User talk:Ichigoichigo

Welcome!
Hi, Ichigoichigo. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. JarrahTree 12:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nick Shoulders (April 7)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by -noah- was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nick Shoulders and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nick Shoulders, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Nick_Shoulders Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-noah-&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Nick_Shoulders reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Noah 💬 18:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Super GT Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Takashi Kobayashi. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ZUTOMAYO
Can you rephrase your edit summary here? I don't understand. The conjunction here is で, no? When combined with the context of the rest of the sentence, how is it a confused translation? ／talk 15:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Certainly. In this case, as in the stock phrase "でいい", the で isn't really doing much lexically - it's just a connecting form, essentially the て-form of the noun, right? Equivalent to how you might say "来ていい" with a verb.
 * In this case, rather than connecting "ずっと真夜中" just to "いい", which would just be interpreted as "fine" or "okay" in that context, it's connecting "ずっと真夜中" to "いいのに" which is a stock construction of its own indicating "I wish..." or "It would be nice if..."
 * I describe it as confused (I apologise if that wasn't the best way of putting it) because "It's okay if I wish it was midnight all the time" interprets "いい" in two different ways at once, since "It's okay" would use the "いい" on its own, whereas "I wish" uses it in the construction "いいのに" Ichigoichigo (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * But でいい is a compound word here, no? Might be a little too far-stretched, but のに would simply be constructed as "i wish" even without で. And that's what a literal translation is, right? Minimal emphasis on context? ／talk 03:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * でいい isn't a compound word, no. It's just the particle で, attached to 真夜中, followed by the word いい, which can mean "okay" or "enough" or "unneeded" or, most straightforwardly, just "good". In a context where it would mean "It's okay if/that...", that meaning would all be communicated by the word "いい", being used to mean "okay" - the で only serves to connect a noun or な-adjective to that, in exactly the same way you could use the て-form of a verb. In fact it's perfectly reasonable to describe it as the て-form of だ. のに on its own couldn't communicate "I wish", because the construction specifically works by indicating "It would be good if..." (maybe "if only" is a good way of putting it) with "いい" meaning "good".
 * As for the idea of a literal translation, I think "I wish it was midnight all the time" is close to being as literal as is practical to actually render the content of the sentence. "I wish" = いいのに "it was" = で "midnight" = 真夜中 "all the time" = ずっと. Maybe there's a case to be made that "if only" is more literal than "I wish" (I would argue either is perfectly fine) but either translation accounts for every part of the Japanese sentence and does just enough in English to produce a meaningful sentence that communicates the original meaning. I would say "I wish it was midnight all the time" and "If only it was midnight all the time" are both good translations - I only really defer to the former because in the absence of a really solid source for an official translation I'm happier favouring the more widespread rendering rather than pushing my own interpretation. That said, I also don't think it's really necessary for the article opening to specify a literal translation in the first place - that distinction only really seems worth making when a functional English translation deviates significantly from the original Japanese lexically, as one might have to do with a joke or song lyric. In this case, an elegant English translation doesn't need to skip over or alter any of the Japanese significantly anyway. Ichigoichigo (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But it is here, though. If you don't mind, what source are you using to cross-check or decipher the translation? The literal translation doesn't necessarily require a source or being official. Yes, the argument that the literal translation shouldn't even be here is perfectly valid, and from what i know, they are not used for proper names, but since it's a sentence, it should be here (in my opinion, at least). ／talk 05:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh hello? where did you go? ／talk 16:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I went to California, to visit my partner. Wikipedia is not at the forefront of my mind at this time, I'm afraid. I will see about replying when I'm back home. Ichigoichigo (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. I understand. ／talk 16:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you clarify what specific part of my response you're referring to with "But it is here, though"? And what exactly would you like to be cross-checked with a source? Since it's a full sentence, my interpretation of the sentence as a whole is necessarily based somewhat on intuition, or familiarity with the language, if you prefer. Naturally, a lot of Japanese translation is inferring from context how a specific instance of a word is being used, after all.
 * That said, I did look around for example sentence from dictionaries and grammar resources for the のに construction, since it's kind of at the core of the disparity here, to check if I could find any examples of it being used in the sense of "I wish" without needing to follow いい (or another form thereof) and couldn't find any examples of such. But I'm more than happy to seek out sources for any specific details if you would like. Ichigoichigo (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to your response "でいい isn't a compound word". Particle + adjective.
 * My interpretation, too, is based on my familiarity with the language so far, but surely you would agree we're not omniscient. Especially, when there's a disagreement over the translation, I'm sure you must be using some sort of source as a reference to cross-check what you're saying?
