Talk:Japanese pronouns

message: What about "Washi"? Shouldn't it be listed, too?
82.135.90.245 10:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old

message: From the article:
:The Japanese language does not have pronouns as a grammatical category of words. Rather, the various words for "I", "you", "we", "they", and so on function as nouns for the purposes of sentence structure, grammar, and syntax.
If a word functions as a substitute for a noun, isn't it by definition a pronoun?  What makes Japanese unique such that you don't consider these words to be pronouns?  —Umofomia 09:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of the two most authoritative Japanese monolingual dictionaries 広辞苑 and 大辞林 label わたし, あなた, etc. as pronouns. Maybe it's safe enough to say that Japanese does have pronouns, while it is certain that they don't have declensions that English pronouns have, and that there is no particular grammatical difference between Japanese pronouns and nouns other than the function as a substitution. --Tohru 07:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Japanese has pronouns are only pronouns to the extent that they fulfill a function analogous to pronouns in other languages (such as English). But if we're talking about word class, we must appeal to typologically-relevant morphosyntactic (grammatical) criteria, which daimeishi do not seem to satisfy, but perhaps this is a point worth exploring in the article. Many linguistic articles on Wikipedia are sorely lacking in typological perspective, and this discussion is well worth including. 193.121.151.107 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this even mean? 

message: Isn't  used by the Emperor of Japan as a first-person pronoun? JadziaLover (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was. Not after the WW2. Oda Mari (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chin 

message: I've noticed that there are some words that can be found at the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_spoken_Japanese that have not been included in the list, just thought I'd mention it, they are 自分(じぶん), そちら　and こいつ. If you view the page you can find out what each means, besides 自分　which it doesn't list. - Gav 81.77.170.56 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions from the "Gender Difference Wiki article" 

message: Just wondering, since it is prefered to use a persons name, can anyone state any occasions/situations when you must or need to use you. I can only think of using anata when you don't know someone's name(such as a stranger) or if again if you're annoyed to a certain degree with a stranger(omae, kisama etc), but what about kimi when would you use that, "men to close friends, lovers; superiors (including women) to inferiors" is what the link in my last post says, I can understand workers, a boss may be close and not know their names but what about "close" friends is it used to emphasize the closeness. Thanks for any help I'm only a begginer and I'd like to know the language properly. - Gav 81.77.170.56 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article says, we omit 'you' most of the time. I cannot tell when we must to use you. It depends. And when we use 'you', we use it without thinking. I mean the choice is unconsciously made. As for 'kimi', I cannot answer the question. Because I'm a woman and never use kimi. Oda Mari (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it's not a male term. The reason that I don't use 'kimi' is I'm not in the situation and personally I feel uncomfortable to use it. Female school teachers use it. Addition: as for 'anata', wives use it to husband a lot. Think it as 'darling'. Oda Mari (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of the You's 

message: I noticed that Ano Hito is often used in reference to a loved one, often a husband that is dead. As a respectful way to refer to the dead, instead of calling their name. I'm not sure if I could find a source for this, but I thought I would put it out there because maybe someone has a reference?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of Ano Hito

message: Does the gender differences in spoken Japanese page really need to be separate from this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.151.45 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since almost a month has passed since the merging proposal (by an anonymous editor) and the two messages posted in this dialog are strongly against it, I decided to keep both.
Urashima Tarō (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Is there any reason why それ, これ, あれ, だれ etc. aren't listed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.33.236 (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any. I didn't notice that the article contained personal pronouns only. Demonstrative pronouns must be included. Oda Mari (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added これ, それ, あれ and だれ, but there are others in this series whose status I am not sure about, such as ここ, そこ etc., こちら, そちら, etc. Do these count as pronouns? Also, どなた was another I wondered about. 86.160.209.216 (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  それ, これ etc. 

message: Two of the sources cited for much of the information on this page may be unreliable. "Japan Reference" describes itself as "mining [the web] for hidden data related to almost every aspect of Japan". The sources it 'mines' may or may not be reliable. "8.1 Pronouns" is a section of the web site "Teach Yourself Japanese", which is apparently self-published by TAKASUGI Shinji. The information does not appear to be obviously wrong, but published grammars or textbooks – perhaps printed on dead trees – would be more reliable. Cnilep (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better sources needed 

message: Really, one of the most confusingly written articles I've read in Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.221.197 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite for clarity 

message: Not to nit pick but isn't (own name) a noun? Why is it in the pronoun section? Chrononem ☎ 16:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  (own name) Entry 

message: This is a horrifically confusing article that presents a very superficial analysis of Japanese pronouns with unnecessarily complex terminology. The average person doesn't know terms like "deictic," etc., and the article could be rewritten either to define terms or to use more widely accessible terms. I actually think this article should be deleted in its current form, as it conveys very little information and does so poorly.
The etymology section contains no etymology, not even watakushi or Nara-era forms like a/are/ware/nare. The second and third persons are not addressed at all! Register is not addressed!108.177.128.155 (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section has no etymology 

message: While technically more male than female, it’s used often enough by tomboyish girls (in fiction; more likely in Osaka) that it’s ambivalent enough to work. Masterball2 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  about boku 

message: On the page, it says:
In linguistics, generativists and other structuralists suggest that the Japanese language does not have pronouns as such, since, unlike pronouns in most other languages that have them, these words are syntactically and morphologically identical to nouns.[1]
The reference is to https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1997.0021, which is a paper that refers repeatedly to Japanese pronouns, as such, implying their existence.  First sentence in the abstract, in fact, implies the language has pronouns:  It is well known that personal pronouns in Japanese such as kare 'he' and kanozyo 'she', ...
I'm adding a tag for disputed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2E05:8700:A12E:62CA:579F:EF6D (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad source for claim about not having pronouns