Talk:Iroha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

Contents 1 Wi and We 2 Other Pangrams 3 Pronunciation 4 Poem wars 5 re-phrasing

[edit] Wi and We

ゐ (w)i and ゑ (w)e are in the same column of わ wa and を (w)o in 五十音.

[edit] Other Pangrams

There were once other pangrams used. The Iroha was only one of several. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I saw other examples.

[edit] Pronunciation

I removed the two alternative readings:

1. つねならむ is pronounced tsune naran, not tsune naramu, because the rest of the Iroha follows the pronunciation style used nowadays for classical Japanese. While indeed the auxiliary verb む was once pronounced mu, if we pronounce mu here, then the rest of the Iroha should also be pronounced as written (けふ as kefu etc.).
2. 酔ひ in 酔ひもせず is ei not yoi. The modern 酔う（よう） comes from the fact that the original yodan-type verb, ゑふ, is pronounced yō due to pronunciation rules (compare how けふ is pronounced kyō). The ren'youkei form, ゑひ, does not fall under the "e + u => yō" rule changing its pronunciation, so it is just plain ei.

[edit] Poem wars

The edits of the poem's translation yesterday were basically uncalled for. "My translation" of the poem counts as one's original work and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Now another person has come along and re-edited the poem according to his or her own personal tastes. Please stop it. I am reverting back to the original version for the time being. --DannyWilde 00:43, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm down… I just really hate having "literally, blah" in parenthesis. Can we take out the "inevitably" and "no one could"? --Carl 05:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea of parentheses and the insertion of the literal meaning was meant to indicate the construction of the original Japanese, considering that translations are imperfect, in keeping with the aim to provide as much information as possible. As for my original edit of the translation, it was intended to improve the adherence to the original Japanese text. --Denihilonihil 11:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the guiding principles here should be first of all that this article's goal should be to explain what "iroha" is, and second, no original research. It's not really a good idea to put original translations of poems into Wikipedia unless nothing more standard exists. Also, re-editing them for artistic merit is a fairly bad idea - there is no end to that sort of discussion. --DannyWilde 14:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think translation entirely counts as "original research" per se. The idea of the ban is to weed out things that cranks make up on their own and then put on Wikipedia for promotional reasons. (Wikipedia is for documentation of the known, not a place to advance the leading edge of knowledge, etc.) However, unless the person putting the translation on here is pushing a book of translations, that doesn't seem to be an issue in this case. If anything, it's better to have a Wikipedian's translation listed here, since other translations have copyright issues. Though a single translation of Iroha is probably fair use, a Wikipedian's original translation is known to be fully GDFL, thus free from any potential complications. (By the way, just where did our current translation come from anyway?) Maybe the best solution might be to just put a painfully literal translation up here and a link to a site that can host other translations. If I can be forgiven the indulgence: [1]. Let a thousand flowers bloom! Then fade. Then cross over…, &c., &c. --Carl 02:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know what the best method is, but I was concerned about a poem war breaking out. Anyway I've added your link to the page anyway. Hope this is useful. --DannyWilde 05:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about this page earlier today, for some reason. Perhaps it would be more approporiate to link to a page in the WikiSource project. Does anyone else know more about that project? I just know that it's a sister to Wikipedia. --Carl 11:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re-phrasing

Hi Adam, you've readded "perfect pangram". I'd cut this partly to avoid repetition, but also because it sounds weird to say "perfect pangram except not, because of -n". What would you say to just "pangram" (no perfection required!) in that para? Cheers, JackyR 01:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I missed the pangram mention at the top; I'll take it out below. The ん character is a relatively new addition to Japanese orthography, so the iroha still has a reasonable claim to being called a perfect pangram. adamrice 15:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

All sounds good :-) JackyR 15:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)