Talk:Japanese language

error in Spanish example
The translation of "vuestra merced" is incorrect. It is correctly translated to English as "your mercy". I'd fix it myself but don't have edit permissions on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.150.255 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The Phonology needs a table
I noticed the phonology doesn't have the consonants or vowels anywhere, like it normally does. The tables should be copied from the phonology page into this one. Ewokpedia (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I added the tables. Rourensu (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixing Confusing Typo in Early Modern Japanese Section.
This is what the article looks like as I post this comment:

I think this first sentence "Early Modern Japanese, not to be confused with Modern Japanese, was the dialect used after the Meiji Restoration." meant to say that Modern Japanese is "the dialect used after the Meiji Restoration." while Early Modern Japanese was used during the Edo era before the Meiji Restoration. That would agree more with the other sentences, as well as with the main article it links to.

"Japanese langauge" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Japanese langauge. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Altaic is discredited
Japanese is listed virtually everywhere as a language isolate. Altaic has been tossed into the wastebin, even by its creator. Lede needs to be updated accordingly.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, we shouldn't mention the Altaic language family in the lede, but we should briefly mention it in the article, without calling it "discredited". It's a minority point of view, but not really discredited. Roy Andrew Miller's works are still well respected, and they thoroughly document a possible connection of Japanese to Altaic. This is a controversial subject that should be briefly noted in a neutral way in the article, but probably not the lede. Naomi.piquette (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your opinion must be backed by sources - and even the developer of the Altaic theory has now disowned the theory! Altaic is dead. 50.111.51.247 (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The distinguished linguist Martine Robbeets published a scholarly work as recently as 2007 ("Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic?"), which strongly supports the Altaic hypothesis. It was a detailed and fairly well-received work. The Altaic hypothesis is clearly alive and well, despite no longer being the majority theory.Naomi.piquette (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020
That Japanese switched from Altaic to either isolate or unclassified Innominatvs (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does this page classify Japanese under Altaic?--Megaman en m (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at Innominatvs's other edits one learns they were talking about the Altaic part in Infobox language. As the documentation of the template explains, however, it is not meant to be a genealogical claim. Nardog (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Phonology
(ɲ) is in the alveolo-palatal column and i think the the /r/ in the table should be given as [ɾ~l~ɺ] and not just a liquid /r/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleksiB 1945 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * [ɲ] in Japanese is alveolo-palatal . The table is a table of phonemes and Japanese has only one liquid phoneme, which is represented as /r/ in literature. See Japanese phonology. Nardog (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * um ok so shouldnt it be a ȵ/n̠ʲ instead of [ɲ] and yes japanese has only 1 liquid but its not always /r/ thats why i said [ɾ~l~ɺ] AleksiB 1945 (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need the diacritic because the only sound represented by ⟨ɲ⟩ in transcription of Japanese is alveolo-palatal, much like we don't need a diacritc in ⟨n⟩ because the only sound represented by it is denti-alveolar.
 * ⟨r⟩ need not represent an alveolar trill in phonemic transcriptions (or even some allophonic ones). See the Handbook of the IPA, pp. 28–30. Nardog (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Two times Palau
Palau is mentioned in both "Official language in" and "Regional language in". Can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:502:ED53:0:0:3DD9:75DB (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Japanese: Descriptive or prescriptive?
Could there be something added that says if Japanese is Descriptive or prescriptive and maybe has a discussion of the Descriptive language's history if it's Descriptive. I honestly don't know and that's why I'm requesting this please. Thank you. Punitdaga31 (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What on earth is a "descriptive" or "prescriptive" language? There may be descriptive and prescriptive accounts, analyses, attitudes, policies, etc. regarding a language but I've never heard of a language itself being descriptive or prescriptive. Can you give us an example? Nardog (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021
Please add a comma after the word "Palau," so that the last sentence in the first paragraph reads "It is also recognised minority language of Angaur, a state of Palau, and Singapore."

This corrects a small grammatical error and makes the sentences more clear. 2601:547:A80:22C0:7426:CFC2:E13A:F09 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Misleading Text
'Early Modern Japanese' "...In this time period the Japanese in addition to their use of Katakana and Hiragana also used traditional Chinese characters called "Han" which later developed in "Kanji" which is a form of writing used to express ideas in the Japanese and Chinese languages."

This seems to imply than Chinese Characters only began to be used in the Early Modern period of Japanese (17th to 19th centuries) which is completely false. And it seems to imply that only Hiragana and Katakana was used beforehand. Or that Chinese Characters were used, then no longer used, then used again. It's complete nonsense no matter how you read it.

