User talk:TAKASUGI Shinji/2008-2012

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Our layout policy (nicknamed “ELE”)
• Criteria for inclusion (nicknamed “CFI”)
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
• What Wiktionary is not
• FAQ

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page.

Did you know that Wiktionary can be adapted to fit your style? Go have a look at your personal preference page (nicknamed “PREFS”)! In particular, you can choose the option to show hidden categories, which will be of great help if you are looking for work to do.

Again, welcome!

—Ruakh_TALK 06:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of quotations and example sentences.

Moved to Talk:don't#Formatting of quotations and example sentences. - TAKASUGI Shinji 08:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

bu

Hi there. An online Italian dictionary defines bu as a Japanese unit of length or area. I can't find this definition in any English form. Can you confirm it? SemperBlotto 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See the following pages on Japanese Wikipedia:

• Length: 歩 = 6 尺 = 1.818 m
• Area: 歩 = (6 尺)² = 3.306 m²
• Decimal: 分 = 1/10

The decimal 分 can be used with other units, such as 3 寸 5 分 (3 inches 5 tenths = 3.5 inches) and 3 錢 5 分 (3 cents 5 tenths = 3.5 cents). — TAKASUGI Shinji 10:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. SemperBlotto 10:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki's

You know you don't have to add the interwiki links, we have a bot (User:Interwicket) that does it automatically :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I’m not sure whether it adds interwiki links to redirects, and I added such links myself. — TAKASUGI Shinji 05:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

much

Hello. Please do not add usage notes as if they were part of the definitions. Usage notes may be placed in a separate "Usage notes" section (always plural) nested underneath the definitions at a level higher. For example, under ===Adverb=== you would use ====Usage notes====. --EncycloPetey 04:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn’t know that. — TAKASUGI Shinji 07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

interwikis and templates

Please do not add interwiki links to templates. This goes against Wiktionary practice, in part because it severely hurts server performance to have these. --EncycloPetey 02:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. — TAKASUGI Shinji 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Texas hold 'em

Names of games are usually closer to being proper nouns than common nouns. They do not have plural forms, are not countable, and are a name of a thing. It's in a fuzzy area, but for our purposes, I think it fits better under Proper noun. --EncycloPetey 04:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I just followed poker and hold'em. It is inconsistent to treat Texas hold 'em as a proper noun and the rest as nouns. — TAKASUGI Shinji 05:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been a point of debate, and I've been actively researching the philosophy and linguistics behind the difference between proper and common nouns. I'm of the opinion that all names of games ought to be proper nouns, However, I haven't finished writing down my ideas (soon, I hope to finish), and there isn't community consensus one way or the other at the moment. You are correct to notice the inconsistency, but for the moment, games are in the grey area between the two types of nouns until the community agrees one way or the other on how to classify them. --EncycloPetey 05:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I know there is no clear boundary. I’ll wait for the community decision. I think, however, names of games are more like abstract nouns, just like baseball and basketball. — TAKASUGI Shinji 05:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the other viewpoint. However, it gets fuzzy if one thinks of games as abstract common nouns, but languages as proper nouns. --EncycloPetey 05:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is "Postposition" really a part of speech?

Hello TAKASUGI Shinji -- In this Tea Room discussion, I have questioned your treatment of "Postposition" as a separate part of speech with its own header. Respectfully -- WikiPedant 18:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Times

See my reply to your question about times on its talk page.--Brett 11:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

that's it in Japanese

Hi, I have some doubts about your edit. You replaced my translation: それで終わり with 以上. Do you have some reference? --Anatoli 03:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

それで終わり is too context-dependent. You must not be a native Japanese speaker, considering you don't find it strange. It can be used only when that means your story. It's okay as a translation in So, that's it? I thought there would be some more. 以上 is not a very good translation, though… - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

hit

Hello. Can you please check the Japanese translation of あたる at hit, please --Mat200 14:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

X-ray vision

Regarding your recent move of "x-ray vision" ro "X-ray vision," the term does sometimes appear with a lower-case "x." [1] 71.66.97.228 03:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Check the article of x-ray vision. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

grammar question

Hi Shinji, sorry to bother you but I was wondering if I could ask a question about grammar: The category Category:Japanese adnominals claims that adnominals (連体詞) are often formed by adding -的 to another word, but I don't think so. I think -的 is really -的な, it only forms -な adjectives, and it is not an adnominal. For example, 最終的な is a -な adjective but 最終的 is just an abbreviated form of the same word, not a 連体詞 like あの, いわゆる or たいした. Do you agree? Thanks Haplology 11:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I believe they are talking about words with -的 directly put before another noun, such as 根本的解決 (fundamental solution). However, grammatically speaking, they are rather nouns combined with another noun than adnominals, because you can't insert anything between them; you can't say *根本的すばらしい解決. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

