Talk:平仮名

Kanji in Etymology section

Why are the kanji in the templates in the Etymology section not showing up in this entry? 71.66.97.228 06:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is intentional. If you want the kanji, just click on the links. Bendono 01:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June 2018–February 2021

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

平仮名

Rfv-sense "(as opposed to complex kanji) simple". —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 21:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a sense, nor are Obunsha, Kenkyusha, or Shogakukan dictionaries. Possibly a misunderstanding of (something like) this from 大辞泉: 「ひらがな（平仮名）。仮名の一。漢字の草体から作られた草仮名（そうがな）をさらに簡略化したもの。」 (Hiragana. A type of kana. Derived from sōgana cursive-style kanji and further simplified.) Cnilep (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The strange thing is that it was added here by @Bendono, who seems to have made a lot of great edits. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 04:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I wrote that. No offense intended, but you need better dictionaries. Those single volume dictionaries are aimed at everyday life and leave out far more than they actually include. You can confirm this sense in 日本国語大辞典--which even includes citations--that I will quote:

②（漢字のむずかしいことに対して）わかりやすいこと。率直な、または、平易な表現。

＊洒落本・古今三通伝（1782）「魯国のやぢおの曰く（の給ひ）しを平がなにかけば」

＊洒落本・金錦三調伝（1783）「いやならいやとひらかなで」 Bendono (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the quotes and usage, I might suggest an edit to the gloss given of just “simple”: perhaps “simple terms” would better convey the sense? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr So does this pass RFV? I can't judge if the citations are valid; if they are, they should be at the entry. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje, I'll be honest and say I haven't done a thorough survey of historical works to double-check. However, cursorily, I'd judge that this passes RFV, albeit as a rare sense that may be archaic or obsolete in modern usage. The entry excerpted by Bendono above is partially viewable online here (I say "partially" as the second quote in the entry dated to 1783 isn't included in the Kotobank version, probably due to Bendono having a later edition of the dictionary). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c, Eirikr, Bendono This has been sitting here for a long time. Can one of you add the relevant quotes to the entry? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

RFV-deleted — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection Why was this deleted? There was evidence given here, just not put on the entry itself. Pinging @Suzukaze-c, Eirikr, Bendono again. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Because nobody has added any of the above cites in two and a half years. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Once the necessary cites have been added, the meaning can of course be readded (that is how RFV works). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 08:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)