Talk:Dai Kan-Wa jiten
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Greetings. I made a few minor changes to the current article on October 2, 2005: changed 辞 to original 辭 (ji's kyūji 旧字 form); corrected translation of title to more standard format; corrected number of volumes to thirteen; added "Pacific War". I plan to contribute more to this article soon, such as sections related to the actual content of the volumes. Until then...Jb05-crd 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your contributions to the article. At the moment, there are fourteen volumes plus one index, which is the same size as the volumes. When the book was originally published, it had twelve volumes, and two more volumes were published since then. If you don't believe this, please check the link on the bottom of the page, where there is a photo of the fourteen volumes and the index. Anyway, the number of volumes has varied, so it is a little confusing. Thanks again for the input, looking forward to your future contributions. --DannyWilde 04:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Also, the Taishukan web pages give 大漢和辞典. Can you give some justification for using the older form of the kanji? The Japanese version of this page also uses that kanji, not the old one. Since Taishukan are the publishers, I would think it would be better to use the new one. --DannyWilde 05:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello again, Danny. How are you? Good to get some feedback from you. I'll leave your changes up until you have a chance to read my comments here, then please get back to me. There are twelve main volumes (1955) and one major index volume (1960) of the same size and composition as the others, which is why the dictionary is generally considered to be a thirteen-volume set, not twelve. There have actually been two additions since the initial thirteen: a vocabulary index (語彙索引, Tokyo: 1990), and a supplemental volume (補巻, 2000) that includes over 33,000 new vocabulary entries (different from main entries; there are 800 main character entries, which are mainly just updated versions of characters found in the original Morohashi). These two later additions to the set are not generally considered when counting the number of volumes, making the standard number remain at thirteen. I disagree with the publisher web page in question for several reasons. I have consulted the actual dictionary and its supplemental volumes, with which I have been working closely for some time now. I see no problem with differing with the webpage on the use of the original character 辭 (辞 is a simplified version of it) in the title 大漢和辭典, and I consider the use of the character to be true to the original publication of the dictionary, because the content of the dictionary is written entirely in traditional characters (and rekishiteki kanazukai, not modern kana). Only in the index volume 13 do you see simplified characters first used. Moreover, the title on every volume of the dictionary and on every title page uses 辭, therefore I think it would be best to use it here in the article as well. The web page may have used 辞 to appeal to a generation of interested persons who may not be familiar with traditional characters (which is growing larger and larger). Despite the web page's intentions, however, I think we should consult the actual dictionary for what is being used and be faithful to that. Do you have access to a copy of the dictionary where you are now? If so, give a look and tell me what you think. My copy is only five minutes away, so let me know if you have any questions at all. I'm working on putting more together and getting it up on the article, so I'm looking forward to working with you.Jb05-crd 13:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your very detailed comments. It is very difficult to sort out who knows what on Wikipedia, so please excuse my changing your edits. I don't have a copy of the dictionary. My information mostly comes from the reference cited, which goes into the production process of the dictionary (the subtitle of the book is "akuma no moji to tatakatta hitobito", if that means anything to you, and it describes the labours of the compiler and typographer of the dictionary. If the dictionary calls itself using the old version of the kanji, then that should be preferred, of course, but most of the above information certainly belongs in the main article. One quibble I have is that if the modern ji character is used by the publisher, it should also feature in the article somewhere. It would be most sensible to write an introduction to the article using your information. Can you try to do it or do you want me to rewrite it? --DannyWilde 04:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello there. Thanks again for such a quick response. I'll go ahead and write up an intro including all the relevant stuff I said above as soon as I can (within the next week). I'll take a look at the reference you mentioned, thanks! ("akuma no moji..." haha. sounds a bit pessimistic...I'm sure Morohashi did not consider them "akuma no moji" though). Bye!!!Jb05-crd 13:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I made some minor changes for now. It's going to be a while longer until I can add all the information on the internal features of the dictionary that I've been planning to. It's been busy. I wanted to point out something that I didn't notice before, but is actually something that needs changing. The official romanization of the title is Dai Kan-Wa jiten: The Dai is capitalized because it's the first word, of course; the Kan and Wa are capitalized because in this case they are both proper nouns, and the dash is used because it connects those proper nouns, as is indicated in the idea of the dictionary; the jiten is not capitalized as romanization practices and decorum of established journals and books indicate (the kan and wa would also not be capitalized if they were not proper nouns). The Library of Congress also follows this format. For reference, you can also see Herschel Webb, Research in Japanese Sources, New York: Columbia University, 1965, esp. pg. 50. In order to change the official title of this article, too, we need to redirect the entire article, correct? I hope to find time to add in some more exciting information on Morohashi as soon as possible. Until then...Jb05-crd 04:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello there. I put up the contributions that I had promised. They are by no means exhaustive or complete at this stage, but I wanted to get them up on the page. Take care and hopefully we'll talk again soon. Bye. Jb05-crd 05:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed changes
The opening line should give a better sense of the immense importance of this dictionary, and should include the name of Morohashi. For example, this is the opening line of the Heibonsha encyclopedia: 「諸橋轍次 (もろはしてつじ)(1883‐1982) の著になる代表的な漢和辞典。」(where “daihyôteki” means the “chief” or “most important”). Macron is consistently missing from Taishûkan. Japanese names should be in Japanese order (Morohashi Tetsuji, not Tetsuji Morohashi, etc). The bullet lists are best replaced by straight prose. On the whole, the article is too listy, and hard to follow. A good book to consult (and cite) is Kamada Takashi, Dai Kan-Wa jiten to waga kyūjūnen (Taishūkan Shoten, 2001). Jb05-Hds2 01:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Morohashi
I've added a wiki link to a small article I wrote about Morohashi Tetsuji. Please feel free to expand that article with all relevant information about his person. I also fixed the name order because of Wikipedia's Japanese style guidelines. --asmodai 11:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you have, could you read the manual you quoted again and make sure? Thanks. DannyWilde 12:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
