Re: [edict-jmdict] some comments and questions about yesterday's submissions

[Stutzman Kale <keiruroi@***********>]

> > I'm the guy who suggested these entries for
> deletion, as
> > almost every word can take an
> > お- or ご- (and sometimes -さん) but doesn't
> necessarily
> > deserve a separate entry (or even an entry at all)
> in
> > edict.
> 
> I think you're treading on thin ice, because
> "obakasan" is different
> from "baka" and some words don't have an o-less
> meaning, like "omae"
> or something. 

As I said, not NECESSARILY does every 御- word need an new
entry, but there are many that do as you point out.  

> Some words like biiru or soosu take an
> o- as in o-soosu
> or o-biiru but other words may take "o" as in
> "osakana" or even a
> "san" as in "sakana-san" or even "o-sakana-san".
> Also how are we to
> know whether to use "o" or "go" without dictionary
> entries to guide
> us? I think there are some cases of "o" on jukugo
> and "go" on native
> words, although I can't recollect any examples right
> now.

I think the o-/go- tag is on the wishlist, but as of right
now edict has little to do with showing people how to
correctly use honorifics.  I mean the (sens) tags don't
even point to politcally correct alternatives, and they're
all not just as easy as adding a 
お---さん to the word.

Kale