User talk:TAKASUGI Shinji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 21:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bilingualism

Welcome to WP! Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)#Insertion of Chinese characters for established WP style. There's no need to bother yourself with insersion of non-topical Chinese characters. Could you please clean up Records of the Grand Historian and Yellow Emperor as per policy? Thanks! Mostly you've done great work. Keep it up! :-) --Menchi 09:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rime and Rhyme

Hi Shinji, I found your webpages for learning Japanese a while ago, and recognised your name immediately. With regards to rime and and rhyme, the former is a specialised term used in Chinese linguistics to specifically refer to the rimes in Chinese philology. Please revert back to the original "rime", because all the linked articles have been written using this term, in its correct meaning. The commonly used rhyme ought to refer to poetical rhyming, thus keeping the two concepts separate, in line with modern practice with the literature on Chinese linguistics. Dylanwhs 09:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize this until Dylan mentioned it, but I visited your site like 6 years ago! I even printed out pages and pages of your site because I thought they were really well-written. I still remember that one of your page was about the different Japanese fonts. Coincidentally, I also visited Dylan's site years before he came to WP. it's like everybody is being sucked into the WikiBlackhole. --Menchi 04:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought rime and rhyme are just spelling preferences. I have corrected the articles. TAKASUGI Shinji 04:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this was the result of an earlier discussion, in which the consensus seemed to be that normally they are indeed just spelling preferences. Maybe Dylan just meant that the term "syllable rime", specifically, is usually spelled with "i"? In this case, it would be better to add a remark in parentheses like '(in linguistics, the spelling "syllable rime" is preferred)'.
Sebastian 01:56, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

I have checked several linguistic resources such as Rimes and Rhymes and SIL's Glossary of linguistic terms - What is a rime?, and it seems to me many linguists distinguish rime and rhyme. - TAKASUGI Shinji 02:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have looked up the terms in several dictionaries, and I can see no special linguistic definition of "rime". It seems to me that it is purely a spelling variant, despite a minority's attempt to give it a special meaning. I don't think the language will be improved by adopting this. It is not really a separate concept. Of 平, p is the "head", "initial consonant", etc; and íng is the "rhyme", "tail", or whatever. "Rime" is ice. People will just think us poor spellers if we use "rime" for "rhyme". Chamaeleon 11:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I believe if linguists distinguish them, we should do so too. As far as I have checked on the Net, some linguists clearly distinguish "rime" from "rhyme", while others don't. Moreover, "rime" seems more common for syllable rimes. Try googling "onset and rime" and "onset and rhyme". The former gets 4480 hits and the latter gets 559 hits. - TAKASUGI Shinji 00:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


In [1] p.946 "Chinese characters that share the same phonetic components can be homophones... rhyming syllables (e.g. [dzung]3 and [dung]6", and in the following paragraph, "In the cantonese syllable [dip]9, [d] is the onset, [ip]] is the rime and 9 indicates that the syllable is the ninth tone". The rhyming you'll notice refers to syllables of the same 'rime', where rime follows the 'onset'. In Thomas Chan's thesis on Cantonese [2] in section 2.4.1 "the -om [-Om] and -op [-Op] rimes" though it does not deal with rhyming of syllables.
I do concede though that in some English language sources such as Norman 'Chinese' (1988), he uses rhyme and rhyming throughout, but the rime/rhyme distinction may be a trend in Chinese linguistics. Yu NaeWing's "New Edition of Guangyun (Song Edition)" has a section in English describing the terminology, and he uses "rime" specifically to refer to the rhymming part of a syllable. The distinction was pointed out to me by a Chinese dialectologist, Dr. Lau Chunfat, who is currently serving a deputy professorship in Xiamen University when I met him in HK a few years ago, and to which I have since adhered to in all my writings on the subject here and elsewhere. The sources I cite are hopefully enough to strengthen the pro-distinction. (this is copied from my talk page)
The specialised use of rime as opposed to rhyme for the rhyming element of a Chinese syllable is demonstrated in the above links to linguistic papers. An every day dictionary will may not distinguish specialised usage in specific fields. Onset and rime is the current usage in Chinese dialectology. Dylanwhs 09:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Some linguists choose to make this rather strange and baseless distinction, and some don't. I think we should probably reflect this reality rather than trying to prescribe "rime" as though it were an accepted standard. Chamaeleon 13:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you hate rime so much. It isn't a baseless distinction at all because they mean related but different things. To rhyme is to have the same rime. In the syllable rime article, you wrote "the rarer form 'rime' is sometimes used", but as far as I have checked, "rime" is more common for syllable rimes. Ish ishwar also wrote that rime is common (please see Talk:Rhyme#Rhyme_vs._rime). We should reflect this reality. ;-) - TAKASUGI Shinji 16:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is baseless because "rime" and "rhyme" are the same word. The former is the spelling we inherited from French, the latter is a spelling we invented to put it in line with the original ρυθμος. They are no more separate words than "organise" and "organize" are. This word, with either spelling, can be used with either meaning (and the two meanings are practically the same). Certain linguists have tried to make a semantic distinction between them, and we should note this, but without arriving at the POV that "rime" is more "correct". Personally, I have only come across "rime" as an archaism, e.g. "nursery rime"; and the rhyming portion of a Chinese syllable is called the "final" in all the books I use.
Note also that although held to be important in Chinese, there is no special "rime" in Chinese. The relevant term is 韵 [韻] yùn, which means "rhythm", "to rhyme" and "final".
See also Talk:Rime dictionary. Chamaeleon 16:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As some linguists have come to make the distinction in their works, and others have not, then it is clear that the distinction that 'rime' refering to a series of phonetic elements in syllables of different onsets, and separating it's use from 'rhyme' in the sense of the rhyming of different syllables of different onset but same rime, is real. Despite other linguists not using it, the fact that it is used should merit the distinction to be reflected here on Wiki. Chameleon wishes that it remains undistinguished until it "worms" its was into mainstream dictionaries. And when it does, you would need the article anyway. One wonders then, how many mainstream dictionaries keep abreast of developments in niche subjects like Chinese dialectology? The is the frog in the well attitude should be discouraged. Dylanwhs 17:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That really doesn't follow logically. It implies that a distinction made between two forms of one word is a priori preferable and requires only minimal support from usage to make it something we should push on Wikipedia. By this logic, if I decide that "organisation" refers to general tidying and ordering and "organization" refers to structured institutions, then I only need to show that some people in a certain field do as I do if I want to make it a standard on Wikipedia.
No, you need to show that there is consensus in usage that makes the distinction. I think you can only show that some linguists do and some don't. Moreover, I'd say that the normal term used in reference to Chinese is not "rhyme"/"rime" but "final". Chamaeleon 18:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
TAKASUGIさん, would it be OK to move this discussion to the Rhyme_vs._rime discussion? In my impression, there are more arguments against the distinction there than for it. Sebastian 21:11, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
I have copied this thread to Rhyme_vs._rime discussion. Please write your replies there. - TAKASUGI Shinji 15:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the merge around Anglicisation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 2005-03-04T14:28:38

