Talk:List of English words of Japanese origin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Yep, they are still not English words

This page is truly awful. Half these words are just the japanese word for whatever it happens to be. Bunraku, for example, is merely the name of that kind of puppet show. IT IS NOT AN ENGLISH WORD. It would neither be appropriate for me to list "Gato" as an English Word of Spanish Origin, meaning cat. Come the fuck on.

Anime should also be stricken from the list, as it said in the description, "(from the English word "animation" as 'animeshon')". It's origin is english. It is not of Japanese origin. This kind of idiocy is what hurts the integrity of Wikipedia.

• Yep, five years on and the article is still dominated by words that, irrespective of the fact that they may appear in some English dictionaries, ARE VERY OBVIOUSLY NOT NATURALISED ENGLISH WORDS. The article is ludicrous, at least with its present title. 86.167.19.229 (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A foreign loan word is not an English word unless it appeared in all major general English dictionaries (not technical jargon dictionaries), for the last 50 years. Dictionaries do not dictate what is English. The content of a dictionary is just the opinion of a small number of people who publish the dictionary.24.85.131.247 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A few English words of gratitude for this enlightened page

Danke schön!

24.85.131.247 (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What makes a foreign word English?

The best criterion is: is the word used for something other than strictly a reference into the foreign culture?

If a word strictly denotes something in the a foreign culture, or from a foreign viewpoint, it is not English.

Also, a related criterion: is the word used by English speakers who are not aware of its origin or any connections to its foreign culture?

So for instance "futon" is English, because it usually refers to a kind of bed popular in the West which is disconnected from the Japanese futon. Things which are called "futon" by an English speaker are generally not recognizeable as a "futon" by a Japanese speaker. Similarly, "bokeh" refers to an effect in pictures taken anywhere by anyone, outside of a Japanese context, so it arguably English technical jargon from photography. "kamikaze" is used to refer to fanatical or sacrificial suicide in general, so it is English. We can say that "Evel Kneivel was a real kamikaze", and it has no Japanese connotation.

"harakiri" and "seppuku", on the other hand (neither featured on the page as of the time of writing), refer only to a Japanese suicide ritual, so they are not English. Similarly, "kimono" or "ikebana" are not English. They refer strictly to the Japanese concepts. No clothing other than the traditional Japanese dress is called "kimono", and no flower arranging other than the Japanese one is called "ikebana". Only the particular Japanese dish is called "sushi", so this is not English. Only the second half of "miso soup" is English.

No English speaker other than a Japanophile discussing with other Japanophiles (or with Japanese friends) would use "kawaii" to mean "cute" or "otaku" to mean "nerd". That kind of speech is not English, but a mixture of Japanese and English. If it occurs in English, the foreign word "kawaii" is strictly a Japanese word which refers to a popular culture of cuteness associated with Japan, as regarded from outside of Japan. Though this usage is different from Japanese (where it just means "cute") it is still a reference to Japanese culture, and does not have the general meaning of "cute" in English. Thus, if we were creating subtitles for a Japanese film in which "kawaii" is spoken, we could not write "kawaii" in the subtitle, because that's a technical jargon used by those who study the Japanese language and culture to denote a cultural phenomenon, whereas the character in the film is simply saying that something or someone is cute. It is the same situation with "otaku". This refers to someone who is nerdy in some way which is connected to Japan.

"motainai" is definitely not a replacement for "wasteful" which any English speakers understand, other than Japanophiles. Though it doesn't refer to a Japanese concept, it is simply a foreign word. Before it can become an English word, it has to be adopted by English speakers. English speakers have no motivation for using "motainai" instead of "wasteful" if these are strict synonyms. Therefore, "motainai" will have to take on some special shade of meaning not carried by "wasteful", and yet not strictly connected to Japan in any way, either. Once these conditions are met, then "motainai" will be an English word.

Basically, it appears as if much of this page was written by Japanophiles who are comfortable with all these words in their daily discourse, and from that they imagine that those words ought to be English, and if only they are planted in a Wikipedia page, then this will somehow come to pass! This, of course, is glaringly non-NPOV, but rather a promotion of a special interest or point of view.

192.139.122.42 (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You make valid points that I agree with. A lot of these words listed I scratch my head at the thought of someone without any knowledge of Japanese culture using. If I have the time, I might do some research into it (probably JSTOR to start with). LlamaDude78 (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR Article "Recent Japanese Borrowings into English" I skimmed through this article and looks like it would be a good one to read through for this. It is dated 1994 but it can still be of some use. I will keep looking for more stuff. LlamaDude78 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and strip the list a bit. MSJapan (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Gutted the article...

