Talk:Katakana/Archives/2017

Monographs and digraphs

The article implies that "gojūon" means "monograph" and "yōon" means "digraph", which is wrong. --188.99.140.78 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, it implies that “gojūon” are monographs and “yōon” are digraphs. — Christoph Päper 09:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong organisation

The organisation of the section "Writing system" is all wrong. "Japanese" should not be a subsection encountered after the initial explanation. The initial explanation should assume Japanese. Differences in the adaptation for use in other languages can be then explained in subsections. I intend to change this if/when I have the time/enthusiasm. If you disagree, please say so. 86.190.171.142 (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You are looking for the Japanese writing system article which does not need to consider other languages on par with the predominant one. The issue is more complicated for the Kana article, because katakana and hiragana can either be considered to be paired on a (language-neutral) script or a (language-dependent) orthographic level. For the Katakana and (less so) Hiragana articles, however, it makes absolute linguistic and lexicographic sense to introduce the common script (i.e. character set) first and its implementations second (with the most important one, Japanese, on top).

In conclusion, I strongly oppose the changes to this article that you intend to make. — Christoph Päper 19:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. The current organisation is perversely unhelpful to readers. I will try to solicit further opinions. 86.190.171.142 (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should explain why you disagree. — Christoph Päper 14:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Definition of katakana digraphs using small vowels to provide additional sounds seems to be missing e.g. ヴィ＝vi, ファ= fa etc.

By my reckoning there should be 32 of these. ref "Yookoso!" by Yasu-Hiko Tohsaku 3rd ed. page 70 defines these and some remarks on more usual usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.225.133 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katakana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119075907/http://japanese-dict.com/ to http://japanese-dict.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal views

A source in which a writer describes katakana as the simplest of the Japanese writing systems has been implemented in this article. I tried to remove it – but as the claim was sourced it was brought back again. This claim is a subjective point of view. As for me, I don't find katakana easier than hiragana – but I wouldn't bring such personal views into the article even if my claim had been published and I had a source to prove it. 213.112.207.67 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It may be a subjective point of view, but it's a reliably-sourced point of view. Please stop removing it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it is a subjective point of view should then be made clear in the article. It should be written as though it is the quoted man that considers hiragana to be the easier writing system. It should not be expressed as though it is a fact. It's not a fact, you see. 213.112.207.67 (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)