User talk:Eirikr/Archive 2005-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Japanese and Korean

Started with the Swadesh lists for Finno-Ugric languages, modified somewhat.

Direct similarities:

Swadesh # E J K Note
77 tooth ki i J word means animal's tooth, fang
80 foot ashi bal Shibatani, Masayoshi cites this pair in The Languages of Japan (ISBN 0-5213-6070-6 (hbk); ISBN 0-5213-6918-5 (pbk))
85 belly hara bae Old Japanese /p/ is the source of modern J /h/ and some modern J /w/.
88 back se dui Not certain, but possible
99 to breathe suu (to breathe in) suida * Problematic given inconsistent consonantal correspondence elsewhere in this list.
- face omo yomo Meaning closer to visage or appearance than the face on the front of your head.
- scary kowai geop manh un kowai was kopasi in OJ, root kopa, close to K geop.
113 to hit ataru dderida J root atar- and K root dderi-?
125 to stand tatsu seoda * Problematic, given lack of clear evidence across multiple examples for J and K consonant correlations.
- to pour sosogu ssodda
- rope tsuna jul
140 to say iu oida See below too for another possible match with J iu
145 to freeze kooru eolda As pointed out by Godfrey Daniel, the OJ form of the word was koporu, making correlation unlikely. However, kooru may be related to koru of similar meaning ("to become stiff"), so there might still be some connection.
146 to swell hareru (-> haru) budda
150 water mizu mul
- swamp numa neup
- bear (animal) kuma gom
- bat (animal) koumori keong'eori Not sure if K word is right. Also, OJ form was kawapori.
160 cloud kumo kureum Note also possibly related J words kurai "to be dark" and kuro "black"
167 fire ho (alt), fu (alt, archaic) bul From OJ .
169 to burn moeru bul'ededa Older J verb form was moyu. Likely a noun / verb pair, with OJ po "fire" -> poyu "to burn".
180 warm atatakai ddaddeusha
185 good yoi johun Dropping adjectival inflection, we have J yo and K jo.
203 / 204 and, with to do
- thing koto keos
- island shima seom
- bamboo take dae
- acorn donguri dotori * Problematic given /ngu/ -> /to/.
- spider kumo keomi
- to put nosu (arch. for noseru) nohda
- shoe kutsu gudu * K possibly a modern loan?
- village mura maeul
- a group, a flock mure muri
- to group together mureru moida
- field hatake bat Specifically meaning "a cultivated plot of dry land".
- boat fune bae
- up ue ui

Not-quite-cognates, similarities between a K word and a J word of related meaning:

J K Note
shinu "to die" sine "a kill"
iu "to say" ib "mouth" iu in OJ was ipu
nemuru "to sleep" nubda "to lie down"
umu "to bear / produce" pumda "to hold / have / contain" not really sure about K meaning
utau "to sing" ulda "to cry"
furu "to fall" heureuda "to flow" My Shogakukan J-J dictionary here lists 降る as: 空から雨・雪などが落ちてくる。また、高いところから細かいものなどがたくさん落ちてくる。そそぐ。
kuramu "to become dark" kureom "cloud" See also J kuro "black", kumo "cloud", and kumoru "to become cloudy"
shimeru "to close", shimau "to put away" shimda "to plant"
naru "to become" nada "to grow"
I added some "comment out" comments to your table and signed them GD. (I hope this hasn't messed things up!) Please incorporate or ignore them as you please. Godfrey Daniel 18:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Godfrey, I really appreciate your time and wisdom! I've incorporated a number of your suggestions, and added some questions in the comments for the things I don't understand that well.  :) Thanks again, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
More comments. Enjoy! Godfrey Daniel 00:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Much food for thought, and a strong indication that I'm rapidly wading out to the deeper areas of the pool only I don't know how to swim in these waters just yet.  :) Time for more study, methinks... Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Some more comments interspersed into yours. You seem to have the right kind of mind and attitude for doing linguistics, and I hope that you are able to persue it some day. One thing, though: please, please, please stay away from Chomskyan "linguistics"! It's as psuedoscientific (and unscientific) as Freud, and as cultish as the Unification Church. You'll have to endure it in grad school, but you don't have to buy into their poppycock. Godfrey Daniel 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Godfrey! I'm moving some of your comments out of comment mode, as it were, by copying them down here for easier discussion.  :)

In order to do historical linguistics properly, you need a strong foundation in phonology, as well as good knowledge of morphology, and some of syntax. IIR, historical is a class that most students at UH take in their 3rd year of graduate studies, after the Master's stage. If you've already read up on phonology and morphology, and have reviewed the historical section of an intro text, you may be ready to move on to a real historical textbook. Hans Heinrich Hock's book and Theodora Bynon's book are two oft-used texts; the former has lots more data. A newer tome that has gotten a lot of good press is Terry Crowley's text. There are others, of course, and I'd be happy to steer you in the direction of more, but this should keep you busy for a while ;-) GD

Since my foundation in phonology and morphology is really quite patchy, just what I've cobbled together over the years without actually studying it per se, do you have any good recommendations for core texts in these two areas? I'll look up Hock, Bynon, and Crowley this weekend at the library as a starting point. My linguistics to date has been much more practical (translation and interpretation) than theoretical, so I may need to fill in on the details.  :)

Not to worry about Chomskyan. I tried reading some of his linguistic stuff a while back and was quite put off by it. If I understand him right, he's coming from a basic premise that I agree with, that the human brain is instinctively geared toward language, but I'm not sure I can follow where he goes from that starting point. A bit like Freud, for that matter -- a decent premise, that psychology deserves a scientific approach, but the developments on that theme went a bit funny.

Anyway, thank you again for your time and suggestions, and I'll see what I can find by way of the book leads you've given me. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello there

I use the book 朝鮮語を学ぼう by 朝鮮語研究会 published by 三修社 and it is an excellent book, except for the one significant drawback that it uses older spellings, e.g. still writes 있습니다 as 있읍니다 etc.; it does come with a booklet explaining the new spellings though, and the two spellings are not that different (unlike pre-1946 <=> modern kana). Everything else about the book makes putting up with that worth it: It is very structured, very detailed in describing pronunciation and many other things (a quasi-IPA guide comes with all the Korean words and sentences until late in the book), and mentions a lot of North-South grammar/vocabulary differences, which is probably rare among Korean textbooks! (The whole book is also very polite :P) And being a Japanese textbook, it mentions the Hanja of Sino-Korean words, many of which are just the same as Japanese kanji, which I think makes it a lot easier to remember the words. I imagine it much better than trying to learn Korean from an English textbook, though I've never used one. And I got the book from Kinokuniya too.

