User talk:Poketalker/2020

Phonetic shifts listed at しい

Curious if you've run across any academic texts that postulate voicing as part of the mechanism for /-k-/ deletion, as exhibited in the shift from the -i adjective attributive ending /-ki/ to /-i/? That's a new one to me.

Although I haven't researched this phenomenon specifically, I'm pretty sure that voicing can't be the progression, since voiced /-ɡi/ in the イ音便 exhibited in verbs resulted in a moraic nasal and caused explicit voicing of the following consonant, where ぎて became んで, whereas the イ音便 in verbs for unvoiced /-ki/ left the following consonant unvoiced. That points to some other mechanism. I suspect it's something closer to aspiration proceeding to debuccalization and then deletion. By way of examples elsewhere in Japonic, see the descendants at Proto-Japonic *kaku, *kusa, and *kura where the initial /k-/ has shifted to various things, sometimes becoming subsumed into the following consonant, with certain descendants demonstrating debuccalization. See also *monki for an (albeit limited) example of a voiced obstruent that collapses to just /ɴ/. I think part of the shift might be because the morae with the vanishing consonant are low tone, which roughly parallels cases in English where unstressed syllables contract or collapse, with consonants sometimes shifting around. C.f. I am going to → I'm gonna → I'm'a.

Curious as to your thoughts, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: take a look at @Erminwin's revision of 白い (shiroi). Just assumed that the development from rentaikei -shiki/-ki into adjectives -shii/-i were related, so feel free to correct me. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 17:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr:: Hello, the paper I cited for the chains of sound changes which yielded 白い (shiroi) is Hamano (2000). Admittedly, it's somewhat old.Erminwin (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both.

@Poketalker, I'd be very surprised if ～しき → ～しい had different mechanics than ～き → ～い.  :)   Though I suppose that anything is possible!

@Erminwin, very interesting. I'd love to read that through. We have direct historical evidence that ハ行 consonants were pronounced as something similar to /f/ in the 1603 Nippo Jisho, so the claim in the abstract that OJP /p/ progressed as *b > *β > w strikes me as unrealistic. And if that's the basis for the theory that the medial /-k-/ in the attributive ending for adjectives underwent voicing on the way to lenition and deletion, I can't say that I follow their argument.

For example, while standard Tokyo-based Japanese did not lose the medial /-k-/ in the adverbial, giving us はやく and おそく, Kansai still has the no-"k" adverbial forms はよう and おそう (albeit with vowel flattening for /au/ → /ou/ or just /oː/). Considering the evidence we see in verbs with voiced medial /-ɡ-/, such as およぐ or さわぐ, adding the conjunctive ～て form should result in the voiced obstruent either collapsing to ん or shifting to い, depending on local phonology, and the following consonant undergoing voicing to で, as in およんで or さわいで. As such, if voicing were the mechanism of lenition for the medial /-k-/ in adjectives, we would expect the conjunctive ～て forms of adjectives to manifest as はよんで and おそんで in Kansai, but I believe these are instead unvoiced はようて and おそうて.

I'd love to see if Hamano addresses these issues in the paper. Any chance you have a non-paywalled link? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, @Eirikr. So far I've been unsuccessful in finding a non-paywalled version of Hamano (2000). However, I possess a copy downloaded from JSTOR. As of now, I know not how to share on the Internet without getting myself into legal trouble for unwittingly violating intellectual properly laws. If you'd tell me how, I'll gladly share the paper. Erminwin (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Erminwin: Thank you for the JSTOR lead! Unfortunately, they do not have that particular paper available for free, only for an exorbitant fee of $43.95. Ah, well. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Erminwin: I have had no further luck finding a freely accessible copy. If you are amenable, I can be contacted directly using the "Email this user" link on the left-hand sidebar when viewing my user page or my talk page. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

OJP /o₁/

Curious about your edit comment here. The w:Man'yōgana article states that there was no /o₁/ ↔ /o₂/ distinction for the bare vowel. Have you encountered any authors stating otherwise? I'd be very interested in reading anything along those lines. I'm slowly cobbling together the resources and scripting knowledge needed to do an exhaustive catalog of the characters used in the MYS, and I'm interested in reading what others have found. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I admit for the brief fix on the 鬼 gave you any confusion. After your edit, there was a formatting error and I fixed it. In that time period, I skimmed through the Kotobank entry; the KDJ usage example from the Nihon Shoki had the ruby of ヲニ, so it was my quick judgement that the Kitano annotation already knew there was an /o₁/. Please disregard the comment. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 19:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Query about etym note at 私#Japanese

Heya, you'd added a note stating:

This spelling was already prevalent in early modern times, possibly around the mid-late Muromachi to early-Edo period.