 * Not sure why you are looking for "のに"; to clarify, it is not the core of disparity here. "のに" is definitely "i wish" here. The disparity here is "でいい". ／talk 07:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * でいい isn't a compound word, though. The particle is attached to the prior noun - again, it's equivalent to the て form of a verb, which is why you can do the same construction with verbs - 何々していい.
 * To flip the paragraphs of your response around, のに doesn't mean "I wish" on its own. It means "I wish" in the context of the construction いいのに, よかったのに, etc. So the disagreement is about what いい is doing here. I have made the case that it forms part of the larger phrase いいのに, meaning "I wish" or "if only" and therefore can't simultaneously mean "It's okay..."
 * So as to a source, my contention is that in this sentence, the adjective is serving a particular role within a stock phrase, and thus can't be serving another role at the same time. That's why the のに construction is pertinent - it accounts for that いい. I don't see how I would source a reading of a specific sentence, but if you would like to illustrate what you mean by providing a source for your interpretation, I would be happy to respond in kind. Ichigoichigo (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * But it is, I can assure you. You saying it is a particle attached to いい is perfectly valid. て as a conjunctive form is also correct. But that doesn't rule out the reading as a compound.
 * I would say the same thing for のに. Are we even discussing the same language when you say のに cannot be read as "i wish"? It can certainly be read as "i wish" without any context. Definitely less common, but it can surely be read that way. It's subjective where you could use it, and it depends if it makes sense. It does here, to me, at least. Machine translations, of course, leave it out.
 * I was not exactly asking you to state a source; I was asking it generally. I do not have a source either to back up what I say; as i said, what i say is based on what i have gathered so far. I cannot at the moment, but I'll try looking for any sources later, that is, if i can find any.
 * Now what do we do? Do you know someone who speaks the language and can provide a third opinion? Or perhaps you can agree that both readings are valid and it is only appropriate to list both? Might be a little redundant, but what can i say. ／talk 03:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a particle attached to いい. It's a particle adjacent to いい. That doesn't make it a compound word - you won't find でいい in a dictionary, for example. It's just a construction using the て form.
 * With regard to the usage of のに, could you find me an example of such usage? のに without いい intuitively reads as "although" to me, and I struggle to think of a case where context would indicate otherwise. Never mind that with that reading, the word order would suggest "I wish it was okay for it to be midnight all the time", which makes even less sense. いいのに, conversely, is a construction you hear all over the place, to me it's such a natural way to read this that I can't imagine any reason to read it otherwise.
 * I'm afraid that I don't believe both readings are valid. I think that adding "It's okay" is a misreading of the sentence. I believe I have ample pertinent experience to make that judgement, and I haven't seen a convincing case to the contrary; I know enough native speakers that I might find one willing to weigh in without undue imposition on my part, though it seems a bit demeaning to all concerned. Ichigoichigo (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * A lit. translation often doesn't make sense. I believe you have mistaken a literal translation for a general translation? ／talk 04:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I'm afraid I just believe you're mistaken about this and I've done my best to explain why because you asked me to, but at this point I'm afraid it feels that you're seeking out points on which to disagree with me rather than making a case for the accuracy of your interpretation.
 * Yes - an extremely literal, or word-for-word, translation won't necessarily make intuitive sense. That doesn't mean that a translation that doesn't make sense is a literal translation. Ichigoichigo (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I dislike and completely disagree with your accusation of me seeking to find points to disagree with you. I only said that because your wording suggested so: . Just to clarify, by asking someone to weigh in, I meant someone who's active here on Wikipedia and not a newly registered ip or user account. ／talk 05:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but my mind is currently fixated on a discussion somewhere else. I'll continue this once it's done. ／talk 05:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know any other Japanese-speaking Wikipedia users, but you're more than welcome to involve anyone willing and credible. I rather feel I've made the case I was asked to make thoroughly and I don't believe I can take this anywhere else productive. I have replied thus far in the genuine hope that I might have some useful contribution to offer, but at this point it feels like playing whack-a-mole over details rather than discussing the point at hand. I believe anyone else similarly qualified would tell you the same, and I hope that you find someone who will. Ichigoichigo (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you point out any instance where it felt as you say it to be? I have only ever addressed the sentence at hand and the points you made wherever possible without diverting my answers elsewhere. You seem to be asking for any sources reflecting what I claim. I have previously clarified this.
