7. |
A 2023-06-04 21:55:29 Jim Breen <...address hidden...>
|
6. |
A* 2023-06-04 20:53:01 Robin Scott <...address hidden...>
|
|
Diff: |
@@ -12 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>hetaira (ancient Greek prostitute)</gloss>
+<misc>&hist;</misc>
+<gloss>hetaira (prostitute in ancient Greece)</gloss> |
5. |
A 2017-04-17 09:43:55 Jim Breen <...address hidden...>
|
|
Refs: |
The リーダーズ+プラス (EJ) dictionary has ヘタイラ as one of the Japanese glosses of hetaera, so I'm prepared to accept it as a Japanese term, albeit rather rare.
Other glosses were 教養ある遊女, 高級娼婦, めかけ, 売春婦 |
4. |
A* 2017-04-06 23:00:48 Scott
|
|
Comments: |
I think that it should be there for the same reason that it's in English dictionaries. (e.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hetaera). There are plenty of hits on Google. Where do you draw the line at what is a "true word" or "merely a transcription." Is エレベーター also not a word?
Encyclopedias are a compendium of knowledge. An encyclopedia would explain what everything about hetairai and their history, as Wikipedia does. We don't do this. I briefly glossed the word, as might be done in an English dictionary, because it might be unfamiliar to many readers. This is a far cry from an encyclopedic entry, which would be at least a hundred words.
As for using Wikipedia as a sole source, I usually also do a search on Google. If a word has an entry on the Japanese Wiki, it's a good indication that it has a certain degree of notability. I find that Wikipedia is usually a reliable source. |
3. |
A* 2017-04-06 22:24:02 Robin Scott <...address hidden...>
|
|
Comments: |
The latter, in my view.
It's one of the reasons I'm sometimes reluctant to approve entries that only cite Wikipedia as a reference.
JMdict isn't an encyclopedia. |
(show/hide 2 older log entries)
|
2. |
A* 2017-04-06 20:13:01 Johan Råde <...address hidden...>
|
|
Comments: |
Is this really a Japanese word?
Or is it just the katakana transcription of a Greek word? |
1. |
A* 2017-04-06 01:10:04 Scott
|
|
Refs: |
wiki |