Did you mean this spelling, as in 私 the kanji, or did you mean this reading, as in わたし instead of わたくし?

If you meant the kanji spelling, I think a wording tweak might be good, and possibly also an example of how this might have been spelled prior to the spread of the 私 kanji.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

太政官

Heya, various queries / concerns re: diff.

• No argument that opoki existed as a lexical item in OJP. My concern is that we don't have textual evidence for おほき as a kana spelling in the context of the compound term おおいまつりことのつかさ. Re: the Daijisen entry, that provides no evidence for any OJP form that includes opoki. The KDJ entry cites the term to the Nihon Shoki of 720, but only with the kanji spelling 太政官, without any phonetic information to go on.
• Re: sortkeys, although the MW backend currently has problems with this functionality, best practice is to include sortkeys under all etyms. Using just |sort=| is not recommended anywhere, and goes against editing conventions. In addition, labels should get sortkeys as well as etym templates. Also, removal of dakuten only applies to the first kana.
• Re: readings, etym 2 now mistakenly shows だい in the kanjitab, but the first kanji is read as だ in this reading. We also still provide readings in {{ja-kanjitab}} even for irregulars, so I'm confused by your removal of the おお reading in etym 3. Also, まつりごと is not juku, but rather a kun'yomi for 政, at least according to our 政 entry, the ja:政 entry, Unihan, and the MS IME.
• Re: 大, this was also used as a prefix おほ in OJP. Without textual evidence of readings, we really can't say with any certainty if おおいまつりごとのつかさ or おおまつりごとのつかさ came first.
• Re: the Wamyōshō terms 大納言 and 少納言, while interesting, they don't necessarily tell us how this term 太政官 was pronounced. There are also differences in compounding, where the Wamyōshō terms are [ADJ] + [COMPOUND NOUN], while this 太政官 term's kun'yomi is instead [ADJ? PREFIX?] + [NOUN] + の + [NOUN].

If it's a prefix, we have the tsukasa of the ōmatsurigoto. If it's an adjective, we have either the tsukasa of (the ōi kind of matsurigoto), or we have the ōi kind of (matsurigoto's tsukasa), depending on how we parse the whole title. If the former, we'd find other kinds of ō[i]matsurigoto. If the latter, we'd find other kinds of matsurigoto no tsukasa. The KDJ suggests the former, which is also consistent with an interpretation of the first element as prefix おお instead of adjective おおい.

• I note that my local copy of the KDJ has only おおまつりごと for 太政, with this then compounding to form various other words. The only compound of おおまつりごと I'm finding that has that additional い after the おお is 太政官. But again, I'm not finding any clear textual evidence that this came from OJP おほきまつりごと. The interpretation of that first element as an adjective may have happened later, which would result in the addition of adjectival suffix い (or き if old enough).
• You've also removed the references and pronunciations I added. This seems unnecessarily lossy.

Can you find any ancient sources that have this term in either man'yōgana or kana, and that indicate a reading of おほき? If not, we have no evidence that this came directly from OJP Opoki₁ maturigo₂to₂ no₂ Tukasa. This may instead have come from Opomaturigo₂to₂ no₂ Tukasa. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 08:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I will make this quick:

• I was in a rush that day and forgot you actually added the pronunciations. Restored them.
• When I said “多き was attested in OJP, see Daijisen”, again I was in a rush and it should've been corrected to see KDJ with the heading おお・い おほい【多】. Sorry for the misunderstanding. At that time, I was thinking you said “where is the OJP attestation for the rentaikei form of a certain adjective” instead of “where is the phonetic/kana spelling of opoki₁... of 太政官”.
• The だい in the {{ja-kanjitab}} below Etymology 2 was my mistake since the creation of that entry.
• Using sortkeys is a personal preference, I would not mind others putting them after my edit(s). But my usual is: for the categories of Category:Japanese terms with archaic senses and rare senses (latter for the “chancellor” sense), 太政官 is to be below お since it's the archaic reading. For Category:ja:Government and Category:Japanese terms with historical senses, below た since Daijō-kan and Dajō-kan are the official names. Feel free restore them if you, but please understand the way I use and place them.
• The KDJ in Kotobank uses 大政 (without the small fourth stroke on the former) for the ōmatsurigoto entry.
• Remember that @TAKASUGI Shinji said in one of the talk pages that the readings of ancient texts had been orally transmitted and scholars are making sure such readings are correct? That likely explains why the office was called opoki₁... for so long.