なければならない indeed also exists in Korean... When I learnt that structure in Korean I was cautioned that it is a formal expression. Furthermore there are two ways of saying the negative in Korean, and one has to be used for the first negative and the other way has to be used for the second negative. I thought that was pretty weird :P Though I must say that the native vocabularies of Japanese and Korean bear no resemblance, except for が being i/ga in Korean and か that ends questions being kka in Korean, though those might as well be coincidences. -- KittySaturn 01:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, just came back from uni and I remembered something else: the literal meaning of なければならない is also in Chinese to mean "must", but there is also a separate word that means "must" which is a weaker in meaning than the first. Thought you might want to know... -- KittySaturn 05:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for putting that whole table in my talk page :-) It is interesting to read. I don't know that many Korean words still, and I don't quite get some of the similarities you listed - perhaps you could explain a bit further? I can see the more obvious ones you pointed out e.g. numa <=> neup, but kooru <=> eolda? or mizu <=> mul (besides that they both start with "m")?
Here are the few things about the words:
  • I'm quite certain ぎゅっと is an onomatopoeia and is modern
  • Korean gang is Hanja 江
  • Korean do is Japanese も, not と
  • Korean naagada or nagada is a compound word (some conjugation of nada "keep doing something" + gada "to go" = something like 行き続ける)
I must repeat, of course, that I am no expert in anything remotely related to this (I study mathematics and this language stuff is just an interest!), but the links in the table you showed me seem wobbly enough that one is inclined to think, "If those show that Korean is related to Japanese, I can show that many other languages are related to each other", if you get what I mean. Then again, I didn't understand the similarities in many of them, so I am hoping you might have the time to explain them more to me :-)
The book I mentioned is South Korean-based. It is my impression that up until 10 or 15 years ago, the usual Japanese term for Korean was 朝鮮語. Well, that book was published in 1987 (hence still the old spellings! The old spellings were also South Korean-specific)... Nowadays, 韓国語 is the common term for Korean language, and 朝鮮語 is the more academic term. Maybe that happened because their hatred for North Korea grew during this time :P There are many books I see in Kinokuniya about Korean that are sort of old; they obviously changed the book titles at some point so that it now reads 韓国語 instead of 朝鮮語, but in the text it's still 朝鮮語 all the time... Even some other Korean textbooks in Japanese are like that! As a side note, in Chinese, Korean is called 韓語 in Taiwan and Hong Kong and 朝鮮語 in mainland China; North/South Korea are 北韓/南韓 in Taiwan and Hong Kong, but 朝鮮/韓國 in mainland China.
Come to think of it, for someone who is learning Korean for interest more so than for practicality, it is actually interesting to see the old spellings! -- KittySaturn 01:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I don't know where you live but you might want to check online first before you go and find the book. It is not exactly the most widely used book as you can guess [1] -- KittySaturn 02:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent dialogue Kitty, thank you for participating. It's difficult for a language geek like me to find anyone to talk to about this stuff without their eyes glazing over.  :D

Glottochronology is a controversial way of looking for interlinguistic relations, to be sure, and any attempt at using it should be backed up with research of historical materials to try and show how the languages in question have changed over time. Otherwise, as you point out, one "can show that many other languages are related to each other". I'm slowly in the process of reading up on the history of the Japanese language, including teaching myself about classical Japanese (源氏物語, etc), and some day (far from now! :) ) I hope to be at the point in Korean where I can do the same there. But in the meantime, it's still interesting to look for possible leads this way, revising as I learn more, and starting from what I recall of common linguistic alterations over time -- such as "u" <-> "i" sound shifts, "p" -> "w" -> "h/f" shifts, etc. As far as linguistic comparison goes, I'm more a fan of the theory that linguistic stucture is more indicative than vocabulary, as words can easily shift about, whereas grammar is generally slower to change. But in various conversations about the J-K relationship, I've heard many folks state the opinion that they couldn't be related, sometimes much, sometimes at all, based solely on the dissimilar vocabulary, so upon learning more about Swadesh lists, I decided to plug J and K words in and see what we get.

Sorry to butt in here in the middle, but regular sound correspondence is the gold standard of linguistic reconstruction. Despite what some people may believe, vocabulary is a much better indicator of genetic relationship than grammar. After all, there are only six basic sentential word orders (SOV, SVO, OVS, OSV, VSO, VOS), and languages with the same word order have a strong tendency to exhibit the same patterns (e.g., SOV languages usually have postpositions, and have modifiers precede that which they modify). However, the relationship between sound and meaning is utterly arbritrary (with exceptions for onomatopoeia and some baby talk). As for rates of change, nobody can say for certain, which is part of why glottochronology is no longer in the mainstream. More comments below. Godfrey Daniel 01:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Godfrey, my ideas about J and K grammatical similarities go beyond just the basic SOV structure to include also the complex honorific deixis that the two share, which (in my admittedly limited experience) seems to be more specific to these two languages, as well as their agglutinative qualities and their pro-drop tendencies. Are these more fine-grained characteristics also common in other SOV languages? If so, which ones? Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
1. Couldn't tell you about the occurence of honorific systems in other languages.
2. Agglutinative languages are found all over the globe; I don't recall what their typical co-occurence with SOV order is (I'm not a typologist).
3. Pro-drop (a term whose underlying assumptions I disagree with) languages are also found all over the globe.
4. Some of the similarities may be due to areal effects, others to out-and-out borrowing. Only after those have been filtered out can we get to the true similarities. The biggest problem is that the further back in time you go, the less similar Japanese and Korean look to each other. Godfrey Daniel 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, to address some of your specific comments/questions, here goes:

  • For "to freeze", the J root is koor-, and the K root is 얼 eol-. It's possible that, over time, an initial "g" sound might have hardened into a "k" for Japanese, and disappeared for Korean.
Possible, but the Old Japanese form was koporu (I don't recall the A/B distinction for ko off the top of my head). Probably not a candidate. Godfrey Daniel 01:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd missed that!  :) And forgive my ignorance, what's an "A/B distinction"? A wikilink or book title would be great -- googling about seems to give me more about computer languages and semantics processing than I think this might mean here. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
A/B is called in Japanese 甲乙 (こう おつ), and refers to the 3 additional vowels found in OJ that were lost in Classical Japanese. There's a passing reference on the Old Japanese page. Godfrey Daniel 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The modern Korean for water is 물 mul, but apparently it used to be 밀 mil, as mentioned over on the Talk page for Korean, about 2/3 of the way down the Do not use the Sino-etymology section. Apparently the "u" <-> "i" vowel change is not too uncommon, as evidenced as well by German grün and English green. From there, it's not too far to suggest that the Korean "l" and the Japanese "z" are close enough to suggest similarity -- make the "l" sound more of a retroflex, as in Chinese 人 rén, and it gets pretty close to a "z" sound. Japanese ostensibly has no final consonants aside from "n", but we can infer that this may be because formerly final consonants grew a following vowel as the language underwent a period of phonetic change. Hence, ancient K mil -> miz -> modern J mizu.
The Old Japanese word was みづ midu, which was phonetically [mindu]. This, in turn, is hypothesized by some to have come from even earlier *miNVtu. Again, not a good candidate. Godfrey Daniel 01:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Some dialects still pronounce the word as みづ, but more as [midzu]. I'd never heard mention of an "n" sound before. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
OJ voiced obstruents were prenasalized. This prenasalization was being lost at the time the Portuguese bumped into Japan, and is preserved in some of their records. It's still found in some modern dialects, like Tohoku. In some cases, OJ prenasalized consonants can be shown to have come from earlier NVCV sequences, e.g., arudi "master" from aru + nusi, or kötöba "word" from kötö nö pa "speech's leaves" (to translate it poetically) (ö represents a B-type (乙類) o).
Oh, and the i of OJ midu was A-type (甲類). Godfrey Daniel 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder about gyuuto (or, as I should have written it minus the particle, gyut- and guid-). It's definitely a more informal word, and as such is unlikely to be found much in older texts given their more formal writing. I don't think it's new, but without talking to folks really into Japanese archaeolinguistics it's hard to say definitively. Assuming it is indeed old, I don't know if it matters much if it's onomatopoeitic, as different cultures hear things differently -- English speakers think pigs say "oink", while Japanese speakers think they say "bu bu". A similar onomatopoeitic outlook might be construed as indicative of similar linguistic processes, no?
Sorry to be blunt, but no. Onomatopoeia is excluded from comparisons on the basis of its (relative) lack of arbitrariness. Also, the fewer assumptions one has to make, the more solid the hypothesis, and assuming that a word without a known etymology has been around for a long time is much less safe than working with a word that is attested throughout the language's known history. Godfrey Daniel 01:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clarifying about 강 -> 江, I never would have found that out otherwise. I've duly struck that one off the list of similarities.
  • Though 도 is indeed more of a correlate to も than to と in terms of strict grammatical meaning, I still find it compelling that these two particles of nearly identical pronunciation share a similar sense of inclusion. It's entirely possible that the finer points of usage have changed over time, and indeed it is clear that particle uses have changed over the course of historical Japanese. This certainly requires more research, but it is interesting nonetheless. Common etymologies, or modern convergence? Hard to tell at this point.
A common mistake made by non-specialists is to assume that words that sound similar may have a common origin. This is not how historical linguistics works. Rather, one looks for regular correspondences, i.e., a pattern of correlation of sounds in words of identical or similar meaning. For example, if we look at Greek kardia, Russian serdtse, and English heart, (all mean the same thing), we see that only the r is shared. However, when you look at a much larger number of words, you see the correlation of Greek k to Russian s to English h, over and over again. This is reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European *k'.
If you're interested in the possibility of a connection between Japanese and Korean, the place to start is the works of Samuel E. Martin and John Whitman. IIRC, Whitman correlated J ishi with K tol "stone," and showed the same correspondences for other words as well. Of course, he also posited changes to account for both languages' modern forms. This is the kind of non-trivial regular correspondence that make a proper historical argument (even though many specialists don't think that the two are related). Godfrey Daniel 01:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Great, thank you for the leads! I've seen the ishi - tol linkage mentioned before in Shibatani, for instance. By even though many specialists don't think that the two are related, do you mean these two words, or Japanese and Korean? If the latter, I find that odd, given the genetic and archaeological evidence at the bare minimum, and given also the broad similarities between the two that are not shared between, say, Japanese and Chinese or Polynesian or even Ainu. I'll be interested in reading these authors. Shibatani mentions Martin numerous times, and I think Whitman's name rings a faint bell.
I mean both: if Japanese and Korean aren't related, then those two words aren't related either. As for the archaeological record, rocks don't talk. So, we don't know what language was/languages were being spoken by the people who held those rocks (or other tools).
Having said that, as far as I know, no mainstream scholar denies a Korean peninsular-Japanese archipelagic connection, but the nature of that connection is open to debate. My Korean history is rusty, but remember that there were several kingdoms on the peninsula, and that eventually, Silla won, and their language prevailed. However, the other kingdoms had their own languages, and those now-extinct languages seem to have been related to Japanese. Sadly, those languages have only fragmentary attestation, so barring the discovery and decipherment of a cache of materials in one or more of those languages, we may never know. Check out the Buyeo (state), Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla links. Godfrey Daniel 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm not so much interested in "proving" that Japanese is related to anything in particular, but I am very interested in the etymology of Japanese words, and the process of word formation in the language. Growing up and being taught English, my teachers told me to look at big words as compounds of smaller roots, and that I could expand my understanding by grasping the meanings of the roots first. After working with Japanese for many a year now, it appears that many Japanese words are likewise compounds of smaller roots, but no one seems to be talking about that when it comes to teaching the Japanese language -- neither to native speakers, given what I've discussed with folks, nor to non-natives. For instance, even such a basic word as sakana is a compound, coming from saka / sake "liquor / wine" and na "snack" (note these translations are only rough approximations). It seems as if the addition of the kanji has led many native J speakers to view words discretely based on how they're "spelled", such that 付く "to attach", 着く "to arrive", and 突く "to stab" are all viewed as completely separate and unrelated words, though they all arise from the common root つく, which carries all these meanings. From つく, we get つか, the 未然形, and then add the old verbal suffix う (from archaic ふ), to denote an ongoing action -- つかう, "to use". From here, we can add a prefix あ (which meaning I haven't puzzled out yet) to arrive at あつかう, "to handle". Anyway, my interest lies in puzzling out these roots and how they are combined, with a view towards making it easier to teach and learn the language. (Where these roots might "come" from, or what other languages might share them, is simply an interesting aside.) I don't suppose you've run across anything related to such etymology and word formation in your studies? I'd very much appreciate any leads you could give. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely right when you point out that the use of different Chinese characters obscures the relationship (or even unity) of certain words; my favorite example is とる:撮る 取る 採る 執る 獲る 摂る 盗る 録る with eight different characters for one word!
However, I think you may have gone too far in your attempts to explain つかう as related to つく, though it is possible. It seems more plausible that あつかう and つかう are related, but if they are, what's あ? In order to demonstrate that they are related, you'd have to figure out what a- meant, make sure that the accent classes agreed, and find something in the OJ corpus (or something shortly thereafter) that clearly links them. Otherwise, it's safer to say "chance resemblance." (As for accent classes, see Martin's The Japanese Language Through Time.)
FYI, I'll be gone next week, and may not have much time the rest of this week to address these issues. Still, I am enjoying our discussion! Godfrey Daniel 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you too for your explanation of 나아가다 as a compound. I wondered if it might be, given how many syllables it contained, but without the needed background I could only guess. More indication that I need to hit the books.  :)

