JMdictDB - Japanese Dictionary Database

Entries

Search | Advanced Search | New Entry | Submissions | Help
Login for registered editors
Username:
Password:
jmdict 2621800 Active (id: 2088881)
胴丸； 筒丸
【 どうまる 】
1. [n] [hist]
▶ light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat
▶ dō-maru



History:
27. A 2020-11-27 23:56:58  Jim Breen <...address hidden...>
  Comments: 
I was satisfied with Marcus's version, so I'm putting it back.
I've left the commentary here rather than reject the proposed edit (which would relegate it into a separate thread), but I may not do that with future edits.
Re the "don't break up URLs into multiple lines", I'm afraid that's an artifact of browsers on some mobile devices, which insert line-break characters at the ends of text boxes.
  Diff: 
@@ -16 +16 @@
-<gloss>light armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>
+<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>
26. A* 2020-11-27 17:36:57  Alan
  Refs: 
already cited refs.
the previous comments.
  Comments: 
>The back-and-forth here reminds me of the quote "perfection is the enemy of good".

How so? All you've done, is to insist that the good is unacceptable, because you insist on the bad.
For no discernable reason, and without particularly bothering to give any.
Certainly not clarity or brevity, and absolutely not accuracy.

If you wish to claim that I am letting the perfect, be the enemy of the good, you must first explain how/why what you propose is good, and not bad, and how/why what I propose is inferior.
Explain not just how maybe an entry has to be less than perfect in one aspect, for the sake of some other aspect (for example: a bit less explanation, or maybe even accuracy, for the sake of brevity …though I should note that JMdict has a policy of brevity, beyond the level of most other dictionaries), but also how that is relevant to what I propose, in contrast to what you propose.
I.e.
Don't just make claims about my positions.
That is no more than baseless nonsense.
Make a case against them! And/or for your own position!
"Put up, or shut up", as the saying goes.
(this is a general problem, that you people have. You seem to like to just say "no you're wrong. X is how it should be", and insist that everyone just blindly obey. Finding actual discussion and argumentation, to be rude and impudent disruption, rather than the cornerstone of any/all collaboration/cooperation, and the foundation of how one can reach the truth or the best decisions/conclusions …as essentially all other dictionaries and all academic/scientific/scholarly endeavours do)

As for the references you have chosen, this time…
First of all, don't break up URLs into multiple lines.
The first source, in showing a doumaru, shows a full suit of armour.
The second source is a kokugo
…and I have thoroughly explained why they are not only clearly inferior sources, but that they are also undeniably wrong and full of errors, in their entry on doumaru.
Hence, citing them is utterly invalid.
As for the third, I do not understand it's inclusion, as it is much briefer than any of the previously cited ones (aside from kokugos) and apparently just some random website mostly just concerned with costumes, and therefore not that bothered with armour.

Looking at the comments, I am pleased to see you finally deciding to actually make some kind of argument, to back up your positions (though certainly not in regards to "perfection is the enemy of good").

The one on "infantry" is quite decent.
I firmly disagree that it doesn't imply low-status footsoldiers, but then you did also, accurately, point out that it was mainly the low class footsoldiers who wore them initially, making that point rather moot.
I still see no reason to insist on "infantry", over "combat on foot".
The latter is not particularly longer, nor is it any less clear.
That said, given your arguments, there is also not much reason to insist on "combat on foot", over "infantry", so…

The second bit, however…
>"but if the kokugos don't make a point of mentioning it, I believe it's not a very important point"

How is that supposed to be an argument?

First of all, that is essentially assuming that the kokugos are infallible, or must be very sensible, on the subject.
This is disproven, not only in how they (as can be shown in all other dictionaries [but probably a lot more in Japanese dictionaries, than in English ones. Certainly a LOT more in jp-en/en-jp ones]) have many examples of errors and obvious examples of a lacking understanding of what they are describing,
but also in that the _kokugos entries on doumaru, specifically,_  clearly contain obvious, and undeniable, errors.
An argument that is clearly and obviously based on a foundation, that has already been thoroughly and undeniably shown to be invalid, cannot be regarded as a serious/honest attempt at an argument.

Secondly, you are not making any kind of argument or explanation/clarification of why it wouldn't be an important point (or why it being an important or unimportant point, should matter in the least), but simply making an Argument from (flimsy) Authority, by saying that "they probably have a reason" without bothering to show, come up with, or even think about, the reason.