I admit after checking the old dictionaries in NDL there are no ancient spelling(s) of the Great Imperial Council of State in any OJP literature. Reply if I forgot to tackle any of your statements above. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 03:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I thought you might have been moving quickly, but I wasn't quite sure.  :)

Re: ōmatsurigoto, interesting re: the online KDJ. My local copy uses the 太 kanji for the おお portion, same as in 太政官. Odd that there's a difference.

Interesting approach to sortkeys. That was not at all clear before your explanation above. Glad to know you're taking a considered approach. Note that, with no sortkey, I believe the MW back-end will sort under the headword spelling.

Re: opoki₁..., without textual evidence, we don't actually know for sure if that was the oral reading -- it might just as well have started out as opo... with the prefix, with the adjectival appearing later as a re-interpretation, as opoki or owoi or whatever it was at that time. Without textual evidence, we can hypothesize and conjecture, but we must be clear to our readers about what's definite and what is an educated guess.

Anyway, thanks again. I must log off for now. I'll check in again later. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits by Yumetori

Heya, noticed over at おとど that you'd re-added the glyph form for the single-kanji entry. Since this is a new addition to Unicode, and I don't think any fonts exist yet that support this glyph, I'd previously reverted Yumetori's similar change, restoring the existing image-based link. Non-rendering glyphs appear to be poor usability. Do you have any thoughts on that? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: unlike {{ja-def}}, {{ja-see}} does not have a parameter for image links. You could ask @Dine2016 to create one. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 20:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Post-nasalization at 奈良#Japanese

I'm intrigued by your addition of ᵑ in the ancient reconstructed phonetics for 奈良. What is that based on? I've never encountered anything about man'yōgana 良 having post-nasalization -- it's always just ら (ra) in the resources I've seen. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: it's based on the Middle Chinese borrowing 良 (MC ljang), but it's doubtful because the ᵑ is negligible being the second element in Nara (unless it's 奈良坂, Narazaka in some cases). If 良 was the first element, would have been like the word 公家 (kuge), the second element being voiced from the first's ᵑ. What do you think? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 20:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, hmm, that's a really interesting angle, considering the final nasal in the Middle Chinese origin in an analysis of what looks like rendaku but is found in the middle of on'yomi terms. I hadn't been aware of that before, thank you for calling my attention to it.

• Re: 公家, would the theory be that the nasalization was only present in the older goon? Otherwise the こうか reading would be こうが instead, no?

This could be a useful direction for further research. I'm in the (extremely slow) process of cross-cataloging JA on, KO eum, LTC, and OCH readings based on the data we have here (many thanks due to Wyang and the other Chinese editors for compiling so much in the Chinese entries), and from there, indexing the MYS to see how man'yōgana usage lines up with LTC / OCH / KO readings.

• Re: なら, the alternative spellings clearly indicate an unvoiced -ki or -ku ending, which would appear to rule out any nazalized ending for the initial nara portion. Unlike くげ, borrowed in toto from Chinese, the term ならざか is a clear case of compounding within Japanese, where normal rendaku processes would be expected. Also, considering the likely etymology of the place name なら as from a root nar- ("flat"), and the derivatives that lack any such nasal, we don't have any clear rationale for what a final nasal would be doing in the place name. It may be better to leave out mention of the possible nasal until / unless someone in academia (someone respectable, that is :) ) brings this up in the context of the derivation of the place name なら.

Thanks again for this, good stuff! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

asa, ashita, and related roots

I suspect that 浅い (asai) is also related -- one of the senses is "still early, not much time has passed". KDJ entry for reference. Specifically:

⑥ 始まりから、それほど日時がたっていない。

(イ) その季節になってからまもない。また、そのために季節（特に春）らしさの現われが、十分でない。

※山家集（１２Ｃ後）中「春あさき篠(すず)の籬(まがき)に風さえてまだ雪消えぬ信楽(しがらき)の里」

Although this specific sense is only cited to the late 1100s, I suspect that there may still be an earlier semantic connection between "shallow; of lesser degree" and "early in the day".

ご参考までに。(^^) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: the “shallow” and “early in the day” senses might have a connection. It might have been a later abstraction of the former sense: shallow in water → shallow in time.

