of only 11-12 volumes, but it calls Nobunaga 上様 (ue-sama [literally "honorable superior", like "lord" in imperial, shogun, or other nobility contexts]), and it includes episodes that don't exist in later printed editions, among other things, and this is viewed as being the original version of the Shinchō Kōki.
That description is sourced to page 4 of the 2018 Japanese book 『信長公記 ―戦国覇者の一級史料』 ("Shinchō Kōki — Primary Historical Sources on the Supreme Ruler of the Sengoku Period"), written by 和田裕弘 / Yasuhiro Wada, published by w:ja:中央公論新社 (Chūō Kōron Shinsha, literally "Central Public-Opinion New-Company"), ISBN 9784121025036. Google Books has it here (https://www.google.com/books/edition/%E4%BF%A1%E9%95%B7%E5%85%AC%E8%A8%98/pQ3MugEACAAJ?hl=en), but without any preview, so we cannot easily confirm the quote from page 4. That said, this seems to be roughly corroborated by other things I'm finding online, such as this page that talks about the Azuchi Nikki (https://www1.asitaka.com/nikki/index.htm). However, that page also describes this as a record of Nobunaga's doings during the span of 天正６年１月１日～天正７年８月６日, or Jan 1, 1578 through Aug 6, 1579 — too early for any mention of Yasuke... ??? That also seems far too short for the description in Kondō's comments below, of a work of some 16 volumes.
In case it's what you're looking for, and since this seems like the most probable thing you're asking about, here's a transcription and translation of editor Kondō's final comments on page 189.
Ōta Izumi-no-kami Sukefusa, also known as Gyūichi, was a person from the Kasugai district of Bishū [w:Owari Province], and he reportedly became the chronicler for the Oda household, so this record [the Shinchō Kōki] should be a recording of events witnessed at that time. What became widely known is a version of this text that Oze Hoan embellished and published. Hoan presumed in the w:ja:太閤記 (w:Taikōki) that Izumi-no-kami was a person who would stubbornly stick to what he saw and heard, whereas keeping to what he [Ōta] saw and heard for historical facts should rather include fewer failures / mistakes than running along into baseless embellishments. The source material is a book of some 16 volumes kept privately [秘蔵? literally "secretly stored"] by Hisanari Machida, and in terms of the script and paper quality both, this is an old manuscript passed down from the w:ja:寛永 [w:Kan'ei era, 1624–1644]. [I] have roughly written some six lines and 7-8 characters, and now printed [this work] in block script [i.e. print, not handwriting] as an abridged edition [縮本: literally "compressed / shrunken book"? - obscure word, not included in dictionaries]. Because the original flavor is easily lost, I have endeavored to learn from the layout of the script of the original text. I trust that readers will keep this in mind.
Meiji 14 [1881], May 3 Written by Editor Hokisan Kageo
Thanks for the reply Eirikr! I only posted the additional comment since I was unsure if you had forgotten or were still working on it, and I apologize if I was not very clear on what I was asking. The quote about Yasuke being given a stipend, residence, wakizashi, and a role to carry tools, from my understanding, is from Oze Hoan's Shincho-ki (we'll just call it Nobunaga-ki to avoid confusion), and not from the Shincho-Koki by Ota Gyuichi, and I wanted to confirm with you if this was indeed the case, since from when I looked online, it claimed that the Maeda records archives had access to a Shincho-ki (Nobunaga-ki) and not Shincho-Koki. Likewise, Kaneko, the professor who peer reviewed Lockley's work, also references the Shincho-ki (Nobunaga-ki) when referring to that specific quote,[15] (couldn't find it anywhere else) and X0n's comment seems to corroborate that. I guess really the one place where this quote is claimed to come from Ota Gyuichi is from Kaneko's book that was listed by X0n, since I could find no mention elsewhere about it.
.
Basically, I don't think Ota Gyuichi wrote that quote about Yasuke, it is omitted from the academic translation of the Shincho-ki, and you seem to also say that it is also omitted in the original transcript. And the Azuchi Nikki version wouldn't exactly make sense to reference if it doesn't cover the period where Yasuke was actually there, so maybe it is attributed to someone else? The only way to know for sure is to either check Oze Hoan's Nobunaga-ki and see if that quote is in there, check the Azuchi Nikki and see if that is talking about someone else (unlikely), and/or check Kaneko's book which is where the claim supposedly comes from. In any case if that is true, it shouldn't be included in the article, or if anything it shouldn't be attributed to the Shincho-Koki, because that's a misattribution, but preferably removed since Oze Hoan is a known writer of historical fiction and unreliable by the academic historian community as stated in the J.P. Lamers introduction page, so it might be a complete fabrication by him. If you need any extra questions don't hesitate to ask, I apologize for my unclear explanation before, but thanks for the help you've been providing.
.
If you're too busy to make an answer right away or that it might take some time, no worries, just give me a heads up, thanks! Hexenakte (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Hexenakte — One problem with the Azuchi Nikki is that there is also an Azuchi Ki (same titling confusion as we have with Shinchō Kōki and Shinchō Ki). Another problem is that there seem to be multiple different documents / sets of documents called the Azuchi Nikki, as that one website describes "an incomplete work of only 11-12 volumes"; meanwhile, Kondō's colophon describes his source as 16-some volumes. Quite what this Azuchi Nikki is, and getting access to that (or those) text(s), would help immensely. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you could ask ParallelPain where he got it from? He is definitely wrong that it is the "Shinchokoki", so I don't know why he called it that. I could only find mention of a Shincho-ki from the Maeda archives, atleast specifically attributing to Yasuke, a quick search on Twitter (I know not a good way to find information but to put into perspective) of "yasuke maeda" shows that the terms Shincho-ki and Kaneko Hiraku appear alot. And I found a french text on Japanese history that allegedly cites the "Maeda text" and some mentions of Yasuke, but I can't speak french so, not much help I can bring.[16] I couldn't really find much beyond that, but it shows that a lot of things point towards Kaneko Hiraku and Shincho-ki, so those would be the best place to start since a lot of the claims originate from that, so it would be great to find a way to read Kaneko's book that mentions it. Hexenakte (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey Eirikr, so I looked and found Hoan's Shincho-ki complete collection of 15 volumes, however it's said to be written in Chinese.[17] There are other versions in Japanese but I am unsure if it is the full collection, according to ja:甫庵信長記, it covers volume 1 and 2, but I am assuming it's just the way the text was arranged differently from the Shincho-koki, and I am assuming that it is also the published version. I found 3 search keyterms for Yasuke (弥助) from the first volume, but none in the second. Take a look and tell me what you think. Thanks! Hexenakte (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just time for a quick reply: the work is in Japanese, albeit in the heavily-influenced-by-Classical-Chinese format called kanbun. In the work's details towards the bottom of that page, there's a line:
古典籍区分 和漢書
Here, 和漢書 = kanbun. The longer description paragraph includes the sentence:
My bad, you are correct, for some reason it translated (漢文, Chinese classical writing) as Chinese language, which I seemed to have glossed over. The Japanese article on it shows 3 other versions though, including a summarized manuscript version, volume 1 and volume 2 which I had already mentioned above, which are written in (和文), I'm just unsure if it is the complete collection or not. Hexenakte (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, in the context of historical documents and kanbun, I've found this online guide rather helpful in interpreting the various markings:
Unfortunately, the handwritten text of the document you linked is difficult to read, and it seems the furigana and other kunten were added later by another hand, and by someone who didn't entirely follow convention (such as the レ appearing at the very start of the line, second from the last on the first page of text -- this re-ten kind of kaeriten should only come immediate after a character, not right before one).
The funny thing is I had a similar question just a week ago to a Japanese friend of mine about the markings (since I was unfamiliar with it and so was he) and that's the exact guide he listed to explain it to me. That being said, I'm pretty sure the 2 volumes I mentioned are of the same text but in (modern?) Japanese script, listed here (and it comes with a search function too).[18][19] I don't know if you saw them so I probably should've linked them here for you, that's a fault on my part. I'm just unsure if it's just a reorganization of the full collection or an incomplete one, since it only lists these two volumes, but it was edited by 黒川真道, so I'm assuming the former. But I would cross-reference them both just to be sure. Thanks for responding! Hexenakte (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the additional links, that is much easier on the eyes! 😄
While only two books, the first lists volumes 1 through 9, while the second lists volumes 10 through 15上 (first half) and 15下 (second half), so I think we've got the whole thing. I'll have a closer look later. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Hexenakte, a quick PS -- I just quickly went through book 1 (volumes 1 through 9). All three instances instances of 弥助 were in other people's names (弥助 actually wasn't that rare of a name in that time). I found zero instances of 黒坊 or 黒奴. I found 11 instances of 黒, none of which were about Yasuke (several in other people's names, a couple in compounds like 黒煙).
Hey Eirikr, any luck on finding the missing quote? FWIW if we're unable to find it, it would probably be best to ask ParallelPain since he must have access to the specific document in question. If we're unable to verify it, we should probably bring it up in the Talk:Yasuke page. It seems like no one knows where it came from, and the only possible source claiming it is from Hiraku Kaneko, who refers to it specifically as the Shincho-ki, which seems to be listed here on Google books,[20] so if we could get access to this book somehow it would be preferable. Hexenakte (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Hexenakte — Heya, sorry, your initial query got lost in the longer multi-pronged thread. I'm assuming now that you're talking about this line?
"A black man was taken on as a vassal by Nobunaga-sama and received a stipend. His name was decided to be Yasuke. He was also given a short sword and a house. He was sometimes made to carry Nobunaga-sama's tools."
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/771443/1/94 — right-hand page, 5th column at the bottom. This appears to be a given name, but of an unclear person: no surname is given, and this sentence is mostly a list of names.
I went back to page 90 looking to see if the name appeared in the previous few pages but hadn't shown up in the search hits for some reason, but I did not find it. I don't think this is our Yasuke, just from context: the only antecedent "Yasuke" appears to be the one on page 41, Shichizō Yasuke, not our guy.
Searching for 弥助, I get zero hits. Even searching specifically for the 旧字体 spelling of 彌助, I still get zero hits.
ParallelPain also mentioned and linked to Matsudaira Ietada's diary. The entry on this page for April 19 (https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/772514/1/54) mentions Yasuke, and so far this is the only primary source that I've seen that does so. Transcribed as best I can make out (handwriting isn't my strong point):
「雨降 上様？ふち？大うす進上？？くろ男？つき？身ハす？ノコトクタケハ六尺二？名ハ弥助ト云」
A few of the ？ above might be a hentaigana variant of み, if so as prefix 御. Another ？ in the source looks like レト mushed together; this appears at the end of several lines, suggesting it might be コト with the コ aggressively abbreviated, although I don't see it in the list of ligatures at w:ja:合略仮名.
PS: I am loath to contact ParallelPain directly. They were very sure of themselves and aggressively dismissive of counterarguments, and (from my perspective, anyway) misleading in some of their posts (such as stating that Yasuke was "mobilized" and "on campaign", strongly implying that he was some form of soldier when we have no primary-source texts actually saying he had any such role). This attitude is why I stopped posting on that thread — they displayed zero interest in hearing what others had to say, and seemed to be entirely absorbed in the idea of "winning" an argument, as opposed to exploring what the sources actually tell us. I'm not interested in joining any pissing match. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the speedy reply. You are correct, this is still the quote I am asking for. So it seems that this quote doesn't exist in Hoan's Shincho-ki either, and honestly the only culprit points to Kaneko, the source of the quote itself. So what Shincho-ki was he referring to? I think this question can only be answered once we get access to his book, but I still heavily doubt this quote was written by Gyuichi, if it even exists. The fact we can't find it anywhere is extremely problematic, this kind of information needs to be easily verifiable.