This section really need to be reworked or completely removed, as it doesn't add anything. It seems to be very randomly placed, the use of Chinese characters is explained in the Old Japanese portion, and it is assumed for the rest of the timeline. And the explanation that Chinese Characters "is a form of writing used to express ideas in the Japanese and Chinese languages" is redundant, all writing systems are used to express ideas by their very definition.

And the explanation of Kanji originating from "Han" is just poorly worded and explained. Why just 'Han'? The modern Mandarin name and commonly accepted English name 'Hànzì' would have made sense, instead of the incomplete term 'Han'. And in any case, this section is completely irrelevant to Early Modern Japanese when the use of Kanji was already explained in the Old Japanese section. Orange378474 (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like User:AaronMerrell added that in in late July 2017.  They were briefly active from mid-June to end-July 2017, with no activity on any MediaWiki site since then (if Global user contributions is correct).  Their user page also states that they were "a student editor in Wiki_Ed/Harvard_Summer_School/Introduction_to_Linguistics_(Summer)", which apparently lasted for about a week in late July 2017.
 * Forensics aside, I just removed the problematic text, since it is out of place and incorrect, in addition to the grammatical problems. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Forensics aside, I just removed the problematic text, since it is out of place and incorrect, in addition to the grammatical problems. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022
Grammatical error -- the word "who" was left out of a sentence: "The listeners are all Keio University students grew up in the Kanto region." should be "The listeners are all Keio University students who grew up in the Kanto region." Curiouswiker (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Pokechu22 (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hira and "flowing"
Regarding your and edit comment, the ref  includes that:

 「かたかな」の「かた」は単に「片方」という意味ではなく、本来あるべきものが欠落しているという評価形容語と解すべきことはよく知られているが（亀井孝1941）、(7)としてまとめた対立関係から考えると、「ひらがな」も同様に「かな」の「ひら」という評価位置に存在するものと考えられる. 本国語大辞典「ひらがな」の説明は「ひら」を「角のない、通俗平易の意」とし、また「ひら」を前部要素とする複合語の形態素説明で、多くの辞書は「ひら」に「たいら」という意味を認める. しかし、辞書の意味説明が必ずしも原義説明を欲してはいないことを知りつつも、野暮を承知でいうならば、これは「ひら」の原義（中核的意味）説明としては適当ではない. 「ひら」は、「枚」や擬態語「ひらひら」などと同根の情態言とでもいうべき形態素／ pira ／であり、その中核的意味は、物理的／精神的な「薄さ」を示し、「たいら」はそこからの派生義と思われる. となると、「ひらがな」に物理的「薄さ」（thinness）は当然求められないので、「ひら」とはより精神的な表現に傾き、「かたかな」同様、「かな」から見て、ワンランク下であることを示す、いささか差別的・蔑視的ニュアンスを含む表現であったということになる. The "kata" in "katakana" does not mean just "one side", and it is well known (Takashi Kamei 1941) that it should be interpreted as a valuation epithet stating that something that should be there is missing, and considering the oppositional relationship summarized in figure (7), the word "hiragana" can be thought of in a valuation position as the "hira" kind of "kana". The explanation of the term hiragana in the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten dictionary states that hira means "unangular, easy or plain", and descriptions of hira as a prefixing element in compounds as given in many dictionaries explain this hira as meaning "flat" (taira). However, knowing that dictionary explanations of meaning do not always drive for the original senses, if we are to be brash, we might point out that this is not a fitting explanation of the original sense (core meaning) of hira. Hira is morpheme, cognate with words like or , and the core meaning indicates physical or emotional "thinness", and taira ("flat") appears to be a derived meaning therefrom. As such, we naturally cannot get physical "thinness" from hiragana, so the hira leans more towards an emotional expression, and much like for katakana, from the perspective of kana, it indicates a lower relative ranking [relative to the kanji], and the expression contains a slight nuance of discrimination or contempt.

The Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry mentioned in the ref is this one (in Japanese).

The hira element appears as a root morpheme in Japanese adverbs hirari ("softly, lightly, gently") and hirahira ("flutteringly", implying an easygoing motion, generally not as violent as "flappingly"). C.f. Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entries for ひらひら (hirahira) and for ひらり (hirari) via Kotobank (in Japanese). See also the hiru- element in hirugaeru ("to turn over", intransitive) and hirugaesu ("to turn over", transitive) here at Kotobank, again pointing to something thin and moving easily.