Here are some words with an as- stem, as of this posting, relating to “early” and probably “the morning”. They could be cognates:

• 朝 (asa, “morning”)
• 浅い (asai, “shallow”)
• 明後日 (asatte, “day after tomorrow”)
• 朝 (ashita, “next morning”) → 明日 (ashita, “tomorrow”)
• 明日 (asu, “tomorrow”)
• 淺す (asu, found in OJP), basis for 褪せる (aseru, “to fade”)
• 汗 (ase, “sweat”)
• 焦る (aseru, “to be in a hurry”)
• 遊ぶ (asobu, “to play”)
• さ (sa-), prefix meaning “early”

Any other words you might think of? Pinging @Kwékwlos, Mellohi!.

In other news, Saigyō's poem from the Sankashū (no. 967):

春あさき篠の籬に風さえてまだ雪消えぬ信楽の里

haru asaki suzu no magaki ni kaze saete mada yuki kienu Shigaraki no sato

In early spring, the woven fence of suzu bamboo frigid from the wind in the village of Shigaraki has its snow disappeared.

Compared with the poem from the Saigyō Hōshi Kashū (no. 6) and Fuboku Wakashō (no. 14810):

春あさみ篠の籬に風さえてまた雪きえぬ信楽の里

haru asami suzu no magaki ni kaze saete mada yuki kienu Shigaraki no sato

In the earliness of spring, the woven fence of suzu bamboo frigid from the wind in the village of Shigaraki has its snow disappeared.

どうも、～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 03:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Fun stuff.

• 明後日 (asatte) appears to be from 明日 (asu) + 去りて (sarite) → asu sarite → asate → asatte (gemination appearing during the Muromachi period).
• I hadn't considered 汗 (ase) to be part of this cluster, but that's an interesting thought. Semantically, 汗 (ase) and 焦る (aseru) would make sense together from the sense of physical exertion, and 焦る (aseru) fits with the theme of early from the thought of making something happen earlier.
• Not sure how 遊ぶ (asobu) fits in here. Interesting, worth digging further.

Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my edits on 紅芋 and related pages. For my future reference, what is the purpose of this addition? Adabow (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adabow: your welcome. Since the first kana starts with a べ (be), using {{DEFAULTSORT:}} followed by an unvoiced kana such as へ (he) and adding an apostrophe at the end for example {{DEFAULTSORT:へにいも'}} goes in line with {{poscatboiler|ja}} which has a kana table of contents which does not index voiced kana such as が (ga), ざ (za), だ (da), etc. so that they categorize under the respective unvoiced letter that does have an index in the table of contents. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 00:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I see! Thank you! Adabow (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Okurigana

Re: diff, my understanding of the okurigana params in {{ja-kanjitab}} is that they're for, well, okurigana -- kana that are added after the kanji. For the name Akira, there are no okurigana (in fact, I don't think names in kanji generally take any okurigana ever, but I'm open to being proved wrong :) ). No? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: this is to prevent redlinks and (automatic) creation of probably unnecessary categories such as Category:Japanese terms spelled with 明 read as あきら unless there is a way to not create categories like this one for yomi=nanori parameter as demonstrated with the yomi=irr parameter. Or if the 信明 (Saneakira) entry is created which will make sense that such a category is necessary. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 10:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, once upon a time yomi=nanori suppressed category creation. I wonder when that changed, and why... Then again, perhaps someone sees value in nanori reading categories? Those are so damn variant and so damn many, I struggle to see the use myself, but whatevs. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

As long as I know, this "okurigana" also serves to construct the sort key, not always correctly however. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Romanization of おう

Your edits agree that pronunciation of しもうた is /ɕimoːta/, not /ɕimo.uta/. However for unknown reason you added the dot (".") to template argument, resulting in changing romanization from containing "ō" to "ou" ("shimōta" -> "shimouta"). Why?