I get what you mean about ParallelPain, I saw the thread and it was extremely disappointing, it's just irritating how something that should be easily accessible is impossible to get to, and likely a misattribution or even fabrication altogether. It's a shame because I know of ParallelPain and I consider him to be heavily knowledgeable and credible, yet in this one thread he seemed to completely throw away everything else he has written in favor for what is seemingly an agenda on his part, which is disappointing. And I don't like to paint him that way, but that's just how I see it.
In other words, what else should we do with this? We spent about a good 2 weeks looking for the missing quote and turned up empty handed. Should we bring this up to the talk page now and try to remove it on grounds that it doesn't exist? Or that it can't be verified? I wanted to make sure to do this with you before coming out with such a claim, so tell me your thoughts on it. Thanks again. Hexenakte (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Curious about what you've seen of ParallelPain. They seem to have become emotionally invested in that thread / topic.
At any rate, the quote that ParallelPain attributes to Professor Kaneko is not found in either the Shinchō Kōki that ParallelPain themselves link to from their posts, nor in the Shinchō-ki that you linked here.
This black man called Yasuke was given a stipend, a private residence, etc., and was given a short sword with a decorative sheath. He is sometimes seen in the role of weapon bearer.
As I've posted elsewhere, I disagree with Lockley's English translation here on a few key points; setting that aside, I think you're right that we're better off trying to track down the source Japanese. Google Books finds zero hits (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E7%84%B6%E3%81%AB%E5%BD%BC%E9%BB%92%E5%9D%8A%E8%A2%AB%E6%88%90%E5%BE%A1%E6%89%B6%E6%8C%81%22&tbm=bks); meanwhile, a wider all-internet search finds lots, but nothing that immediately jumps out as trustworthy (in terms of actually showing a source, as opposed to possibly just copy-pasting from somewhere else that might be apocryphal).
I don't take ParallelPain's words at face value obviously, but I've spoken with him and asked a few questions in the past, and they were largely reasonable and supported with primary sources, if you noted the reddit links I posted in the talk page also by ParallelPain, you will see how they often conflict with his Yasuke thread, which is why I mentioned it was out of character for him, so after that I'm gonna keep a closer eye on what he says. That being said, I still double check what he says to make sure they are correct before using them for whatever purpose I needed it for, but I usually just use it to get access to sources and/or get a second perspective.
As for the problem at hand now, should we make a new section about the issue, that if we're unable to get his book (since none of the current sources have the quote mentioned at all), that it'd be appropriate to remove said quote? Of course we would ask for anyone to provide his book to verify the information if they have it, but as it stands now it's unverifiable. And I agree with your stance on Lockley, I don't think he is a trustworthy authority on anything on this matter to be quite honest. Hexenakte (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright then I'll set up a new section and mention what we have at hand, and you are welcome to jump in to add any details I may miss but I will try to be as thorough as possible. Hexenakte (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yea this wouldn't work, it's already been commonly established that Ota Gyuichi is a primary source by the academic historian community, and pretty much anyone involved. Besides I trust it enough that this quote wasn't written by Gyuichi due to the fact it's nearly impossible to get on hand and any other manuscripts including Hoan's completely omit it. Hexenakte (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ya, my impressions roughly match those other commenters: that "Yasuke" was not an uncommon name, and that "retainer" in this context simply meant "employee"; however, the presence of 七藏弥助 as a named samurai in Nobunaga's household would seem to belie / contradict the notion that "Yasuke" was only a commoner's name. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Hexenakte — Separately, one thing that has been bothering me is that some folks interpret Yasuke getting a 私宅 (literally "private residence") as meaning that Nobunaga gifted him a house outright. For all we know, this was instead Nobunaga saying "you can stay in that gardener's cottage instead of bunking in the shared servant's quarters" — private living arrangement, but likely no ownership on Yasuke's part.
Separately again, others have commented that Yasuke being granted weapons was synonymous with samurai-ness. Yet he only got a sayamaki, a kind of wakizashi. Notably, this sayamaki has no tsuba or hilt-guard (the part that sticks out and separates the hilt from the blade, protecting the user's hands from any incoming blows, and also preventing the user's hands from slipping up onto the blade), making it somewhat less useful during combat and more of a decorative / ceremonial weapon than an immediately practical weapon of war. I have seen no mention of Yasuke having any full-sized swords, outside of the actual fighting during the Honnō-ji Incident. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I completely agree with your assessment and I read it that way too, there's no way he got an entire house, if that was the case (and I'm making a grand assumption here so I may be wrong) I am pretty sure it would come with a koku estate. And judging based off of the gifts given to one of his (alleged) samurai that he pretty much hired on the spot, Tomo Shorin, he was given not one but two swords - supposedly a daisho set - a new set of clothing (a kosode), a horse with armor and gear, a stipend, a private residence with household goods alongside it, and a 100 koku estate (possibly his residence is part of the estate). This is MASSIVELY more than what Yasuke was given, which I tried to put that into perspective with those in the Talk Page but it seems to have been ignored. Hexenakte (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I'd wondered if it might be that, but my attempts at confirming came to naught, so I pursued other possibilities. The square-ness of the rendering in the Ietada Nikki also threw me off: the images I was finding at https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%80%99%E3%81%AE%E8%8D%89%E6%9B%B8&udm=2 (searching for "候の草書") were all more cursive-y, rounded and squiggly, as opposed to the angularity and straight lines of レト.
The Maeda version of the Shincho-koki is not available publicly? I'm aware that outside of the questionable Jesuit annual report, there is not a single Japanese source covering Yasuke's involvement in Honnoji.
In the duration of Yasuke's service to Nobunaga, Nobunaga did not campaign in person. Yasuke did not serve in a military capacity. In order for Yasuke to have a battle record, that means Nobunaga has to be present in battles he was known to be absent from in history.
The only record of Yasuke's involvement in the Honnoji Incident is the Jesuit account published three years after it, it claims Yasuke warned Nobutada of Akechi's betrayal whereas in the Japanese sources, it was Sadakatsu Murai. Honnoji is one of the most covered events in Japanese history, yet Yasuke is absent in the Japanese sources except in the Jesuit report.
Should Frois' account be taken seriously, that Yasuke was returned to the Jesuits, Why has he not been mentioned anywhere after that? Where are Yasuke's own accounts of events? He was under Alessandro Valignano before he served Nobunaga, he wasn't gifted to Nobunaga but that Nobunaga asked for him. Not a single of Alessandro Valignano's writings mention a black servant or retainer or a "Yasuke", despite having served him for some years before he was given to Nobunaga. Every non-Japanese material about Yasuke was written by Luis Frois. Then Francois Solier, whom was never been to Japan and has a disdain for the Japanese, is the source of the claim that Nobunaga was going to make the black servant given to him, a lord.
Thomas Lockley's book shows Yasuke was fluent in speaking and writing in Japanese. Which no firsthand accounts support. With emphasis that he was court literate. There is no evidence that Nobunaga could speak Portuguese either. Court language of the time was an old form of Chinese most Japanese wouldn't be able to master in their lifetime. That was the language of the Japanese aristocracy, which is also practiced by the courts of China and Korea, which the Japanese also use to communicate them. It functioned like Law French in the Middle Ages. 49.149.172.22316:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You ask, "The Maeda version of the Shincho-koki is not available publicly?" So far as I'm aware, no, it is only available for viewing by special appointment, on location at the w:ja:尊経閣文庫 (Sonkei-kaku Bunko), the private library of the Maeda family, former lords of w:Kaga Domain.
Agreed that Yasuke did not participate in any organized campaign. The only action he was recorded as at all involved in was the w:Honnō-ji Incident itself, and then it appears to be simply because he was part of Nobunaga's party when it was ambushed.
See also w:Talk:Yasuke#The_Tono_Notation, wherein I excerpted and provided a translation of the relevant portion of a letter written by Lourenço Mexia that appears to include mention of Yasuke — albeit, as you note, without naming him. The only accounts that name him at all appear to be Japanese, and so far, the only one I've personally seen that names him is the diary of Matsudaira Ietada, which mentions a 弥助 (Yasuke): see the entry for April 19, 1581, the left-most entry here: https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/772514/1/54. I also transcribed and translated that over at w:Talk:Yasuke#Yasuke’s_height. The book by Professor Hiraku Kaneko, discussed in various places at w:Talk:Yasuke, seems to include an excerpt of the so-far-mysterious Maeda version of the w:Shinchō Kōki, which states that Nobunaga decided to name this black man 八号弥助 (Hachigō Yasuke), "Yasuke Number 8". The "Number 8" part is a bit odd, but there was apparently also a 七藏弥助 (Nanazō? Nanakura? Yasuke) as part of Nobunaga's retinue, where the nana part of the name means "7", so this "Number 8" might have been a bit of word-play based on that.
About why Yasuke was not mentioned by any Jesuit record after Akechi's forces remanded Yasuke into their custody, my suspicion is that, if Yasuke was (to the Portuguese Jesuits) just another black slave, there really wouldn't be much reason for them to take any further account of him. He may have been just one of the menial servants to them, not noteworthy.
You also ask, "Where are Yasuke's own accounts of events?" We don't even know if he was literate. Even if he were, slaves and servants generally were not given much by way of stationery supplies outside of any specific duties they might have, so Yasuke would not have had much opportunity for autobiography.
About Yasuke's language abilities, see again w:Talk:Yasuke#The_Tono_Notation, where Mexia describes Yasuke as "sabia mediocremente a lingoa de Japão" ("he knew mediocrely the language of Japan"). This is at odds with any portrayal of Yasuke as "fluent", and has nothing to say about literacy.
You say, "Court language of the time was an old form of Chinese most Japanese wouldn't be able to master in their lifetime." This does not agree with what else I've read about language use among the elite of Japan. The written form was often heavily Chinese-influenced: see also w:Kanbun. And indeed this is the form of the written language used in at least parts of the Japanese accounts that mention Yasuke. But written kanbun did not have much to do with speaking, and kanbun texts often include diacritics and other notations to aid the reader in reconstructing grammatical Japanese from the pseudo-Classical-Chinese of the text (see also 返り点). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig16:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I really appreciate the analysis given here, some things I definitely had not caught up on before such as Frois' questionable verifiability. As far as I know, it would make for an extremely difficult case to challenge these quotes (besides the one I directly addressed) without an academic source claiming it with substantial evidence or seeing if there is lack of evidence vice versa, even though I personally do agree with the assertion. On a related note, I am wondering as a matter of advice what could be done about this manner, since the current RfC for stating Yasuke as a samurai is currently on the favorable side, despite the fact that most of those in the RfC have barely participated in the talk page and even more disregarded the conflictions given to these questionable secondary sources. Can this be challenged based off these grounds along with the fact that this issue is a lot muddier than most? It doesn't seem right to settle this from a consensus standpoint from those who barely participated in the matter.
