Open main menu

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Classical Japanese

Classical Japanese WikipediaEdit

See also the second request (rejected).
main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Classical Japanese)
submitted verification final decision
  This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Classical Japanese (文語, jpn [invented])
  • Editing community: (P)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

(ja) このページは廃止になってしまったようなので、指示に従ってこちらへ移動しました。補足することなどありましたらお願いします。念のため、下に書かれてある英語の意味を訳しておきます:

新言語版の提案手順が新たに定められたのにともない、この提案は無効となります。手順をお読みのうえ、新方式で提案を再び作成してください。そのまま全部コピーするのはやめてください。

--LQVX 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Locations spoken: Japan
  • Related languages: Japanese

Comments/QuestionsEdit

  • Support --Tadafumi 06:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I can't support this project because My opinion of "文語" is different from others. I'm sorry for my betrayal. --Tadafumi 10:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think a writing style to be should use "和文体" basically. About a usage of a punctuation mark, I think that I may use it in the same way as the current spoken language(口語).-- 07:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Then I think the name of the project should be "ancient Japanese", "mediaeval Japanese", "Heian-Japanese" or something. Some literature in Meiji era popped up to my mind seeing the word "classical". --Zelkova 10:46, 5 November 2006(UTC)
It is the written language that has been used all the time without changing from the Heian era (平安時代) to Showa (昭和) too much, and "文語" is not a thing used only in the specific times. Therefore, naming such as "ancient Japanese ", "mediaeval Japanese", "Heian-Japanese" is not appropriate.-- 15:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I agreed with Aphaia's opinion. I think that your propose was attractive but it needs more clarifications on standard for Classical Japanese. e.g. Is "和文体" == 古文 or just a written style? Ancient Japanese (especially Heian-era) had a different vocabulary from modern Japanese. Will you accept it? --Masao 08:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
There are various kinds for "文語", and "和文体" is one of them, too. "和文体" is a main writing style in "文語". "和文体" is a thing based on the spoken language of the Heian era, and works such as Murasaki Shikibu or Seishonagon are representative. A sentence to be called "擬古文" that "国学者(a scholar of ancient Japanese thought and culture)" of the Edo era wrote is written with "和文体". Therefore, I think that a writing style should be based on these sentences. Vocabulary to use is quite different from the spoken language of the present age with "和文体" so that Masao says. "和語" is used a lot with "和文体". I think that I had better use vocabulary of the Heian era basically. However, I think that I should do it with an exception in cases to explain the matter that I cannot explain only with vocabulary of the Heian era such as abstract notions made in the Meiji era.-- 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Is it possible to automatically convert between 口語 and 文語? --Yes0song 09:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(ja) もしそれが技術的に可能だったら、既存の日本語版WPに口語↔文語自動変換機を搭載することが良いと思います。この場合は別途の日本語の文語版WPを新設する必要がなさそうです。--Yes0song 10:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(ja) それは適切ではないと思います。文語は死語であり、用いられる語彙も現在の口語とは全く異なり、口語とは違う文法体系も持っています。文語と口語には、ラテン語とフランス語と同じくらいの違いがあるのではないかと思います。だから、日本人でも専門の人でない限り文語体で書かれた文章を読みこなすことはできません。このようなことから、文語と口語は別言語とみなし、新しいウィキペディアを作るのが適切だと思います。
(en) I think that it is not appropriate. "文語" (Written language) is a dead language, and used vocabulary is totally different from "口語" (the current spoken language) and has a grammar system unlike the spoken language. I think that there may be about the same as Latin and French difference in written language and the spoken language. Therefore even a Japanese cannot comprehend a sentence written in literary style if he is not a specialized person. From such a thing, I consider written language and the spoken language to be a different language and think that it is appropriate to make new wikipedia.-- 12:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question:Can you provide a sample text?--Hillgentleman 01:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
今は昔、竹取の翁といふものありけり。野山にまじりて、竹を取りつゝ、萬づの事に使ひけり。名をば讃岐造麿となむいひける。その竹の中に、本光る竹一筋ありけり。怪しがりて寄りて見るに、筒の中光りたり。それを見れば、三寸ばかりなる人、いと美しうて居たり。翁いふやう、「われ朝夕毎に見る竹の中に、おはするにて知りぬ。子になり給ふべき人なめり」とて、手に打入れて家に持ちて來ぬ。妻の嫗に預けて養はす。美しきこと限りなし。いと幼ければ籠に入れて養ふ。-- 08:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Thanks for the proposal, I am fascinated by the idea! But I have one question: Is it realistic to confine ourselves to 和文体? It seems to me that, given the explanatory nature of wikipedia, the 漢文-oriented or at least the mixed style would be inevitable. In fact, the 漢文-oriented style may be more suitable for an "encyclopedia" than pure 和文体.
    I do not mean that 和文体 is an incomplete or illogical language in any sense; after all, it sufficed for everything in the real life a thousand years ago. However, in order to meet the needs of a 「百科」辞典, I doubt that the language has enough vocabulary and structure. A forced merger of Heian language and newer (especially since Meiji) concepts will surely result in poor style, both from the viewpoints of descriptive accuracy and rhetorical beauty. It is not without reason that the 漢文-mixed style has been used for a long time as an explicative language up to just sixty years ago. Over the ages, the 漢文 style has accumulated the vocabulary and rhetorical techniques suitable for expressing abstract and complex concepts succinctly, complementing 和文体. Now I (and, I believe, anyone would) find it nearly impossible to write an explanation of (and not a rambling prose on) e.g. modern scientific notions in pure 和文体 in a stylistically consistent way. For the better or for the worse, we cannot overestimate the legacy of the 漢文 style that enriched the Japanese language enough to incorporate such new notions in our conceptual framework. Excluding the 漢文-rooted elements would make the project unreasonably difficult.
    For this reason, I cannot support the proposal unless 漢文-oriented style is advocated, or at least allowed. I believe that a feasible way to bring 文語 wikipedia into reality is to make the most of our 文語 tradition as a whole, including the 漢文 heritage. Though this may be different from the proposer's original aim, it would still be a meaningful project. If the proposer is happy with this, I would be glad to support the proposal and contribute articles myself. Or do you think that my idea and your 和文体 should belong to different projects? --LQVX 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What kind of writing style is "漢文-oriented style" to be concrete? Is it a thing such as "漢文訓読体(a pronouncing Chinese classics in the Japanese way style)"? Or is it "和漢混交文(literature containing both Japanese and Chinese elements)" used in The Tale of the Heike? Or is it a thing such as "普通文" used by a prewar law?-- 02:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure myself and I didn't mean to specify; I said "漢文-oriented" to mean any style that contains 漢文-like features (thus including all styles you mentioned). What I mean is that I am skeptical about the feasibility of representing the large body of our modern knowledge in a language as purely Japanese as the 竹取 example above. At least it is different from how Meiji people handled it (although, of course, the difference itself is no reason to deny the significance of such an attempt). Do you think you can convince me that it is possible? Our project has to encompass far broader realms than 国学 did.
In any case, I agree that we need a concrete guideline. But setting it to just "basically Heian" may be not a good idea realistically. Yet, I cannot come up with a perfect alternative right now, either. Following the style of Meiji authoritative text (if it is well-defined) would be definitely feasible (as that's how people would write encyclopedic explanation 120 years ago), but this may be against the proposer's intention. Does anyone have a suggestion? --LQVX 06:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
追記: Personally, I believe that using the Meiji formal writing style (is it called 普通文?) would still be a meaningful project, although admittedly it is a "mixed" style. Anyway, I will respect what the proposer thinks. --LQVX 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