Excellent link too to the Kinokuniya page, thanks for that as well. Must run for now, but I wanted to get some ideas down before I forgot them. Cheers! Eiríkr Útlendi 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain the similarities. Now I have at least a little idea why people say there could be a link between Japanese and Korean, haha...
Indeed, 나아가다 would look even less like a compound word when written 나가다, which I think is how it's usually written, because the extra a sound is usually tucked in! I wonder though if there was a time when the extra 아 was always written in. You probably know this already but one of the more annoying things about learning Korean when compared to Japanese is that you don't know if a syllable is long or short. e.g. 눈 (nun) is "eye" when short and "snow" when long... Unfortunately I know nothing about any older Korean! At least in Japanese, I have some knowledge of the classical grammar / words. I wonder if the vowel lengths used to be indicated in older Korean.
I would love to also learn Korean to the extent to which I have learnt Japanese, like you want to, but since I am not a high school student any more (when I had plenty of time to learn all that Japanese useless but cool stuff), I probably won't have any time to do so now :-( Unfortunately without knowing pretty much just as much about Korean as Japanese, I'll never know how they are related, and unfortunately I had chosen to study science instead of arts at uni :-( but you'll probably find out about it all some day! -- KittySaturn 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making the list. My professor believes that shima and seom “island” are related.—Wikipeditor 08:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikipeditor! I'll add that one to the list here. Eiríkr Útlendi 16:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Verses versus Versus

Touché. Grika 15:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

hi

Hi Eirikr. I've been doing the pretty silly back and forth with Hermeneaus on the Yayoi Discussion. I finally got an account. I wanted to thank you for your evenhanded comments in the section because you're not biased one way or another. I just saw your question. Just quoting Diamond again:

Similarly, geneticists attempting to calculate the relative contributions of Korean-like Yayoi genes and Ainu-like Jomon genes to the modern Japanese gene pool have concluded that the Yayoi contribution was generally dominant. Thus, immigrants from Korea really did make a big contribution to the modern Japanese, though we cannot yet say whether that was because of massive immigration or else modest immigration amplified by a high rate of population increase. Genetic studies of the past three years have also at last resolved the controversy about the origins of the Ainu: they are the descendants of Japan's ancient Jomon inhabitants, mixed with Korean genes of Yayoi colonists and of the modern Japanese

What I gather is that genetically, modern Koreans and Japanese are so alike that it would be impossible to suggest that the Jomon people were the ancestors of the modern Japanese unless you ignore genetics. If the Jomon were the ancestors of the Japanese than modern Japanese genetics should be more similiar to the modern Ainu than modern Koreans. Since Japanese and Koreans are "biologically undistinctive" the idea that Jomon were ancestors of the Japanese with little immigration from China and Korea doesn't make much sense. Hope that helped. Tortfeasor 07:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tortfeasor. That was my own loose reading after pondering for a bit, but the phrase is so ambiguous I wanted to sound out other people's ideas. I'll see about revising the section if the page is calm enough (I tried yesterday but so many others were editing at the same time I gave up). Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Eirikr. The reason why I used King instead of Emperor for the title of Ojin was because of certain people in the Yayoi section who insist on accuracy (espcially on the point that "Korean Peninsula" is more accurate than "Korea"). I have argued, on the other hand, that using Korea is proper because it is common ususage (and even probably more accurate). To be most accurate, Ojin was a king of Yamato and did not assume a title of emperor or ever believe he had one. [2]. In fact, "Emperor" in the Japanese ruler context isn't even the most accurate way to describe the title into English. Obviously using "King" however makes things unnecessarily confusing and we should probably just use the term Emperor. My point is that if we follow people like FWBOarticle who is now suggesting changing China to Shantung Peninsula, etc. in the Yayoi section, we are becoming so accurate we are missing the big picture. Let me know what you think if you want. Thanks! Tortfeasor 19:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good once explained.  :) I was just going on the basis of the actual page names for Emperor Ojin and Emperor Kimmei. FWBOarticle just made a similar point, and I just suggested to him/her over on the Talk:Korean_arguments_on_Yamato_period#Titles page that perhaps the issue should be taken up on those respective Talk pages. From my view, it looks like FWBOarticle is interested in avoiding any connection between the Japanese and Korean ethnicities, and the Shantung etc. bit looks like more smoke to distract from any such possibility (note how s/he chose words carefully to make it sound like the Yayoi were Qin immigrants, a preposterous claim given the linguistic and archaeological evidence); I'm more interested in empirical reality than ideology myself, but then I guess that's my bias. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
A problem at the Yayoi page, again. Would appreciate any feedback you had about Jared Diamond as a source or not if you would like to devolve into another attenuated argument. Thanks. Tortfeasor 06:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was moving and was thus offline for almost a week, and just saw your note now. Going back through the histories for the Yayoi article and its Talk page, it looks like the cooler heads prevailed again.  :) That poor fellow really seems out of his depth intellectually. I do hope he is young, as it makes it more likely that he might learn to be more logical and rational as time passes. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 16:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Japanese history...

I only changed the first five or six before I was called away. elvenscout742 17:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The only one left that I'd tweaked was the beginning part of Kofun era, which I just undid. There was one :ja link in Kofun_era#Kofun_tombs that I left, however, as there is no corresponding :en article -- [[:ja:前方後円墳|前方後円墳]] zempō kōen fun, a.k.a. "keyhole kofun". For now, I'll add the Japanese article to my translation To Do list. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 17:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Japanese word formation

Note: I've created this section to continue a very productive conversation with Godfrey.

