Jump to content

Talk:Hentaigana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.180.45.200 (talk) at 23:07, 9 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWriting systems Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJapan Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:50, September 6, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

I am curious about this addition: "The hiragana "syllabic n" (ん) originally derives from a hentaigana for /mu/." As I understand it, ん derives from the 天 character. Can anyone shed some light on this? adamrice 19:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's 无 (as in 無, nothing(ness)), not 天. - 218.208.245.127 15:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An example on the right side would be nice. As it is now, I thought the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sho.png image was a hentaigana until I read more carefully.

Finding public-domain images can be a problem, but if you find one, go ahead and post it. adamrice 13:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not in Unicode?

Why has Unicode no code points for hentaigana characters assigned? --84.61.22.108 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's an obsolete writing system. --FlareNUKE 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Unicode already includes several obsolete writing systems, and they've recently even accepted the future addition of a script that's not just obsolete, but undeciphered. We don't even know what the symbols mean.
Well, in that case it could be either be because
1. It's not well known, and they have not gotten around to it, or
2. They don't see a point in it.
FlareNUKE 11:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason is that they're considered variant forms of the existing hiragana characters. But that's arguable, of course, so maybe they'll be added to unicode in the future. --Ptcamn 01:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unicode does indeed encode historical scripts. However, no one has submitted a proposal yet. They are not variants. Bendono 06:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full Table list:

http://japan-studies.com/language/hiragana/hentaigana/ --FlareNUKE 11:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That table is far from complete. Bendono 06:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

Who created the hentaigana images shown in the article? The calligraphy is beautiful. 66.171.76.241 04:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy most likely. --FlareNUKE 04:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hentai

It was bound to happen...OMFG HENTAI LOLOLOLLOLOLOOLOLOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.171.118 (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misreading?

I would appreciate a cite or some backup for the idea that "iwan to suru" is a "misreading" of "iwamu to suru" -- I realize that "iwan" is a variant of "iwamu", but it can be seen as far back as the Man'youshu in the 7th century. The idea that the written form influenced that pronunciation change is highly suspicious to me. The section also refers to 1900 writing reforms, which I have never heard of (does the writer mean 1945?)