 * As i said, I'll continue this, preferably in the evening or tomorrow. Thank you. ／talk 05:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you wish to debate the correct translation, please do so on the band's talk page. You asked me to clarify my comments, I have done so at length. Discussing what the article should say beyond that should be on the article's talk page, not mine, and I would be perfectly happy for this discussion to be moved across so that others can see the information I've shared. Ichigoichigo (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If i wish to debate the translation...huh? Then what have we been doing since 26 June? So many things to say: 1—The discussion can take place either at the article's talk page or at user talk pages; it is not an obligation for it to be at the articles'. I only ever brought it here because if you didn't have the article on your watchlist or had not subscribed to the topic, I'd have to ping you every time. If you still wish to move this discussion to the article's talk page, be my guest.

2–You have still not replied to my request to point out any instance where i have led this discussion anywhere unproductive (does it even make sense that i would? You have already removed what i added to the article; in the time we discuss this, the information i added still remains removed. If we don't reach a consensus, I'm sure it would be unjust of me to add it back. Why would i divert it? It is, in fact, you who's posting massive walls of text that haven't led us anywhere. I have tried nothing but to keep my comments as brief as possible. Please use common sense and wait if i say i will continue the discussion. I'm sure i did you the courtesy when you were out. I waited 12 days without trying to add it back, patiently waiting to discuss it, and yet you can't wait an evening without making it sound like there's nothing left to discuss.

3—You saying it feels like playing whack-a-mole makes my arguments sound like a fool's. You yourself partook in editing the article; you reverted my edit, and I'm here to reason; whether i do it on the article's talk page or here, you should answer. When questioned about your edits, it is necessary to communicate and not optional. There's no active resistance from anyone but you regarding what i added, so it's natural for me to reason with you here.

Now, then. Let us, please, conclude the discussion. So, you're saying のに cannot be read as "i wish" without context. I tried to cross-check the accuracy of these using other examples, and I'm not sure just how credible you would claim these would be, but these are all what i believe are reliable sources i could find; see, jisho–のに, JapanDict says the same, and then there's ichi.moe; every now and then i use it, and it's always been helpful so far ichi.moe—のに. ／talk 02:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I will do my best not to be too verbose for your standards. Those seem like perfectly adequate sources to me, and two of them give an example sentence for how this definition for のに is employed - namely, with よかった, the past tense of the adjective いい, as I said. I have watchlisted the article if you wish to solicit the opinions of Japanese speakers besides myself. Ichigoichigo (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have no standards for how many words i can eat; you're free to type as you wish. I only said what i said because of what you said—leave it.
 * Oh. That makes sense. Apologies, but i was too wound up in my previous judgement that i didn't check with the examples. I tried searching with " " but it's just as you say, i couldn't find any instance of のに being read as "i wish" without いい or its past tense よかつた.
 * As you previously said, since いい is being read with のに here, it cannot be read with で simultaneously. I concede my argument. ／talk 10:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That being said, do you mind if you can answer other similar doubts? Just how exactly would we read でいいいいのに？ This definitely sounds very unnatural, and i doubt it can ever be used in real life, but just for the record. ／talk 10:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The first いい would need to be in a suitable form to connect it to the latter. The more complete way of putting it would be でよければいいのに or でよかったらいいのに, both of which use an explicitly conditional form, or more casually でよくていいのに. Any of those could, in principle, be read as "I wish it were okay for/if...", or something like that, but I think they all kind of fall apart because いい is such a versatile word, when you string it together like this you tend not to have enough more concrete context cues to make the meaning clear within the sentence.
 * I don't know for certain that it's not possible, but I can't think of a way to string いい together twice back-to-back in its dictionary form. Ichigoichigo (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Would it still be read as you said if it was in the sentence as in ずっと真夜中でいいいいのに. ？ ／talk 16:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In principle it could be. Particularly if you use よくて for the first instance that feels to me like the most probable reading of what ultimately remains a pretty awkward sentence to parse. よかったら and よければ both often pop up with more of a nuance of referring to a specific person's feelings on something - the former often means something like "If you'd like...", before offering a favour, for example, whereas よければ often appears with the nuance of "If this is good enough...", for example when asking someone out, they might reply 私で良ければ... - i.e. a modest response of "[Yes, I'd like to,] if you think I'm good enough". So those associations might colour how the word is interpreted away from just "okay".
 * With that said, I would generally be inclined to rephrase the sentence altogether based on what exactly I was trying to say. Phrases like ...でいい or 平気 are as vague as they are versatile, so they're most productive in everyday situations where the surrounding conversation makes it clear whether "Okay" means "Yes please" or "No thanks" or "Enough" or "Feel free" etc. Ichigoichigo (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Got it. I try to learn from anywhere, and there are several inconsistencies, and when those inconsistencies overlap, it's easier to learn, so I really hope you don't mind me asking. It's just that i don't find people who do speak the language, and if they do, they are not fluent in English, so what they say is lost in translation. One last thing, not for this sentence but generally, between on and kun readings, we decide upon the context which one to go about with. But is context all that there is to it? Also, what does チノカテ mean? It is translated as "fruits of the earth" in English. I can see how チ is katakana for 地. But what about カテ? Is there some other word play too involved here?