You really do need to give a reason for these nominations. You're a native speaker so I suspect you're right, but it would be irresponsible for an admin to delete an entry without knowing why. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote it in Talk:超～神な, but I’m sorry I didn’t mention it when I put {{delete}} in those entries. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

one-night stand

Hi,

Thanks for removing my previous Japanese translation but I'd appreciate a bit more active editing, it doesn't have to be fully idiomatic but a very close description would also do, IMHO (there could be cultural and usage differences). When I added やり逃げ originally, the meaning used in a manga was very close to "one-night stand" but I know it normally means "having sex with a woman and then going away". Since I am not a native speaker, I sometimes have to do some analysis and checking before adding a Japanese translation, I could use some guidance. You could also use the template {{qualifier}} to clarify the meaning or usage if a translation is only an approximation and there is no 100% equivalent. --Anatoli 05:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention. I added two Japanese translations, which seem to match closer the English meaning, although not used so frequently and not so idiomatic. --Anatoli 05:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The two phrases you have added are correct. I didn’t add them myself when I edited the article, as they are not so idiomatic. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I might create English entries that match やり逃げ - wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, fuck and chuck. We already have hit it and quit it. :) --Anatoli 06:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

admin

Hi. Can I nominate you for adminship? You'd be another useful one to have around. --Rockpilot 09:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. So what I should do now is just waiting for Wiktionary:Administrators#Requests for administrator rights? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were an admin already. Rockpilot probably knows how to do it, you will just need to formally accept it on the vote page and make sure you accept emails in user preferences. --Anatoli 11:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2011-10/User:TAKASUGI Shinji for admin

Hi, TAKASUGI Shinji. Your vote has passed, you are an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys for the entire process of nomination. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

start button

start button, I made some edits which you may be interested in seeing.Lucifer 11:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Negrophobia, Afrophobia

こんにちは、

Your Japanese translations on English entries you edit would be highly appreciated. :)

よろしくお願いします！ --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 03:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Revised Hepburn transliteration

Hi,

Please join the discussion if you can. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 21:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

うち

Just saw your edit under the Pronoun heading -- is sense 5 really distinct from sense 3, "内, 中: (Kansai) (informal) I, me (used by women and girls)"? -- Curious, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Among the five senses, senses 1, 2, 4, 5 have no accent: /ɯ˩.tɕi˥/ while sense 3 (Kansai) has an accent on the first syllable: /ɯ˥.tɕi˩/. I don’t know from which sense sense 5 is derived, sense 1 or 3. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's interesting. I know very little about pitch accent and how it affects etymologies -- for instance, do pitches differ by region with any regularity, do they undergo any patterns of change over time, are they affected by euphony, etc. etc. Thank you also for reminding me to pay attention to pitch accent; I shall add this to entry pronunciations where I can. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've broken out the senses at 内 by pronunciation as an experiment. Do you think this approach is acceptable? WT:AJA doesn't say anything about pitch accent or how to account for it. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

English entries may have several pronunciations, as our dictionary is spelling-dependant and not IPA-dependant. Just like them, having two pronunciations is not strong enough to separate the entry of うち. The pronoun うち of the Kansai dialect clearly shares the same etymology. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I was unclear -- would you object to grouping under Pronunciation 1, Pronunciation 2, etc. within the same etyl? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wanted to say that we shouldn’t separate them. I prefer the previous version. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The main differences from the older version you linked to are: 1) I put the Kanji header at the top, which is where it belongs on single-kanji entries; 2) I formatted some of the compounds and the derived terms; 3) I added the etyl "From OJP"; and 4) I added the pronunciations -- one above the Noun header, one above the Pronoun header, based on WT:ELE and WT:AJA. So to make sure I fully understand you, do you mean you prefer not having the pronunciations at all? Or not marking the pitch, so both have the same pitch-less IPA? The current format at 内#Japanese has the noun and pronoun under the same etyl. We could put pronunciations all in one place, but that makes it harder to tell which pitch goes with which sense... -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Your addition is all right. I just don’t want to separate two senses. I have added pronunciations to うち. What do you think about that? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit looks good to me too, at least for small pages like うち where everything fits on one screen. I don't know if it would work so well on longer pages, where the user would have to scroll up to see the pronunciation, then scroll back down to find the sense that matched the pronunciation.