I think that "ou" romanization should be used only for situations with pronunciation with separate vowels (e.g. 迷う／まよう = "mayou", but Kansai perfective 迷うた／まようた = "mayōta"). Arfrever (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arfrever: as of now, did not know any standard of romanization of the dialects especially Western Japanese ones. Have little knowledge of the Kansai dialect(s) per se, my only experience here was fixing the {{ja-pron}} regarding said accents. Do you have any helpful resources (if in Japanese, they are fine) regarding these? Pinging @Kyoww, TAKASUGI Shinji. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 21:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• See also [[Template_talk:ja-go-ou#Romaji]], where there is discussion of precisely this issue -- some native Japanese speakers do indeed pronounce this as /ou/, not /oː/. More research is called for before we finalize this. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Poketalker: The dot you added is not needed. Even in the dialects with ウ音便(au > ō) in the te-form, most of them remain a hiatus /au/ in their 終止形, because they have a strong consciousness that 終止形 of the verbs end with /-u/. Some dialects retain the long vowel /ɔː/ (<au) in the Middle Ages, strictly distinguished from /oː/ (<ou) even today. When it has been spelled "shimouta", I feel something wrong as a native speaker of a dialect which has the short form しもた(shimota) and 終止形 しまう(shimau). Therefore, I recommend to spell しもうた as "shimōta".--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• @荒巻モロゾフさん: have you not read the template talk two posts above this? To prove my unworthiness to use/side with one or the other, created 鳴かぬなら鳴くまで待とう時鳥 with both ō and ou in different cases for your thoughts. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• 待とう(matō) is 待たう(matau) in classical spelling and consisted from verb 待つ (matsu; mat-) + suffix う (-(a)u; from classical む(-(a)mu)). This vowel fusion (ō < au) should be spelled ō. If it were spelled "matou", misunderstanding of the word root as "纏う(matou; matow- < matop-)" might be caused.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Strange Module Error

I undid this edit because it seemed to be causing module errors in the entries that transcluded it using {{gv}}. Sure enough, the module errors went away.

I have no idea how it caused the errors, nor why it didn't cause a module error in the original entry. This may have nothing to do with any error in your edit- it may have exposed a bug in one of the modules.

I'm also not exactly sure why the module errors didn't display, but usually that happens when the output of a module is fed directly into a parser function. The error messages are treated by the parser function as just more text, and most parser functions are designed not to fail if they get bad input.

I don't have any more time this morning to work on this, and it's entirely possible this is beyond my limited knowledge of module code. You may need to bring this up at the Grease pit if you can't figure it out. If you can find a way to redo your edit without causing module errors in the other entries, feel free to do so. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: you meant {{ja-gv}}? It's probably the てんとう虫 (tentō mushi, “ladybird, ladybug”) alternative spelling. Let me check again. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 14:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I don't see any problems with てんとう虫 or other alternative spellings. Where exactly is the module error(s) found? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 14:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

てんとう虫, てんとう蟲, 瓢虫 and 瓢蟲, at the moment. The odd thing is that it doesn't cause a module error at 瓢蟲 and the module error is invisible in the other entries (you can only tell by the category at the bottom of the page). My guess is that there's some minor detail missing from the output that you wouldn't notice was missing. It may not seem so bad, but we need to keep CAT:E as clear as possible so we can spot new problems. It's bad enough that we have 20 entries with "out of memory" errors that we can't fix. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Comparing them with 續ぐ, a randomly chosen entry that has {{ja-gv}}, but no module error, I see that the entries with module errors are missing all the categories that one would expect from a headword template, such as Category:Japanese non-lemma forms and Category:Japanese nouns. Perhaps @Nyarukoseijin might have an idea about what's going on. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: The lemma entry (that is, the entry redirected to) should not have percent signs in headword templates. In this case the lemma entry 天道虫 had てん%とう% むし as |1= of {{ja-noun}}, which meant that 天 should be assigned furigana てん, 道 とう, 虫 むし. But when the headword template was expended on 瓢蟲, there was no way to assign three furigana runs to two kanji, hence the error. I never approved of such percent signs and I'll add a new section at Module talk:ja-headword explaining the issue. --Nyarukoseijin (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"compare {{noncog|en|...}}" in the definition line of mahjong terms (e.g. 吃)

Hi, I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. We usually only compare to a different language in the etymology or in a "See also". Is it the same concept as the English word, or slightly different? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: in English, chow, pung, and kong can mean both “the call for a set/meld of tiles” (吃, 碰, 槓) and “the set/melds” (順子, 刻子, 槓子; “a chow/pung/kong of...”) themselves. At least the latter is probably reserved to American mahjong terminology.

What is odd is that in Japanese dictionaries, 槓 (kan) is short for 槓子 (kantsu, four of a kind). In my experience playing mahjong (real and in video games), players would also say “kan” when declaring a four-set as well.