As far as what we can do with the quotes, the directed quote that is being challenged is about the only one we could do at this very moment. Others such as Frois will need to be given a more detailed analysis and see what academic sources have to say about Frois and if those academic sources can substantially prove their claims on it. Hexenakte (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Flatly put, "consensus" = "everyone agrees", and it's clear that not everyone agrees. 😄
Moreover, as you note, several of us have pointed out serious issues with many (most?) of the sources, and these issues have not been adequately addressed by the posters in the RFC thread. Most haven't even acknowledged the issues, let alone made any comment about them; and the few comments there are, are mostly to dismiss the issues out of hand without actually making any attempt at resolving them. That, combined with the complete non-participation of most RFC commenters in any of the other threads on the page, makes that RFC thread more of a popularity vote than any honest representation of carefully considered conclusions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, since this is the case, would it be best to bring it up with mods about the current situation, since it is not very clear who is involved besides those who have made consistent contributions to the talk page? It's being assumed that because of its current status that they would add it, but I hope that isn't the case. In any case I agree with you, it's a very problematic way of solving these issues. Hexenakte (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you have any clear idea on who of the admins to involve in this, to prevent a popularity vote from dictating the article content in contravention of any sane survey of the actual sources, by all means please reach out. I myself don't know who would be appropriate, or which forum would be best. (I have spent much more time at Wiktionary, and much of the administration and arbitration apparatus of Wikipedia is outside of my ken.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It seems my fears were correct, they ended up closing the RfC and calling him a samurai on w:Yasuke. This just feels like an extremely uphill battle despite the overwhelming support against their case. Hexenakte (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's closed yet. Gitz edited the main w:Yasuke page, yes, but the RFC does not appear to be closed.
FWIW, I went and had a look at w:Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:Yasuke#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article, to see what the closure request actually said. I was concerned at the bias apparent in Loki's comment there, and felt the need to respond there, pointing out that the discussion was very much not resolved. I think this skirts the border of allowed commentary on that page, so I would not recommend that you also post there — the page header is pretty clear that discussion should not happen on that page. I felt the need to comment simply to try to fend off a premature closure (premature not in terms of 30 days, an arbitrary time span, but premature in terms of unresolved discussion). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig17:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough, I will assume you have it under control in that case. That being said, how are we to show that those still pushing these sources are not engaging faithfully with the discussion? Whenever our concerns are actually acknowledged, they are often resolved and agreed on, why are they still purporting that it is a local consensus? None of them still doing this have actually acknowledged the concerns themselves, and I think more emphasis should be put on that. It's insane to me that we still have people coming in and saying nothing of substance other than "you're wrong because this guy is reliable" and not actually providing any argument addressing our concerns, and that's massively conflating the opposition more than it actually is. Hexenakte (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Adding onto this, should we make an entire section dedicated on this very problem, the fact that all of these people are simply not addressing the concerns? Why do they keep pushing these as reliable despite these issues? Will they actually address these issues? What do we do if they continue this roundabout game? It legitimately feels like we are going in circles and overcompensating more than necessary. Hexenakte (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
"I will assume you have it under control in that case."
Heh. Not sure "under control" is quite the right turn of phrase 😄, but I've still got my oar in the water, as it were.
Frankly, I don't give two shits whether Yasuke was a samurai or not — I care about academic integrity, and honesty, and looking at what knowledgeable sources actually say. I am open to having the w:Yasuke page including the viewpoints of Lockley and López-Vera, and I've said so in the thread over there — so long as those viewpoints are presented as theirs, and not stated as objective fact. I'll keep pushing for honesty on that page, to ensure that "wikivoice" (writing as if something is an objective fact) is not used for unqualified statements about Yasuke's status.
"Why do they keep pushing these as reliable despite these issues?"
I am honestly uncertain. I've asked a couple of them point-blank what they consider to be "reliable".
Given how multiple editors are 1) ignoring the concerns with the sources, and 2) pushing for a "wikivoice" statement that Yasuke was a samurai, I suspect that certain editors are letting emotions drive their decisions: these actions are inconsistent with a dispassionate view of what the sources actually say, and how those sources say it and cite it.
"Adding onto this, should we make an entire section dedicated on this very problem, the fact that all of these people are simply not addressing the concerns?"
I do think a new section is warranted; several of the threads over there have become quite unwieldily long. I also think we should have a section that lists all of the sources brought up to date, probably a numbered list, with any commentary about the sources below the list.
Not sure "under control" is quite the right turn of phrase 😄, but I've still got my oar in the water, as it were. Frankly, I don't give two shits whether Yasuke was a samurai or not — I care about academic integrity, and honesty, and looking at what knowledgeable sources actually say. I am open to having the w:Yasuke page including the viewpoints of Lockley and López-Vera, and I've said so in the thread over there — so long as those viewpoints are presented as theirs, and not stated as objective fact. I'll keep pushing for honesty on that page, to ensure that "wikivoice" (writing as if something is an objective fact) is not used for unqualified statements about Yasuke's status.
In any case, I do appreciate your commitment to this issue just as I am. I am the same way, I have been very open to conceding to the idea as long as there was substantial evidence to support it, however there just isn't any. In fact, the many issues with the English field of Japanese history honestly is what encouraged me to start to learn Japanese, there is so much wrong information being purported there that still have not been corrected to this day. I am unsure if Stephen Turnbull's position as "the expert" will be challenged by any veracity at this rate.
Given how multiple editors are 1) ignoring the concerns with the sources, and 2) pushing for a "wikivoice" statement that Yasuke was a samurai, I suspect that certain editors are letting emotions drive their decisions: these actions are inconsistent with a dispassionate view of what the sources actually say, and how those sources say it and cite it.
It's honestly bizarre to see just how many people think credentials are what makes someone correct and not what they say, even outright suggesting we have no place in analyzing their content. Does "content affects reliability" not mean anything to these people? Even when providing an academic review, they still ignore it. I say this as someone who is very familiar with academia, my professor would be livid if I submitted this work with no in-line citations, it just would not be accepted period. That isn't to say - while I understand the importance in regards to Wikipedia policy and conformity and will continue to abide by those policies - that I personally have any faith in these institutions simply because of fabrications like this.
I do think a new section is warranted; several of the threads over there have become quite unwieldily long. I also think we should have a section that lists all of the sources brought up to date, probably a numbered list, with any commentary about the sources below the list.
Whenever I get the time, maybe in the next couple days or so, I will write out a section of everything thus far. Then if anyone wants to directly address these concerns, they must be referred to this section in order to actually settle this issue.
Thank you for all your help in this endeavor and I hope we can continue to work together well after this issue is settled, your persistence in the pursuit of truth really is encouraging to see. Hexenakte (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
[sub-thread about RFC closure moved into its own section]
Thanks for the response. Yasuke did accompany Nobunaga in the aftermath of the battle of Tenmokuzan, to inspect the newly conquered territories, that's where Ietada's account come into play. I do recall a Japanese comment mention that a few years before Yasuke served Nobunaga, the headship of the family was transferred to Nobutada, whom was the commander-in-chief- if the Kai campaign. It was Frois' later account (the earlier account compiled reports from people who ran unto him, in which mention of Yasuke-Mitsuhide was absent) that mentioned Mitsuhide Akechi's encounter with Yasuke calling Yasuke an animal (an event none of the Japanese sources corroborate), the same Frois who invented the notion of Nobunaga referring to himself as the Demon King (not corroborated in Japanese sources, the origin of a recurring pop culture trope). One of his reports state that he (Nobunaga) sent a letter to an adversary (unnamed) in which he signed as the Demon King of the 6th Heaven, a figure from Buddhism. Possibly connected to Frois who wants the Japanese to lose faith in Buddhism and get them converted to Catholicism. 49.149.172.22318:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed about Tenmokuzan, from all I've read so far, Nobunaga only arrived in person after fighting was finished.
Curious about the "Demon King" thing, I haven't encountered that before. I have seen mention in the Portuguese letters that Nobunaga was "cruel" (same word in both English and Portuguese), but that's not quite the same thing as describing him with a specific Buddhist title. I'll see what else I can find on that score.
This is Frois' earlier account on Honnoji, before the second one involving Yasuke; "As our church in Miyako is situated only a street away from the place where Nobunaga was staying, some Christians came just as I was vesting to say an early Mass, and told me to wait because there was a commotion in front of the palace and that it seemed to be something serious as fighting had broken out there. We at once began to hear musket shots and see flames. After this another report came, and we learned that it had not been a brawl but that Akechi had turned traitor and enemy of Nobunaga and had him surrounded. When Akechi's men men reached the palace gates, they at once entered as nobody was there to resist them because there had been no suspicion of their treachery. Nobunaga had just washed his hands and face and was drying himself with a towel when they found him and forthwith shot him in the side with an arrow. Pulling the arrow out, he came out carrying a naginata, a weapon with a long blade made after the fashion of a scythe. He fought for some time, but after receiving a shot in the arm he retreated into his chamber and shut the doors. Some say that he cut his belly, while others believe that he set fire to the palace and perished in the flames. What we do know, however, is that of this man, who made everyone tremble not only at the sound of his voice but even at the mention of his name, there did not remain even a small hair which was not reduced to dust and ashes."
Yasuke's presence in Honnoji is not all mentioned in the Shincho Koki and the Akechi Gunki. The Chinese wikipedia page for Yasuke cited a book called Akechi Mitsuhideo no Shotai, published in 2017, stating "In addition, some people believe that there were no records of black people near the Nijo Shin Imperial Palace on the day of the Honnoji Incident, and Yasuke's confession may lack credibility." 49.149.172.22303:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wow, this is indeed strange. I would say just to be safe, if there are other academic sources claiming this (and also checking this source's citations), maybe it can be presented in the Yasuke talk page. Thank you for providing this information. Hexenakte (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. I saw a mention in the talk page about Yasuke being regarded as a demi-god. That originates from Thomas Lockley, both from his book, African Samurai, and from a book he authored, aimed for foreigners, introducing them to Japanese culture (both sources being cited in several websites, parroting his info). His book (the one aimed for tourists) states that Yasuke was the strongest warrior in the Sengoku period, and that (in both books) cited that Nobunaga feared and revered him as the incarnation of Daikokuten and threw a feast for him. It is also the handiwork of Thomas Lockley's book(s) that Yasuke fought in numerous battles (without citing sources of course). Lockley also invented a fictitious entity in his book called Kurobo, whom he mentions, resembles Yasuke, was part of Kiyomasa Kato's inner-circle and partook in the invasion of Korea. These are just some of the many made up things by Lockley. He even uses Edo period literature in regards to Nobunaga and Ranmaru as historical fact and claims that Ranmaru's odachi is in display in the Honnoji museum (Ranmaru never wielded one in history and I could not find a source anywhere supporting that). In Lockley's book, Yasuke is written to be gay, though he admits that he has no evidence to back the dynamics of Nobunaga's and Yasuke's relationship, he used another guy's 'headcanon' to invent the whole thing. And according to the book as well, the Africans and the non-Jesuit Europeans saw Japan as some kind of same-sex wonderland (made up BS) 49.149.172.22315:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
"The first was when some ninja attacked him, [...]" — what? As recorded by whom, in what document?
"[...] the second was when Nobunaga conquered the lands around Mount Fuji [...]" — this must be in reference to the w:Battle of Tenmokuzan, when the Takeda clan finally fell. Which battle Oda Nobunaga did not participate in himself, rather it was his son w:Oda Nobutada who was in charge. Nobunaga, with Yasuke in tow, were in the area later in April (as recorded in Ietada's diary), about a month after hostilities had ceased.
"[...] and the final one was the Honnō-ji Incident." Okay, one out of three.
I was aware of the (many) baseless claims that Lockley was making, such as the Ranmaru/Nobunaga shudo myth and somehow throwing Yasuke into it, but being in Kato Kiyomasa's inner circle, much less his army, in the Korean invasions? Even forgetting everything else he has claimed, this is embarrassing at best and at worst bordering on malicious. As the saying goes, a broken clock is correct twice a day, however that doesn't change the fact it's a broken clock.