I pulled out every word that specifically and only refers to something peculiarly Japanese in its context. For example, judo is a Japanese martial art, whereas kamikaze gets used in many contexts, such as the drink, which has nothing to do with Japan. Haiku can be done in English, and I think panko are just bread crumbs to most people. All the art stuff was pretty much about Japanese porcelain, and a kimono is definitely Japanese. Interestingly enough, most people associate rickshaws with China. In any event, the rationale should be clear as to what was removed and why. MSJapan (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not understanding the weird logic-chopping about whether something is supposed to be "too Japanese" to belong on this list, especially the claim about how kimono is "definitely Japanese" and what that's even supposed to mean.

• Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (1922):

• As he was going to the place where he slept, he met a painted-cheeked woman in a greasy "kimono," and she put her arm about his waist to steady him...

• James Joyce's Ulysses (1922):

• He leads John Eglinton who wears a mandarin's kimono of Nankeen yellow, lizardlettered, and a high pagoda hat

• Under the umbrella appears Mrs Cunningham in Merry Widow hat and kimono gown. She glides sidling and bowing, twirling japanesily.

• Richard Wright's Native Son (1940):

• Peggy stood near the steps holding her right hand tightly over her breast. She had on a kimono and was trying to hold it closely about her. Bigger understood at once. She was not even thinking of the furnace; she was just a little ashamed of having been seen in the basement in her kimono.

• from The Best of H. E. Bates (1958):

• She sat down on the bed. The kimono was drawn up over her legs and where it parted at her knees I could see her thighs, strong and white and softly disappearing into the shadow of the kimono. It was the day of long rather prim skirts and I had never seen a woman's legs like that.

• (The last was from a 1936 short story entitled..."The Kimono".)

Then, there's always the dictionary. From Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition:

kimono (kɪˈməʊnəʊ) - n , pl -nos

1. a loose sashed ankle-length garment with wide sleeves, worn in Japan 2. any garment copied from this

So, want to try again? --Calton | Talk 04:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, your logic is NOT clear

Try again. "Panko" is somehow not too Japanese -- despite every reference I've ever heard refers to them as "Japanese breadcrumbs" while "tempura" is too Japanese? "Kimono", despite decades-old usage in English literature as a word designating a light silk dressing gown is "definitely Japanese"? "Umami" goes, despite its embrace by foodies as a way to describe a "Fifth Taste" (other than salty, sweet, bitter or sour) and which is used as part of a product name or restaurant chain? And is the use of "zen" in titles like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance are NOT making reference to Japan or even, quite frequently, peculiarly Japanese ideas.

I think in your rush to strip things out -- and the reason for the hurry was what, exactly? -- you didn't really take too much care and your working rationales seem to have been post-facto rationalized feelings. So walk me through this: what's the logic for stripping out, to pick some examples:

• tempura
• umami
• kimono
• zen

I've restored them pending a reasonable explanation. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree somewhat. I like the sentiment behind the initial thread to identify and remove words based on non-common English usage, but some of the removals are clearly not helpful. I'd like to add "wasabi", "shogun" and most of the martial arts related terms like "sumo" and "jujitsu" to a list of things needing explaining, among others. I didn't restore these, but pending conversation, I would. Regards, — Moe ε 09:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How about not changing anything (or maybe just restoring to where it was) until after we've agreed the ground rules for what's in and out? Otherwise it's just going to be an edit war.

As an example, bonsai. Clearly Japanese, clearly no English precursor, clearly in common use today in England whenever miniature trees are discussed. Now is this in (as it's the word the English use for miniature trees in England) or is it out (because it's still a concept that's obviously Japanese in origin, even if now happening widely in the UK)?

Similar words, in just the same situation would be otaku (a handy word in every comic shop), kimono, sushi and many others.

Words that have a clearer claim to being "English words" than this are pretty limited, futon, tycoon and satsuma are plainly some and harikiri (maybe kimono) might also be considered in this group, as the current English meanings have shifted substantially from the original Japanese meaning. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Andy, this is going to turn into a nasty edit war if things aren't discussed first. My personal opinion is that the words that are especially debated should be researched and then a discussion should be held on the talk page on whether it is appropriate or not to include in the list. That's my two cents anyways. LlamaDude78 (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What I removed was anything that was still contextually "Japanese", and anything that was nothing but itself transliterated into English and used to refer to the same thing aqs it didi in Japanese. In my view, they are not "English words of Japanese origin", they are "Japanese words used in English."