What do you think?～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 09:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's the call, then we can just have "{{n-g|the call for a chow}}" as the definition, right? Also, if it's the call itself, wouldn't it be an interjection? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Daijisen and Daijirin put no POS in 吃 but the Nihon Kokugo Dai Jiten put it as noun. Same with 碰 (pon). They can be interjections in my honest opinion, but they are not explicit as they have not a label of 感動詞 (kandōshi, “interjection”) in their entries as well. Again the “chow”, “pung”, “kong” as sets are probably reserved only to American mahjong (or who were the first ones to coin these three as such); so I am not sure how the Chinese players or those with variants in other countries would react. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 15:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I just don't like the "compare {{noncog|en|...}}" part. Definitions aren't where we want to compare anything. We could perhaps say that it's similar to "chow" in American mahjong or something like that. I also don't see a problem in applying an American mahjong term to other kinds of mahjong (but maybe I'm ignorant of the subject). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 11:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

青出於藍

Hi, I think your edits to the related Chinese entries might be a little too etymologically-based. 青出於藍，而勝於藍 is much more common than 青出於藍，而青於藍 in actual usage. As such, I don't know if it's right to have 青出於藍，而青於藍 as the main entry. Also, I don't know if we should have 青出於藍 as a "short for" entry. While it is shortened from the quote from Xunzi, it's unclear whether it's shortened from 青出於藍，而青於藍. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 10:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: move this to the Tea Room so the other Chinese editors can join us in the discussion? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 19:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

海松

To wright Proto-Japonic words that have not been attested by professional researchers, makes reduce the quality of the article. In particular, regarding the lengthening of the first syllable of 2-mora words in Okinawan language, it has been pointed out that it is related to the 3-series accent systems that are common in the Ryukyuan languages, so then reconstruct of the proto-forms needs to include accents. Please do not original researches.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@荒巻モロゾフさん, there isn't a single article in Category:Proto-Japonic lemmas having accents—acute, grave, macron, etc.—of some sort. You can discuss the suggestion of adding accents with Proto-Japonic contributors such as @Kwékwlos, Mellohi!. My edits sometimes have a {{rfv-etym|ja}}, this is for editors who are willing to verify/correct the problematic part(s) in the Etymology section. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 11:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

My original intent was to relegate the accentuation into the headword-line template and keep it out of the page title proper, much like the way we deal with Proto-Slavic lemmas here. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 17:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Poketalker, Mellohi!: To make links to unattested words urges to make the articles of unattested lemmas. Many articles of them don't play any role to indicate the proto-forms. Different accents come from different roots. The closer to proto-Japonic, the larger number of the accent types(number of the types of 2-mora noun accent are: Tokyo: 3, Kyoto: 4, Most of south-western part of Kyushu: 2, Ryukyuan: 3, Ibukijima: 5, Heian era Kyoto: 5, Proto-Japonic: 7-8). Regarding the Proto-Japonic accent system, there aren't well-described yet, so even if we keep suspended them, even now, there are too many problematic articles in Category:Proto-Japonic lemmas. Nevertheless, it is hard for foreigners to read and understand Japanese papers, so I will summarize in the near future, the information about recent study on the accent system of Proto-Japonic.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@荒巻モロゾフ -- Various writers, including Shibatani, disagree with your assessment of Kyoto Japanese as closer to Proto, and instead see various aspects of Kansai Japanese as innovations rather than conservations.

That aside, your continued mentioning of proto-forms is rather confusing -- the entry at 海松 has no links to proto-anything. What are you talking about? (Honest question. I have no clear idea what your concern is.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean red link. In any case, the protoform of 2-mora noun can be reconstructed 7-8 types of accents.[1][2]--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@荒巻モロゾフ, I'm still not entirely clear -- do you object to the mention of cognacy with Okinawan ビール and Northern Amami-Oshima ビル (biru)? Regarding Shuri Okinawan, there's an entry here in the Shuri Naha dictionary relating Okinawan ビール and Japanese 海松 (miru). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look at the etymology of the Old Japanese section, including the {{rfv-etym|ojp}} which Poketalker added as part of the edit that created it. If I didn't know better, I might think it was ruffled feathers over Poketalker's extensive cleanup of their formatting... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I have no objection about the cognateness. However, it is difficult to determine whether a word with the same origin between Ryukyuan and Mainland Japanese is originated from the proto-Japonic or is a newer loanword. Real nature of the denasalisation at the beginning of the word (/m/ → /b/) is also still unknown. The lengthening of the first mora of Okinawan ビール occurred because this word belonged to the accent group named "C系列". Ryukyuan accent C系列, together with B系列, correspond to 第3類, 第4類 and 第5類 in Japanese accent groups. 海松 (miru) belongs to 第4類(HL(L) in Tokyo; LH(H) in Kyoto). Yōsuke Igarashi, the author of the above paper calls this accent group "4C". In this paper, Igarashi expresses the accent of Proto-Ryukyuan in the superscript, like *tuNname^C. If there is no accent notation, we cannot explain the Okinawan forms, so I think that this method is ought to be adopted.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

