Talk:List of English words of Japanese origin/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Still a problem

I see from the discussion page that this article has been seen as a problem for quite some time. Yet here we are, months after it was pointed out, and the article is still bloated with transliterated words. IMO, this article needs to be trimmed down a lot, as it's practically useless. There's a big difference between "karaoke" and "bunraku." IMO, the difference is that one word is used to describe an aspect of Japanese culture/history and the other does not. Ditto words like "hiragana," which are not general terms at all but words specifically used to describe Japanese things. If we're going to put every Japanese word that has ever ended up used in English, then we ought to break out a Japanese History book and start putting every single word that is of Japanese origin into this article... RobertM525 (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What specific, neutral inclusion criteria do you propose? nohat (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The removal of any word which refers specifically to Japan or Japanese culture from the article. If the word cannot be realistically defined without mentioning Japan, then it's not an English word. It's the difference between a word having a Japanese etymology and a Japanese loanword for describing something Japanese. Compare, from this article: "hiragana: a Japanese syllabary, one of the four Japanese writing systems" with "karaoke: "empty orchestra"; entertainment where an amateur singer accompanies recorded music". And nevermind terms like "kirigami," which the article defines as "similar to origami, but involves cutting in addition to folding" but which The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines as "The Japanese art of cutting and folding paper into ornamental objects or designs." Just this would go a long way toward removing the bloat from this article. RobertM525 (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the list is bloated with words that few people, if any, would consider to be "English". It seems to me that there are three different categories here (albeit with fuzzy and somewhat subjective boundaries):
  1. Words, such as tycoon, that English speakers use naturally, without any conscious feeling that the word is of foreign origin.
  2. Words, such as origami, that English speakers use naturally but in the knowledge that the word refers (originally) to a Japanese practice or custom.
  3. Words, such as katsuramono that very few English speakers are familiar with, and would only be used in a specialist context that is specifically discussing the Japanese culture.
Are you saying the article should include only words from the first category, or would you admit words from the second too? 86.140.132.22 (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC).
I would say both #1 and #2 are fine. Though I would caution that some apply #2 so broadly that they use it as license to include practically any word their Japanese-English dictionary can find them. RobertM525 (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have pruned the article somewhat. Feel free to reintroduce words I have deleted after discussing them here, if there's a good reason for it. RobertM525 (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The way I see it, the difficulty is in finding an objective way to determine if something is an "English word". I don't believe that inclusion in an English dictionary automatically makes a word "English" in the sense that most people understand it. Your suggestion to exclude words that "cannot be realistically defined without mentioning Japan" has some appeal, but is, I think, too subjective and too prone to arguments about what is a "realistic definition". More objective would be "words that dictionaries X, Y, Z define without mentioning Japan", but this would likely exclude many words that we might otherwise want to include. The only objective way to do this that I can think of right now is to rename the article "List or words of Japanese origin that appear in English dictionaries" (and nominate a selection of qualifying dictionaries). It would be nice to resolve this because it applies to a number of similar articles, not just this one. 86.165.21.146 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC).
There are various kinds of dictionaries. In a reputable dictionary that is correctly described as a "dictionary of the English language," each entry is an English word. There are non-English words that are not used as entries, but the entries—the words being defined—are considered by the editors to be English words.
There are other dictionaries, written in the English language, that are not dictionaries of the English language. For example, a dictionary of Japanese performing arts, or a dictionary of Japanese martial-arts terms, or a dictionary of Japanese cuisine. In these dictionaries, the entries are mostly foreign words. Some may also be English, for example, "kabuki," "karate," or "sushi." These are also found as entries in general dictionaries of the English language. But many are not English, and do not have entries in the general dictionaries.
The title of this article, "List of English words of Japanese origin," makes it clear that the list should include English words, and only English words. We should include words that have entries in reputable dictionaries of the English language and are identified there as being of Japanese origin, and we should exclude words that do not appear in these dictionaries, or that are not identified there as being of Japanese origin. Fg2 (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I completely disagree. The fact that a word is listed in a general English dictionary does not, to me, necessarily make it an "English word". All it means is that it's a word that's appeared frequently enough in English texts to satisfy the dictionary editors, which is a quite different thing. 86.165.21.146 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
What is your criterion? Fg2 (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
For "English word"? I don't have one: it's an imprecise and subjective concept. 86.165.21.146 (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC).