• Tempura is a very specific Japanese cooking style, not "anything battered." If I say I'm going for tempura, I'm not going to come back with fish and chips. So in my view, it's just a transliteration of Japanese, not an English word.
• umami - it has a definition, but it's the same as it is in Japanese. The article itself makes no claim other than that it is a "loanword from a direct transliteration" created by a Japanese scientist in the first place. This is the first place I have ever come across said word, as it is a neologism of sorts. I've also never heard anyone say that "X is umami." Even then, all the examples for umami in the article are from Japanese food.
• kimono - even the loose definition given above is "anything inspired by the Japanese kimono" which again says to me that this is a transliterated word used to describe a particularly Japanese item. Before anyone asks, "fuku" is the general word for clothing in Japanese, not "kimono".
• zen - Motorcycle Repair was not half-bad an attempt, but that's a case of historical transposition error - it's not that "it had nothing to do with zen," but rather that it is a pop culture reference to Zen and the Art of Archery. I happen to have both books, and Motorcycle is about a father and son journey by motorcycle whose title was inspired by Zen and the Art of Archery, which was a) ridiculously popular at the time, and b) very much about the practice of Japanese Zen Buddhism and Japanese archery in Japan. Everybody bought the latter book when it came out, and there was a fair bit of that sort of borrowing as a result (the author even states this in the preface to Motorcycle). Zen became a big deal in the West at that time, but it has never been divorced from its Japanese roots; it is always Japanese in reference if not in fact, and is transliterated directly.
• satsuma is a tangerine, and it may well be dialectical in any other usage. I've never heard it in English, but I notice that every place named Satsuma that isn't in Japan is down South in the US and takes its name from the fruit because the trees were nearby. So I'm not sure what "other meaning" is implied elsewhere.
• However, I likely made an error with otaku - I took it out because it specifically refers to Japanese anime and manga (not "animation and comic books" in general as we refer to them in English. Just to address that item - Disney doesn't make anime, and Marvel has a specific manga line, and they know the difference), but I probably should have left it in because in Japanese, otaku is a pejorative term.

Let me know what else needs response, and I'll be happy to do it. MSJapan (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree your principle here where things that are "still contextually Japanese" are those we need to remove. Tempura certainly, panko too.

On some specifics, I'd still include a few of these words. "Umami" is very common in any discussion of Western cookery these days. It's even common in Northern Ireland, where just the same seaweed-based umami is a traditional taste ingredient and is long recognised over there, but until recently Ulster Scots had no word for it. Zen is a religious practice to some in England - a school of Buddhism that despite the Japanese word, is Chinese in origin and mostly arrived in the UK via the West Coast of the USA. Satsumas aren't the same as tangerines. Any decent UK greengrocer will sell both (in season), and sell them separately. Kimono as a common UK word has been around since the 1870s, and the British have no idea what one is - a British "kimono" is more likely to be a cheongsam than anything Japanese. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

MSJapan, since several editors disagree with your assertion of which words should be included or not, it might just be better to start a request for comment here on the talk page and list the various words that have been removed for individual consensus word-by-word. Regards, — Moe ε 01:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

From the umami "rebuttal" Even then, all the examples for umami in the article are from Japanese' Oh fo God's sake, your sources have been the Wikipedia articles? Try Google; though if you couldn't be bothered to contradict your "I've never heard of it so it mustn't exist" mindset, all you had to do was click the external links I provided, NEITHER of which are about "Japanese food" -- a Los Angeles-based burger chain and a British gourmet product from a producer with an Italian name are Japanese? -- and should have given you a clue that tthey demonstrated non-Japanese usage. And the satsuma and kimono rationales are just that: post-facto rationalizations of why two examples which clearly anf obviously fit your (unilateral and subective) criteria are being spun so you're Not Wrong. --Calton | Talk 04:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The basic rule of thumb here should IMO be that if a non-Japanophile English source is able to use a word in prose without feeling the need to provide a translation or other explanation then the word should be acceptable for this list. I would find it extremely odd if anyone I knew didn't know what a satsuma was ("a kind of orange"), nor what a kimono is, and "kabuki" is arguably better known for its metaphorical meaning in English than for the original Japanese definition (I've added a source to qualify that). I've added back a number of words of this sort which I feel are in common enough use in general English to qualify as genuine loanwords.

There remains the issue of what to do with the martial arts section. Again I would argue that it is absurd not to describe judo as a loanword when everyone knows what it means: is the argument genuinely that if it had somehow been bastardised into "ludo" or something that it would qualify as a "word of Japanese origin", but not because we happen to use the same word for it as the Japanese? At least judo, karate and sumo are universally understood by English speakers, which makes them part of the English language as far as I'm concerned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt an attempt at talk: to establish ground rules for inclusion by simply dropping into the article and deleting according to your own subjective opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're free to work on your sub-page as you please, but you're certainly not free to impose participation on such page as a condition of editing the article. There's no need to vote on what to remove; this should be worked on organically on this page. As an act of good faith, it would be mighty fine if you could see your way to restoring the sourced additions I made prior to your revert. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored your additions. I'd checked the set of words involved, but hadn't noticed that you'd expanded a couple of the existing words.