日に日に

The article of Old Japanese should be made on the 日日 page. Old Japanese should not be lemmatized with modern Japanese spelling. The following are the reasons I came to this opinion:

• Hiragana and Katakana are not the letters for writing Old Japanese.
  • Writing of the Old Japanese words in mixture of kanji and kana is only a classical subset of (non-Old) Japanese. Jōdai Tokushu Kanazukai was first discovered in the 19th century, and until then, the Japanese did not realize that their classical language was an another language with different vowel systems.
  • Modern 5 vowel system does not match the Old Japanese 8 vowel system.
  • If you insist on phonetic notation, you should lemmatize either in romanized(as <pi₁ ni pi₁ ni>), or with Katakana (with subscript of 甲 and 乙; as /ヒ_甲ニヒ_甲ニ/) according to the Japanese phonological research tradition.
• It does not match the actual Old Japanese text and does not play any role as a dictionary.
  • <pi₁ ni pi₁ ni> is spelled in 日日, 日々 or 比尓々々(of the above three, the main article ought to be "日日", because it does not use repeating symbols nor isn't phonetic). If someone who doesn't know modern Japanese spelling finds these word forms, they can't look them up in wiktionary.
  • If you see the spelling 日に日に in the Man'yōshū, it's a Middle Japanese transliteration, not Old Japanese.
• If there is an entry with exactly the same spelling as Modern Japanese is created with exactly the same definition as Modern Japanese, it is only redundant.

And, by removing the comparison between Man'yōgana and modern spelling, convenience of the articles is reduced. When would you use |m= parameter in {{ja-x}}?--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@荒巻モロゾフ: my basis is on monolingual Japanese dictionaries, such as this one (This KDJ entry and page 46 of this PDF lacks the に (ni) particle). If you have seen Category:Old Japanese lemmas, some of the entries have kana in them. If I (and other editors) go by your standard, there would be confusion on the lack of particles/okurigana. Answering to some your points:

• Phonetic notation would require a new template, such as {{ojp-noun}}, {{ojp-verb}}, {{ojp-adj}}, etc.
• Wiktionary has a search feature for leading you to 日に日に, via the given usage example if you put 日日 on the searchbox, without going directly to the article with hibi/nichinichi/hinichi.
• I used to do {{ja-usex|m=}} and |m_kana= like yourself: under the Japanese header if the usage example is from the Kojiki, Nihon Shoki, Man'yōshū or any OJP literature, just without the OJP phonetic notations. See this previous revision of Citations:茜さす and compare it with the latest revision here. Today, for categorization purposes (i.e. Category:Old Japanese terms with usage examples), those parameters are reserved to classical-modern Japanese entries using phonetic kanji such as the Nihongi Kyōen Waka poems in Citations:天皇; and any OJP example I add to articles uses {{ux|ojp}}. I don't use the 々 repeat mark in my OJP examples.

The only other solution is to merge Japanese (, Middle Japanese,) and Old Japanese headers into one unified Japanese header (like Chinese), so that {{ja-usex}} and {{ja-pron}} can have further applications such as parameters for Old Japanese notation and pronunciation. Pinging @Eirikr, Nyarukoseijin since this issue is regarding kana in the OJP section and parameter/categorization issues.

I invite you back to the Wiktionary talk:About Old Japanese page since it's been more than a year discussing about what is the correct lemma spellings. Leaving you with a selection by a certain professional translator, emphasis mine: "I think it's worth pointing out that native Japanese dictionaries do not use man'yōgana spellings for lemma forms of OJP terms. They use modern kanji and historical kana spellings... I insist that we hew to long-established practice as demonstrated by Japanese monolingual dictionaries" That being said, fully disagree with your and @Huhu9001's proposal to use "orthography with man'yogana because [he believes] that was how it was mainly written in its time", no offense.

失礼します、～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 14:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Though confusing for the non-natives, the "古語辞典" is not an Old Japanese(a language ​​belonging to the Japonic family that is treated as a language other than Japanese) dictionary. The style that relies halfway on modern Japanese is inconsistent with other language entries' style. If we separate Old Japanese from Japanese, we must treat both as two independent language entries and using basis contaminated with the Middle Japanese is deprecated.