See also the entry here for, particularly noun sense [1]② towards the top (「なみであること. 普通であること. 特別でないこと. 」 / "State of being common. State of being ordinary. State of not being special."), and prefix sense [2]② towards the bottom of the hira entry (「名詞の上に付けて、なみである、特別でないの意を表わす. 」 / "Attaching to nouns, expresses a sense of being common, not being special."), in line with the ref's description of the term hiragana as including a mild pejorative nuance.

A gloss of "flowing" for hira might be overstating the sense a bit in English; that said, there's a definite sense of light and free movement expressed in the hira- root, as also given in the Kotobank entry for hiragana in the phrase 「角のない」 ("unangular") -- as applied to handwriting, this points to "curvy" and "flowing" lines, much as in cursive. I think that should be mentioned somewhere.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it, but the above is starting to sound a little like original research. It seems like you're stretching for it to be implied as flowing but that's not what most reliable sources indicate. Digging down yourself through the roots and word origins to derive the meaning is original research. What we would need is a reference that states the flowing claim unortunately, not you deriving that that's the meaning. Remember Wikipedia is about reliable sources. I won't pretend my Japanese is anywhere close to fluent enough to dig through like you have done so above, and it's the same for most editors on the English Wikipedia. I would also note that the common translation of hirahira to fluttering does not imply easy going, when flutter means a jerky, unsteady, trembling and uneven motion so getting from that to be flowing seems like a stretch. Anyway we shouldn't be interpreting sources, we should be referencing sources. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear you about WP:OR concerns, but I disagree that that is what is happening here: the crux is what the terms indicate in the source language of Japanese, and how to translate that into English -- a matter that is unavoidably an exercise in interpreting the meaning. :)  As expressed explicitly in the NKD dictionary entry for hiragana, we have hira glossed as both  and .  The mention of hiragana in the lede at Japanese language accounts for the latter sense, but not the former.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Problem with even that dictionary entry is it's in Japanese and we're relying on ourselves to translate it rather than a source. This isn't prohibited, but it could be misinterpreted or mistranslated by editors. Even then though, there's nothing about flowing with regards to Hiragana. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2022
Change "chii" in the consonants section of the phonology section to "chī" to be consistent. Thank you. Matcha255 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * There’s no long vowel in 地位, see MOS:JAPAN. Thibaut (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Languages of the World
— Assignment last updated by Xeimonanthos (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by AzukiMochiBoy (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove Katakana?
It simply doesn't make much sense to have nihongo in katakana due to katakana only being used for non-japanese words; And nihongo is a japanese word. I don't know, maybe its for people who are just learning Japanese to recognise katakana in Japanese words. KIMORII (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So just to dispel a misconception, katakana isn't just used for foreign words. It's a major usage of it, but not its sole usage. It's also used for shortening, onomatopoeia, sometimes for emphasis, plants and animals, and many other usages of which foreign words is but part. ニホンゴ is a valid rendering and is used for the language in certain circumstances. Canterbury Tail talk 06:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was about to point the same thing out, but at the same time ニホンゴ isn't a common way of spelling it in the modern orthography. I'd support removal. Nardog (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Link Suggestion under Gender In The Japanese Language
There should be a link to the Gender differences in Japanese wikipage in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.171.1 (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Japanese Speakers
@Canterbury Tail The number of Japanese speakers has been decreasing substantially due to the overall population decrease in Japan. The source cited is titled as Encyclopedia 2010 but the date is cited as 2020. The 27th edition has a different number of first language speakers cited which is 123,427,320 which is shown if you click on the link directed to Ethnologue from the language infobox reference. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The link from the reference to Ethnologue makes no mention of number of speakers other than in a broad sense. There is no 123,427,320 shown on that page unless I'm completely blind or missing something. That link is a very basic mention of the language with practically zero detail on anything. All it says is it's between 1 million to 1 billion speakers. I did a find though the page and it doesn't mention that number. Where are you seeing it? Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are not subscribed to Ethnologue that's why you can't see it but because im subscribed it gives the figure. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is the quote 122,000,000 in Japan (Leclerc 2020b). Total users in all countries: 123,466,720 (as L1: 123,427,320; as L2: 39,400). Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah weird that it actually gives the same exact URL page differently depending. Fair enough then. Just clicking the link gives just the fact that Japanese exists as a language and that's effectively it. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 18:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason you are not able to see the figures of the total number of speakers for Japanese or any other language for that matter on Ethnologue is because you are not subscribed or joined the contributor program. Ethnologue is a paywall website where you have to pay by membership if you want access to all of this vital information. Otherwise you'll have to join their contributor program to see all of this information. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)