Let's take the word "kabuki," which Fg2 has just reintroduced to this article. This is a proper noun for an aspect of Japanese culture. This is not an English word. This is a transliteration of a Japanese word that appears in English dictionaries; it is not a term which can be used in a way that is not relevant to Japanese culture. It is not a generic term. By contrast, a "tycoon" can refer to a person of any nationality—the word has become a part of the English language. "Kabuki" has not. Nor many of the other words Fg2 just reintroduced into the article. Furthermore, there are a number of food-based words that I was reluctant to remove. If they are only used in Japanese cuisine, they are not English words. IMO, the word must have a generic, non-Japanese usage before it can be considered "an English word." The fact of the matter is, this should probably be a very, very small list. There hasn't been much of a reason in any English-speaking nation's history to have had a massive influx of Japanese loanwords (other than, perhaps, the American occupation of Japan). English-speakers have not been politically or culturally dominated by Japan (anime fans not withstanding ;) ). Most English words are still of Germanic or Romance origin. So unless we rename this article to List of Japanese words that have been transliterated into the Roman alphabet, this article ought to be quite small. RobertM525 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with your general sentiments. The problem is that I've yet to see any fully objective criterion -- something that different people can apply and always arrive at the same conclusion -- to determine whether a word is "English" and should therefore be included (except, obviously, the "appears in dictionary X, Y or Z" one, which results in reams of words that almost no one thinks are "English"). I broadly agree with the idea of "must have a generic, non-Japanese usage", but there will inevitably be grey areas where this is just a matter of opinion. If we don't have an objective test to apply then we'll forever have some people adding words and others taking them out. The other option is, as you say, to rename the article. 86.161.41.37 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC).
I can sympathize with RobertM525's frustration. As a native speaker of English, I do not consider most of the words listed here to be English. However, I would have difficulty in listing criteria, but I suppose it relates to the degree that I associate the terms to Japan. From the entire existing list, I only consider five words to be genuine English: tycoon, tsunami, soy, rickshaw, and moxibustion. These are words that most English speakers use without any special knowledge or association of their Japanese etymology. This corresponds to the above IP criteria #1. A few others I may include with the express knowledge that they strongly associated with Japan: origami, haiku, karaoke, zen, geisha, (top) ramen, sake, sushi, teriyaki, and tofu. These I would consider to be likely candidates for sometime in the future. This corresponds to the above IP criteria #2. I would remove anything from #3.
On the other hand, as a linguist who has done (Japanese) lexicographical work, I am fully aware of and can appreciate the importance of descriptiveness over prescriptiveness: if a word appears in English text, then it is English and should be recorded. That is essentially how the OED and other major dictionaries work. This will often generate extremely rare and obscure entries, though, that many native speakers often will not understand. Relying on dictionaries as a reference would certainly be compatible with the Wikipedia policies. But then this list could get much, much longer. And surely the complaints will continue for many more years, just like they have before this thread.
Rather, I must wonder why this article is even needed. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I suggest taking this over to Wiktionary where it would be much more appropriate and get rid of the problem here. Bendono (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not just this article though... there are oodles of them, all for different languages, with many suffering, to varying degrees, from the same problem. I'm not sure how you'd get on trying to get agreement to wipe all of them from Wikipedia. 86.161.41.37 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC).
This is reminding me somewhat of the perfect solution fallacy (i.e., "because we cannot easily limit the article, we shouldn't really limit the article much at all"). The editors adding entries to this article are not robots. If the criterion is "words which can be used outside of the context of Japan/Japanese history/Japanese culture," for instance, then it would seriously curtail this article's problems (though, yes, not totally eliminate them). Ideally, it seems that this article is one in which a reader should be able to find words that they recognize but had no idea were of Japanese origin. Take karaoke—people familiar with karaoke often have no idea that the word is Japanese (unless they saw that Lifesavers commercial a few years ago :) ). Conversely, however, people familiar with kabuki know by definition that it is Japanese. While these seem to be two ends of a continuum, the transition from one end to the other is (for the most part) not so subtle that we ought to just forgo any attempt to keep this article reasonably "logical." Yes, there may be some words which will prove troublesome. But the "in an English dictionary" criterion is simply too broad to allow this article to perform its apparent intended function. RobertM525 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Food and drink terms (of which there are many) could be problematic. If a Japanese dish is (somewhere) cooked by a non-Japanese person outside of Japan then does that mean it can "be used outside of the context of Japan/Japanese history/Japanese culture"? If not, then to what extent must the dish be eaten outside of Japan to be eligible? What about words like "geisha", "anime", "manga", "kimono" and "shogun", which, to me, are very strongly or exclusively associated with Japan and yet are amongst the more familiar in the list? Would you include these? Your criterion would seem, for example, to definitely exclude "geisha", which I'm not sure is the correct decision. 81.151.231.242 (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC).
