Talk:Japanese language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AaronMerrell, Cythirixs. Peer reviewers: Yarinashen, Sarahaubrey13, Wongoc, Angelali98, Yulu Tian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Feedback LING 110

Hi,

This Wikipedia article really well written: the sections are organized in an orderly manner, the language of used in the article sound neutral, the sources are reliable and recent enough, and the images and tables match the content. However, I think some of the writing can be rephrased to make it easier for readers to read. Also, the article touches upon the use of honorifics in the Japanese language, but only talks about one particular one "-san". I thought it would be helpful to list all the honorifics and briefly explain which honorific is used when talking to different people.

Angelali98 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Angelali98

@Angelali98: That's a very broad topic to cover here. There is a separate article at Japanese honorifics which covers this topic in more detail (though that article needs a lot of work). The reason "-san" is covered here is because it is the default honorific to use, and (unless you're knowingly addressing royalty or nobility) is perfectly acceptable in almost every situation. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick question

Which Japanese to English translator is the most accurate? --PSI Thunder (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Colon Abuse

These days, many articles in Wikipedia use colon (;) extensively. It's not meant to be used that much. In this article, it appears 46 times! Read Newsweek magazine articles, for example, and you'll hardly find any. 62.228.198.24 (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The character ; is a semicolon not a colon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.248.250 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead

In my judgment this edit and this edit to the lead, made by user InternationalAffairs3 but then reverted by Doug Weller, were both entirely appropriate. I have no objection to a proposed relationship of Japanese to Ainu and Southeast Asian languages being mentioned in the article, but per WP:LEAD, it is not appropriate to mention such a proposed relationship only in the lead while not discussing it in the main body of the article, which is unfortunately what was done in this edit. The lead is a summary of the article's topic as a whole, so there shouldn't be anything in it that is not also mentioned elsewhere in the article. The correct approach is to establish a section in the article specifically on the proposed relationship with Southeast Asian languages, and then add something about the proposal in the lead, which is what I have done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In response to this edit, in which it was asserted that the proposed genealogical connection of Japanese to Korean and Altaic has been discredited, I direct the reader's attention to Ki-Moon Lee and S. Robert Ramsey's A History of the Korean Language, published in 2011, in which it is stated on page 14, "Experts now take seriously two genetic hypotheses about Korean: (1) The altaic hypotheses and (2) the hypothesis that Korean and Japanese are related." That is from a recently published, scholarly book. The book can be searched on Amazon.com here. When you have a reliable source stating this, it is obviously not acceptable for the article to state as fact that the proposed relationship with Korean is discredited. At most you can say that some linguists see it as discredited, if you have a suitable citation for that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Altaic is a dead horse - even its originator gave up on this theory - linguists almost unilaterally disown it. Any "scholarly" source advocating this outdated stuff should be considered 'fringe.' To date, the Japanese language family is more or less considered a language isolate - no theories are agreed to by any appreciable percentage of linguists today.50.111.60.244 (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

about the location in the law

In constitution of Japan, there is no article about confirming the offical language. How about changeing the words "official language", into"de-facto official language"?

失礼ですが、英語が下手なので、日本語ですいません。『日本国憲法』には、日本語を公用語と定める事項はありません。しかし、ほとんどの日本で生まれ育った人々にとって日本語は母語なので、「事実上の公用語」と変更することを推奨します。もし「official language」と記述すると、あたかも「日本語が法律で定められた公用語」という意味になるので、「de-facto」を前に追加したらどうでしょう。皆さまのご教示をお願いいたします。-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiiCii (talk • contribs) 10:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't see anything that needs changing. It states it's the national language of Japan, and de facto everywhere else. Even in the info box where it states Official language, it says it's de facto. So not sure what needs altering. Canterbury Tail talk 22:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Personally, I think the sentence in introduction"Japanese (日本語 Nihongo, [ɲihoŋɡo] (About this sound listen) or [ɲihoŋŋo]) is an East Asian language spoken by about 126 million people, primarily in Japan, where it is the national language"should be changed, not in the info box. MiiCii (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see an issue with it. The article on national language is clear it's not necessarily official, and it is clearly the national language of Japan. They don't regularly speak any other language in their day to day dealings that you could say the majority of the country does. Canterbury Tail talk 16:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much MiiCii (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

typeo edit suggested

"easy of use" -> ease of use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:AC1:3BA0:50D4:CBB5:AF7F:960E (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit request - inconsistency between sourced figure in infobox and first sentence

Is it possible to change the number of speakers in the first sentence to match the sourced figure in the infobox? I do not see a citation but we should not be using two different figures. If there is disagreement which one to use maybe we can come to an agreement here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by おいしい鍋 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see an issue here, because not all speakers of Japanese (as listed in the first sentence) are native speakers (as listed in the inbox). Dekimasuよ! 20:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. おいしい鍋 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Classification