You have four options, when it comes to the torso vs full suit issue:
1. Have the entry merely call it an "armour". (what I went with, and prefer, given how brief the entries are)
2. Have a sense with "torso armour", and a separate one with the no less (far more?) common "full suit" sense.
3. Actually bother to make a case, a serious and honest attempt (valid or not …though it must be a genuine attempt at validity) at a case, for why you can call it a torso armour, without the additional full suit sense.
4. Throw any sense of collaboration, logic, civility, or rational discussion out the window, and simply use your authority to ignore and dismiss all dissent (without listening to or addressing any arguments, however sound) and power through your position, without bothering with any kind of justification.

I wouldn't recommend option #4
…though it does seem to be popular here and, by all accounts, quite accepted.
  Diff: 
@@ -16 +16 @@
-<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>
+<gloss>light armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>
25. A 2020-11-27 00:35:36  Marcus Richert <...address hidden...>
  Refs: 
https://www.hyogo-c.ed.jp/~rekihaku-
bo/historystation/rekihaku-meet/seminar/bugu-
kacchuu/kc_intro2.html
...中・下級の徒歩（かち）武者の甲冑として発達したもので
す。
there's also this: なお、今日胴丸と呼んでいる甲冑
は、中世には腹巻と呼ばれており、逆に今日の腹巻を中世には
胴丸と呼んでいました。(but let's just not get into 
it)
(daijr: 中世以前はこの形式の鎧を腹巻と呼んでいた。)
https://costume.iz2.or.jp/costume/535.html
胴丸は大鎧に次ぐ一般戦士の使用する軽快な武装であった。
  Comments: 
The back-and-forth here reminds me of the 
quote "perfection is the enemy of good".

"used" seems better than "made/designed".
I'm not seeing how "combat on foot" is an 
improvement over Robin's "infantry combat" - 
neither implies low-status footsoldiers, but 
even if they did, those seem to have been the 
original wearers anyway (see sources, plus 
kokugos) so I'm not seeing the issue here.

It might be the case that 胴丸 is used to refer 
to a full suit of armor including the sense 1 
torso armor, but if the kokugos don't make a 
point of mentioning it, I believe it's not a 
very important point and that we don't have to 
either.
  Diff: 
@@ -16,7 +16 @@
-<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for combat on foot</gloss>
-<gloss>dō-maru</gloss>
-</sense>
-<sense>
-<pos>&n;</pos>
-<misc>&hist;</misc>
-<gloss>suit of armour, using such a torso armour</gloss>
+<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for infantry combat</gloss>
24. A* 2020-11-20 09:38:25  Alan
  Comments: 
"I don't think" isn't and argument or clarification.
You say it isn't an improvement, but don't explain how or why it isn't.
Also, "infantry" is pretty much the same as "foot soldier", including the same problems.

As for "torso armour"… Yes, certainly, it is clearer, though I'd argue that if the term "armour" is used, without mention of what part your talking about, people will tend to assume that it is either torso armour, or a full suit of armour, which would be fine, here.
But okay.
"Torso armour" it is
…but then it needs to explicitly state the second sense.
(this makes this entry, inconsistent with the other armour entries, BTW)
  Diff: 
@@ -16 +16,7 @@
-<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally designed for infantry combat</gloss>
+<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally used for combat on foot</gloss>
+<gloss>dō-maru</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&n;</pos>
+<misc>&hist;</misc>
+<gloss>suit of armour, using such a torso armour</gloss>
23. A 2020-11-20 02:24:01  Robin Scott <...address hidden...>
  Comments: 
I don't think those changes improve the gloss.
I'm not yielding on the "torso" point. Dropping it makes the gloss less precise and harder to visualise.
  Diff: 
@@ -16 +16 @@
-<gloss>light armour opening at the right, originally made for use on foot</gloss>
+<gloss>light torso armour opening at the right, originally designed for infantry combat</gloss>
(show/hide 22 older log entries)

View entry in alternate formats: jel | edict | jmdict xml | jmnedict xml | jmdictdb xml
Search | Advanced Search | New Entry | Submissions | Help wsgi/DB=jmdict
If you have questions about, problems using, or suggestions for improving this page, please send email to jimbreen@gmail.com.
JMdictDB is an open-source Postgresql database and Python API for managing Japanese dictionary data developed by Stuart McGraw. More information at http://edrdg.org/~smg/. Please report software problems at https://gitlab.com/yamagoya/jmdictdb/issues or email to jmdictdb@mtneva.com.