In my personal opinion, the same style as Chinese is correct, because the change of Japanese in the recent 1,300 years is much smaller than that of Chinese. If Chinese entries are not divided into Old, Middle and Literary Chinese and some dialects and allowed to quote ancient literature, Japanese ones should be too (Chinese can read Old Chinese texts in Mandarin, and also Japanese can read Old Japanese texts in modern pronunciation. I feel nonsense to separate the usage examples that have not so changed since ancient times from the modern language). In that case, it's enough for each Old Japanese spellings, to be soft redirects.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The godan verb kaeru

I've been chewing for a while on the derivation. This seems like it would be related somehow to the other shimo ichidan version of kaeru, but the connection eluded me.

Revisiting the issue, with my attention drawn back to it by your recent reworking at かへる, I found myself wondering if the ⟨kape₁ru⟩ OJP spelling, where ⟨e₁⟩ is often reconstructed as /je/, might suggest an earlier proto-form of kapi aru, which could be the connection to a two-mora root, otherwise mysteriously lacking for this verb. Root verb kapu does have senses of "turn, flip, swap", which could fit the semantics. Granted, verb aru is irregular in all of the historical materials, presenting a potential problem.

Curious what you think. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: if I recall correctly, there is a kap- stem starting with yodan verb かふ (kapu), then branching into shimo nidan かふ (kapu) and yodan かへる (kape₁ru). The latter preserves as godan verb kaeru, while the shimo nidan verb kapu further branches into classical yodan かはる (kafaru → kawaru) and ichidan かへる (kaferu → kaeru). Okurigana in both modern forms of kaeru indicate the verb conjugation class, seen in 返る (kaeru) and 変える (kaeru), to name a few.

The aru could have something to do with fusing ra-irregular verb あり (ari), i.e. *ari with *-u, however the latter suffix is for *terminal* forms of verbs. @ᾨδή said something about an affix -ar- attaching to some stem... see our dialogue at Talk:上一段活用. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 18:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There's also transitive kaesu so *-a-r-u (PJ) is an intransitive suffix, not *ari (but perhaps cognates? c.f. english to be Ved vs to V something, but no **as-u/i) Chuterix (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit at udaku

Curious about the change here, specifically changing {{IPAchar|/mudaku/}} to {{IPAchar|⟨mudaku⟩}}. As I read that, it implies that the reading was never /mudaku/ and that it was only spelled that way. From what I've read, though, the む・う ambiguity only happened at the end of words, never at the beginning -- and even there, if I've understood correctly, the ambiguity only arose in Middle Japanese. As shown in the KDJ entry here, one man'yōgana spelling was 牟太久, clearly indicating an initial mu.

Have I misunderstood your notation? Have you run into authors describing む・う ambiguity earlier than Middle Japanese, and at the beginning of words?

(Also, I'm very tired and I want to be clear that I'm not intending any combativeness, just honest asking.)

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: thought ⟨ ⟩ in that edit represented orthographic representation in Old Japanese, as also seen in my previous edits. The example is from the Shin'yaku Kegonkyō Ongi Shiki which confirms that the reading most likely have been began with mu- at the time of the chronicling of the history of Japan. Other than that, never ran to any authors or seen works about them. Please take your time. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 23:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Heya, sorry for my lack of clarity earlier.

Re: ⟨ ⟩ as marking orthographic representation, ya, that's my understanding too. My concern earlier was that if we mark the spelling as being ⟨mu⟩ and mark the phonemics as /u/, that reads as if we have something spelled む but pronounced う. My understanding of the term 抱く is that it was pronounced as something close to /mudaku/ in OJP, shifting to /udaku/ shortly after its first appearances. Would you be supportive of this addition of /mudaku/ to the chain of development? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: to be honest, would not be supportive of such since it's not like ⟨nami₁da⟩ → */namʲiⁿda/ → 涙 (namida); in this case, ⟨mudaku⟩ → */muⁿdaku/ → /mudaku/ → /udaku/ can be done if there was a(n Early) Middle Japanese citation for mudaku itself. But since you interpret the visual transition of ⟨mu⟩ → /u/ as “something spelled む but pronounced う,” guess I have no choice. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 11:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

重なる Citation

The Nihon Shoki translation looks good to me, based on my Chinese knowledge to be honest. I don't know others since I never studied old Japanese. Shen233 (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shen233: no knowledge of Old Japanese needed, both Shoki passages (there's actually two citations in that page at the moment) are in the Literary Chinese form. The Old Japanese terms in the passages that you don't comprehend can be referred to a dictionary. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 11:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)