Incidentally, our talk here prompted me to ask a question over in the Grease Pit, and that prompted a bit of a discussion, now at Wiktionary:Grease_pit#Handling_sense-specific_pronunciations_under_a_single_etyl. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Q about entry とも

This looks like SOP to me; what's your perspective? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a single word. See 共 (goo dictionary). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd missed that this was pointing to a single-kanji entry. I'll reformat accordingly. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Q about entry 我が

This one too. SOP in your view? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That is also a single word in modern Japanese. You can’t use wa alone. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, as wa ga is clearly wa + particle ga, and one cannot use ga alone, yet it's still treated as a separate word with its own etymology and usage. That said, I do now see this listed as a 連語 in the two JA-JA dictionaries I have to hand. I'll add the etymology and a usage note. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The alternative spelling of 我が is 我, which is also pronounced わが - also 吾が and 吾. I don't know if 我が can be broken up into parts, I think it's one word and が is not a particle here but part of the word but I don't have a source to confirm it. わ is another reading of 我 and 吾 but they mean something else. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 03:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The presence of a reading for a kanji does not necessarily say anything definitive, given the flexibility of Japanese spelling; for instance, 散り (chiri) can be spelled 散, but the unwritten り in the latter spelling is still the conjugated verbal ending. I'm looking at Shogakukan and Daijirin right now; Shogakukan states that the が in 我が is the particle (Daijirin doesn't say anything either way, but then Daijirin tends not to give any etymologies at all), and both give both 我が and 吾が as alternative spellings (i.e., identical in meaning). If you have a source stating otherwise, I'm all ears.  :)

That said, I'm happy for the entry to stand as a single-term lemma. 我 (wa) appears to have been a productive term in old Japanese that has become fossilized in modern Japanese, existing solely on conjunction with particle が. I have reworked the entry to say as much, explaining the derivation in the etymology section. Please have a look and make any edits as you see fit. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Etymologically speaking, it is clearly wa + ga, but as I said, it is a single word in modern Japanese. You cannot replace wa or ga with another word. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a suspicion, suspicion only, that が is not the usual Japanese "ga" particle but a borrowing from the Middle Chinese with the "sense" of の (possession). が sounds strikingly similar to Cantonese 嘅 (ge3) - a possessive marker and Japanese 我が家 may be derived from a version of Chinese, which gacve rise to Cantonese 我嘅家. Worth exploring this option? Character 嘅 is not used in standard Mandarin and the original possessive character may not be the same in the Middle Chinese. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 04:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The particle が was originally a possessive marker, as in 君が代. I don’t know whether it is from Cantonese, but I think that is very unlikely. Cantonese must not have had an influence to Japanese then, as both languages were equally peripheral, the northern Chinese being central. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I only made a Cantonese example as it is too related to Middle Chinese, like Mandarin. Some features are preserved in Cantonese better than others from Classical or Middle Chinese and verbs like 走 and 食 are used the same way as Japanese 走る or 食べる, whereas modern Mandarin uses 跑 and 吃 instead. Phonetically it's easier to link Cantonese to Japanese, than Mandarin to Japanese since Cantonese has preserved final consonants. As for possessive marker, Mandarin uses 的 or classical 之, which can't be linked to Japanese "が" at all but with 嘅, it is a remote possibility but not direct, since it is a modern, not a Classical particle. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 06:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know Cantonese preserves Classical Chinese words better than Mandarin. That is a typical center/periphery distribution. And it is possible が came from Chinese, because 我が家 seems redundant compared to Korean, in which you say 우리 집, without a possessive marker. But 嘅 is a complicated character with the radical 口, which means it is pretty new and dialectical. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A few things:

1. Takasugi-san, I realize now that I had misunderstood your first reply to me. I apologize for my confusion.

   Thank you for fixing the romanizations for 我が家 (wagaya) on the 我が page. Are the わがえ and わがいえ readings similarly set phrases? Should these be romanized as wagae and wagaie? Or, as waga e and waga ie?

