Talk:Japanese honorifics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The references in this article would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] Use of Chan and Kun among Families

Under Kun, the page declares "kun is traditionally not used when addressing or referring to one's own child (unless kun is part of a nickname: "Akira-kun"—Akkun)" but simultaneously under Chan, it says "Parents will probably always call their daughters chan and their sons kun, though chan can be used towards boys just as easily." These two statements seem to conflict each other, unless it means that if parents are to use a suffix with their sons, they are more likely to use kun. Either way, the article should probably be more clear. Bloodnose (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omission of suffixes

There was an edit at 21:19, January 31, 2006 by User:JALockhart that changed the end of the first paragraph in the "Use" section from "...considered very bad manners unless the person has given you permission." to "...considered very bad manners unless."

The "unless" needs to be removed or the end of the sentence needs to be restored. I don't speak Japanese so I don't know which it should be.

--Kevin 01:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chin suffix

I don't believe User:Haeleth's claim that "chan" becomes "chin". This is very dodgy to me - "chin" means "penis" in Japanese, and calling someone "Tanaka^chin" would be like calling them "Tanaka-penis". Very dubious. --DannyWilde 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Chin chin" is penis, but not "chin" by itself. And if it helps to restore some of the dignity of the word for you, the first thing I would think of if I heard chin by itself is the first person pronoun that used to be used by the emperor (used in the speech that Emperor Showa made announcing the surrender of Japan, for example.) -Jefu 01:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Like I said, it's "occasionally" used in online and popular culture. For example, the character 神尾観鈴 in the popular game and anime AIR is almost exclusively referred to by fans as 観鈴ちん, which gets 35,500 Google hits. In this context it is simply a cutesy pronunciation of "-chan", not a reference to the penis.
I have restored this note, but I've moved it to the section at the end on popular culture and made the limitations I've observed in its usage clearer: is this an acceptable compromise for you? Haeleth 12:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know about "chin" at all, and it still seems far out to me, but it seems you were right all along. Necoandjeff (User:Jefu) probably knows what he's talking about, so if he says he's heard it, it's probably not so uncommon - I'm sure I haven't though, and I don't have the bravery to call someone "Tanaka chin". "Chama" is actually pretty standard, it's not manga or something. it can go with "chan" or "sama". San->chan, sama->chama, like "chiisai" -> "chitchai". --DannyWilde 15:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Are you happy to have "chin" and "tan" in the main section too? I'll label them non-standard, at any rate. Haeleth 15:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Although anime is not exactly a great place to look for refernces you can see the usage of chin and tan as well as other suffixes like chama and such in the series "Sister Princess." --Chikiko 19:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In all experiences that I have heard the word chin, or mistakenly used the word chin, it has been taken to mean penis on it's own. I have deleted accordingly 21/05/2007
Don’t know the extent of your experiences with chin, so I fail to see what your experiences should be sufficient for deleting it (especially while leaving other artifacts—like an extraneous “and the” that should have also been deleted), since you don’t even bother to identify yourself. My experience with the chin (which encompasses raising three boys in Japan) coincides with the article material, so I have put it back. Fwiw, I don’t consider animé or manga to be a valid source of information on how the Japanese language is used. Jim_Lockhart 07:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sama/san/shi

All the edits I made about san/sama/shi were deleted by User:Haeleth. I'm sure it is right; why delete it? Mystified. --DannyWilde 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I was trying to simplify the page, and I noticed that that information was duplicated under both "-san" and "-shi"; I was trying to remove the redundant information, and apparently I carelessly removed it all. My apologies. Haeleth 12:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sakana-san

Why did User:Haeleth delete the stuff about "sakana-san"? Mystified. --DannyWilde 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the comment on "usagi-san" would be a suitable replacement, as it seemed to me to be a more general instance of the same phenomenon. I wasn't aware that "sakana-san" for fish being cooked was used in regular adult speech - I had assumed (presumably mistakenly) that it was only used by adults when speaking to children. Haeleth 12:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
You've obviously never seen a Japanese TV cooking programme. --DannyWilde 12:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Not for many years. Thanks for the example. Haeleth 15:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
This is still flagged "dubious". It definitely exists, but IMHO it's a feature of feminine/childish speech and would not be used by males, or anybody in polite speech. Jpatokal (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sensei