Prenazalization

The Old Japanese word was みづ midu, which was phonetically [mindu]. This, in turn, is hypothesized by some to have come from even earlier *miNVtu. Again, not a good candidate. Godfrey Daniel 01:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Some dialects still pronounce the word as みづ, but more as [midzu]. I'd never heard mention of an "n" sound before. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
OJ voiced obstruents were prenasalized. This prenasalization was being lost at the time the Portuguese bumped into Japan, and is preserved in some of their records. It's still found in some modern dialects, like Tohoku. In some cases, OJ prenasalized consonants can be shown to have come from earlier NVCV sequences, e.g., arudi "master" from aru + nusi, or kötöba "word" from kötö nö pa "speech's leaves" (to translate it poetically) (ö represents a B-type (乙類) o).
Oh, and the i of OJ midu was A-type (甲類). Godfrey Daniel 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This prenazaliztion is very like what I noted about some place names around Tokyo, such as the Tama River being called the Taba River further west. And I'd noted the word 度 tabi pronounced as tambi in Iwate-ken, but I'd been told that was more of a dialectical "corruption" of tabi -- probably just the cultural bias of whomever told me that. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tama/Taba: This is a different, yet related, phenomenon.
tabi/tambi: Tambi is used in Tokyo, too. It could be from another dialect, or it could be from an emphatic form which has lost most (or all) of its emphatic-ness. I don't know. Godfrey Daniel 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Japanese - Korean linguistic connections

I mean both: if Japanese and Korean aren't related, then those two words aren't related either. As for the archaeological record, rocks don't talk. So, we don't know what language was/languages were being spoken by the people who held those rocks (or other tools).
Having said that, as far as I know, no mainstream scholar denies a Korean peninsular-Japanese archipelagic connection, but the nature of that connection is open to debate. My Korean history is rusty, but remember that there were several kingdoms on the peninsula, and that eventually, Silla won, and their language prevailed. However, the other kingdoms had their own languages, and those now-extinct languages seem to have been related to Japanese. Sadly, those languages have only fragmentary attestation, so barring the discovery and decipherment of a cache of materials in one or more of those languages, we may never know. Check out the Buyeo (state), Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla links. Godfrey Daniel 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I've been reading up on such history for a while now. All very interesting, but sadly, as you note, the linguistic leads are tenuous at best, given that prior to Hangul all Korean was written in Chinese, if it was written at all, leaving us little information about pronunciation. There have been some tantalizing suggestions that the Baekje and Japanese elite were quite close, with some nebulous hints that the languages were possibly mutually intelligible, but nothing concrete that I've run across so far. Given the history, though, the general trend of archaeological findings seems to suggest that the Yayoi people were immigrants from elsewhere inland, and that the culture they brought with them was very similar to what was going on in Manchuria and Korea at the time.

The Kojiki and/or Nihon Shoki have sections that talk about interactions with people from the Korean Peninsula; nowhere are translators mentioned.
It's known that Korean Peninsular non-Silla elites escaped whatever unpleasant situations they faced there by going to Japan. It's also known that before the Yamato court became dominant, there were a bunch of different "kingdoms" in Japan; their rulers were incorporated into the Japanese imperial line ex post facto as a way to smooth over ruffled feathers amongst the non-Yamato groups.
Going back earlier, it's clear that the Yayoi people came from outside Japan and are not an indigenous development; last I checked, the hypothesis that they spread from northern Kyushu, and therefore (logically) came from the peninsula, has the most supporting evidence. The Yayoi people are the cultural and primary genetic ancestors of the modern Japanese; they're almost certainly the linguistic ancestors as well. Godfrey Daniel 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Etymologies

You are absolutely right when you point out that the use of different Chinese characters obscures the relationship (or even unity) of certain words; my favorite example is とる:撮る 取る 採る 執る 獲る 摂る 盗る 録る with eight different characters for one word!
However, I think you may have gone too far in your attempts to explain つかう as related to つく, though it is possible. It seems more plausible that あつかう and つかう are related, but if they are, what's あ? In order to demonstrate that they are related, you'd have to figure out what a- meant, make sure that the accent classes agreed, and find something in the OJ corpus (or something shortly thereafter) that clearly links them. Otherwise, it's safer to say "chance resemblance." (As for accent classes, see Martin's The Japanese Language Through Time.)
FYI, I'll be gone next week, and may not have much time the rest of this week to address these issues. Still, I am enjoying our discussion! Godfrey Daniel 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No trouble schedule-wise, that's partly the joy of a wiki.  :)

About つく -> つかう, note that one of the meanings of つく as given in my copy of Shogakukan's 1988 国語大辞典 is:

  • ある人、物事などに従う。

For つかう, we find:

  • 身辺の世話や用事などをさせる。働かせる。

This relates through to つかえる, as given by:

  • 上位者の下位者に対する動作である「使う」に対し、下位者の上位者に対する動作をいう。下位者が上位者に対し何かをする意

Note also that the archaic spelling of つかう is given as つかふ, tying in with the 未然形 + ふ etymology.

Do you have more examples of compound words made of 未然形 + whatever? I can't think of any examples (other than verbal inflection, which isn't the same thing anyway). This is my number one problem with this hypothesis. Godfrey Daniel 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, ふ is defined as:

  • Ⅰ 〔助動〕(活用は「は・ひ・ふ・ふ・へ・へ」。四段活用動詞の未然形に付く)反復、継続の助動詞。
    1. その動作が反復して行われる意を表す。しきりに…する。何回も繰り返して…する。*万葉‐三六九一「秋萩の散ら敝(へ)る野辺の」
    2. その動作が継続して行われる意を表す。…し続ける。ずっと…する。*古事記‐中・歌謡「い行き目守(まも)ら比(ヒ)戦へば」
    3. その変化がずっと進行していく意を表す。次第に…する。どんどん…してゆく。*万葉‐四七八「変ら経(フ)見れば悲しきろかも」

But for the あ prefix, I'm stuck due to the limited number of 和語 words I can think of that start with あ. I don't have my notes here and it's been a while since I was really digging around etymologically, but just offhand I've got つかう・あつかう, and ふれる・あふれる. It's a stretch, but I've come to one possible explication of the latter pair. If we take れる as a 助動詞, 「自発を表す」, then ふれる could be from ふる. One of the meanings of ふる is 「空から雨・雪などが落ちてくる。また、高いところから細かいものなどがたくさん落ちてくる。そそぐ。」 So we've got "to precipitate" and "to flood" as the pair, hinting that the あ might indicate a resulting condition of the root verb. But again, this is purely a guess extrapolation, and I need many more points on the graph. It doesn't fit very well with つかう・あつかう either.