I suppose with food it can be unilaterally excluded. My rationale here, FWIW, is that no matter how many quesadillas I make at home with my microwave and a block of cheddar cheese, the term is still a Spanish word for a Mexican dish. It is, after all, "Mexican food." If a dish with a Japanese name can be made and not considered "Japanese food," then it would qualify for being an English word not a Japanese dish that many English speakers are familiar with. Further rationale here is that if the food is intrinsically "Japanese food," then the fact that it has a Japanese name is expected—it would be much more surprising if it did not have a Japanese name. Now, onto manga and anime... Mangas are simply a type of Japanese comic book. I can possibly foresee the term "manga" being generalized to any B&W, digest-size comic regardless of the origin of the work in question. At the moment, however, "manga" still refers to "a Japanese graphic novel, typically intended for adults, characterized by highly stylized art.". Ditto anime; you would not call Mask of the Phantasm "an anime," for instance. Again, the problem with the words is not their familiarity to English speakers but their use by English speakers. Any word from any language can be transliterated into another language, but not just any word can claim to have integrated itself into the second language. "Admiral," for example, is a word adopted from Arabic through French that is a thoroughly English word. The word "geisha" is not even remotely analogous to this. RobertM525 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Robert for explaining at length his notion of what makes a word an "English word" (although it doesn't seem completely clear). However, I don't think we can use it (whatever "it" is) as criteria for this page unless it can be sourced to academic sources. What reliable sources use these criteria? The criteria used by dictionaries like OED and Merriam-Webster are well-documented and justified by academic practice. What they do when they attempt to capture English usage is perhaps broader than what the average person may consider, but it is straightforward for us to rely on their research and expertise than our own. --C S (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, there is no current criteria for inclusion, either. As soon as the dictionary argument is made, then every word with a Japanese etymology found in any dictionary is eligible. But we are not a dictionary. It is not our problem. The page should be deleted pending moving entries to Wiktionary. The fact that similar pages exist is also immaterial. They need to be similarly handled one at a time, too. Bendono (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
(Reply to Robert, and I qualify all the following by reiterating that I broadly agree with what you are trying to do, I just don't see a way to make it work in practice.) The question of whether "a dish with a Japanese name can be made and not considered 'Japanese food'" is purely subjective. Really, it boils down to someone looking at a word and saying "I do/don't think it belongs in the list", which isn't a way forward for this article. Regarding the other words I mentioned, such as "geisha", I personally would not call this a truly "English" word (so perhaps there we are in agreement). However, if we exclude all words like this then the list is going to be really short. In fact, it might just contain the following: "bonsai"(?), "karaoke", "origami"(?), "satsuma", "soy", "umami", "tycoon", "hentai"(?), "koi", "rickshaw", "sudoku" and "tsunami" (you may not precisely agree with this, but you get the general idea). Is that what we want? Maybe it is? A long time ago I tried to put such a list at the start of the article, on the grounds that people might want to see a quick list of words that they might actually consider English, but it was quickly reverted as being OR. I imagine another similar attempt would meet the same response. 86.161.43.104 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As this is not the right forum, this page will continue to be problem. But since people are not getting that, then perhaps we should add the 378 English words of Japanese origins as listed in the OED. Bendono (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bendono, that's an interesting title (and an expensive book). Its list would be a valuable addition to a Wikimedia project, but I don't know what copyright issues might arise. It does underscore what you and I have been saying: compilers of dictionaries put a lot of work into deciding whether a word has become English. They have various criteria, and some of them might resemble the ones various people have proposed, but there's no need for Wikimedia projects to duplicate their research (and policy tells us not to post the results of our own research). Personally, I don't mind if this List of English words of Japanese origin goes to Wiktionary (although my preference is for Wikipedia, which gets more traffic -- at the least it needs a "soft redirect"). But I do think it requires far more than a dozen words.