Is "sensei" commonly used for authors and artists? I am familiar with the use for manga artists by manga fans, but (as far as I know, anyway) generally authors and artists are not referred to as "sensei". Mystified again. Any comments? --DannyWilde 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly commonly used for authors, if perhaps not generally. It may be restricted to modern authors, and usage may be restricted to their fans, since those are the contexts in which I'm familiar with the usage. It is certainly not restricted to manga artists. As a random example, see this page for an example of the novelist ja:京極夏彦 being referred to as 京極先生.
As for artists, note that ja:教育関係者に対する呼称 includes 芸術家 and 音楽家 in its non-exclusive list of professions with which the title is used.
I have replaced this note: I hope you will consider the new wording more appropriate. I'm not happy with "creative professionals", since it's sometimes used for skilled amateurs as well, but I can't think of a better blanket term for authors/artists/musicians right now. Haeleth 12:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dono/tono

Is "tono" used as a title? Daijirin implies not - sv どの it has "名詞「との」から", and no examples of title usage sv との. Haeleth 15:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Tono by itself can be used as a title of respect for people of very high status (although it would probably only be used like this in a joking manner nowadays). It becomes "dono" when appended to a name. (Added by Jefu ) [[Sorry. That was an unintentional omission. -Jefu 01:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)]]
The Tono sama was some kind of lord, wasn't he? As far as I know, there aren't any actual people who are entitled to be referred to as tono-sama in current-day Japan. As the article says, the "dono" comes on formal letters, for example members of professional organizations, etc. --DannyWilde 00:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
It isn't a specific title, just a term of respect for someone of very high position, like sensei. It was used for daimyo, etc. but I think it has probably had different uses in different periods. And it can be used as a term of respect when addressing the tono, without adding the sama as well. But I agree that it isn't common today unless used in a joking manner. -Jefu 01:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jackie Chan

The article contains the text "On the other hand, Chinese with a surname that might be rendered "chan" in English are usually referred to as "chen" in Japanese. For example, kung-fu star Jackie Chan is called ジャッキー・チェン (Jakkii Chen) in Japan." Does this have anything to do with Japanese titles, or is "chen" simply the Japanese pronunciation of the kanji 陳 (as a modern Chinese surname? Fg2 00:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this passage is unnecessary. -Jefu 00:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree! --DannyWilde 01:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a consensus to me. I've removed it. I also changed the bit about chan being used for adults who are cute/kawaii. I rather think of it as simply a term of affection. -Jefu 03:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The traditional question I ask at this point is, have you tried asking a Japanese person about it? One of the first people I met when I first came to Japan was this great big Russian, and the male people in the lab called him "Ivan-chan" because they said he was "cute". Similarly, ask a Japanese person why Arnie is called "Shuwa-chan" and they'll probably tell you "because we think he's cute". --DannyWilde 03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no doubt that that is what they would say (assuming you mean kawaii). But that's not how I would describe the phenomenon in an English encyclopedia. I think "title of affection" or "term of affection" captures it better than "cute." And if you look up the word kawaii in a Japanese dictonary and compare it with what you see when you look up cute in an English dictionary, you'll see that the Japanese term is used a little more broadly anyway. By the way, do you call him "Arnie" because you think he's cute? -Jefu 03:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Chan does not imply cuteness unless the situation and context calls for it. Chan is a term of indearment or affection, and can be used among close friends. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.202.104 (talk • contribs) .
On a side note, I would advise against using Schwa-chan altogether. It's a really, really old joke, and using it nowadays makes you look lame. Or in the case of us blonde long-nosed gaijin, cute. But certainly not the kinda cute you wanna be going for :) TomorrowTime 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I like Jackie Chan

[edit] Kun in Diet

In Diet of Japan, members of diet and ministers are called with kun by the chairpersons. For example, Koizumi Junichiro is called as "Koizumi Junichiro kun".

Only exception is that when Doi Takako was a chairperson of Lawer house, she called people with San.--Mochi 11:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Removed pointless use of kana"