SupportEdit

  • Support--Johoku 04:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I agreed with this opinion.--Johokusaitama 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think there are no reasons I oppose --Yes0song 08:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think that this project is good.--PECO 17:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support If anything, we need much more resources to decipher the foundations of the modern world. There is rich culture written in "dead languages", that appear to be just as vibrant and relevant as they were 2800 years ago. This would make such knowledge available to those without the privilege of an classical education. We, as a race, must strive for understanding of all things, and this starts at our roots-our history.64.231.42.27 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support かんがへなし 15:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Taichi - (あ!) 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Hoshi 04:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Yoshio 05:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Shim 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Haitike 08:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

  1. Oppose "日本語の文語", literally "Japanese in written style" is too vague (note: written Japanese has over 1400 years history and there have been several changes) and it is not uncertain which date will be chosen/preferable for the requested project. Also there are orthographic problems. There have been several orthographies through history (including difference of punctuation) but this proposal doesn't show which of them will be applied. In my impression this project seems to be necessary more specified. --Aphaia 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. I added two reasons. I. Clarification is not given yet. The style of Heian era and the style of middle Edo archaic style are different. The proposer is expected to clarify what he or she would like to launch. II. Now I think no prosperity in this proposal. Those people who support this idea are 1) either no Japanese speaker even the contemporary so won't contribute or 2) inactive on Japanese projects. A project which lacks contributors should be doomed and an easy victim of spamming. Unless I see at least five Japanese active supporter, I have no good reason to lift my opposition. --Aphaia 05:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

NeutralEdit

  • Conditional support/oppose I will support the project only if the Meiji formal writing style is adopted, or at least tolerated. Otherwise I will oppose, since I believe that encyclopedic description of the wide range of our knowledge in pure 和文体 is (a charming idea, but) infeasible (see the comments above). --LQVX 07:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)