<entry id="2155308" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>2249190</ent_seq>
<k_ele>
<keb>同音異字</keb>
</k_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>どうおんいじ</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&n;</pos>
<gloss>homophony (having the same pronunciation as another word but a different written form)</gloss>
<gloss>heterography</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2007-12-20 00:00:00" stat="A">
<upd_detl>Entry created</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-10-30 13:56:29" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Wikipedia gives plenty of examples that don't have similar meanings (including ones with opposite meanings).
Homophones can have the same written form.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%90%8C%E9%9F%B3%E7%95%B0%E5%AD%97
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophone
"Homophones that are spelled differently are also called heterographs, e.g. to, too, and two."</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -12,2 +12,2 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;homophone&lt;/gloss&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;word with the same pronunciation and similar meaning as another but a different written form&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;heterograph&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;word with the same pronunciation as another but a different written form&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-10-31 10:59:12" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>So GG5's explanation is right but they got the wrong word?</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>GG5: 同音異字 a homophone; a word with the same pronunciation (and similar meaning) as 
another but a different written form; words close in meaning pronounced the same but 
written differently.</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -5 +5 @@
-&lt;keb&gt;同音異字&lt;/keb&gt;
+&lt;keb&gt;Dr同音異字&lt;/keb&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-10-31 23:43:59" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>All 同音異字 are homophones but not all homophones are 同音異字. "Heterograph" is an obscure word so I'm not surprised that GG5 doesn't have it. We can include both terms.
Also, I just realised that this doesn't refer to the word itself. See 同音異義.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>homophone: each of two or more words having the same pronunciation but different meanings, origins, or spelling</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -5 +5 @@
-&lt;keb&gt;Dr同音異字&lt;/keb&gt;
+&lt;keb&gt;同音異字&lt;/keb&gt;
@@ -12,2 +12,2 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;heterograph&lt;/gloss&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;word with the same pronunciation as another but a different written form&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;heterography (having the same pronunciation as another word but a different written form)&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;homophony&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-11-01 03:13:24" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>Marcus</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_refs>heterograph/heterography really are quite obscure. should we really include it? can't we just add a qualifier to "homophony" to 
mention it can be used for characters with the same meaning?</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-11-01 15:11:11" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>It's obscure, yes, but I think we should include it. It's the most "correct" translation.
I wouldn't mind this.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -12,2 +12,2 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;heterography (having the same pronunciation as another word but a different written form)&lt;/gloss&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;homophony&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;homophony (having the same pronunciation as another word but a different written form)&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;heterography&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-11-01 15:48:18" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>Marcus</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>But is it really "correct" if it isn't actually used by anybody to describe these words in Japanese? The word wasn't invented to 
cover Chinese/Japanese characters as I understand it.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-11-02 01:32:30" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Neither was homophone/homophony, I imagine. We already lead with "homophone" on 同音異義語. What distinguishes these terms is that 同音異字 words *must* have different written forms. There is no such requirement for 同音意義語/homophones.
同音異字 words are heterographs, 100%, so I see no reason not to include the term.
The 同音異字 Wikipedia article even has a "heterograph" section.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%90%8C%E9%9F%B3%E7%95%B0%E5%AD%97#%E8%A1%A8%E9%9F%B3%E6%96%87%E5%AD%97%E3%81%AE%E5%90%8C%E9%9F%B3%E7%95%B0%E5%AD%97%EF%BC%88heterograph%EF%BC%89</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-11-02 11:57:16" stat="A">
<upd_uid>Marcus</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>OK</upd_detl>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>