On the Japanese titles page, Peter Isotalo removed the kana for "-chan," calling them "pointless." Seeing as all the other entires include kana, it doesn't seem so pointless as it's keeping within the style already established for the page. Please let me know you all think. --nihon 22:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This discussion may be overflowing from the discussion occuring on Talk:Japanese language. To me, it seems reasonable to have the kana for "chan" here to show how the word is written. --DannyWilde 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That was my thought as well. I didn't want to get into an edit/revert war, though, so that's whay I posted here. --nihon 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the editor in question thought about his edit very carefully. If he really does have a reason to remove the kana for "chan", he should explain it here. --DannyWilde 23:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The point of using any kana that doesn't specifically describe the kana itself escapes me. Anyone who can read kana knows how "san" or "chan" is spelled. To anyone who doesn't read kana, it's just unreadable eye-candy. And then there's the whole slew of users for whom the characters don't show up at all and just annoy. Really, there is no benefit to using it and I would really recommend cutting down on Japanese script in general in an English-language encyclopedia.
Peter Isotalo 00:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The whole point of an encyclopedia, however, is to help people learn. Having the kana there fits in with the way most of the Japanese-related articles are written: the kana/kanji is shown the first time it's introduced. It can be very useful to someone who is learning, and those of us who can read most anything we come across can just skip over it. Having the kana there is a definite bonus to someone who is just learning about things, IMHO. --nihon 00:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it a little inconsistent to have Japanese writings for some of the titles and not for others? I think the amount of kana for each title is very small, it's not overwhelming, and despite what Peter Isotalo says I can imagine many people who can read some kana who don't know how "chan" or "san" or "chin" or "tan" are spelt, for example "usually kana" or "usually kanji", and leaving out the kana would not be helpful to them. When I was learning Japanese in the UK, I wouldn't have known that kind of thing. I'd like to keep this small amount of kana. --DannyWilde 06:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure it's modaretely useful (you can learn kana without Wikipedia in a few days) as some sort of teaching tool to the relativly small minority of Westerners that study Japanese, but I'm more concerned about the majority that is bound to be either bothered or dumbfounded by it, either through lack of proper software or knowledge of Japanese. Either way, it's an encyclopedia, not a language learning tool.
Peter Isotalo 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The reason for reading an encyclopedia article, in this case one about Japanese, is to learn something about the language. Thus, an encyclopedia article about a language point is indeed a tool/resource/method/whatever for learning (about) the language. Otherwise it is no use. --DannyWilde 10:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
As this format is widely used in many Japanese articles on Wikipedia (showing the Japanese for whatevere is being discussed), it would be inconsistent to not use it in this article. Anyone I've asked about it (about 20 people, those who either can't read Japanese, or those who don't have Japanese fonts installed on their system) hasn't seemed to care either way. So, in my opinion, we should leave the kana for those who are interested in it. Those who aren't interested will just ignore it, IMHO. --nihon 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If you want to learn kana, all you need is the article itself (kana). Anything other than that for educational purposes is acting spoiled about superfluous text-clutter. The difference between learning a language and learning about a language is the difference between a textbook and an encyclopedic article. If you want to learn Japanese, you check out a textbook. If you want to learn about Japanese, you look up Japanese language or any of its sub-articles. Someone with the ambitions of doing the former should be urged to learn kana while someone who just wants to read about the general characteristics shouldn't be expected to have to learn a single stroke of Japanese writing.
And please stop using occurances of certain info as an argument that the info be kept. Self-supporting arguments are always lame.
Peter Isotalo 16:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I support Danny and nihonjoe on this issue. The kana aren't hurting anything but your feelings. - Sekicho 16:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Having the kana in the article isn't forcing anyone (or even "expecting" them) to learn one bit of Japanese. All it's providing is the information should they wish to use it. It's not like the entire article is written in Japanese--that would be overkill. Providing the relevant kana/kanji for the current discussion is hardly "expecting" anyone to learn it. --nihon 20:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iemoto

Doesn't iemoto imply that the title, the headmanship of the school is inherited - not necessarily from father to son but sometimes by adoption or by marriage into the family? // Habj 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Japanese martial arts titles with this page

The page Japanese martial arts titles is somewhat confusing, and the field would probably become clearer if the page was merged into this one. // Habj 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I merged the content from the above referenced page into a new section. Brianglass 04:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shishou

  • Is "shishou" considered a Japanese title? I hear it means master and is given to a master of an art, like dance or martial arts.
師匠 does mean "master" or "teacher". --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should qualify that: 師匠 Shishō is used to mean master [of an art], but it is generally heard as a title only in reference to practitioners of rakugo and similar traditional arts.
If someone is going to add it to this article, they should check out the details first, otherwise their contribution could turn out to be of similar veracity to many of the others here—i.e., based on cursory impressions rather than reality; a good example of dubious material is that about the use of sama in Reo-sama. Jim_Lockhart 05:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to section on "-kun" in conjunction w/vandalism repair

The following post- "rv vandalism" sentence does not make sense:

In a business setting, particularly in young women, may also be addressed as kun by older males of senior status.

I have reverted it to the form I rewrote into a week or so ago:

In business settings women, particularly young women, may also be addressed as kun by older males of senior status.