The trouble with anyone changing the current list of words is that it sidelines any attempt through talk: but mostly that it's an absolute magnet to edit-war subjectively. This would happen no matter who is making the changes. If we change anything, and before we do so, then the entries really need some justification put forward to support them: pro or con, individually or by groups. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

List of contentious words

I've created this annotated list: Talk:List of English words of Japanese origin/contentious words

Please add to the comments, then we might see some clear consensus emerging on at least a few of the words. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Having been involved in previous long-running discussions about this article, I wish everyone luck in sorting it out. My view is that most of the words in the list are not "English" at all, and that the number of genuine English words of Japanese origin is very small. The problem in the past has been that, even amongst people sharing this view, no objective inclusion criteria could be found whereby different people, applying those criteria, would arrive at the same decision. The only objective criterion available was "listed in such and such a selection of major English dictionaries", which results in the present bloated list of obviously non-English words. 86.160.223.209 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and [rifle] their pockets for new vocabulary." What is a truly English word? One "stolen" from Angle? Saxon? Latin? Greek? Cornish? Welsh? Scottish? Irish? French? German? Dutch? ...

If this list is to be of all words, then Google should be of considerable help. For example, a search for "origin Japan site:merriam-webster.com" produces 515 results. A table might be built with words vertically and columns for the various authoritative English dictionaries online. I find it odd that yen is not in the list although the Japanese is 円, en. (Oddly, yen meaning a desire has a completely different, Chinese origin.) I'm not sure if the current format with definitions and comments on derivation is appropriate given the dictum that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If a Wikipedia entry exists for the word, the readers can go there; otherwise they can look it up in their preferred dictionary. This approach would also establish a standard for adding words: until they are so commonly used that authoritative dictionaries use them, they're out. This also removes any need to argue out individual words, which is a process that is likely to yield to the most argumentative authors rather than to the most authoritative. The only limit I see needed is to eliminate pure place names: Tokyo fails; satsuma qualifies. I recommend this approach.

If some standard other than, "English words of Japanese origin," is meant, then we need to decide on that standard and rename the article, in my opinion. (But I'm against such a squishy standard.)

We should all keep in mind that the familiarity of any given word depends on our own subcultures and experience. For example, satsuma just isn't used in any of my usual subcultures; I was baffled by it when I first experienced it. Laguna CA (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you correctly, I have the exact opposite view about the naming of this article. In my opinion it should be renamed if the present "word appears in an English dictionary" criterion is retained. This is because, as I continue to maintain, English dictionaries contain many words that no one thinks are "English". Is geta an English word? Nah. karoshi? Nope. mottainai? Of course not. If a "squishy" definition of words that are really English can be formulated, then the present title would be appropriate, but therein lies the difficulty. 86.151.119.49 (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"English word of Japanese origin" isn't the same thing as "English word where its Japanese origin has been forgotten" and is surely a considerable superset of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, but "English words of Japanese origin" is a subset of "English words". 86.151.119.49 (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So what's your point? Mine is that "English words of Japanese origin where their Japanese origin has been forgotten" is too restrictive.Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. "English words of Japanese origin where their Japanese origin has been forgotten" (or not learned) has a severe problem: "by whom?" A Wikipedia article is for everyone, including children. If we try to make this, "English words of Japanese origin where their Japanese origin is though to have been forgotten by some Wikipedia authors," or, "Japanese words commonly used by English speakers but not in English dictionaries according to opinions of some Wikipedia authors," then we're doing original research. We need authoritative sources. For words, that pretty much means dictionaries. Laguna CA (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No one, so far as I am aware, has made any suggestion that "English words of Japanese origin where their Japanese origin has been forgotten" is a viable inclusion criterion. 86.128.3.46 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is that if we authors start eliminating words because we opine they're too English or too Japanese or too obvious or too obscure or too anything, we're doing original research. I have proposed dictionaries as authoritative sources for this article. If anyone wants to propose different authoritative sources, please do so. Laguna CA (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No one in this thread, so far as I am aware, has made any suggestion otherwise. As I have pointed out previously, the difficulty with this article is that the "any word in an English dictionary" criterion results in a bloated list of words most of which most people would not consider "English" at all, yet no one has come up with any better inclusion criteria that is objective and not just a matter of personal opinion. 86.148.154.222 (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

References