2. Anatoli, interesting theory. However, given the very stark typological differences between the Japonic and Sinic language groupings, that borrowing strikes me as perhaps unlikely -- borrowing a word for a noun or verb is not that unusual, but borrowing a word that serves a purely grammatical function seems to be much less common, at least in what I've read so far. As Takasugi-san notes, が was a possessive marker between two nouns in OJP, so any such borrowing would have had to have occurred quite some time ago, and considering how being on the Japanese islands would have isolated speakers of OJP and even earlier forms of Japanese from speakers of Chinese, the borrowing would presumably have to be even earlier than the Yayoi migration from the mainland. However, my impression from historical reading is that Chinese speakers had less contact with the northern ethnic groups the further back in time you go. Still, it's certainly worth looking into.  :)
3. Takasugi-san, the 우리 (uri) entry also gives the abbreviated form 울 (ul). I'm not as familiar with Korean as I'd like to be, but I wonder if the full 우리 (uri) form is not in fact a compound of 울 (ul) + 이 (i), the subject particle similar to Japanese が, as given at 이#Etymology_5. (Incidentally, Korean also has 가 (ga) as a subject particle for use after vowels, but I do recall reading that this appeared in Middle Korean and may have been adopted by influence from Japanese, or possibly from a different Korean dialect.) If 우리 (uri) is a compound of 울 (ul) + 이 (i), then we have a parallel construction in both languages, and also an explanation for the apparent lack of a particle after the 우리 (uri) in modern KO 우리 (uri) 집 (jip) -- i.e., there actually is a particle, 이 (i), only it's being used as a genitive / possessive marker between two nouns, much like OJP が. This potential archaic use of 이 (i) is something I'm currently looking into.

Moreover, there is a demonstrable common sound shift between KO and JA, as seen in hanja / kanji, where hanja readings ending in ᄅ ("L") have kanji readings ending in つ (tsu) or ち (chi); if this sound correspondence extends to older borrowings / cognates, then KO 울 (ul) may in fact be cognate with JA うち (uchi).

Anyway, fun discussion, many thanks to you both. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As for 我が家, わがや is a single word in modern Japanese because it has a single-word accent (HLL+L) and you cannot insert a pause, while わがいえ is a combination of わが and いえ because it has a two-word accent (HL+LH+L) and you can insert a pause. I have never heard わがえ as it is archaic and I think we can’t judge in modern Japanese.

As for the Japanese influence on Korean, I also think 가 may have been borrowed from Japanese. It appeared in Korean really late, perhaps after the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598), and the paradigm 가/이 is unusual compared to 를/을, 로/으로, 와/과, etc., and Korean needed a new nominative marker at the moment as 이 after a vowel disappeared by assimilation or contraction (나이 → 내, 너이 → 네, etc.). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Korean terms derived from Proto-Altaic

From what I heard, the "Altaic theory" or whatever has lost support right? Perhaps there is something you could do with these etymologies? User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 12:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have any authors I could follow up on? I'm currently working through Ho-Min Sohn's The Korean Language, in which Sohn describes the Altaic theory as the most likely of several alternatives. But then again, the book was published in 1999, and later research no doubt has something more to say. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Altaic theory may be most likely but is not proven yet. The problem is that the current entry of 물 explains its etymology as if that were proven. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Aha, thank you for the explanation. The etymology at 물 could certainly use some qualifying words. I'll edit the etym shortly; have a look and make any changes as you all see fit. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

IPA dots and Japanese "syllables"

Hello Takasugi-san --

I just saw your edit here on the セックス page, and have a question. I had understood that the IPA dots were used in Japanese phonemics to mark morae. Given that Japanese is not syllabic but rather moraic, this made sense. But perhaps what I learned was in error? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There may be some linguists who use dots to separate morae. As you know, syllables are not so important as morae in Japanese. In IPA, however, dots are used to separate syllables, and because we are making a multilingual dictionary, we should follow the international convention. We sometimes see /n̩/ with the syllabic diacritic (U+0329) for ん, but it is also incorrect as ん forms not a syllable but a mora. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about multilinguality, but I also note that the goal is to present each language's entries accurately. Since Japanese is not syllabic, then marking syllables is misleading. I also note variant usage on the w:Japanese_phonology page, with dot notation used to mark syllables in phonetic transcriptions in the w:Japanese_phonology#Moraic_obstruent section, but also some instances of morae marking in phonemic transcription in the w:Japanese_phonology#Vowels section, and in the w:Japanese_phonology#Phonotactics section. I'll check my resources again. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 09:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Syllables do exist in Japanese; they are just less important than morae. In addition, separating syllables by dots is clear enough to know morae, because a short vowel forms a mora, a long vowel forms two morae, and a coda forms a mora. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Itrenok, Neiser, Numak, Ash Core

Hi, TAKASUGI Shinji,

On Wiktionary:Translation requests, User:Lo Ximiendo would like to have the English tranlation of these 4 items (if you have time to do it).

진룡 이트레녹:

바칼님의 말씀과는 다르게 완전 풋내기들인데?

흑룡 네이저:

고요한 암흑 속에 평안이 깃들지니, 그대들도 이곳에서. 영원한 안식을 구할 수 있도록 세심하게 도와드리지요.