And I will be honest, at this point, any mention of Yasuke by name is starting to be questionable for me, if the analysis on Frois is true. Just how many of these primary sources were not thoroughly vetted? The entire thing is starting to seem lackluster and reeking of terribly poor research, even among what I previously thought was verifiable. Hexenakte (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
https://imgur.com/paXaWoj <-- Content from Lockley's book. Basically, in the Edo period, lots of historical 'fan-fiction' was made. Content that became recurring elements in pop culture. In the same vein the Romance of the Three Kingdoms did for the Three Kingdoms period, given that Chinese literature (especially Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Water Margin) was popular in Japan. One Edo period tale I remember was that Takenaka Hanbei was visited by Hideyoshi three times to recruit him, an equivalent to Lui Bei's three visits to recruit Zhuge Liang/Kongming. I wonder why is it alright to distinguish the fictional elements from the historical in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms or Edo period stories surrounding the Sengoku era's key figures. But everything about Yasuke is law.
One thing I'd like to note about how pop history can influence things. For example, Maeda Toshimasu (or more popularly, Maeda Keiji) isn't a very big name in the Sengoku period. You may notice that many of his depictions in fiction consistently portay him as a kabukimono. The source of that comes from the manga, Hana no Keiji, whom most subsequent depictions of Keiji are modeled after. Basically, the bible of fictional Maeda Keiji. His horse, Matsukaze, does not exist in actual history. A folkloric creation likely to give him an equivalent to Lu Bu's Red Hare. Given that native Japanese horses were small and do not run very fast (a fact acknowledged the gag manga, Nobunaga's Shinobi) 49.149.172.22305:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Regarding this passage https://i.imgur.com/31i9TaL.png, aside from reeking of exaggeration and being inaccurate to Mexia's statement that he (Yasuke) barely knew Japanese. I find it strange considering Africans were already accompanying Jesuits in Japan since the 1540's. The earliest paintings of Africans by Japanese artists pre-dated Yasuke's arrival in Japan. I found this info in regards to Luis Frois being not an entirely reliable writer https://imgur.com/u7FwD2V49.149.172.22307:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the interests of seeing the source text in the original, I'm in the process of working through the Segunda Parte, volume 2 of the Portuguese Jesuit's letters, as linked to by ErikWar19: https://purl.pt/15229, specifically the second item, "TOMO II". I'd give a direct link, but the site appears to have gone down in the last hour or so, hopefully just for maintenance.
I think the relevant letter might be the one on page 127 of the PDF, page 61 of the tome, Carta do padre Luis Froes ſobre a morte de Nobunànga, pera o muito Reuerendo, padre Geral da Cõpanhia de IESVS, de Cochinocçú, aos cinco de Nouẽbro de 1582 ("Letter from Father Luís Fróis about the death of Nobunaga, to the very reverend Father General of the Company of JESUS, from Cochinocçú [?], on the fifth of November of 1582"). The text corresponding somewhat to your quote above is on page 135 of the PDF, page 65 of the tome, about halfway down the left-hand column, starting mid-sentence with "[...] & por eſtar eſta noſſa igreja hũ aſò rua de eſpaço diſtante do lugar de Nobunànga, logo vieraõ aqui algũs Chriſãos, & eſtandome reueſtindo pera dizer miſſa muito cedo, [...]". I'll follow up here later with more detail — I'm reading that letter through from the start. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
49 mentioned above: "This is Frois' earlier account on Honnoji, before the second one involving Yasuke; [...]"
It seems there's just the one account, not two of them, and this one account includes both Nobunaga's death, and Yasuke's fighting for Nobutada immediately afterward.
I took some time today to read more of the letter, starting on PDF page 127. The passage you posted above in English, ending with "there did not remain even a small hair which was not reduced to dust and ashes", is mostly on PDF page 135 (left-hand column), ending on page 135 (right-hand column) with "não ficou nem hũ cabelinho que não foſſe todo conuertido em pò, & em cinza."
Further down that same letter, on page 136 (right-hand column), we get a section describing what is presumably Yasuke, including the part where Akechi describes him as "bestial". This is the bit I'd transcribed and translated earlier over at w:Talk:Yasuke#Frois_letter.
Temiamos mais porque hum cafre que o padre Viſitador deixou a Nobunânga polo deſejar, depois de Nobunánga ſer morto ſe foi a caſa do principe, & ali eſteue pelehando hũ grande pedaço: hum criado de Aquechí ſe chegou a elle, & he pedio a cataná, que não tiueſſe medo elle lha entregou, & o outro foi perguntar a Aquechì, que fario do cafre, reſpondeo: eſſe cafre he beſtial, que não no matem, la o depoſitem na igreja dos padres da India, polo qual nos começamos aquietar algũa couſa, & mais quando vimos a grande miſericordia q́ o ſenhor vſou cõ eſta caſa em ſe ir poucos dias antes o cunhado de Nobunãga pera o Sacáy, porq́ ſem duuida pera o matarẽ a elle q́ tãbẽ auia de ſer dos mortos era neceſſario q́ poſeisẽ fogo a noſſa igreja que eſtaua pegada cõ ſa caſa, ou elle ſe auia de recolher a noſſa por ſer mais forte que a ſua, & aſsi milhor nos auiaõ de queimar, & deſtruir a noſſa.
Temiamos mais porque hum cafre que o padre Visitador deixou a Nobunânga pelo desejar, depois de Nobunánga ser morto se foi a casa do principe, & ali esteve pelehando hum grande pedaço: hum criado de Aquechí se chegou a elle, & he pedio a catana, que não tivesse medo elle lha entregou, & o outro foi perguntar a Aquechì, que fario do cafre, respondeo: esse cafre he bestial, que não no matem, que la o depositem na igreja dos padres da India, pelo qual nos começamos aquietar alguma cousa, & mais quando vimos a grande misericordia que o senhor usou com esta casa em se ir poucos dias antes o cunhado de Nobunãga para o Sacáy, porque para o matarem a elle que tambem avia de ser dos mortos era necessario que pusessem fogo a nossa igreja que estava pegada com sa casa, ou elle se avia de recolher a nossa por ser mais forte que a sua, & assi milhor nos aviando de queimar, & destruir a nossa.
We feared more because a kaffir that Father Visitador [ w:Alessandro Valignano ] left to Nobunânga [to do with] as he wished, after Nobunánga was killed, went to the prince's [Nobutada's] house, & there he was fighting a great deal: a servant from Akechi approached him, & he asked for the katana, not to be afraid, he gave it to him, & the other went to ask Akechi, what would he do with the kaffir, he replied: this kaffir is beastly, don't kill him, deposit him there in the church of the priests of India, through which we began to calm some things down, & more when we saw the great mercy the lord showed towards this house in having Nobunãga's brother-in-law go to Sacáy a few days before, because without doubt in order to kill him, who was to be of the dead, it was necessary for them to set fire to our church, which was attached to his house, or he was going to save ours because it was stronger than his, & thus better dispatching us by burning, & destroy ours.
So, at least in the Portuguese letters, Fróis's account on the Honnō-ji Incident seems to be just the one letter, describing both Nobunaga's death and Yasuke's later fighting in apparent defense of Nobutada. Nobunaga's death was very much a quick ambush: apparently (per Fróis, anyway) Akechi's forces burst in on him as he had just washed his hands and face and was drying himself with a towel, and they shot him with an arrow in the ribs. He came at his attackers with a naginata, and they shot him with a musket in the arm before he barricaded himself into his quarters and fire broke out.
I see, thanks, I definitely made a mistake in that since you corrected me by the fact it was from a single letter after all. It's been a few years since I've copy/pasted the account in English to a text file and must have missed the bottom. Aside from his absence in the Shincho-Koki, Yasuke's involvement is consistently absent in other works that cover Honnoji; Koreto-taijiki (惟任退治記 a record of the events leading up to Nobunaga's funeral, from the Honnoji Incident through the Battle of Yamazaki), Shirin Sokai (士林泝洄 ,Origins of Owari Retainers). One of the people who fought and died beside Nobutada is Yasaburo Shita, a servant of Nobutada's. Whom was first mentioned in the Shirin Sokai.
So the aforementioned twitter account (laymans8) who is the main JP account that is cited when delving into Lockley, has just posted a thread of Lockley himself editing the Wikipedia article on Yasuke.[21] I know this isn't to be admissible as a source of course; but it raises the questions of conflict of interest, and even a point where multiple edits, including one before the release of his Yasuke book,[22] where it positions Lockley as an authority on the subject before it was even released, and it gave the wrong release date too, stating it was in 2018 and not 2019 (as it was).
Also, the aforementioned Fujita was also mentioned, with his text being cited by Lockley, laymans8 found that no such statement was made by Fujita about the treatment of Africans being treated well in Japan during this time, instead writing:
It is impossible to know what the Japanese people of the Azuchi-Momoyama period thought of black people, other than that they were surprised and pleased to see black people. They were pleased to see them, but it is unclear whether they also felt contempt for their condition. (machine translation)
There is a lot to develop from this if this is all true, and I thought you should know. I don't particularly know what to make of it in terms of conflict of interest, I am not aware enough about WP policy about that, but I am sure this is necessary to bring up as a possible intent to influence the article and his book. Hexenakte (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Hexenakte — While the username is obscured in that screenshot on Twitter, I'd run across Lockley's Wikipedia user account before. Special:Contributions/Tottoritom does show some activity since 2016, but ultimately it's not much, and he only has one edit in 2019 after the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Lockley discussion ended with that page's deletion.
In the end, I don't see enough activity from Tottoritom to raise any particular concerns.
----
Separately, I do see in this edit of 2016-06-03 that Lockley referenced the Professor Kaneko book (currently sitting on the desk in front of me) as his source for stating that "Yasuke was given his own residence and a short, ceremonial katana by Nobunaga. Nobunaga also assigned him the duty of weapon bearer."
The big issue I see here is Lockley's use of "weapon bearer". There was a specific epithet for this title, 道具持 (dōgu-mochi), paralleling the 草履取 (zōri-tori) title for "sandal-bearer" that was applied to w:Toyotomi Hideyoshi earlier in his career, before he married into samurai status. See also the relevant entries at Kotobank: 草履取, 道具持.
However, Professor Kaneko's quote from the Sonkeikaku Bunko (w:ja:尊経閣文庫) version of the w:Shinchō Kōki (which version itself might have problematic provenance, about which Kaneko goes into in his book) does not use this term. The specific phrasing in the manuscript was:
依時御道具なともたさせられ候
toki ni yotte o-dōgu nado motasaserare sōrō
"sometimes [Yasuke] was made/allowed to carry the dōgu and other things" [where dōgu literally means "tools", and could be used to refer to a warrior's weapons]
The key differences in the source from Lockley's interpretation are:
no mention of the title 道具持 (dōgu-mochi) in the source, and instead the source uses the noun 道具(dōgu) as the object of the verb 持つ(motsu, “to have in hand, to hold, to carry”) in the causative-passive ("to be made to do") conjugation stem 持たさせられ (motasaserare)
no mention of "assigning" in the source
no acknowledgement in Lockley's text of the explicit softeners in the source: toki ni yotte ("sometimes"), nado ("etc., and other things")
Granted, this would be prohibited w:WP:OR if we were to put this in the article. I do not believe this is prohibited OR for purposes of evaluating Lockley's reliability, since this is a straightforward textual mismatch: how Lockley references and explains the source text characterizes the source text as saying X, when the text actually says Y.
