Talk:皇
Also "emperor"?
Can this also mean "emperor"? 71.66.97.228 06:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Wubi input
I am not sure what kind of material is applicable to this page, so I add the information here. The Wubi86 input code for this character is RGF.
Generally, it would be great to also directly link to the referenced dictionaries, and maybe to reference material about the input methods, too - but maybe in a separate part about languages (eg. one page per language which gives a good overview about relevant dictionaries etc.). 79.228.183.87 21:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Kun'yomi
Hello @Poketalker, non-on readings listed in JA dictionaries, that apply in toto to a single kanji, are generally regarded as kun'yomi unless they're some kind of relatively recent innovation. Rather that すべ・すべら・すめ・すめら are quite ancient -- see also https://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%9A%87-448702 -- these would have to be kun'yomi. I have restored them as such in the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Eirikr: the same link, Daijisen section has this: [音]コウ(クヮウ)(漢) オウ(ワウ)(呉) [訓]きみ すめらぎ すべらぎ
- Rather than creating kun readings from dictionary entries as you did, the kun readings should be based on the kanji entry in question; therefore my POV that sube and sume being irregular readings. Unless someone has a physical kanji dictionary which list all of the possible kun readings of a specific kanji (don't have any at the moment; the online Jigen probably isn't one)... ~ POKéTalker(═◉═) 01:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- To turn it around, we could say that, conversely, you're limiting the list of kun'yomi based on dictionary entries. :)
- Per w:ja:訓読み,
訓読み(くんよみ)とは、日本語において、個々の漢字をその意味に相当する和語(大和言葉、日本語の固有語)によって読む読み方が定着したもの。
- Further down, the article lists a few specific cases of 訓読み. For 皇, the readings in question aren't 熟字訓, nor 義訓, nor yet 国訓. They might be viewed as "irregular", but again, these readings are very well established quite early in the historical record: 「読み方が定着したもの。」 See also MYS 77, among various other places, where 皇 appears with one of these readings. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Eirikr: first of all you're confusing the interpretation of the man'yogana in the poem with *the original poem*:
- 吾大王物莫御念須賣神乃嗣而賜流吾莫勿久爾
- wago2 opoki1mi1 mono2 na-omoposi sume1kami2 no tugi1te tamape1ru ware nake1naku ni
- (please add an English translation of this usage example)
- ...that means there is no written 皇 (sume1-) in the above poem. If I make an OJP entry for sume1-, there might be a dilemma: should it be created at 皇 or すめ?
- What I mean is, take 祈 for example. Its kun reading is 祈る (inoru). However, dictionaries list 祈ぐ (negu) with this kanji despite Daijisen not having this in its kanji entry; the ne- can be an irregular reading. That is at least my stance on the issue, unless another dictionary has ね-ぐ on its 祈 entry.
- If you like though, if my single-kanji edits are in need of more readings, feel free. For now I follow the Daijisen rule of
{{ja-readings}}
. ~ POKéTalker(═◉═) 03:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)- Re: the MYS, I did not intend to do an exhaustive search. For the sume reading in the context of the compound term 皇神 (sumekami), where the kanji 皇 is used in the source rather than a phonetic equivalent, see MYS 5 #894. I'm sure we could ferret out other cases where 皇 is used in compounds in some poems, and the same compound with a phonetic spelling is used somewhere else as confirmation of the reading.
- Re: dictionaries, I did some poking around.
- Nelson's kanji dictionary for English readers includes the sumera reading as a kun'yomi. Google Books isn't cooperating (hiding the relevant page from preview), but I can upload a photo of my own dead-tree copy if you'd like. Nelson's reading listings are minimal rather than exhaustive, and it does not include any of the sube- readings, nor sume nor sumeragi.
- The monolingual Japanese SMK5's kanji lookup index in the mini paper version I have here indicates kun'yomi as 「△すめ(ら)△すめらぎ」. The triangle is used in the index to indicate non-Jōyō readings. I can't presently find an explanation for the SMK5's parenthesis notation here, but I do see that the main body of the dictionary includes an entry for 皇 (sume) as a prefix alongside a separate entry for noun 皇 (sumera), suggesting that the (ら) indicates a kind of branching, where readers can expect to find an entry with the listed additional kana, and an entry without. Both entries show a 《 above the readings (vertically oriented, as the text itself is so oriented), which is explained in the introductory material as indicating non-Jōyō readings. In addition to omitting rarer senses, forms, and readings, as befits a smaller dictionary, the Shinmeikai in general is known for being a bit odd, as dictionaries go; c.f. w:ja:Shin Meikai kokugo jiten.