Since this is factually accurate, I so no reason why it cannot stand as it is; i.e., without "business settings" being chanced to "a business setting", given that it is a generalization. The other nonsense should speak for itself. Also, the statement that male pets are sometimes referred to with "-kun" attached to their names is not inaccurate: it is not at all unusual for neighbors to refer to one another's male pets (particularly dogs and cats) with "-kun" attached to their names. In this case, it is not a term of respect, but one of familiarity. (Of course, it would be strange for a pet owner to refer to her/his own animal this way).

The paragraph on the use of "kun" vs "san/chan" at school (by faculty) also comes across as slightly strange: "kun"/"san", yes; but I don't think "kun"/"chan" is right unless the "kun/chan" are part of a fixed nickname. Further, these usages are not as carved in marble as the current text suggests; e.g., a child whose name begins with the syllables "nori" will almost always be nicknamed "Nonchan" regardless of sex. Similarly, the sentence about "-kun" not being used towards one's own child is worded to restrictively: there are situations in which a parent will add "-kun" or "-chan" to her/his own child's name, though not when referring to the child in conversation with a third party.

HTH, Jim_Lockhart 11:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The part with chan being used by school faculty strikes me as weird aswell. I'm just about ready to change it myself, except I don't have enough reliable information and experience to make a change I could be happy with.

--Bumptrout 10:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Talk:-tan

Bincho-tan is a word for a kind of charcoal (備長炭); the normal word has no connection with the -tan of this article. Is the usage in the article different from 備長炭? Fg2 05:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised. Sounds like a typical dajare.   freshgavin TALK    06:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess it does! Fg2 07:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Not so sure about the usage described in the article, but –tan is used as a sort of variation on chan and seems to come from small children's talk, since some little kids say tan instead of chan, and sometimes the usage seems to stick in nicknames. Jim_Lockhart 13:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is that really dumb anime of the same name. Bincho-tan is used as wordplay in that instance.--SeizureDog 08:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Teme

Is teme/temae a suffix?


No. Jim_Lockhart 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -San and familiarity?

"Both san and its more formal equivalent, sama, imply a kind of familiarity. In formal speech, the title shi may be preferred." San does not imply familiarity at all. It is the most common and most general title and the default title to use when you speak to a stranger (totally NOT familiar). In fact, leaving out -san implies familiarity with a person and not the other way around. This is kind of a very big mistake in the otherwise good article. And shi is used very seldom in speech, mostly in writing. I deleted that sentence.

Are you entirely certain of this fact though? My mother(Japanese), for instance, refers to one of her few Japanese friends as "Kyoko-san". They are very good friends, and I am 100% certain of what she calls her. Now, my mother has lived in the United States for many years, along with her friend, but I don't think they would forget basic Japanese courtesy. This gives me the impression that -san is really not so informal or impolite in some cases. Is there any information out there that points to the contrary? 68.18.24.38 00:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Even close friends can and will continue using -san throughout their lives. It is not a sign of familiarity. In fact, every language class and textbook I've ever seen indicates that it is the standard suffix used when you are unsure what the proper form of address is because it is completely unoffensive. Oh, and it should be pointed out that your mother is already using a more familiar construction (first name + san) for her friend.

The sentence that was deleted seems to make a valid point, although it could be clearer. There is a general lack of clarity in the article regarding the distinction between titles used in address terms (talking to someone), and titles used in reference terms (talking about someone). When referring to someone, use of -san or other titles can imply that the speaker knows them personally, whereas to refer to them with no title often shows a more neutral attitude. For example in academic writing, scholars are always cited with no title, but in seminar discussions it is common to add -san or -sensei (depending on the kind of relationship) to the names of those who have some connection to the speaker (eg. as supervisor, colleague, sempai, etc.). In sum, what I'm trying to show is that -san implies a connection (called "familiarity" in the deleted sentence) in this case. So I think anonymous editor above has missed the point. The use of -san in address/reference terms for someone who is close to the speaker is a separate question. 125.175.181.79 10:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] content from Japanese Suffixes article

I compared content from both articles so I can create a redirect, leaving out content already present in the current article, here's what left from japanese suffixes:

  • (for chan)If the speaker were to use this suffix to a person his/her age then he/she would have to realize that the ~chan suffix is a casual suffix and is mainly used only for girls, if they are the same age or only a little bit younger than the speaker. If a boy was to call another boy his name and add -chan onto the other boy's name, then it could be deemed as an insult, unless it was said as a joke, or under other circumstances.
  • (for sensei)This suffix is a little different than others used in the Japanese language in that -sensei can also be used just by itself when talking to someone. So instead of having to add the person's name and then the suffix, the speaker can just say sensei which is the same as just saying Professor or Teacher.
  • (new section:combination)These suffixes can all be used in combination in whichever way a person decides to use them. One such example would be the use of -chan and -sama. If someone were wanting to express both affection and respect, he/she could say -chama to have both meanings in one suffix. There are many different ways that a person could interchange and combine each of the suffixes. This is the opposite of what the English have as prefixes before a name; there is little freedom to interchange prefixes such as "Mr., Mrs., or Ms."

Now, I have no knowledge of japanese titles. So if you think some of this text is valid please leave it alone or add some content. If you disagree, then say it. If there's no answer by March 2, 2007. Then I'll just add them to their respective section.--Janarius 15:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] -niichan

I've just been watching Naruto on Youtube and in ep. 137, the suffix "-niichan" is used. Can this be added with a definition? Jddriessen 21:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Niichan is, of itself, not a suffix. It is used in addressing (or referring to) an older brother or—less frequently—an elder brother-like figure. In such situations, it’s often appended to a name. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
-nii can apparently be used as a big-brother suffix, as in Bleach 64 when Ichigo's little sister addresses him as "Ichi-nii". This suggests a whole category of possible familial referents that could be listed in yet another subsection if the others can be found. Jeffryfisher (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obaa

What does Obaa chan mean?

Grandmother--Sotaru 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably best rendered as "Grandma" or "Granny" as it's a familiar form, Obaa-san is grandmother. Samatarou (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noji

Ok, I found this title in the Anime Samurai 7, and I looked around here because I've never seen this one before. I didn't see it in the article, or I may not have looked hard enough. Regardless, can anyone tell me what Noji means? 74.167.170.215 04:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Weaboo. It means weaboo.

[edit] A matter of curiosity

What would the honorific title be for a friend who is a girl the same age as the speaker - kun, san or chan? The article isn't clear on this point. RobbieG 09:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear because there isn't a 100% certain answer, it depends on the speaker and how close they are. In general, best use san. However if both are female teens or young adults they might well use chan. Also if the speaker is a male he might use chan, although if they are not close friends she might not appreciate this (not that this would stop a thick-skinned boy using it anyway). Kun is unlikely to be used with a girl, the only times I've heard it used was towards a younger girl, when the speaker didn't want to use chan because it would sound inappropriately familiar, e.g. in a work or school context. Samatarou 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
A native Japanese speaker would simply not use -kun to address a girl. It isn't done. Nandesuka (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merge Dono

Resolved.

I implemented the merge discussed here. Nandesuka (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • support merge. Chris (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • support --Drhlajos (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • support Dono is a Japanese title, so it really doesn't need it's own article when there's this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesser Shadow (talk • contribs) 09:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] love

  • What title would you use for your girlfriend?
  • What title would you use for your boyfriend?
  • What title would you use for your wife?
  • What title would you use for your husband?
  • What title would you use for someone you really love?

--75.181.81.73 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a text book. But, to answer your questions - for a male talking to a female, kimi would fit most of those. In the reverse, things get hazier, but the name or a derivative thereof might be used; after childbirth, otoosan is also common. Problem is, these are not clear cut instructions, and it really varies from case to case, from person to person. Your questions are simply too broad to be answered satisfactorily. After all, could you answer them even for the English language? TomorrowTime (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What does "kimi" translate too? --75.181.81.73 (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You. Historicaly, it used to be used for high nobility, but that meaning is gone now. The most famous example of this historic usage is the Japanese anthem, Kimi ga yo. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

what wouuld you call someone you love, though? Arutoa (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, typically you just refer to people you are talking to by their name. If Mikako is talking to her very close friend Mayu about her new handbag, she might say to her "Wow, Mayu's handbag is so pretty!" If you're talking about honorifics, that's very context specific. There's no one right answer. Nandesuka (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you! Arutoa (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bozu?

I don't know if anyone that contributes to this article is familiar with Ken Akamatsu's Negima! franchise, but one of the B-tier characters always refers to the main character as "Negi-bozu" in the manga. The notes at the start of each volume give a listing of several honorifics and state that -bozu is used to refer to a child, sort of like calling a kid "squirt" or "half-pint." I didn't see it in this article or the discussion, so I thought I'd bring it up and see if it's worth mentioning here. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)