FWIW, if Lockley had stated that "because the source text says that Yasuke was sometimes allowed to carry Nobunaga's weapons, I interpret that to mean that Yasuke was given the title of ‘weapons-bearer’", I would be totally fine with that — in this phrasing, Lockley would be more-accurately rendering what the source text actually says, and giving his reasoning and conclusions, thereby explicitly delineating what are his own thoughts. But what we have instead comes across as Lockley misrepresenting what the source text says.
I am keen to (eventually, not soon given my schedule) read the relevant sections of Kaneko's book, and see if he has anything to say about any of this that might be relevant to our discussions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the reply Eirikr, yes, that 2019 edit[23] is the edit that was mentioned in the post I cited. It was made on January 25th, 2019 and states the following:
The first full length book about Yasuke in English, written by Thomas Lockley and Geoffrey Girard, called "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan," will be published in May 2018.
To be clear, Lockley's book "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" was published on April 30th, 2019. I do not see how this is honest of him to do at all, and seeks to establish himself as an authority on the subject before his book was even published. This isn't to mention the fact that his multiple edits throughout the years prior implicates him in his attempt to influence the article with his book, or vice versa. I don't want to assume what goes on through his mind, but the way he went about it suggests that he didn't need to be on Wikipedia anymore once he got his book out. I don't know how to claim this from a conflict of interest standpoint in regards to WP policy, however a quick look suggests that this appears to be an WP:ACTUALCOI, considering he did edit the article to influence and establish his book as an authority on Yasuke before it was even released.
I did see that it was corrected[24] in a later edit, about 2 months later on March 4, 2019; however I do not understand why it was kept there if it was not even released, let alone peer reviewed or analyzed for verification.
---
"Granted, this would be prohibited w:WP:OR if we were to put this in the article. I do not believe this is prohibited OR for purposes of evaluating Lockley's reliability, since this is a straightforward textual mismatch: how Lockley references and explains the source text characterizes the source text as saying X, when the text actually says Y."
Here's the thing, it is not considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to provide good faith translations, point out errors/mistakes in claims in sources, or even apply it in talk pages (see WP:NOTOR and WP:NOTSYNTH). I do not understand why OR and SYNTH are being claimed when all of it is constrained to the talk page, which it is necessary to properly evaluate these sources. Yes, if it were applied to the article, OR and SYNTH would be applied, but never once did we suggest to put these sources or our evaluation in the article. I believe it is necessary to point this out that as long as it is constrained within the talk page and that we use existing sources on the matter (i.e. Kotobank), as far as both of us are concerned, it is neither OR or SYNTH.
"[...] but the way he went about it suggests that he didn't need to be on Wikipedia anymore once he got his book out."
Ah, I didn't think of it that way. Hmm. I'll have to think on this a bit. Thank you for the link to w:WP:ACTUALCOI, I haven't read that any time in the past several years, and it's worth updating my understanding of current policy.
About the mistaken date, I suspect that the "2018" was a brain-fart, since the edit itself was made in January 2019.
"Yes, if it were applied to the article, OR and SYNTH would be applied, but never once did we suggest to put these sources or our evaluation in the article.".
About the mistaken date, I suspect that the "2018" was a brain-fart, since the edit itself was made in January 2019.
I understand giving him the benefit of the doubt, but my main gripe is that, even if he had put the correct date, it was still before the book was released, and kept there even when it was corrected 2 months later, when it should've been removed, as it was not peer reviewed nor given a verification check, let alone accessible. Hexenakte (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the find, it is indeed interesting but the information needs to be verifiable. He posted a link of his source in the comment, do you mind sharing? Thanks. Hexenakte (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
HIRAYAMA Yu's assertion that "Yasuke is a samurai" was based only on the description in "Sonkeikaku(尊経閣)," and the well-known expert KANEKO Hiraku has pointed out that Sonkeikaku "may be a work of fiction." Another well-known expert, GOZA Yuichi, supports this Kaneko's assertion, saying that "We should be careful about calling Yasuke a black samurai." In other words, GOZA is critical of HIRAYAMA Yu. The only basis for claiming that Yasuke is a samurai is the Sonkeikaku document, so if it could be a work of fiction, then anyone who simply asserts that "Yasuke is a samurai" is being intellectually dishonest. There is so little material on Yasuke that no one can make a completely definitive assertion. P.S. The evidence that Yasuke was a samurai is pretty suspect, and even if he was a samurai, he could only have been of the LOWEST rank (even Hirayama Yu acknowledges this). In any case, "Assassin's Creed Shadows" is being extremely dishonest by presenting Yasuke in gorgeous armor and touting it as "historical fact." 49.149.172.22311:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
While this comment is accurate, it is somewhat misleading, he supports the assertion that if the document is real then it is likely Yasuke was a samurai as Hirayama has stated. However the original document was destroyed four generations ago (at the time) in a fire and the copy we have was thus handwritten after such happened and in theory it's possible they could have added yasuke into it (One of kaneko's theories)
Which is why it would be wary to state such as it's a possibility that can't be proven or denied.
Which, I dont think its a popular theory that the document is actually forged and intentionally inaccurate but I would he interested in seeing anything else to support such a stance. 216.138.9.18902:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Honestly, I am only more confused after trying to find his theory because no one seems to mention it anywhere and apparentlt in one of Kaneko's own books he does utilize the quote about being given a stipend, house and sayameki- so does this mean he *does* trust it? Or is the quote out of context? Does anyone have access to his books? 216.138.9.18902:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Eirikr has recently purchased Kaneko's book, to which he will give us a rundown on what Kaneko says when he gets around to it. However your insight is appreciated, and honestly it's what bothers me, that its being treated as concrete when none of it is. Hexenakte (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That in a way is a specialty of history so to speak. Much of history is either lost to time, in conflict with other reports and theories or just spread in retribution. So stating things as fact in history usually is like down to 'what we can reliably prove or derive' from the information we do have or can find. Now this is *SO* much easier when its an important figure or someone well respected of course because they tend to have a surplus of materials to pull from.
Yasuke is like (perhaps to everyone but Oda himself) that dude who just came here and outside of looking different isn't worth noting for the most part. Even within the Oda rank's we see that Oda's apparent favoritism or fascination with him wasn't held by everyone as Akechi just thought of him as an animal and someone who straight did not belong. So even if Oda considered him a samurai or planned to make him a samurai, its kind of like one dude vs potentially a ton of others and the one dude didn't get to live much longer. So he has like more records than the average dude just cause he stuck out but its at the level of like 'guy you saw once or twice and made a note of' which makes proving anything nearly impossible especially when we go and burn down and murder the force he belong to.
However there are typically stronger theories or more solid theories or at least things that most people agree on when looking over documents and with the current trend shoving him in the spot light i think it'll force historians or people to take a side on it one way or the other and we could maybe see a 'definitive' answer in that sense but yeah, its basically down to speculation and inference with these types of characters in history.
I am kind of rambling as its 2am, I'm at work tired and in pain and just kind of yapping to keep myself going though so I do apologize if you read this and are like 'what the fuck?'
Either way I am looking forward to seeing like the koneko theory explained a bit more because man, googling that and trying to find what Yuichi was talking about for half the article he posted was obnoxious. 66.226.103.7706:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lockley's book states that the artist Utagawa Sadahide praised African American women for being hard workers and that he made artworks of them. I could not any Japanese source for the quote nor any paintings of his depicting them.
The source of Kurobo, according to Lockley came from Ōtsuki Fumihiko's Daigenkai, as an epithet on Yasuke’s story about Shikano in Inaba Province. Dubious from the start as I could not find it in any Japanese source. It all leads to Lockley once more. 49.149.172.22310:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sort of related but not in the book, not exactly sure how to present this but, Lockley claimed that he had nothing to do with the Ubisoft AC game in one post, however he is seen participating in a podcast on Yasuke in relation to the game.[25]
It is really mind boggling with how non-transparent and complicit Lockley is that even with all of this in our face, there are people still defending him. There's even an investigation being brought forth the National Diet in Japan over this. Hexenakte (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
So update on Lockley, @Eirikr, he is reportedly being investigated by Nihon University and his NHK program on Yasuke has been delisted,[26] however when checking his staff page on the Nihon University website,[27] there doesn't seem to be any change from a snapshot 2 months ago,[28] so I am unsure if they just haven't done anything official yet.
It is too early to tell, however if this is true, because of his controversy on Yasuke, he is essentially being disavowed by his university as well as potential issues with the Japanese government as well, this would essentially make him unreliable under Wikipedia policy - if it hasn't already before. Just wanted to provide an update on the matter, cheers. Hexenakte (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago12 comments5 people in discussion
"The actual #弥助 has disappeared from history, but Yasuke's achievements have been revived as a symbol of anti-imperialism in the 20th century and as a giant in the media world in the 21st century."
They're making this into a completely personal and political issue. On a related note, the RfC was just closed by another editor, and he had to say this:
There is a clear consensus that Yasuke should be represented in the article as a Samurai. While there was opposition to the suggestion, the opposition mostly boils down to the argument that Thomas Lockley's book is unreliable, and that the Lopez-Vera source is similarly unreliable on the basis that the Lopez-Vera publication does not use in-text citations. There is no requirement that a verifiable source on Wikipedia needs to have or make use of in-text citations. While in-text citations are certainly helpful, the book by Lopez-Vera which declares Yasuke to be a samurai was published by a historian, with a degree in Japanese history, and was published by an academic publisher. While the opposition makes a staunch argument as to why Thomas Lockley's source is unreliable, the only argument they make in regards to the veracity of the Lopez Vera source is that there are no in-text citations.
[...]
Rather than furnishing a source that argues or purports to argue that Yasuke was not a samurai, the opposition has maintained that they do not need to prove a negative. However, by NPOV as editors of Wikipedia all an editors job to do is to represent what is written in the Reliable Sources. Since there have been no reliable sources furnished which contest the status of Yasuke as a samurai, it would be a violation of NPOV to depict it as contested [...] As Purdy, the chiefly negative criticism offered of Lockley does not contend with Lockley's assertion that Yasuke is a samurai, WP:CONTEXTFACTS notes that ["]The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article[."]
I'm at a complete loss for words. Not only do they say that in-line citations do not matter (which is an absurd assertion to make), but they say in the same resolution they cite W:WP:CONTEXTFACTS which contradicts this argument, that facts can be analyzed individually and not the entire source, and this is further supported by W:WP:SOURCEDEF that the content itself can affect a source's reliability. Am I going crazy here? This is quite literally an argument from ignorance. All we have been presented with are editors just using Lockley's and Lopez-Vera's academic credentials as a Word of God. Hexenakte (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thomas Lockley's conjecture (and "fan-fiction") is considered law by unsavory individuals who are only interested in insisting that Yasuke is a Samurai, regardless of the details. From experience these kind of people cannot be reasoned with. I haven't seen anyone rip apart the conjectures Thomas Lockley's book. This is a passage from his book; "I also found relevant material in uni-versity libraries. Here, he’s mentioned escaping death at the hands of a curious crowd who perhaps craved a piece of clothing as some form of celebrity trophy. Here, a diary entry where Yasuke was witnessed performing feats of strength and chatting convivially alongside the sons of Japan’s most powerful warlord. It was not long before
I could imagine Yasuke walking the wide boulevards of Kyoto, dressed in exotic garb from China, India and Europe, an intimi- dating spear in one hand, a gently curved Japanese sword thrust through a sash at his waist." 49.149.172.22318:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
What's bothering me most is the gaslighting by these editors saying that we're not allowed to read between the lines of what should be considered basic verification that is important to retain the verifiability of the information we put on Wikipedia. This isn't to mention the insistence that just because no academic scholar stated in an explicit manner that Yasuke was not a samurai, that somehow that equates him to being 100% a samurai. This is a question in the same realm of the W:Female_Uesugi_Kenshin_Theory, or the Mori Ranmaru shudo myth (which Lockley ironically also mentions as fact in his book). There is a huge evidence of absence here to show there is no verifiable proof of Yasuke being a samurai or even a warrior, which I even emphasized last night specifically pertaining as to what makes a negative claim provable (right under Loki's comment "It is in fact just how sourcing works...").
