Talk:Izanagi

Sister
Was Izanami Izanagi's sister?--Timtak (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Younger, yes. 71.229.23.9 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Alleged parallel with Mayan Gods
A common mistake made by those unfamiliar with the ways that linguists show how languages are related (see historical linguistics for an intro) is to assume that similar-sounding words are related. While this is sometimes true, it is not relevant for determining whether or not two languages are related. Rather, what counts is regular sound correspondence between languages. For example, English heart and Greek kardia (which shows up as cardio- in English) don't have a lot in common, but the h:k and t:d correspondences show up in hundreds and hundreds of words. This sort of data, not words that are similar (like Japanese Izanagi and Itzamna for Mayan) are what linguists use.

Furthermore, based on time alone, the proposition that there is a connection between Japanese and Mayan cultures seems almost impossible to demonstrate. The Japanese came into Japan as early as 500 BCE, and no later than 250 BCE, while the Mayan culture flourished from about 1000 CE—a difference of over 1200 years. (Those who lived in Japan before 500 BCE, the Jomon people, are not the cultural or primary genetic ancestors to the modern Japanese people.)Godfrey Daniel 02:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The ancestors of the Yamato must have come from Siberia - same as the ancestors of the Maya. Since Izanami is a female and Itzamna a male, the names must have been transmitted (if they were transmitted) from one culture to another, which would account for the gender confusion. Such confusion does happen when one culture borrows from another. Das Baz 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but as Godfrey Daniel points out above, the fact that they sound similar does not mean that they are the least bit related. 125.237.61.132

What? are we really trying to argue that the Yamato and the Maya came from Siberia at a parallel time so that their shared cultural and linguistical myths would remain intact? Besides, of course, that the whole so-called Clovis hunters theory has been called into question as bad science (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15391388) (see: Old American Theory is Speared By Jonathan Amos). After all, what in human culture has ever remained that static, that frozen in time, passed down through the generations and yet nowhere in that same culture can we find a shred of evidence as to explain why these linguistical concepts remained bound in place in the first place, long enough for someone in this day and age to be able to draw comparisons between the two civilizations and still make sense? We're unable to keep our own languages from changing year by year and yet the Mayas and the Yamatos somehow pulled this off ... because? There is nowhere in any of our human sciences where we can point to that such modern parallels just sort of, you know, happened, without anyone at the time commenting about it. Take for example, the amount of ink that gets spilled in France every time a new Americanized word gets added to their dictionary, Le Big Mac, there is a reason why it's part of their lexicon, it didn't get carried over the land-bridge and kept for thousands of years without anyone asking "where did this word come from?" Especially over the periods of time as the dates given to the Clovis Hunters epoch and the rise of the Yamato and Mayan cultures. They only exist in the theories of the Chariots of the Gods and the New Age movement. It's what we call bad science. Find me an article in the NPR, BBC or Science magazine showing any evidence that these two people have any cultural links whatsoever besides being carbon-based lifeforms and then I'll agree it belongs in this article. Anything else is a waste of our time and energy. Duende-Poetry (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

None of this proves nor disproves. The similarities are interesting though 190.62.141.246 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The the lack of any empirical evidence speaking for it, it should maybe not be included as it's merely theoretical. In a similar manner you could put up parallels between let's say a multitude of Japanese and Hawai'ian words that could be disproven by any further research into prior forms in Japanese. The Korean word for 'apple' is sagwa, with a similar sounding counterpart in Basque being sagar. This does not prove a relationship between those two however, even though the word sound is quite exclusive to those two languages. A more realistic relationship to the word is suggested by Alexander Vovin, with the Old Japanese word *inzanan being a loan from the Old Korean word *yenc-a-na-n. TempestAnarchist (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of 'parallels'
are small parallels to western myths really relevant enough to mention here? A passing semblance to Greek myth would matter if the connection was deeper or explored more by japanese and/or comparative historians -- for instance, citations of books on how creation myths and mythistories share certain aspects, and why it is important. I don't see any such material -- google books has one really crappy self published book (by a person who wrote "The Ise Heart Pillars and Human Sacrifice") which compares the two. This section just mentions the parallels, cites sources from the 1910s, says "it sure is weird", then exits.

The proposed parallel to mayan culture is just laughable, but even though this parallel at least has *some* substance I still think it's not worth mentioning, at least without a citation. Itsabooknotacourse (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this section isn't adding anything of substance to the article. One may as well point out the "parallel" with Maui of Polynesian lore who fished up the islands.  Or the "parallel" with many stories of the fey where eating something they've prepared somehow renders you part of their world.
 * There are parallels that might be worth exploring -- but this section doesn't do that, nor does it link to anything that does.
 * I'll just be bold and remove it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

korean?
I am from Okinawa. Isn't it too one-sided to say that Japanese gods are Korean? We must deny Japan's crimes in World War II, but we do not have to deny Japanese culture. Inamudo (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I've reverted your edit for now as it was unreferenced. Feel free to add it when you have a reference. Knitsey (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's right. i was wrong Izanagi is Korean and the Japanese god is a metaphor for Koreans. Japanese mythology is the deification of Korea's transfer of culture to the Japanese. Let's add to the article that Izanagi is Korean right away Inamudo (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Izenagi/ Izenagi or Izanagi/ Izanagi
The 2nd Japanese hiragana character used in the names for this brother/sister pair is せ" ZE (which is せ SE with a quote beside it to thicken the S to a Z sound)  But it's been Romanized using the さ SA sound (which gets thickened to さ" ZA)

Definitely different: さ SA and さ" ZA  or せ SE and せ" ZE. kinda important in that it's a Creation myth and the J tradition of respect for elders

So, ... Which is used originally? Granted there'll have been some vowel slide from SE to SA or vice versa. Just like the consonant KI often shifts to GI so you get both Iz_nagi and the sharper Iz_naki. Regional differences and dialect aside, the myth was first written down somewhere somewhen (?Kyoto?)  And that'll maybe the spelling your experts cite. K.R. 70.50.131.151 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Something happened to my post title. It was to illustrate Iza.. vs Ize, just as your article illustrates that it's both  IzanaGi  and IzanaKi.
 * Further thoughts:
 * I'm (re)learning Hiragana & Katakana after 30+ years, so sorry if I jumped the gun.
 * I notice now that Izanaki is spelt using Katakana (イザナキ)
 * which I understood to be used only for foreign imported words like escalator.
 * In Hiragana, Iggi's name is: い さ" な き   ... or   ..き"   for Izanaki/gi
 * What got me to wondering was the ザ symbol. In Hiragana SE is (せ) which is so like the Katakana symbol for SA: (サ).  Just slightly different; whether the 2nd line is short or long and directed Right or Left.
 * So, why is Katakana used? 70.50.131.151 (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So, why is Katakana used? 70.50.131.151 (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)