User talk:Bendono
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Old Japanese & Classical Japanese
Hi. I've made minor changes to Old Japanese (infobox) and Classical Japanese language (copied infobox from former & edited) and just wanted to get your feedback. --RJCraig 08:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Due to a lack on focus on Classical Japanese language, I decided to create Late Old Japanese. It focuses solely on the language of the Heian period. The former can, and sort of attempts to, focus on the literary language (文語). Thus, I altered the template on Old Japanese and moved the template from Classical Japanese language to Late Old Japanese. Bendono 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- OK. I see your point. Maybe we should change the name of the classical article to "Literary Japanese" or something similar? (Or create a new page and redirect?)
-
- I've got a copy of the 日本語文法大辞典, which includes (traditional) conjugation tables for different historical periods (Nara, Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, Early Edo (Kamikata dialect), Late Edo (Edo dialect) and Modern). If these coincide with the divisions you have in mind, I could add the tables. (Although, personally, I prefer a more modern linguistic analysis along the lines of Vovin's A Reference Grammar of Classical Japanese Prose over the traditional Kokugogaku one.) Let me know what you think when you have time. --RJCraig 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I have that book too. The tables are fairly useful, but I memorized them long ago. Except for the names, the divisions generally coincide with what I have in mind. Vovin is nice too, but unfortunately I do not have a copy with me now. Just for reference, Kamikata should be read as "Kamigata". It is western Japan, in particular Kyōto and Ōsaka. Bendono 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- (D'oh. I knew what it meant, just not how it was read. Doesn't come up in conversation often, y'know. ;) --RJCraig 00:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Džín Nigárd
¡Hola! LOL...you did catch a little late indeed ;) . Poor Gene Nygaard (Džín Nigárd in Czech, Jin Naigard in Spanish), we were just making fun of him with the differrent language translations of his name at Waldemar Matuška's talk page. It's nothing, I was just stating a point on how uncomfortable it is when others misspell your name claiming that it's okay in their own language. It's water under the bridge now. See you around! Adiós, Rosa 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shochu
You updated the whole shochu page to use macrons. The lack of macrons was deliberate - the Japanese style page suggests they only be used for the first usage, and without macrons thereafter. Therefore that is what I did. If you have no overriding reason to have macrons I will revert your edit. Akihabara 08:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing in the WP:MOS-JA suggests that macron'd romaji should only be used once. The kanji 焼酎 should only be used once, but, not the correct romanization. Shōchū is not a mainstream word recognizable by enough English speakers to be exempted, ala Sumo and Tokyo. Neier 08:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Neier. I do not have much to add to that. Bendono 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New categories for old Japanese texts
I see you created a number of new period categories. Great! :-) For consistency with your new categories, perhaps Old Japanese texts and Late Old Japanese texts ought to be changes to Old Japanese and Late Old Japanese—i.e., “text” dropped from their names. This would also solve the issue of whether the articles on the language of those periods should be included under their respective categories as well.
I also recently created an “Edo-period works” subcategory. This leads me to my next question: Should we also create “xxx-period works” subcategories for each of the major historical periods? In the one hand, it could be argued that such parallel categorization was overkill; on the other, users searching categories for literature of difference periods could conceivably be looking under any one of three classifications: linguistic period (Old, Late Old, Early Middle, etc.), historical period (Yamato-Nara, Heian, Kamakura, Ashikaga/Warring States, Edo, etc.) or literary period (which usually coincide, at least nominally, with the historical periods).
Your thoughts? (Might as well work this out first rather than have to clean up redundancies later! <g>) Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 02:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- In my haste, I accidentally omitted the word "texts". Rather then drop "texts" from Category:Old Japanese texts and Category:Late Old Japanese texts, I think that the new ones should be renamed with "texts" in line with the existing categories. I have already submitted move requests to that effect. My intention was for them to be a list of texts by linguistic period. Without "texts", the purpose of the categories seem too vague. I probably would not add non-texts to the list, but if someone thinks it is relevant, I do not have a problem with their occasional inclusion (or removal).
- I can also see the point / value of classifying them by literary period as well. Perhaps we could have both; I do not think it needs to be exclusive one or the other. Although they will for the most part overlap greatly. Bendono 02:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed how that developed. Ironically, I had created “Late Old Japanese” before creating “Late Old Japanese texts,” noticed (what I thought was) my own hasty error, and immediately corrected it! I think dropping “texts” from the linguistic-period categories would making it easier to justify including articles about the texts and the article about the language of their particular periods under the same category, which in turn could facilitate finding these inter-related articles. (If I’m not mistaken, the whole idea of the categories is to group articles cover similar or related content to make them easier for people doing research to find.). Personally, I think the historical/literary period categories would also be useful in this sense, so the overlap shouldn't be a problem.
Further, I think that the historical-period categories should be made into subcategories of both Japanese literature and their respective umbrella historical-period categories; e.g., “Edo-period literature” (currently “Edo period works”) should be a subcategory of both “Japanese literature” and “Edo period” (which it now is! <g>). Regards, Jim_Lockhart 04:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