- Daijisen's entry seems to use a similar notation, a downward pointing ▽ to show non-Jōyō readings, as explained in the 「2. 常用漢字」 section of their 凡例 page (can't link directly to that section). I do find it odd that Daijisen's [漢字項目] section for reading kō doesn't list all kun'yomi, and then the fuller entry below includes nothing for any of the three listed kun'yomi of kimi, sumeragi, or suberagi -- none of which are included in the Jōyō readings, either. In general, I've found that the DJS seems to omit information about rarer senses, forms, and readings.
- The Daijirin entry at Kotobank is missing such metadata about readings, but the Weblio version includes it. We again see a ▽ used to indicate non-Jōyō readings (see also their 凡例 page). The DJR also seems to include less information than the KDJ. Compare the DJS, DJR, and KDJ entries for 丸太, for instance -- the DJS and DJR are both missing the additional KDJ sense related to fish, and while the DJS and DJR provide brief definitions related to Edo-period prostitutes, we have to read the KDJ entry to get any additional information about why "debarked log" came to mean "unlicensed prostitute masquerading as a Buddhist nun".
- I've also got a dead-tree KDJ somewhere, I'll see if I can find that one too. I've gravitated toward using the KDJ more and more over time, as it provides more information than many other JA dictionaries. I liken it to the OED as an exhaustive resource, as compared to the more "abridged" information provided by Merriam-Webster, Collins, etc. Similar to the OED, however, the physical KDJ is a bit of a monster, so I mostly use the electronic CD version, due to ease of use and portability. ^_^ :)
- Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Eirikr: as long as the Shin Meikai (and any other dictionaries) have すべ(ら)/すめ(ら) as kun readings of 皇, that is all. By the way, does the Shin Meikai include ね-ぐ in the 祈 entry?
- Side note: went to Kinokuniya Books in Little Tokyo a few days before Christmas, skimmed through Tuttle's large kanji dictionary in the language shelf, and it does not have すべ(ら)/すめ(ら) kun reading for 皇 nor ね-ぐ for 祈. Rare readings indeed. ~ POKéTalker(═◉═) 05:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Poketalker I'm resurrecting this discussion 5 years on to say that I agree with @Eirikr here, and I have two major problems with using the term "irregular" to refer to readings on single-kanji entries:
- The definition of "kun'yomi" is not something that is prescribed by dictionaries or some authority, so we should not be limiting ourselves only to readings which we can find in other dictionaries, since that fundamentally misunderstands what it means for a reading to be kun'yomi in the first place and is pretty misleading to our readers. For example, you originally added 刺 (ira) (etymology 3) as an "irregular" reading ([1]), but it's (a) a native Japonic word that (b) appears in multiple compound terms, and (c) hasn't undergone any unusual development. By any conventional understanding of the term "kun'yomi", 刺 (ira) should be covered, but I assume you marked it as irregular because it didn't appear in the reference dictionary/dictionaries you consulted, since it's not a common reading in modern Japanese. However, that doesn't mean it's not kun'yomi - it just means it's rare.
- More importantly, marking such readings as irregular is also a misuse of the word "irregular": to call something irregular, we have to have a "regular" standard to measure it against. Outside of defined categories like on'yomi etc, we don't have anything like a spelling standard to measure kanji readings against, so the only thing that can make a reading irregular is if it only occurs in certain fixed contexts, because otherwise there's nothing that makes them distinct. By definition, that means they can only occur in compound terms. Being rare or obsolete doesn't make a reading irregular, since there's still no contextual restriction on its usage; they just don't gets used very often, but that's irrelevant. This works the other way, too: the kana は (ha) has the irregular reading は (wa), which is used in a single word, but that one word occurs about 10 times more frequently than all uses of は (ha) combined. It's still irregular, though, becuase - unlike kanji - kana usually only have one reading. The point is that "irregular" does not mean "other" or "we don't know"; it refers to a specific phenomenon which cannot occur with single-kanji terms.