 * Unrelated to all this, what does "…本年より部門が廃止された. " mean? the cagegories…abolished for this year?…or…abolished from this year? I'm sure it's the latter. Is that incorrect? ／talk 11:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * With regard to different readings of kanji, broadly speaking you're not reading kanji individually, you're reading them in words, right? Of course, knowing kanji individually helps with inferring readings and meanings of words you don't know, but especially with kanji that have more readings it's more useful to know the full words. Most often, kanji-only compounds including most する-verbs and な-adjectives will use the on-reading, and this is often in the case in more formal or technical speech, whereas names (including place names), most other verbs, い-adjectives, and a lot of more everyday words use kun-readings. As always in natural language, exceptions exist, but generally speaking I would say you know which reading to use by knowing the word. Some ambiguities remain, in which case context will usually help in those cases.
 * I assume カテ is 糧, and that 地の糧 is a somewhat established translation of the phrase "Fruits of the Earth", since searching the phrase brings up other foreign-language works titled thus in Japanese. The use of katakana is generally just a way of stylising it in cases like this, it's often used to give a modern impression or just for emphasis.
 * That is correct - より makes it this year and thereafter. Ichigoichigo (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * So, generally, compound words in on and standalone in kun, so potentially there is no other general rule that I'm unaware of? I don't know a whole lot of kanji, and i only asked because i know even less of contrary general readings. By the way, do we even need to know the other reading than the one generally used, like all of them have it. Did you learn them? As opposed to the flashcard for each kanji approach, I've chosen to just learn them in full sentences. I really hope that's not the wrong way to go about it.
 * Though different, 糧 makes sense here. I think it's better than what i previously thought, but i thought the title was not officially translated as such into Japanese. This was a song title, a homage to a literature book in English, but it did not show up when i tried searching. How'd you find this?
 * The machine translation gives the former, and there was slight disagreement over it, as i thought otherwise. Thank you for confirming.
 * Thank you for the help so far. One last thing: I really hope i did not make an error as i did at Zutomayo elsewhere, but there are literal translations that i have added to other articles in the past. If you don't mind, could you also check the one present at Frieren for any similar or other errors? Also, there is a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the same. So, if you do spot any discrepancies, it would be helpful to others if you could post a reasoning there since there have been instances where others have disagreed over it. ／talk 15:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that "compound words in on and standalone in kun" is very much more of a trend than a rule - something you can go by to gloss over things when you're not sure and don't have access to better information, but plenty of exceptions exist. It's just there are a lot of (especially two- and sometimes four-character) compounds that come from Chinese and comprise a lot of the more colourful reaches of Japanese vocabulary. My personal opinion is that it's most useful to learn kanji in the context of words, and how those words are used, the meaning of kanji individually matters but to me it's more of a secondary layer - it's useful in forming mental connections to help remember and internalise vocabulary.
 * When I searched the phrase (in kanji and hiragana) on DuckDuckGo, it brought up Japanese-language pages relating to "Les nourritures terrestres" by André Gide, which is titled in English as The Fruits of the Earth. I assume this is the reference being made? That being the case, the Japanese seems like a pretty close rendering of the French, while the English substitutes a biblical idiom of equivalent meaning. As best I can tell, neither "Les nourritures terrestres" nor 地の糧 are biblical phrases - at least they don't appear in place of the phrase in the bible translations I checked. I digress a little, I got curious about this one because the "Fruits of the Earth" idiom sounds irresistably like the King James Bible but I couldn't initially find the reference - turns out it appears in James 5:7, at least.
 * I'll take a look at that page, from the looks of it I think I will have some thoughts. Ichigoichigo (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, does it? I read the book summary, and it does resemble the song lyrics, but I'm an atheist, so i wouldn't know about the Bible. Has Gide said that he's taken the phrase from there as a reference? Anyhow, my main concern was just regarding the title, and what you said was helpful.
 * There's one more thing. In context to music CDs, in English we often see the terminology as opposed to the deluxe or other special editions as [album name] "standard edition", "regular edition", "normal edition", etc. So, can 完全生産限定盤 be ambiguously read as 通常盤, as in the former being a standard edition that is limited? I have seen 通常盤初回仕様, 初回仕様限定盤, etc. being used interchangeably. Though, in those cases, 通常盤 was more prevalent and reliable sources explicitly stated so in English. Unfortunately, this has not been so widespread in one of the recent works i have encountered. What do you think about this? ／talk 02:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)