Responding to the general discussion, I reiterate what I wrote previously: a dictionary of the English language is a dictionary of English words. When compilers of reliable general dictionaries list a word in these dictionaries, they are saying that the word is an English word. General English dictionaries do not attempt to include every foreign word used in English; the compilers of dictionaries might do that in the databases they keep so that eventually, when a word appears in a sufficient variety of types of writing, they will know to add it to the dictionary, but they do not automatically publish every foreign word used in English in the general dictionaries they publish. Certainly, far more than 378 Japanese words have been used in English, and the OED is a huge dictionary, so it clearly does not list every Japanese word that its compilers have seen in English. The words that appear in general English dictionaries belong in this list, whether here or on Wictionary. Applying a separate criterion such as people not associating it with Japan would eliminate many words that, according to the compilers of these dictionaries, are English. That would not accord with the title of the article. Fg2 (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I asked several people about this, just for interest, using randomly chosen "foreign-sounding" (but familiar) words taken from a general English dictionary, and asking if they consider them to be "English words". Overwhelmingly, the answer was "no". I do not believe that your definition of "English word" as "a word listed in an English dictionary" accords with most people's understanding of that term. I think there are two issues here: firstly, the fact that the article's title is misleading (if all "dictionary words" are to be included), and, secondly, the issue of whether it would be more helpful for people to see a list of words that are "really" English, rather than having to wade through reams of unfamiliar transliterated Japanese terms that no one actually thinks are "English words". The second of these is very problematic due to the lack of any objective inclusion criteria. 86.161.43.104 (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I had another thought. How about we include only words that are in a short English dictionary -- one that only lists everyday words. We'd have to agree which dictionary(ies), but that might give us the objective criterion and cut out all the dross. 86.161.43.104 (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC). Strike that, it's a crap idea. Whether a word is common or unusual doesn't have any bearing on whether it's English. 86.161.43.104 (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The experiment you did is interesting, but ultimately is not the test compilers of dictionaries use when deciding which words are English. The compilers of the Merriam-Webster dictionaries write, "Before any word can be considered for inclusion, we have to have proof not only that it has existed in the language for a number of years, but also that it is frequently used by all sorts of English writers (as indicated by how often it appears in a variety of general-interest publications)." ("Why are some words missing from the dictionary? (e.g., misandry)?) And, "Simply put, to gain entry to the dictionary, a word must be widely used in a broad range of professionally written and edited materials over an extended period of time." ("I would like to see a particular word added to or deleted from the dictionary. What can I do?") The way they evaluate usage is 'Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called "reading and marking."' ("How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?") So, if a word appears in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, it "must be widely used in a broad range of professionally written and edited materials over an extended period of time." That extended period of time is not the brief term of a fad, but "a number of years." And the word must be "frequently used by all sorts of English writers (as indicated by how often it appears in a variety of general-interest publications)."
In addition, you mentioned the size of a dictionary. The compilers of the Merriam-Webster dictionaries comment on that topic: "Because an abridged dictionary, such as Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, has fairly limited space, only the most commonly used words can be entered; to get into that type of dictionary, a word must be supported by a significant number of citations." ("How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?") Since the online dictionary is abridged, the words of Japanese origin cited in it "must be supported by a significant number of citations." These words are English. Fg2 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm reaching the stage where I'm just repeating myself, but the fact that a foreign loanword is used widely enough by English speakers to merit inclusion in an English dictionary doesn't make it an "English word". To choose an example at random, consider the word "voilà", which appears in several English dictionaries that I've just consulted. I don't care how many citations of this word you can find in English texts, the word is, to me, not an "English word". Do you think it is? 86.138.42.133 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC).
Actually, if it's in a "dictionary of the English language" (which is what most English language dictionaries use in their titles or subtitles), it (by inclusion) is an English word. Regardless of what you think. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Try asking 100 English speakers whether "voilà" is an "English word", and see how many agree with you that it is. My guess is that the number will be approximately zero. 86.142.110.164 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I, too, feel like I've gotten to the point where I'm simply repeating myself. I disagree with Fg2's assumption that dictionary compilers are, in fact, achieving their goal of only listing "English words" when, in fact, they are simply including words used in English language publications. And that's the problem: we're at a totally philosophical point of linguistic contention here. My definition of an English word is too restrictive for a dictionary, since a dictionary aims to allow people to read a large swath of material published in a given language and to know what it means. It's why there are people like George Washington in dictionaries--not because "George Washington" is an English word, but because his name is considered a phrase worthy of inclusion in a dictionary. Now, having said that, we're not writing a dictionary. We're writing a Wikipedia article, and we must ask, "What is the objective of this article?" If the objective of the article is to list every word of Japanese origin that has ended up in an English dictionary, then I am forced to concede that perhaps the article has no place on Wikipedia at all and ought to be deleted/moved to Wiktionary (as, perhaps, Bendono is arguing). If it is supposed to be a list of words commonly used by English speakers that people might be surprised to learn were of Japanese origin (e.g., tycoon), then that may be equally unmanageable because the criteria for such a thing would necessitate original research on the part of the article's authors. Thus, what does that leave us? An article that cannot, realistically, be written? I am starting to believe that this may be the case. (Which is, IMO, rather sad, but perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for the article I thought this was going to be when I ended up on it in the first place.) RobertM525 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument that words should be excluded because they are used exclusively to describe aspects of Japanese culture is gross ethnocentrism. The argument that something can only be an English word if it describes some aspect of Anglo-Saxon culture is indefensible and offensive. Blech.