- I really think we should amend all these entries, and I'd like to add a restriction to kanjitab to prevent it being added to single-kanji terms. I recently added a new restriction so that you can't specify one-kanji readings as being jukujikun (since they're multi-kanji by definition), and adding that threw around 100 entries into CAT:E; having been over quite a few of them, I got the distinct impression that a lot of the bad inputs were caused by people being confused by the base kanji entries calling such readings irregular, which has led to lots of nonsense. Theknightwho (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- From that reply alone, that totally defeats the purpose of said "prescribed dictionaries". Am going to stay out of this discussion until something like a "neutral irregular" close to "rare" is included as a reading type... which can never happen. Just a few kanji dictionaries including ira as a native (kun) reading is enough for me to warrant either that or not that. The more exacerbations on the code due to radical change, the better. ~ POKéTalker(=◉=) 07:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- And do not drag は (ha/wa) to this discussion; former depends on kanji used, and latter is a particle not a "word" per se like in English. It seems your user page lacks a Japanese level Babel template at the time of this reply; at least mention your proficiency level of it so we have equal ground... ~ POKéTalker(=◉=) 07:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Poketalker The point of bringing up は (ha/wa) was to illustrate why it's wrong to use "irregular" to mean "rare", because it's a good example of something that is irregular despite being more common than the expected regular reading. I picked it as an example because I thought you'd understand where I was coming from, but the specifics of when each reading get used or whether a particle is a word have nothing to do with what I was saying (though FWIW I disagree with you).
- Could you please point me to something that says "kun'yomi" is defined by what's in dictionaries, or what your basis is for wanting a separate reading type (which is something I haven't seen any other dictionaries do)? That's not my understanding of the term at all, and it's not Eirikr's either, so I don't really understand why we can't just use the label "rare" on the definition line. Plus, rare readings may be semantically restricted or restricted to certain time periods, but that still doesn't make them irregular, because there is no frame of reference by which we can call it irregular when it's a single-kanji term, because irregularity is a linguistic question, not a frequency one. Theknightwho (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Poketalker @Eirikr I hesitate to suggest this as it feels like a big can of worms, but would some kind of distinction between 正訓 (seikun) and 義訓 (gikun) work? Theknightwho (talk) Theknightwho (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Am already having a bad feeling about rendering native historical/obsolete "readings" as kun outright in regards to inclusion to
{{ja-readings}}
and{{ja-kanjitab}}
; this seems counter or to be a radical turn... would be a bigger can opening to much more confusion. My other rationale for remaining them as irregular, aside from explicitly excluding as such in said dictionaries and counterproductivity, is the possibility of becoming more common on the public consciousness; will cold water be called mo(h)i after your recent edit(s)? kimi/suberagi to address the Emperor with this 皇 kanji in writing? The more digital the more liberal, so they'd say... - The Daijisen defines kun'yomi as synonym to kundoku, in turn:
1 Reading a Chinese character (kanji) in correspondence to its meaning and Japanese "pronunciation". Examples: 花 is [read] hana and 草 kusa. Antonym is ondoku.
2 Reading classical Chinese texts (kanbun) applying Japanese grammar rules and annotation marks (kunten).- No explanation about rare and obsolete readings here, so would leave them labeled as irregular or through discernment.
- Seikun simply means a kun reading with definition(s) conforming to its original Chinese character, while gikun is as straightforward as "meaning-reading".
- Wish that water in general wouldn't be translated as moi in the future... ~ POKéTalker(=◉=) 01:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Am already having a bad feeling about rendering native historical/obsolete "readings" as kun outright in regards to inclusion to
- @Poketalker @Eirikr I hesitate to suggest this as it feels like a big can of worms, but would some kind of distinction between 正訓 (seikun) and 義訓 (gikun) work? Theknightwho (talk) Theknightwho (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Poketalker I'm resurrecting this discussion 5 years on to say that I agree with @Eirikr here, and I have two major problems with using the term "irregular" to refer to readings on single-kanji entries:
- @Eirikr: first of all you're confusing the interpretation of the man'yogana in the poem with *the original poem*:
- Further down, the article lists a few specific cases of 訓読み. For 皇, the readings in question aren't 熟字訓, nor 義訓, nor yet 国訓. They might be viewed as "irregular", but again, these readings are very well established quite early in the historical record: 「読み方が定着したもの。」 See also MYS 77, among various other places, where 皇 appears with one of these readings. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)