금룡 느마우그:

여기까지 오신 당신들의 능력을 인정하는 바, 다소 예의에 어긋난 대접을 해드림을 용서바랍니다.

화룡 애쉬코어:

으하하하! 기고만장들 하시군!! 싸울 맛이 좀 나겠는데!

I think it is dialog from a video game. If it is too much trouble, please do not worry about it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

아버진 and 아줌만

Could you take a look at these? It seems to me that these should be "form of" entries — or maybe that they shouldn't even exist.

Thanks in advance,
—Ruakh_TALK 15:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We haven’t had an article of ㄴ, a colloquial topic marker used after a vowel in place of the standard 는. See the Korean version or the French version. ㄴ is a particle and is not a part of a word. I’d like to speedy-delete them if you think it is okay. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. ㄴ (n) is not very productive, as far as I know, and entries like 내 (nae) and 난 (nan) are useful. They demonstrate how words can be merged with particles in Korean. Cf. the French du (=de + le). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

They are productive in casual speech, like 엔 (← 에는), 에선 (← 에서는), 보단 (← 보다는). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If there were too many of these, perhaps a redirect to the entry without the particle? I don't expect a flood of such entries, anyway. The entry explains what it is and how it's formed, so I don't see any problem even if they are kept as are. One important argument is that the word is merged with the particle. You can't simply remove it to get to the lemma form. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be useful to have combinations of function words and ㄴ: 난 (← 나는), 넌 (← 너는), 전 (← 저는), 건 (← 거는), 엔 (← 에는), 에선 (← 에서는), 보단 (← 보다는), -긴 (-기는), etc, but not this case, I think. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

We do have gonna, gotta, helluva, must've, we're, etc. They are colloquial merged forms. You don't have to create those forms NOW but why delete what is there already? People with low or no knowledge of Korean will have trouble finding 아버진 (abeojin) or 아줌만 (ajumman) in any dictionary. We should help, not make their studies/work harder. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

We have gonna, gotta, etc. because they are fused enough and their number is limited, while we have decided not to have forms with ’s except one’s, for the exactly opposite reasons. The article of 아버진 will in fact help readers understand its construction, but it is still a sum of parts. I am reluctant to continue creating pages like 아빤 (아빠 + ㄴ), 엄만 (엄마 + ㄴ), etc. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#の#Mandarin

Hi,

You might be interested in this discussion. Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#の#Mandarin. Although I find it interesting that Japanese characters and symbols are popular in some Chinese speaking areas, I think the symbol の can't be qualified as Mandarin or any Chinese dialect, even non-standard. Please join if you have anything to say about it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

竜涎香 vs 龍涎香

Hi,

What is the preferred title for an article on ambergris in Japanese? Is there still preference to use kyūjitai in some cases in Japan? What are they? I see even the Chinese Heilongjiang (in Chinese: 黑龍江 / 黑龙江 (Hēilóngjiāng) / 黑龙江 (Hēilóngjiāng)) province is called 黒竜江 in Japanese where the first two characters are Japanese-specific. I'm asking because I tried to rename and global replace 龍涎香 for 竜涎香 on the Japanese Wikipedia and the change got reverted. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

They are interchangeable, and according to Google 龍涎香 is more common. Although 竜 is the simplified character, there are many cases where 龍 is used instead. As for the renaming, Japanese Wikipedia usually requests a discussion before renaming. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems that simplification is not strictly and always followed in Japan. I also noticed that 籠 is probably more common than 篭. As for the Google hits, 龍涎香 is also the Chinese spelling, no wonder there's more (I don't think you can restrict the search by language any more, unless you add a Japanese character into the search). I have searched using "龍涎香" は and still got more. So, you're right, thanks again. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I surely added a Japanese character when I searched them. The simplification is almost always followed; exceptions include 竜, 欠缺, 證券, and family names. 篭 is an unofficial character and 籠 is recommended. ([2], [3]) — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Mrefsnes

Could you take a quick look at Special:Contributions/Mrefsnes, and make sure they're on the up-and-up? (I don't think you need to look at every single one; just at three or four or so, to get an idea.)

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK 18:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. They are all correct. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 11:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

を vs. は

Hello. Is this sentence correct: 私は日本語を話せません? And what about these [4]? Should there be を or は? Maro 14:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Both are correct, but using は is better. In the sentence 私は日本語を話せません, only 私 is a topic, while in 私は日本語は話せません, both 私 and 日本語 are topics.

1. What language do you not speak? — I don’t speak Japanese. 私は日本語を話せません。
2. Do you speak Japanese? — No, I don’t speak Japanese. 私は日本語は話せません。

The dialog 1 is possible but weird. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)