Actually, now that I'm working this through, that explication really doesn't seem to work once I look at つまる・あつまる, where the result would seem to be the root (つまる) rather than the prefixed verb (あつまる). Hmm. Time again to start keeping my notebook nearby. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking still at あつまる, another possible root rather than つむ would be あつ as in 厚い "thick", plus the 助動詞 「む」, 「…の様になる、…の様である」, much as with 広い・広む, 親しい・親しむ, etc. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I, too, like trying to connect あつまる and あつい 'to be thick' much better than trying to connect the former with つまる.
I also think that it's too easy to go too far in trying to relate words with similar shapes. While I do believe that aka- is the "base" for akai, akarui, akaru, etc., and is related to akiraka, aku, akeru, etc., it's hard to say just how these words might be related, especially in the absence of (most of) these patterns across a variety of words. In this case, ak- may just be a phonastheme (what? no wiki entry? argh.). Also, if you do break them down, you have to show what the parts are, and this is why I find your a- prefix, though original, unsatisfying.
But it's only by trying out various hypotheses, some of which we later reject, that we make any progress.
As for -ふ, it's probably from OJ apu, which is our modern friend あう. See you later! Godfrey Daniel 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

厚い is no doubt the much better fit, and I still find it interesting that つむ carries a similar meaning to あつむ. Perhaps the あ here was dropped rather than added? I'll have to puzzle on that one a while. (I also need to get back into my classical J studies and thence dive into OJ, but that's another matter. :) )

Looking at ふ, Shogakukan does offer some interesting footnotes:

補注 (1)語源は、動詞「ふ(経)」と関連づける説もあるが、動詞「あふ(相・合)」で、本来、動詞の連用形に接したものか。
(2)「移ろふ」「畷(すす)ろふ」「つづしろふ」など、動詞の語尾がオ列音に変わっている例も多い。
(3)「流らふ」「伝ふ」「よそふ」など、下二段活用動詞「流る」「伝(つ)つ」「寄す」に「ふ」が付いたと思われる例がある。ただし、これらの「ふ」は下二段型活用である。なお、「捕らふ」「押さふ」などにも下二段型活用をする「ふ」があるが、これらは、語源を下二段動詞「敢(あ)ふ」に求めることもできる。

This mentions the あう hypothesis, and also gives a number of other examples of 未然形 + ふ. A few other pairs that spring to mind are なびく・なびかう, たぶ・たまう (both of which seem to relate to the Tama / Taba phenomenon, with a purely speculative overlap between たぶ and Polynesian tapu), くう・くわう, きる・きらう, つぐ・つがう, もる・もらう... In most cases, the う form fits the definition given above, of something repeated or continued, including for those pairs listed in footnotes (2) and (3) above. The change from the 未然形のあ欄 form to お欄 forms such as すすろう, よそう, etc. would be consistent with the general pronunciation change seen from -au to -ou, such as in さういう人 → そういう人.

Shifting over to the ak- root, there's a lot of fun room there. The underlying root meaning seems to be not "red", but rather "open" / "bright". Shogakukan (again, sorry, that's all I have right to hand at the moment) notes the following:

あか【赤・紅・朱・緋】
Ⅰ (「あか(明)」と同語源という。本来は単独形「あけ(赤)」が複合語を作る時の形と思われる)

Looking over at 明い (あかい), we have:

1 光などが強くはっきりしている状態である。明るい。*万葉‐八九二「日月は、安可之(アカシ)といへど」
2 夜が明けて明るい。また、まだ日が暮れないで明るい。*枕‐三六「あかうなりて人の声々し、日もさしいでぬべし」

From 2 above, we look over at 明く:

1 へだてや、おおいなどが除かれる。閉じていたものが開く。*竹取「たてこめたるところの戸、すなはちただあきにあきぬ」
2 そこを占めていたものがなくなる。
①一部のものが除かれたり、間が広がったりして空間ができる。*更級「穴のあきたる中より」
②中にはいっているものがなくなる。からになる。*天草本伊曾保「ウツワモノノコトゴトクaitauo(アイタヲ)ミテ」
③官職、地位などに欠員ができる。*源氏‐行幸「ないしのかみあかば、なにがしこそ望まんと思ふを」④収入より支出が多くなる。欠損になる。*浮・懐硯‐二「二度の節季の帳まへたび毎に<略>大きに虚(アク)ところありて」
3 (omitted)
4 ある一定の期間が終わりになる。*蜻蛉‐中「ものいみも、けふぞあくらんと思ふ日なれば」

... and thence to 明け:

1 夜が明けること。また、その時。明け方。夜明け。⇔暮れ。
2 年月日や季節が新しくなること。
3 ある期間が終わること。また、終わった時。「年季奉公のあけ」「夏休みあけ」など。

And this isn't even touching the other あく spellings with related meanings.

Looking more at similar patterns, there are other places where we can see small roots compounding into multiple words. One good example I can think of right away is むる, "to group together". From this we get むれる (modern form for "group together"), むれ "flock" or "group", むら "village", and むろ "room". (Interestingly, the お欄 seems to imply "inside / inwards", seen also with こむ・こもる, うむ・うもる, つむ・つもる, possibly おす・おそる, おく・おこる, おびる・おぼる, はる・ほる, etc.) Adding the word き・け for "steam / vapor", we get けむり for "smoke". (An alternate けむり etymology I've run across suggests it to be け + ぶれる "to move shakily".)

Another hypothetical group I've been puzzling out for a while is based on つ, which as a verbal ending became the modern た to indicate past tense or completion, and as a number suffix indicated amount. Indicating amount, we have the つ in ひとつ, ふたつ, あいつ, やつ, こいつ, etc. Interestingly, putting two つ together as in archaic forms like 行きつ戻りつ indicates nominalization and also continuation. In a slightly more modern format, we put two つ together to get the continuation and nominalization suffix つつ as in かわりつつある. Add 連濁 and stick it after a counter, and we get づつ as in 4本づつ "four (long skinny things) each". On its own as a noun, we get つつ as in "pipe" or "bamboo section", still something that continues. On its own as a verb, we get つつ "to tell, to communicate, to pass along". The 未然形 alone as つた means "vine". Change to 未然形 + ふ and we get つたう "to run along something" as a vine, or as water trailing down a branch or a tear down a cheek. Change to 他動詞 and we get つたえる, the modern version of "to tell, to communicate, to pass along". Change again following the 未然形 + る pattern for formation of the passive, and we get つたわる.

Jumping back to the root, we get つ + つく to get つづく "to continue", together with the transitive form つづける and rarer intransitive form つづかわる. There are also other possibly related words such as つな "rope" (and thence to つなぐ "to tie together"), and つね "usually, constantly", again connected with the idea of continuation. We also have つる "vine, string" as a noun and "hang down / fish for" as a verb, connecting thence to つれる "to catch" (from the meaning of "to fish for") / "to accompany", and also to つらなる "continue in a line / attend / become involved". These are all related in terms of continuation.