As I have said all along, let's leave the decision of what is an English word up to the professional lexicographers. If there are a few dozen words here that you didn't know before stumbling upon this page, what's the harm?nohat (talk)

There is no harm as such, except that some people feel that a list of every single word of Japanese origin that appears in an English dictionary is not Wikipedia material. The title of the article is, however, misleading because many (most) of these words are not "English words" according to the way that most people understand and use that term. 86.136.194.247 (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC).
Please point out these "some people". They obviously include you (whoever you are), but who are the others in this "some people"? We certainly aren't going to change things just because you and some vague group labelled "some people" don't like it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Read the thread. 86.142.110.164 (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This really is one of the most ludicrous edit-wars I've stumbled across in some time. Is someone actually going to *do* anything about this bloated and uninformative list of Japanese words masquerading as English ones? I imagine Japanese dictionaries explain lots of English words too, but it doesn't make them Japanese words. How about applying some simple common sense here people? {90.194.145.147 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)}

keep the size

The list is big, but they are necessary words. Yes, necessary mostly to nerds or English speakers living in Japan, but still necessary to some people. the word pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is used exclusively by doctors, does that mean it's not an English word? If you know Kabuki, you use the word Kabuki in English. If you know manga, you use the word manga in English. There are many aspects of Japanese culture like that which don't have translations and so are used in English, just because some arn't used by non-specialists, doesn't mean it's not English. I've never heard anyone but educators use the word Andragogy, but that does not affect it's status as an English word. 109.76.186.30 (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

List of English words of Japanese origin → List of words of Japanese origin appearing in English dictionaries — The majority of the words currently listed are not "English words" in the way that term is generally understood. 86.184.237.148 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose, I don't think making such a minor distinction is worth such an unwieldy title. If you want to emphasize the point that your criterion for inclusion is that the words appear in English dictionaries, just say so in the intro to the article. Recury (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not agree that this is a "minor distinction", and, as you can see from the discussions above, neither do a number of other people. In fact, this distinction is a source of repeated confusion and argument about the article's purpose. Some of this confusion may be alleviated by clarifying the title. 86.173.34.139 (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC) (proposer).
  • That would all be fine, except that in some people's view (though I appreciate it may not be yours) the present title is actually wrong, not merely in need of elaboration. Specifically, it is wrong to call most of these words "English words". 86.186.35.26 (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC).
  • This is like arguing for an article titled "List of American baseball players" which then explains in the lead that the list also includes baseball players of other nationalities. 86.186.35.26 (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you really need to harass everyone you disagree with? If a Japanese word appears in a dictionary of the English language, it's an English word. More than half of the words in any such dictionary are originally from another language, yet they are considered "English" words. This expansion of the title is completely unnecessary. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that you use such a word as "harass" when I am simply arguing my case and responding in an entirely civil way to the objections that others have raised. Regarding your point, if you truly think that all the words in this list are "English words" then I believe you are in a small minority. 86.186.36.45 (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC).
  • Consistency is not good if it means consistently wrong. I am aware that many of these articles suffer from exactly the same problem: they purport to be lists of "English words", yet they include many words that no one believes are "English". This nomination is, if you like, a test case, so I would ask you not to use consistency alone as a reason to oppose. 86.186.35.26 (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC).
  • Oppose. If they are listed in dictionaries of the English language, they're English words (of Japanese origin, in the case given). Every word needs to originate from somewhere. --Theurgist (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_English_words_of_Japanese_origin/Archive_3&oldid=1136915868"