Re: [edict-jmdict] Editoriel Policy - kana order

[James Rose <jim@*************>]

On Jun 21, 2010, at 8:55 AM, René Malenfant wrote:

Unless the species name is of foreign origin, I think it should be hiragana first and katakana second.

For species names of foreign origin (like セイウチ), katakana should come first.  (Which is not the way that セイウチ is listed now, by the way.)

I don't believe that we are always going to be able to know that a species name is of foreign origin... although that is always the case when there really isn't a Japanese name for a species (especially if the species is not near to nor commercially relevant to Japan) and they simply katakanize some foreign name (sometimes the latin, sometimes the scientist to first describe the species, or the first Japanese to describe it, or sometimes the german, sometimes the english etc etc).

However, you will find almost all publications that deal with lists of species of some type deal primarily in katakana.  That's an important aspect of the language that says loud and clear that this is taxonomy.  I would argue that ignoring this without grounds is incorrect.

The policy as you wrote it:

• Submissions should include the Japanese name in kanji, hiragana, and--in the vast majority of cases--katakana. Biological names are very often written in katakana, and thus a (uk) tag is usually warranted. Nevertheless, the katakana reading should always be placed after the hiragana reading. For example, 銭形海豹 [ぜにがたあざらし,ゼニガタアザラシ] (n) (uk) harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)/harbour seal/common seal

I use about 4 or 5 sources which attempt to list a large number of the fish species of the world to make many of my entries.  None use hiragana nor kanji compounds.  The only place that consistently provides kanji compounds if and when they are available is wikipedia, and it lists them as subordinate entries and never in my experience as the primary entry.  So in contrast is the current policy as you have written it:

• Names of higher taxa should include the headword written entirely in kanji, even though it may be only rarely used in practice. Reading restrictions will be used where appropriate. For example, セリ科,芹科 [セリか(セリ科),せりか(芹科)] (n) Apiaceae (parsley family of plants)/Umbelliferae

I focus on the random dictate: "should include the headword written entirely in kanji, even though it may be only rarely used in practice" which is tantamount to an entire policy which has no basis in actual Japanese usage, and even states that it's basically only a random convention of JMDICT... with no relationship to "practice".

• When unsure of a kanji headword, it is often easy to determine based on the English translation or the appearance of the species. For example, the white-cheeked pintail (Anas bahamas) is known as ホオジロオナガガモ in Japanese. This word does not appear in any Japanese dictionary, but it is rather obviously written as 頬白尾長鴨. Include a kanji headword whenever it can be determined in this manner, but never guess. ReneMalenfant21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And I consider this to be dangerous practice for a dictionary:  "When unsure of a kanji headword, it is often easy to determine based on the English translation or the appearance of the species."  Basically I might interpret this to say that even though its not used, or you can't prove its being used, make it up and make it the leading entry.