Anyway, this post grows too long, but the point I was originally shooting for is that I believe there are other examples of Japanese roots metamorphosing into whole trees of words beyond just the ak- root. Or at any rate, that's what I'm busy looking for.  :) Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yamato and AWB

I noticed you began a new subject thusly headed on my talk page but didn't write anything more; had you a specific question apropos of my edits to Yamato (they were, I think, altogether minor: spelling and capitalization)? Hope all is well, Joe 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, a tech question. You're just too quick -- I was busy writing when this popped up here!  :) Cheers, and looking forward to your answer, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The changes to the internal links are automatically applied by AWB, and, to be entirely frank, I haven't a clue why. One can disable the feature that automatically "corrects" Wikipedia syntax, but then certain important edits are lost as well. I certainly agree that, were one to run AWB on pages otherwise without error and simply to "correct" those internal links, valuable server capabilities would be wholly wasted; in this case, my edits were to correct sundry misspellings of "architecture" on the page, and, so, I hope that the additional changes made by AWB weren't additionally taxing. The question you raise, though, is very good, and you might get a better answer at the AWB talk page; please let me know if you happen to find anything out, as I'm now quite curious as well. Thanks much! Joe 05:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I did discover that the AWB guidelines do suggest that one not make edits of pages only to remove minor syntactic errors; if you should find someone using AWB solely to remove the underscores from internal links (where such use is not concomitant to a proper editing task, e.g., correcting spelling), I think you certainly ought to suggest to the user that he/she not act thusly. The concern on the AWB page seems to be exactly that which you had, to-wit, that Wikipedia resources are wasted with such frivolous edits. Joe 19:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yayoi period

The page can not move to Yayoi period because Yayoi period has an edit history. You need to ask an administrator to delete Yayoi period, then you can move it there.--Brendenhull (talk) | 11:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Brendenhull, will do. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tsushima Island

あなたは日本語ができるということですから、私は日本語で書き込みます。

まず、あなたは私に注意をする前に、韓国人のVandalismを注意するべきです。

Tsushima Island に関しては、韓国人の学者の個人的な意見(しかも、彼は韓国の現代史の専門家であって、古代の歴史の研究家ではありません。)

古代の日本史の記事は韓国人の「日本のルールは韓国」という馬鹿馬鹿しい主張によって、水準が非常に下がっています。 (あなたも知っていると思いますが、様々な文献と事実から、日本の起源は中国であることは疑いがありません。)

多くの日本人は勧告の古代に関心を持ちません。そして、まったく韓国の古代史の編集に参加しません。それなのに、韓国人は日本の古代史に執拗に捏造された記事を追加しようとします。

もし、あなたが公平な立場であるならば、あなたは、彼らApplebyDeiaemethの行動を非難するべきでしょう。

私はあなたの立場がわかりません。そのため、私は退きます。(私はApplebyたちKoreanの無茶苦茶な編集がなくなれば、韓国と関わることはありません。)

あなたが、彼らのようなKoreanでないことを願いながら、あなたの投稿状況とApplebyたちへの勧告をどのようにするかを私は見守ります。 再见。好的一日!--Kamosuke 10:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


Translation into English:

ja → en: Since you can understand Japanese, I'll write here in Japanese.

First off, before you tell me to pay attention, you should pay attention to the vandalism being done by Koreans.

For Tsushima Island, [all we have is] a Korean academic's personal opinion (and at that, he's a specialist on modern Korean history, not a researcher of ancient history.)

Articles about ancient Japanese history have been brought way down by Koreans' ridiculous arguments that "the rule of Japan is Korea". (You probably know, but given various references and facts, the origins of Japan are without doubt in China.)

Many Japanese people have no interest in ancient advice [typo for "Korea"]. This is why they do not participate at all in editing about ancient Korean history. Nonetheless, Korean people are persistently trying to add made-up articles about ancient Japanese historry.

If you are coming from a neutral standpoint, shouldn't you be criticizing Appleby and Deiaemeth?

I don't know your standpoint. So I will step back. (If it weren't for the messed-up edits by Appleby and the other Koreans, I wouldn't have anything to do with Korea.)

While hoping that you are not a Korean like the rest of them, I will watch to see how you contribute and how you advise Appleby and the others. zh → en: See you later. Have a good day! --Kamosuke 10:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Kamosuke

Hi Eirikr: I was wondering about your opinion on the above user. Actually, about your opinion on an idea I have for communicating with him. I don't speak Japanese myself and from the looks of it, you do. Do you think (if you were willing) it would be worth it to start a dialogue with him in Japanese? I asked him a couple of questions in Talk:Kofun and I'm not sure if he doesn't understand, misunderstands, or is being deliberately obstinate. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but with his continued mass deletions it is getting difficult trying to recover what was okay that was deleted and incorporating what he wrote that was decent, etc. Also, since the page is in constant flux I'm a bit leery to start cleaning it up in fear that it will just be blanked again. I know it would be a lot of time and energy so I am a bit leery of asking for your help (and the only reason why I'm mentioning the idea is because I happened to see the above message in your discussion page). Instead, I'm just throwing the idea out there and seeing what you think. I just don't think we will be getting any where in Talk if it's in English and the mass deletions have been going on for a couple of weeks now without any stability or consensus to the article. Thanks for reading this! Tortfeasor 16:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I too have been sorely puzzled by what would be the best course of action. Kamosuke comes close to being an outright vandal sometimes, but then he (probably not she?) will turn around and add something to the various pages at issue that appears to have value. It's hard for me to tell quite what's going on, and I'm not 100% sold that Kamosuke is not in fact some elaborate troll, either for idological reasons or personal amusement. But a dialog in Japanese might have some positive impact. Despite my suspicions that Japanese is not Kamosuke's native tongue, it seems he understands it better than English, and as such it might be the better medium for communication. My time is not entirely my own, what with work and the rest of life, but I'm happy to facilitate when and how I can. If you're amenable, I'll post this on Talk:Kofun period as well. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I actually don't know if the user is a he or she. Sorry! And I do think some of what the user has written is, as rare as it is, at least verifable and should be in the article. I know it's a lot to ask, (espcially if the user isn't even a native speaker of Japanese so what's the point?), but I don't mind if you want to post it in Talk:Kofun period and if you want to help out than that would be cool too. My only point is to make sure that all the editors are on the same wavelength and the user's English is questionable so I will give the user the benefit of the doubt. But, if there isn't any real progress made and the user is a troll than there's really no point for this translation business in my opinion because we can just waste time in English too. I guess if we post this than it is up to the user to make a concrete effort in good faith. Thanks for your help. Tortfeasor 22:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: Removed redundant post [3] that is also over at Talk:Asuka period#Kamosuke's edit.