[edit] Asia

Hi Shinji: Good job on fixing Asia to indicate that it is a cultural concept. --Theo (Talk) 08:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wh-movement

Hi... I'm not familiar with Joseph Greenberg, but your latest edit to Wh-movement seems to imply that only SOV languages are wh-in-situ. Was that the intention? Languages like Chinese, which is SVO are considered wh-in-situ as well. --Umofomia 05:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making it clearer. --Umofomia 06:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ainu language

Hey there Shinji -- Thanks for the input on the Ainu page. Are you perhaps a speaker? Only I'm wondering about the somewhat-talked-about link between Ainu huci and Fuji-san. (Plus being a real language geek. :) Do you by any chance know of any good Japanese-language resources for Ainu? I'm not sure where to start looking, other than Kinokuniya... Thanks! --- Eiríkr Útlendi 14:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm Japanese, and I know only basics of the Ainu language. There are several Ainu language learning websites written in Japanese. - TAKASUGI Shinji 00:43, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Shinji, I'll see what I can find.  :) Cheers, --- Eiríkr Útlendi 03:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morohashi

Hi Shinji, I tried emailing you, but you might be busy, but wondered if you'd like to help me with pre-1946 kana renderings of On readings, and whether you'd have access to Morohashi's 大漢和辞典. Thanks. Dylanwhs 07:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can see a copy of Morohashi's Daikanwa in my company's library, but I can't bring it home. Giving information of pre-WWII orthography must be easy. Why don't you try 大辞林 online, which contains 233,000 words? - TAKASUGI Shinji 07:39, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
I've tried your suggestion, but there were some characters which weren't found. Do you know if there is an abridged version of the Morohashi dictionary set? I seem to recall in my visit to the Sogo bookshop in Hong Kong that there was a "DaiKanWa" dictionary, as a single volume, but that was a few years ago but not sure if it is the Morohashi. My two kanwa dictionaries at home have around 9 to 10,000 characters in but I've come across characters which can't be found in them. Anyway, thanks for your consideration. I'll ask on sci.lang.japan. Cheers, Dyl. Dylanwhs 13:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Determiner

Hi Shinji, thanks a lot for your contribution to determiner, I think we are getting somewhere, that article was a real mess. I'll be back with some questions I'm sure. Cheers PizzaMargherita 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visual Kei bands

Hi, I've written some articles on Visual Kei bands that are in danger of deletion for lack of proper references. If you read Kanji, could you find me some? Here are the links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missalina_Rei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliene_Ma%27riage

Here's another I didn't write that also seems in danger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noir_Fleurir

Also, I see complaints that "notability" has not been established, which would be evidence of national hits, national or international tours, awards, etc. I'd greatly appreciate your help. Thank you.Pkeets 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moksha Numeric

Dear Shinji, thank you very much for your help and support. My Wiki settings knowledge is still poor. If you are interested in some specific information on Moksha language just let me know.

Arigato Numulunj pilgae 14:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you a Mokshan? How do you write 700 in Mokshan numerals? - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vowel length

Moved to Talk:Vowel length#Japanese phonemes. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "possessive adjectives"

Hi. Would you mind going to Talk:Possessive adjective and responding to my irritated question there? Thanks! -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, after posting that I forgot that I'd posted it and only looked at it again today. Yes, the micro-debate on display in Blather:Possessive determiner is one of the most straightforward and thus one of the most absurd demonstrations I've seen of Wikipedia's uninterest in academic consensus in favor of the blatantly wrong idée reçue. There's more I could say, but maybe it's not WP material; might I ask you to email me? -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You can send me an email at Special:Emailuser/TAKASUGI_Shinji. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marginal seas

Note my comment at: Talk:Marginal_sea#The_Mediterranean_Sea.27s_marginal_seas which relates to one of your edits. - Shaheenjim (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)