Another thing that is bothering me is that they think we want to explicitly state Yasuke is not a samurai, which by the way, I do agree we need secondary source evidence for that to be presented on a Wikipedia article (such as the explicit mention that Toyotomi Hideyoshi was not a samurai until he married his wife One). All we want to do is present what is verifiable about Yasuke, that he was retained an attendant of some role for Nobunaga, which as you know from the topic of this section here, we do not know if the quote that mentions his carrying of Nobunaga's tools is even real.
I believe the notion of Yasuke serving as a bodyguard for Nobunaga originated from the highly fictionalized 1968 children's book, Kurosuke, by Yoshio Kuruso, whom Lockley cited as one of the sources for his book. Scenes from this book are used as his basis for numerous of his "historical facts" that are then peppered with his conjecture. 49.149.172.22319:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@49, @Hexenakte, I was away from my desk for the day due to other responsibilities IRL.
Gitz's latest edit to the main article is flawed: all the sources he cites are tertiary or quaternary, and none appear to have been able to access any materials in Japanese (either primary or secondary; the author of the CNN piece is one Emiko Jozuka, but she is not a native speaker of Japanese, and on her own bio page, she claims better fluency in Turkish than Japanese). At any rate, given the attention currently on the article, and the recent closure of the RFC, I think we need to go through the w:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard process to get this changed.
I have no problem stating Yasuke as a samurai, so long as that is presented as the source's opinion, and not as objective fact. We simply don't have enough to go on to make any such statement as uncited, objective fact: despite the numerous editors claiming "mountains of reliable sources", upon actually digging in, those sources (Time, Smithsonian, Radio France Internationale, BBC, CNN, Britannica...) are all tertiary (or even quaternary), and they all boil down to repetitions of Lockley's contentions. The only secondary sources we have so far (that I'm aware of) are Lockley, López-Vera, and Kaneko (in Japanese).
Frankly, "consensus" as carried out in the recent RFC is a farce: very few of those voting engaged in any discussion about the issues brought up regarding the sources, even when asked directly. A few that did engage merely dismissed concerns out of hand. Most appear to be drive-by voters, basically a disengaged mob, who showed up merely to vote. In terms of editors actually commenting beyond the vote itself, we seem to have roughly even numbers of people now pushing for a "wikivoice" statement of samurai-ness, and people pushing for an article that explains that the documentation is actually limited, and that we cannot say with any certainty (as in, not in "wikivoice") whether Yasuke was or was not a samurai. 50-50 is hardly "consensus", even by Wikipedia's watered-down definition of the word.
I must call out the statement by the admin that "[i]t is also beyond the scope of this article to define what a samurai truly is," essentially producing an article where readers cannot tell what "samurai" means with regard to Yasuke. How can we state, in "wikivoice", that Yasuke was a samurai, without any statement about what we mean by "samurai"? Can we not link through to w:Samurai, for which it is within scope to define what a samurai is? And can we not then explain how Yasuke does or does not meet that definition, as described by the secondary sources? But then, how can we make any statement about Yasuke's samurai-ness, in "wikivoice" and as based on our sources, without any clarity on what the secondary source authors themselves mean by "samurai"? This devolves into nonsense.
This is a consensus born of ignorance.
I have bitten the bullet and ordered a copy of Kaneko's book. The soonest it will be delivered is in about two weeks (mid-July).
@Thibaut, I greatly appreciate your offer of access to Kaneko. However, I feel loath to lean too heavily on you. I am curious if you've been able to read through more of Kaneko's book? Does he have anything more substantive to say about Yasuke?
@Green Caffeine, I look forward to your thoughts on this state of affairs, whenever you are back from traveling and have the time and inclination.
PS: Looking more closely at Gitz's edit, such as adding "as a samurai" in the sentence, "He gave him the Japanese name Yasuke, made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai." — neither of the two sources cited for that statement make any claim that Yasuke was a samurai (1, 2). This is academic malfeasance at best, and I must admit that, by this point, this looks like a concerted effort at fabrication. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig08:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, I don't think Lockley set out to fabricate history: I think he just wanted to write an inspirational history-inspired book with Girard, whom he respected as an author and wanted to work with before Girard retired (per my recollection of a video interview with Lockley).
Lockley didn't train as a historian, and from what I can find, his degree was in language pedagogy. I suspect that the standards expected for historical academia and sourcing are not familiar to him, and it seems that the uproar about his book has surprised him (judging from his reactions in the media). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Re Looking more closely at Gitz's edit, I suggest you look even more closely, because there is a full point between "into is army" and "As a samuray" (indeed, "As" with a capital "A"). The sentence I inserted is therefore: "As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house, and a stipend", which replaces "As a retainer, he was granted a stipend, a house, and a tantō", and is supported by the cited source CNN. I'm not sure why you're discussing en.wiki editing on en.wiktionary, but I wanted to point out your mistake. Gitz6666 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The two books you referenced (David Wright and John G Russel's); they evoke the same energy as the works of Valdes y Cocom (for his outrageous coverage on Britain's Queen Charlotte) and Martin Bernal (his book, Black Athena). 49.149.172.22318:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello Eirikr,
I was going to leave you a message but I see you tried to ping me, sorry I didn't reply, for some reason I didn't receive a notification.
I just wanted to thank you and @Hexenakte for your analysis on primary sources about Yasuke, I really enjoyed reading and participating in the discussion, very instructive.
You have good arguments but as you know, Wikipedia based itself on secondary sources, even if they're wrong (or seems wrong).
I think the whole drama around Yasuke will encourage scholars to publish new research on him and then we'll know for sure if he was a samurai or not, or if it's more complicated than that. People who studied Japanese history and language at academic level might see/interpret things that we amateur Wikipedians cannot.
As for your question, unfortunately my Japanese level does not currently allow me to read a book without looking for every word in a dictionary on Wiktionary. AFAIK, everything about Yasuke are in the scans of the book I shared, the index at the end only indicate those pages. I see that you bought the book so that's good, the others chapters seem interesting, especially the first one where Kaneko defines 信長公記 and 信長記.
I see that your name and Hexenakte's are mentioned on WP:ANI, I hope you don't get blocked or topic banned, your insight is always helpful, just follow w:WP:BLUDGEONING and w:WP:NPA and you'll be fine (maybe use your Wikipedia talk page instead of Wiktionary?).
If you input something like {{ja-kanjitab|とう|きょう|yomi=kanon1}}, the module now respects the explicit 1 after the single yomi-type and only applies it to the first kanji. Same if you put 1 or 2 when there are 3 kanji, etc. Previously, it would always expand a single yomi-type to cover everything, even if you put a number there. I doubt this is needed very often, but it might occasionally make sense if someone's unsure about one of the kanji.
It now has a safety check that means jukujikun can only be specified for multi-kanji readings. This has thrown quite a few pages into CAT:E, but I've tried to make the error message really clear, and all the cases I've seen so far have been very straightforward to fix. In most cases, I can see why someone's delineated the separate parts of the jukujikun (e.g. with a contraction), but the whole point is that it's supposed to be treated as a compound reading.
@Eirikr One thing I've come across while fixing the entries with errors is that quite a few single-kanji entries mark their reading as "irregular", which strikes me as very strange. I can completely understand kanji having irregular readings in compounds, but, logically, I don't understand how a single kanji reading can be irregular, since - to me - an irregular reading is one which only exists within a certain compound, which excludes single-character entries by definition. In some cases, this has ended up propagating into derived terms. Just to give a couple of examples:
省(tsukasa, “ministry”), which is essentially obsolete as a modern reading, but is in the name of lots of Japanese ministries from the middle ages, and can be interpreted as an alternative form of 長(tsukasa). The various entries for the names of those ministries dealt with it in different ways - some marking it irregular and some as part of jukujikun - but its use is entirely regular in that specific context. I suspect this was a result of confusion over many of their names being of the format 〜部省, where 部 is the fossilised term for "ministry" from Chinese (i.e. an early form of RAS syndrome). However, you can see from Category:Japanese terms spelled with 省 read as つかさ that some don't follow that format.
刺(ira, “thorn”) etymology 3, which was (bizarrely) marked as irregular while ultimately deriving from Proto-Japonic and appearing in multiple compounds. I've seen several others in the same situation.
In both cases, as well as the others I've seen, I suspect "irregular" is being mis-used to mean "rare" or "obsolete", which doesn't seem helpful to me.
Would it make sense to prevent the use of "irregular" with single-kanji entries? If you can think of any situations where single-kanji can be truly irregular then I'm all ears, but I can't see how such readings could be anything but kun'yomi, given that that covers everything from native Japonic terms to modern borrowings. Theknightwho (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
“[...] I suspect "irregular" is being mis-used to mean "rare" or "obsolete", which doesn't seem helpful to me.”
I agree. Others don't (or at least, haven't in the past).
There was a disagreement about how to handle reading classes years ago. 😄
I maintain the view that, if a given single-kanji reading is not on'yomi, not used for names, established enough to appear in dictionaries, and based on yamato kotoba roots (i.e. is a Japonic term), that reading must perforce be kun'yomi.
Others were of the view that a given non-on'yomi reading could only be classed as kun'yomi if major kanji dictionaries included that reading under their respective kun'yomi sections.
However, we document lots of archaic and even obsolete usage, which is often not covered by kanji dictionaries -- so we wind up with a lot of these single-kanji entries, that include readings that aren't on'yomi, aren't nanori, does appear in dictionaries (albeit not kanji references), and are based on yamato kotoba roots. I've classed these as kun'yomi in my own edits (for the most part), while others have preferred to class these as "irregular".
Latest comment: 5 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Eirikr, a breather question to step away from the Yasuke situation for a bit. I was doing research on the different samurai titles for generals, specifically Taishou (大将, Archaic: Daishou), Bushou (武将), Sodaishou (総大将), Samurai Daishou (侍大将), and Ashigaru Taishou (足軽大将). Whenever I look at the differences in these terms, I often get conflicting answers from Kotobank,[29][30] Jisho,[31][32] and the JP wiki.[33][34]
The only one I can know for sure is the highest is the Sodaishou (which supposedly also includes Samurai Daishou and Ashigaru Taishou), but what about Taishou/Daishou and Bushou? I can't seem to tell the nuance between them because of these conflictions. Is Taishou and Bushou the same?
Before digging into the terms themselves, I did want to point out that Jisho.org is unlikely to be of much use for anything archaic: the focus there appears to be the modern language, so terms that have changed much over time will not be well-represented by entries there. The 日本国語大辞典 (Nihon Kokugo Dai Jiten, "Big Dictionary of the National Language of Japan") is a much more useful resource for historical stuff: they position themselves as somewhat similar to the w:OED for English, attempting to give a full accounting of the entire language over time. The edition available via Kotobank is abridged, but I've found over the years that it's still quite useful — and it's freely available, as opposed to the literally thousands of dollars you'd need to get a full set of the unabridged. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking at the terms themselves, here's what I'm seeing in the NKD entries:
Appears from 765, referring to either the "left" or "right" of the two "generals" commanding the military on behalf of the emperor.
