Talk:Tōyō kanji

message: Hello all -- pardon my French, literally, I'm just using autotranlation from the French wikipedia article on this and then cleaning up the language. Any help is appreciated. --Arcadian 16:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First header

message: Hi, was just passing through and I thought I'd have a go at article cleanup, and I've rewritten and reorganised most of it. However, I wasn't too sure about the 'Applications and limitations' [capitalise 'limitations' too?] section, especially the sense of the parts of the text in brackets - I wasn't sure if it was meant to be the wording of the Japanese book, or a commentary by the author of the wikipedia text. Another heading also mentions the 1850 toyo kanji - does this make sense if it was introduced in 1946? If anyone can follow the French version (see link in the left margin of the page) and have a look, it'd be good. Cheers then, --Gt 02:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second 

message: Is "general use" a commonly accepted translation of 当用? 当, tô seems to mean correct or appropriate, and as such "appropriate use" would seem a more literal translation. JMdict/EDICT (ftp://ftp.monash.edu.au/pub/nihongo/edict_doc.html) lists the translation "daily use" or "daily-use kanji" for 当用漢字, which I think makes more sense in the context. I feel I know too little about the subject matter to go and change it right away though. Any opinions on the matter? 130.89.228.82 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third 

message: This article needs a complete rewrite. The facts are practically all wrong. Tôyô 当用 originally meant tôza no shiyô 当座の使用, i.e. «temporary use». The Japanese never intended to give up the orthodox characters. The Tôyô-kanji-hyô was announced in 1946 because the Americans forced the Japanese to either abolish or simplify and limit the number of the characters. This was NOT something that the Japanese, at the time, felt the need for. Let’s write this clear: it was an imposition. Read the introduction of Jôyô-jikai 字解 for instance, or the introduction of Jitô 字統 (works written by Shirakawa Shizuka 白川静, maybe the first authority on Chinese characters). The current meaning of tô 当, which is said to stand for tôi 当為, «what has to be», was a later re-interpretation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.44.83 (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth 

message: http://web.archive.org/web/20130109061422/http://home.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/wjapref.htm
http://www.tofugu.com/2011/09/19/the-kana-they-are-a-changin/
Rajmaan (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to Romanization led to Toyo Kanji 

message: I've rewritten this section, to bring it in line with what's actually in the 1946 ministry statement. About half of what was stated in this section (claiming to be taken from the document's foreword) was made up. For starters, the preface to the Tôyô statement never at any point dictates katakana versus hiragana for any of the non-kanji recommendations - it simply uses the word "kana" throughout. Which kana system is used was by normal convention and was not specifically indicated by this document. The phrase "places of another country are changed to match the pronunciation of the original language" is wholly fabricated and does not match either actual place names in the language (cf. mekishiko for Mexico, and supên for Spain, as opposed to itaria for Italy and doitsu for Germany), nor anything stated in the Tôyô preface (or elsewhere). The phrase "If a kanji can only be used to cover part of a word, e.g. 小さい (chiisai, 小=chii, さい=sai) then the uncovered part can only be written using hiragana" is likewise found nowhere in the document. The statement about technical terms is a different one from what is actually said: at no point does it say to use other kanji in preference over kana; it says that it is hoped that this Tôyô standard will be used as the basis/template for organizing technical terms (i.e., where Tôyô falls short of meeting the needs of technical language, it is hoped that similar de facto conventions will take hold). Some statements that are in the preface have been left out entirely: that ateji (like 玉子 for tamago) should be avoided, and that where a word whose kanji are not covered by Tôyô is used, it should either be written in kana or else a different word should be preferred. — Micahcowan (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications and Limitations needed total rewrite 

message: The heart of the book ‘Langenscheidts Lehrbuch und Lexikon der japanischen Schrift’ of 1980 by Wolfgang Hadamitzky is a list of 1900 kanji, which were officially recommended on January 21, 1977 by the Council for Japanese Language. It might make sense to list this recommendation in this article, too. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 07:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  1900 kanji in official recommendation of 1977