I think that the act of verifying the evidence is academic. (裏付け)
He used it. 「according to Nihonshoki」 However, the description is not "Nihonshoki".
"Believe my source though it doesn't exist in an original history record." I cannot agree to his insistence.
I will be able to cooperate in him if he points out a concrete name. However, he never offers concrete information.
Could you demand from you to Appleby?
For instance, "Korean influence on Japanese laws is also attributed to the fact that Korean immigrants were on committees that drew up law codes. " 
Please teach the member's name.
And, Which a Korean version or an old version does the article on "Ruling Class" evaluate to you? --Kamosuke 09:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "Talk:Asuka period"

Note: Response posted at Talk:Asuka period. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Babel boxes

Thanks for the note on my talk page. It was very kind of you to suggest that I could have set my English Babel box at Level 4. I am really flattered. My choice of Level 1 was not a mistake. I was just too timid to take the risk of overstating my ability and being challenged later (I should be grateful if you could call it typical Japanese humbleness.)--Dwy 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If such fluent writing as yours is Level 1, my written Japanese pales into negative territory, especially when without the benefit of an IME to give me the kanji.  :-) お世辞なく正直に感動していますのでお辞儀をします。 m(_ _)m -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

仲介の依頼

お世話になっています。Kamosukeです。 奈良時代の記事の仲介の依頼を受けていただけませんか?

依頼内容

奈良時代の記事に韓国人がこの文を追加しようとしている。

Korean influence on Japanese laws is also attributed to the fact that Korean immigrants were on committees that drew up law codes. There were Chinese immigrants who were also in integral part in crafting Japan's first laws. Eight of the 19 members of the committee drafting the Taiho Code were from Korean immigrant families while none were from China proper. Further, idea of local administrative districts and the tribute tax are based on Korean models.

この文を追加する理由を韓国人に聞いていますが(たとえばUser:Appleby)、韓国人はリンク[4]に書いてあるという理由だけで追加をしようとしています。(誰もこのイベントの価値を説明してくれません。)

このエピソードがFujiwara一族の活躍に等しい理由を聞いてもらえますか?(たとえばUser:Appleby) (私はとてもバランスが悪いと感じています)

また、まったく同じ内容の記事を飛鳥時代の[Immigrant clans]に書いています。韓国人が同じ韓国人のエピソードを2つの時代に重複させる意味も理解できません。

Kamosuke 03:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

カモスケさん
気の毒です。役に立つと思われれば、喜んで仲介してあげます。が、現在ほかの用件(つまりWikipedia以外)が重なっており、しばらくの間はお待たせしてしまいますので、あらかじめご了承ください。たぶん月曜日になってから(こちら米国で)時間をかけて書けます。
ところで、私は残念ながら藤原一族の活躍についてあまり詳しくないです。上記の韓国的な意見と藤原族の活躍を比べるのなら詳細を少しでも私が精通するべきですから、この英文Wikipediaの記事はカモスケさんが物足りないと思われたら、月曜日までにはそれら活躍についてのいくつかのリンクをここに掲示していただければ幸いです。もちろん英語のも日本語のも大丈夫です。
こちらこそよろしくお願いします。 -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 04:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
こんにちは。返事が遅れて申し訳ありません。この問題ですが、ある程度の合意ができました。ありがとうございます。そして、別の件で仲介をお願いできませんでしょうか。(下の文になります。)


In the article on Japan, There is a topic that cannot agree. Could you mediate the confrontation of our opinion? --Kamosuke 01:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 

Netherlands Version
Historically, Japan had cultural exchanges with Korea and China.
Historically, since the 5th and 6th centuries, Japan adopted many institutions from China by learning them both directly and through Korea. Japan sent the Imperial embassies to China to China until the 9th century. And a Chinese system and Chinese Buddhism were obtained. The Christianity and the culture of Europe were introduced by Society of Jesus in 16th century. Since Edo period, The Christianity was suppressed by sakoku. However, the culture of Europe (called Rangaku) kept being introduced by the Netherlands. From the 12th century to the mid-1800s, Japan was a feudal country led by clans of warriors known as the samurai. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan adopted many European and American customs and institutions. Its culture today is a mixture of these influences along with traditional Japanese culture.

Korea Version 
Historically, Japan adopted many Chinese and Korean customs and institutions, beginning in the 5th and 6th centuries. From the 12th century to the mid-1800s, Japan was a feudal country led by clans of warriors known as the samurai. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan adopted many European and American customs and institutions. Its culture today is a mixture of these influences along with traditional Japanese culture.


The second is better. The first uses vague phrases that blur the reality. Japan did not really have "cultural exchanges" with Korea and China. It imported culture and institutions from these countries. Buddhism was not "obtained", it was exported. Japan is not a Christian nation and Christianity has not played a significant part in its history. Not many people have heard of rangaku.--Sir Edgar 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the first. The statement "Japan adopted many Chinese and Korean customs and institutions" is also vague; it blurs the fact that the institution Japan's court "adropted" was the Chinese version, which is a crucial fact in understanding many aspects of the institutions established in Japan, e.g., why the term Tenno (translated as "Emperor", as in China) was introduced in place of a word meaning a king (as in Korea). Moreover, the Buddhism that Korea sent Japan is the one that Chinese's Kumarajiva translated. 
If the Japanese Manga is sent to the United States by way of the Pusan airport, Do you insist, "Korea and Japan exported the cartoon to the United States. "? I insist, "Japan exported the cartoon to the United States by way of South Korea".


About 50 years after the introduction of Christianity, many people in Japan became Christian even among daimyos, and its influece, both cultural and political, was quite strong especially in the western Japan. It is certainly true that Christianity was suppressed during the Edo period, and it is probably true that Christianity, as religion, has not played a major role in Japan's history thereafter (although it did before the suppression); but The impact of the Christianity made Japan select the system of Sakoku. (Sakoku is one of the most important events in the history of Japan. )and the culture introduced in the late 16th century by Western people was not limited to religion. The knowledge of the Western was called Rangaku, and played a significant part in the culture of the Edo period

Korean language North-South differences

Hello Eirikr, long time no "see" :-D Yesterday I translated ja:朝鮮語の南北間差異 into Korean language North-South differences, and I was wondering if you could help me read through it a bit and fix problems when you see them? There are quite a few words that are quite technical for someone like me who has had zero training in linguistics (it is very unfortunate indeed but they don't teach us IPA in pure mathematics courses, and "language", "syllable", "word" and "grammar" mean quite different things in mathematics); since you would know Japanese better than me, you know your linguistics stuff and you are interested in Korean (you still are, right? ^_____^ of course you are), who else should I ask for help from but you? :P So, thank you in advance~ -- KittySaturn 12:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. the "ㅂ-irregular inflections" section didn't come from the Japanese article; however it was still translated from some material calling them "ㅂ変格用言" in Japanese, so if you could think of a better English name than something weird-sounding like "ㅂ-irregular inflected word" it'd be great :-) (As an aside, I've always thought the real "irregular" verbs in Japanese are those funky obsolete ones marked "特活" in dictionaries) -- KittySaturn 13:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)