In the 1200s, refers to a "general" commanding either the entire military, or a specific armed force.
In the mid-1300s, appears in usage as basically "big boss": someone in charge of a group, not necessarily military.
In the 1830s, apparently as an offshoot of the "big boss" sense, used in a pronominal way as a term of affection or mild mockery; also used to refer to the boss or foreman of a shop or factory.
In 1875, refers to the highest military rank, one step above 中将 (chūjō, literally "middle general", translated by some sources as "lieutenant general")
Appears from the early 1200s, referring generally (ha!) to a high-ranking military commander. Could be the general of a fighting force, or the "great general" of a body of warriors, or even just someone very skilled at martial arts.
The other terms are all variations on 大将 (taishō, daishō), apparently just adding more detail as to what kind of "great general" this is.
総大将 (sō-daishō, sō-taishō, literally "total / overall great general"):
Appears from the mid-1300s, referring to a 大将 or "great general" in command of the entire military.
侍対象 (saburai-daishō, literally "samurai great general"):
Appears from the 1200s, referring to a "great general" who is also a samurai (noble).
足軽対象 (ashigaru-daishō, literally "light infantry great general"):
Appears from the early 1500s in reference to a "great general" in command of a force of light infantry. Subordinate to a saburai-daishō.
About taishō and bushō, the term bushō is much more generic, referring not necessarily to any specific rank, but more openly to anyone of notable martial prowess. "Esteemed warrior" might be a better way of looking at this term. Meanwhile, taishō is more specifically about a military rank.
Thus, someone who served well as a taishō might therefore also be referred to as a bushō.
Thanks for the detailed response! This definitely helps a lot.
So as I understand it, Bushou is treated as a catch-all term for any military general, but Taishou is more specific, presumably - in the context of the Sengoku period - below the forementioned So-daishou/Saburai-daishou/Ashigaru-taishou? I'm also curious at the inclusion of Chuushou, and if there are more ranks that can also be considered a "Bushou" in this specific context.
From what I've found so far, bushō is the least specific term.
Of the various 将 (shō, "general") terms that were specific to rank, there were three: 大将 (taishō, "great general"), 中将 (chūjō, "middle general"), and 少将 (shōshō, "lesser general").
After that we get the 佐 (sa, literally "assistant") ranks, similarly ordered as 大佐 (taisa, "great assistant" → "colonel"), 中佐 (chūsa, "middle assistant" → "lieutenant colonel"), and 少佐 (shōsa, "lesser assistant" → "major").
Then come the 尉 (i, literally "officer") ranks: 大尉 (taii, "great officer" → "captain"), 中尉 (chūi, "middle officer" → "first lieutenant"), and 少尉 (shōi, "lesser officer" → "second lieutenant").
If I've understood correctly, the shōi is the lowest rank among the officer corps.
The rank categories themselves come out of the Chinese language and Chinese military and administrative traditions, pre-dating the generic bushō term by centuries, even just within recorded Japanese usage. The various kinds of 将 (shō, "general") are mentioned in Japanese texts as far back as the 700s. Meanwhile, although the titles of 佐 (sa, "assistant") and 尉 (i, "officer") appear in documentation about the w:Ritsuryō system (implemented by the Japanese imperial government in the 600s through to the early 700s, and remaining in force in some form or another for centuries after that), the 大・中・少 grades might not be coined until the 1870s, when the Meiji government was revamping the Japanese military.
Latest comment: 5 months ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Hey Eirikr, got something that might help out in terms of the definition of samurai, which seems to be unclear as we both know. The person who ran the Sengoku Daimyo website is Anthony J. Bryant, a M.A graduate in Japanese history studies, has written several academic books on samurai history and especially a focus on court structure, which is useful for us in particular. As noted here in his Modes of Address article, he stated this:
There may be some who question the use of court titles for those who portray samurai. It must be remembered, though, that samurai received court titles and appointments. If they did not, they would not have been able to hold office or govern provinces. While a daimyô was lord of his fief, he was also the court-appointed governor of the province, for example (even if that court approval was merely a “rubber stamp” imposed by the hegemon du jour). This is why I don’t approve of co-opting such titles as “busho” (= general) and using it for knights. This is a job description, not a title of nobility. Regardless of what office or rank one held in Japan, the font of aristocratic honor was the throne, not the camp of the shôgun. One other advantage is that the court rank system remained in effect and virtually unchanged throughout our Period, while military hegemonies came and went applying titles and offices willy-nilly as they saw fit. It is worth noting that when the shôgun held formal courts, he did so in the court robes commiserate with his court rank held from the emperor. (Emphasis mine)
If we can get our hands on his academic books that provide this in much greater detail, as well as see how he handles his sources, it could better help. Even though he is an English scholar, he appears to be much more thorough than the ones we are usually exposed to. Here's his list as noted on his Wikipedia page:
• The Samurai, (Elite), Osprey Publishing, London (1989) ISBN 0-850-45897-8 OCLC 20221896
• Early Samurai AD 200–1500, Osprey Publishing, London (1991) ISBN 1-855-32131-9 OCLC 24696248
• Samurai 1550–1600, Osprey Publishing, London (1994) ISBN 1-855-32345-1 OCLC 31011021
• Sekigahara 1600: The Final Struggle for Power, Osprey Publishing, London (1995) ISBN 1-855-32395-8 OCLC 33355511
Very interesting, and hopefully useful in clearing up the opaque mudball that "samurai" has come to be in this whole Yasuke discussion, what with pop-culture media and Lockley's unhelpful conflation of "samurai" as "anyone who picks up a sword".
It uses commiserate, I am unsure if it was a typo or if his usage of the word meant that the shogun was subservient to the Imperial Court in legitimacy, as it might have been used in an intransitive manner (commiserate with), which is to sympathize or condole; although you may have a better grasp on the subject matter than I do. If you open up the link I mentioned, it's a blog article by him, which you can read in full. Hexenakte (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ya, given the context and the meaning, that would have to be commensurate, while commiserate must be a misuse of a somewhat-similar-sounding word.
Yea I noticed that too, it's unfortunate. It doesn't seem to be maintained anymore either, seeing that the copyright at the bottom lists as 2019. However, from looking at the work provided, and how it appears to corroborate with the sources I had provided, I would think he is in a better position to know the proper nuances that many academics seem to be confused on, such as Lockley or Turnbull. It is rare to see such large focus on the imperial court structure, much less in English, so this would help considerably. Whenever you can - and I will try to find some of the sources as well - the best case is to check his books and verify the citations he gives for his information, then if it is satisfactory it should be presented.
As for an opposition as a negative claim against Yasuke's samurai-ness, despite the fact we're essentially dealing with the definition of samurai, I am unsure how this would be presented, and would be seen as WP:SYNTH, although when looking at WP:NOTSYNTH and WP:NOTOR suggests that providing definitions or pointing out contradictions between claims don't count as SYNTH/OR respectively, which is all that we are doing. Hexenakte (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
What up Wiktionary it's me ya girl. I can probably save y'all some cash and let you know that Bryant isn't going to be as useful as you think he is if you think he's going to unmuddy the terminology. You'll be positively thrilled to know that Anthony Bryant doesn't use in-text citations for anything, nor does he even have a Bibliography.
On page 3 of The Samurai he writes "Bushi is a term virtually interchangeable with the word samurai" and "Still another term was applied to the warrior caste in medieval Japan: ji-Samurai. This referred strictly to those samurai from powerful families, usually those unallied or unconnected to the bakufu, the military government in Kamakura. This term was in widest use around the latter half of the Muromachi period" and that "Throughout this text, the terms 'bushi' and 'samurai' will be used interchangeably. In writings of the period, the term bushi would appear to have been in more common use within the ranks in reference to their own class"
He also lists in his glossary "ashigaru" as the lowest rank of samurai.
Likewise, Samurai 1550-1600 begins "The samurai (also called bushi) were Japan's military aristocracy" and "Until the last half of the Age of Battles, it was still possible for one born outside the samurai class to become a samurai. This was acccomplished by joining the ranks as an infantryman, and after surviving a few battles, coming to the attention of a clan lord or his officers and being given a permanent assignment"
and "For the vast majority, however, it was a class to be born or legally adopted into. Despite the high social status of the samurai, there were internal class distinctions"
And in the 1995 Samurai 1550-1600 , he calls the Ashigaru the bottom-rung, the would-be samurai, that they "were the foot soldiers, the cannon fodder, the vast nameless ranks that populated the armies. Though not born samurai, they had the potential to improve their station and be accepted as equals" and "so blurred are the distinctions that authorities are at odds as to whether ashigaru can be considered samurai"
He also writes that "the Confucian ethic of rigid social structures didn't gain official recognition until the Tokugawa government"
And he also actually has a lovely little note at the end in the further reading section that says "In English, the Works of Stephen R.Turnbull are an invaluable source" (emphasis because of your expressed disdain for Turnbull).
So off of the two books I have access to, no, no he does not help unmuddy the definition of samurai. Also, from what I can tell the Ospery books are a mixed-bag of reliability according to the RSN on Wikipedia. Also, each of these books are under 100 pages long. 172.90.69.23108:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for providing the following quotes! Yea I have noticed this and I'm wondering if he had changed his viewpoint on the idea? Because his website came way later than his Osprey books, and they say something completely - albeit more consistent - different. Since his first Samurai book was published in 1989, while looking at his archive on the website,[35] it appears that this specific article on the Modes of Address was added in at least 2001, as this was the earliest archive link I could find. He does mentioned the "Compleat Anachronist #65" in the article, so that might be the best bet if we want to find out specifically about this subject.
Also to be fair on the subject of Turnbull, I believe this was before it was widely known of the information that he was using was outdated, as noted in this interview he did in 2008,[36] they mention Turnbull and compare him to Bryant:
I believe that like Clavell, many of us also owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Turnbull, who is often on the receiving end of a lot of scorn by the academic community. How has the academic community reacted to your writing and research? I believe that Sekigahara is used as a text in some university classes that focus on samurai history.
While this is not necessarily relevant to the topic at hand, I believe it is helpful as it appears that Bryant was aware of the issues Turnbull had faced later in his academic career. I think it is worth considering, once we find the aforementioned Compleat Anachronist #65, that we may find the information we are looking for.
Once again, thanks for checking for us, and yea, the later books such as Samurai 1550-1600 already show a difference between his first book, and the website just seems to be his most recent information overall, so it is best to find out where he originally wrote these and see if we can find out what sources he used then. Hexenakte (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, in the section of the interview that you quoted, Bryant also notes of his Ospery books in response to "How has the academic community reacted to your writing and research?":
Actually, it was rather a schizophrenic response. In some ways, as a grad student, the fact that I'd actually *published books* on what I was studying was a bonus -- but in other moments, the fact that they were so... well, basic, all-encompassing, and (gasp!) unacademic hurt.
He also writes in a question above that one asking about comparing him to Turnbull
I think people expect me to have a love-hate relationship with Turnbull -- but I've never actually met, spoken with, or even written him. I probably should drop him a line someday.
And regarding "Compleat Anachronist #65", you'll more than likely find that as unacademic as well. It was a publcication for the Society for Creative Anachronism, a Live Action Role Play community. As noted on this page, it's just a guide to LARPing a Japanese character.
My original intent with CA #65 was to produce a “How To” on the construction of a variety of Japanese objects of daily life which were either poorly (read: not) represented in the Society, or are make-do objects of clear touristiana. Upon talking to people, it became clear that what was needed, instead, was a source of one-stop-shopping for Japanese reenacting, a sort of catch-all, if you will, a quick reference to provide a wide variety of information on doing Japanese in the SCA. Thus “A Japanese Miscellany” was born.
