So Robin fixed issai, by making the negative bit say:
《with neg. verb》
▶ absolutely (not)
▶ (not) at all
▶ (none) whatsoever
That's all well and good, but...
He made Darehitori (誰一人) into:
《with neg. verb》
▶ (not) anyone
▶ (not) a single person
▶ no one
▶ nobody
How does that make any sense?
The former two meanings follow the same logic/system as in the above "issai", but the latter two have the same problem I originally pointed out.
And the two systems completely contradict each other.
They are mutually exclusive.
"(not) anyone" means that darehitori means anyone but, with negation, becomes "not anyone". (as should be obvious)
This is true and accurate.
Perfectly fine.
"no one" means that darehitori, with neg. verb, means "no one" + negation
....which is to say "not no one", i.e. "someone/anyone".
This is clearly wrong.
Conversely, if I were to accept that "with negative" "no one" means that darehitorinai (dunno if that specific construction is possible. Sounds weird, but just accept it for the sake of the example) means "no one", despite how that makes no sense, and is the
opposite of what that says... Then "with negative" "(not) anyone", then darehitorinai would mean...
well it would make any sense, but if anything, it would mean "anyone".
The "no one" and "nobody" meanings were defended by Rene, by his stating that
""with neg. verb" is our way of indicating 下に打消の語を伴う as in koj or (�ない) as in gg5"
....which makes no sense, as "with neg. verb" does not say that.
At all.
In any way, shape, or form.
He further stated
"Rather than re-editing an entry approved by three of the editors, this is an issue for the mailing list. The entry for 誰一人 is not the place to relitigate how an entire class of entries is written."
....despite the fact that I was merely trying to make it more in line with what was apparently agreed upon (including by Rene himself!), on the mailing list. Also making it more internally consistent/coherent. More inline with what Robin was apparently trying
to do.
However, it would appear that I failed to understand what Robin was doing, as even he objected, saying:
"I'd just like to add that we include "no one"/"nobody" here for the same reason other JE dictionaries do: it's helpful."
....which makes no sense, as no other dictionaries every include those meanings.
I've checked. I've shown this to be true
....and no one has shown any counter examples.
Only examples that are more or less in the style of "(not) anyone", or of complete sentences (including negation) with translations of the whole sentence (note: Not translations of the specific word, by itself, within the sentence)
"These are the most common English translations."
Not of the word, by itself, no.
I have never seen any instance of that. Not in a dictionary, nor anywhere else.
""誰も知らない" translates to "no one knows", not "everyone doesn't know"."
誰も知らない is not 誰も.
Those are two very different things.
Also 誰も知らない DOES (literally) translate to "everyone doesn't know".
That isn't how it is usually translated, but that is the direct/literal meaning
....which is what matters, if you are trying to talk about the meaning of the specific terms, in question.
As is the purpose of a dictionary.
Including example sentences, and providing "natural" (rather than direct/literal) translations of them, is often done in most (all?) dictionaries (though notably never done, in this one)
However, the sentences are always clearly separate, from the definitions.
When it comes to the definitions, only that specific term, in isolation, is what matters. Not the meaning of whole sentences.
Natural translations are wrong to use, and invalid, in that context.
"This difference in structure between English and Japanese is not especially difficult to grasp, especially in context."
And yet what he appears to be arguing, seems to be that it is impossible to grasp.
Would you, Robin, argue that we need to include translations of all possible sentences?
Please do clarify and explain, what it is that you are trying to say.
/Alan