This part: "As it stands, only the link to Ryukyuan has wide support, though linguist Kurakichi Shiratori maintained that Japanese was a language isolate." seems to be incorrect as Ryukyuan is proven to be related to Japanese. Do I misunderstand this part or is it just wrong? --AsadalEditor (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

When authors say Japanese is an isolate, they are treating Ryukyuan as dialects of Japanese. So, allowing for terminological variation, the second part of that sentence adds nothing and can be deleted. Kanguole 17:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--AsadalEditor (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

In general, the Classification section has a number of problems:

Too much weight is given to recent primary research, e.g. the thesis of Alexander Takenobu Francis-Ratte (mislabelled as Ratte and Takenobu et al. 2016). It needs time to see whether such ideas are accepted or rebutted by other workers, or just vanish without trace. It's not true that Francis-Ratte was the first to propose cognates (the most thorough proposals are Martin and Whitman), and his work was savaged by Vovin in his article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2019). The recent addition of Vovin's own suggestion that three words come from an Austronesian substrate is also premature, as well as not actually implying anything about the classification of Japanese.

There is too much on old, largely discarded, proposals, such as Benedict's Austro-Tai and especially Altaic. Robbeets's proposals have been criticized by several authors, precisely because she takes Altaic (including Korean) as given, when very few still accept it. There is also no need to cite Robbeets on the number of proposals or the hybrid/Austronesian substratum theory – Shibatani (1990) has a good summary of both.

There is a failure to distinguish between typological similarities and genetic relationships. For example, Janhunen (2013) finds it "very plausible" that Japonic may have three typological layers, one of then Austronesian, but "it should be understood that none of the three typological layers has any genetic implication for Japonic." Rather, typology might suggest something about the prehistoric neighbours of Japonic.

In this top-level article (especially since no genetic link has been demonstrated), the Classification section should be shorter and based of secondary sources, with the details and more speculative material relegated to child articles like Classification of the Japonic languages. Kanguole 17:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree with you. I will try to shorten the article. I think most theories are mentioned in the Classification of the Japonic languages article. Would you please take a look on my next edit on this article and fix mistakes if i make some. Thank you!--AsadalEditor (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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:

Header text
Early Modern Japanese Main article: Early Modern Japanese Early Modern Japanese, not to be confused with Modern Japanese, was the dialect used after the Meiji Restoration. Because the two languages are extremely similar, Early Modern Japanese is commonly referred to as Modern Japanese. Early Modern Japanese gradually evolved into Modern Japanese during the 19th century. Only after 1945, shortly after World War II, did Modern Japanese become the standard language, seeing use in most official communications. 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.
Modern Japanese Modern Japanese is considered to begin with the Edo period, which lasted between 1603 and 1868. Since Old Japanese, the de facto standard Japanese had been the Kansai dialect, especially that of Kyoto. However, during the Edo period, Edo (now Tokyo) developed into the largest city in Japan, and the Edo-area dialect became standard Japanese. Since the end of Japan's self-imposed isolation in 1853, the flow of loanwords from European languages has increased significantly. The period since 1945 has seen a large number of words borrowed from other languages—such as German, Portuguese and English. Many English loan words especially relate to technology—for example, pasokon (short for "personal computer"), intānetto ("internet"), and kamera ("camera"). Due to the large quantity of English loanwords, modern Japanese has developed a distinction between [tɕi] and [ti], and [dʑi] and [di], with the latter in each pair only found in loanwords.

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.

References

"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)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Innominatvs's other edits one learns they were talking about the |familycolor=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 [ɲ̟]. 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)

@Nardog: 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)

 Done. ◢  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)

@Orange378474:

It looks like User:AaronMerrell added that in this edit 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 Wikipedia: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)

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"

@Canterbury Tail: Regarding your recent revert and edit comment, the ref I'd added to the Hiragana article 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 /pira/, cognate with words like 枚 (hira, "slip of paper, cloth, or something else flat") or ひらひら (hirahira, "flutteringly"), 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 平 (hira), 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)

@Canterbury Tail: 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 角のない (kaku no nai, "unangular", literally "having no angles / corners") and 通俗平易 (tsūzoku heii, "in common currency, accepted by the common people" + "plain, simple, uncomplicated"). 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#General guidelines. Thibaut (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Languages of the World

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Porkey & Toothy (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Xeimonanthos.

— Assignment last updated by Xeimonanthos (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AzukiMochiBoy (article contribs).

— 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)

Porno herd 184.95.234.149 (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)