So that puts the "Compleat Anachronist" information of the "Compleat Anachronist #65" as dated at 1993, and a manual on how to LARP being Japanese, the "Miscellany" section of the website, per the introduction, is a reproduction of the text from "Compleat Anachronist #65", including the "Modes of Address" page. As for the last updated in 2001:
This material was originally written by our founder and friend, the late Anthony J. Bryant, and — as the original introduction below indicates — the material in this section of the site was published in the SCA publication Compleat Anachronist in January of 1993. This site has been slightly updated to standardize orthography and formatting
Anthony J. Bryant seemed aware that his work wasn't academic and though he passed away in 2013, he seems to have never published a single academic peer-reviewed publication of his knowledge throughout the entirety of his career/life. Per his interview, he pitched Ospery to write about Japanese history after reading Turnbull's book, published several books for Ospery, and then seems to have devoted his efforts to the Society for Creative Anachronism. The Ospery books aren't, like, unusable or unsuitable for Wikipedia or anything but it's very much a case of nothing Bryant seems to write in them 'unmuddies' Samurai, if anmything, his writing soldifies how muddy it was in the Sengoku period.
Sekigahara 1600 has multiple editions, the Praeger edition (2005) is just a different printing of the Sekigahara 1600(1995), it just seems to be a hardcover edition, there's also a 2013 kindle ebook edition.
This is more or less what I was trying to figure out, since it is apparent that Bryant's work on his website is at least consistent with what I have read with other corroborating sources on the matter. It is disappointing that there was no bibliography listed though.
[...] the "Miscellany" section of the website, per the introduction, is a reproduction of the text from "Compleat Anachronist #65", including the "Modes of Address" page.
I see, thank you for providing your insights on Bryant, all it means is that we just have to keep looking for more sources on the matter, hopefully some in Japanese as well. Hexenakte (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In regard to whether his sources might include useful content, I wish I could tell you. Bryant doesn't cite anything, and his Ospery books (that I have read) only include reading recommendations at the end. Interestingly, he's not precisely an unreliable source. Even Sengokudaimyo.com might be usable because he is a subject matter expert, even if he doesn't cite anything in the Ospery books. Per WP Guidelines, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". So, if @Hexenakte says the SengokuDaimyo website corroborates what he has found in a different source, you can safely cite it and support it with one another. He has had work in a relevant field that has been published independently in the field of Sengoku Japan. Just because he doesn't use in-text citations doesn't automatically make him unreliable (though I feel like you might make a different argument). 172.90.69.23104:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Heyo, it me ya girl again. As I cannot participate in the Talk: Yasuke category due to to the very justifiable blockade on IP Addresses participating, I wanted to toss this your way in reply to
The K. Hirayama poster on Twitter maintains here on July 19 that there were tachi greatswords with a sayamaki mounting. While I have found pictures online that appear to be this kind of setup (such as the fourth from the top in this image at Wikimedia Commons), these are often described as "ceremonial", and the use of a sayamaki mounting on a longer sword does not seem common; in almost all cases I've seen or read about so far, the sayamaki mounting is reserved for tantō.
As well as here which says The first "Itomaki-no-tachi" were used in the Nambokucho period (1336 ~ 1392 AD). They had tsukamaki as well as sayamaki, i.e. there was wrapping at the upper part of the saya to prevent damage from rubbing against the armor. The itomaki-tachi became the tachi of choice for the following centuries for use in battle. Sometimes the lower part of the saya had a cover made of fur to protect it from the elements, which was called "shirizaya" (butt saya). There is also this book and this book. It is also mentioned here where it is described as It was originally intended for use in warfare by the miltary class. Examples from the Nanbokucho period have stout, practi¬cal scabbards that are either lacquered or wrapped with leather; these are sometimes known as sayamaki no tachi (scabbard-wrapped slung swords). More elaborate mountings with exten¬sive decoration—used by daimyo in ceremonies and for presentations to Shinto shrines—became popular beginning in the Momoyama period. They were also exchanged as gifts among the emperor, shogun, and other daimyo.
They are specifically called tachi, not just sayamaki.
They are too old: 1392 is nearly two centuries before Yasuke's time in Japan.
I see that the Encyclopedia of Japanese Swords also has an entry for just sayamaki on its own, down on page 382, which they gloss as 腰刀 (koshi-gatana), defined elsewhere as a style of tantō.
I am interested in doing more searching about the term sayamaki to see if I can nail down dates for when the word is attested in use as a standalone noun referring more specifically to the "no-tsuba, ornate scabbard" mounting. That said, my time is limited (even more so lately due to a couple different changes in personal circumstances), and I already have too much on my plate. 😉
Speaking personally, I think Hirayama is right that this instance of sayamaki in the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the w:Shinchō Kōkimight possibly refer to a full-sized sword. However, it is also correct to say that this instance of sayamakidoes not definitely refer to a full-sized sword. It's ambiguous. Circumstantial evidence at best.
→ I keep coming back to the conclusion that we just don't have enough solid data about Yasuke to say one way or the other whether he was of samurai status. It is clear at least that Akechi did not view him as a samurai, as pointedly recorded in Fróis's letter of November 1582.
In regard to them being too old, this example is from the 1500s, described as This type of Tsukamaki is called Hiramaki. Many of Itomaki Tachi Koshirae are used the same way.. Likewise, the text I quoted above says they became popularly used by Daimyo in ceremonies during the Momoyama Period, which is 1573-1616.
As for the mystery of a sword being called a "Sayamaki", I've done some more research and found this text from 1913 that reads The word Sayamaki was originally used to describe a regular sword, but at present only the Makitachi is ever called Sayamaki, so that name is the same as in ancient days, although its meaning has become so limited. In a book (title and author not stated) quoted in the Sokutai Shikimoku, a statement is made that "the Sayamaki is so called because it is the Amezayamaki; the style is that of the ordinmary tachi. If the scabbard is wound round with string we say Sayamaki, as when the handle is bound with string we call the weapon Itomaki no tachi. It is a common weapon of modern and ancient days." Hakuseki then expresses his doubt about that opinion being a definite one"(Page 36)
And that It is also mentioned in Azuma Kagami that 'On Katana and Sayamaki, both have Sageo, so that the sword called Sayamaki is undoubtedly a Katana'
It also explains the Sangi-itto says, in describing the costumes of the mounted attendants of the Emperor: "Oguchi, Shitatare, and Sayamaki no to shall be worn." This is evidently the sword which we call now Chiisa Katana
Later, the book reads "There are now two kinds of swords termed Katana, namely Chiisakatana, which is the same as the old Sayamaki, and those swords now ordinarily worn with Koshikatana, decorated as Sayamaki, but containing old Tachi blades"
And that
"Since Katana were made, the Sayamaki no Katana has become known as Chiisakatana just in the same way as when the long tachi was called O-Dachi to distinguish it from the ancient Tachi, this later became known as the Ko-dachi. So that it is clear that in olden times the characters 小刀 were read Kogatana, and in middle-ages a sword was called Sayamaki which we now call Chiisakatana. The characters are the same as in the old days but the pronunciation has changed" on Page 40.
Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hiya - I'm currently doing a major revamp of a lot of the Japanese module logic, as it's a bit of a mess at the moment, and I was wondering if you could help me out with how the kana iteration marks work.
What I know:
Voicing marks are not iterated and only apply to ther specific kana, so you have いすゞ(isuzu), but じゞ(jiji) cannot be spelled じゝ(jishi).
Like 々, repeated marks mean that that number of kana are repeated: e.g. ところゞゝゝ(tokorodokoro).
What I don't know (and I appreciate these may be contextual):
If we have too many marks, should we just repeat the last kana or the whole pattern? This seems fairly intuitive with something like はゝゝゝ ([37]), but it's less obvious when you have a multi-kana iteration beforehand; especially when you're trying to fit 2 kana into 3 marks, and so on. Many examples are instances where it doesn't really matter like あはゝゝゝ ([38]) (is it ahahahaha or ahāhā - who cares, right?), but it's more relevant with things like はあ出掛えにいゝゝゝゝい ([39]). If it's contextual (i.e. not fully automatable), one solution is to have a way to manually specify what the iteration pattern is: my intuition is to use something like _ after the end of the first repetition for this, so わくゝゝ would be kawakawa, but わくゝ_ゝ would be kawawawa. Obviously this is contrived, but I'm certain all kinds of weird things will crop up in quotations; especially in fiction. In the above example, いゝ_ゝゝゝい would give what I suspect is the author's intention (hā dekakēniiiiiii).
If a mark comes after a yōon digraph with small kana, does it repeat the whole mora, or does the small kana need its own mark? e.g. is 種々(shuju)しゅゞ or しゅゞゝ? I can't really find anything about this, even though I've looked quite hard, and there are a lot of false-positives. For example, I can find a few instances of しゅゞゝ on Wikisource (e.g. [40]), but when I checked the original manuscript it was actually 種々, where ゆ was full-size and 〲 was a vertical mark covering the space of two (ruby) kana. However, that's because the text was using the old orthography, so I'm not sure we can take this as evidence of how the marks should be interpreted when small kana are involved. Surely this must come up in a name somewhere, right?
I don't really know, but s:ja:くりかへし符号の使ひ方 is a document from 1946 dictating that ゝ is used for 1 kana while 〱 is used for 2 or more, which accords with my (limited) experience (as someone who does not regularly read Meiji-era or older literature); so perhaps it is a null question as しゅじゅ would indeed be しゆ〲 in all cases, organic or prescribed, before ゝ〱 became functionally obsolete. ところゞゝゝ might also be fabricated; the Japanese Wikisource uses this in the transcription of a Bible translation but in this case also the original typesetting is with 〲. The Google Books results above are also transcriptions by Aozora Bunko, as noted on the "cover" of each e-book. —Fish bowl (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Historical orthography!
As Fish bowl notes the ゝ denotes repetition of one kana. Specifically it denotes a repetition of the immediately preceding kana, as in いすゞ. あはゝゝゝ is therefore transcribed ahahahaha. To repeat multiple kana one uses the long く (when written vertically it occupies two squares/spaces), which similarly repeats the two (or more) kana immediately preceding the mark.
In the case of diagraphs, historically the kana were written at the same size and, as they are composed of two kana, the long く is used, hence the transcription as しゆぐ.
ところゞゝゝ is likely transcribed that way due to the impossibility of representing the long く horizontally.
→ Apologies for my lack of response; various things IRL have kept me more than usually busy and I have not had the bandwidth to do much in Wiki Land.
The PDF presentation linked to above by @Theknightwho is quite interesting, particularly the 不明 items listed on slides 5 and 10. That last one on slide 5 that is just a string of ditto marks, 「ゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝゝ。」 -- that's really quite baffling. Makes me wonder if the author just intended a repetition of the preceding sentence? Impossible to know without more context.
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Eirikr ―
You reverted my edit on 糒 with this reason: we do use ⟨ī⟩ to romanize いい combinations here, where this long vowel does not straddle a morpheme boundary. I can understand this principle, but there are at least two issues:
(1) ī is never used for yamato-kotoba and sinoxenic terms in the Modified Hepburn romanization system, based on the authoritative Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary.
(2) Supposing that Wiktionary has a different convention from the strict Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary, then these entries have wrong romanization. お兄さん飯
Currency, in the Wiktionary お兄さん is shown as oniisan, and 飯 ii.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Would you mind checking the Japanese translation for this term? I note that a term in katakana was chosen, but AFAIK "will (testament)" in Japanese uses a kanji term. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
を
