Jump to content

Talk:Japanese honorifics/Archive 4

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

Use of Chan and Kun among Families

Under Kun, the page declares "kun is traditionally not used when addressing or referring to one's own child (unless kun is part of a nickname: "Akira-kun"—Akkun)" but simultaneously under Chan, it says "Parents will probably always call their daughters chan and their sons kun, though chan can be used towards boys just as easily." These two statements seem to conflict each other, unless it means that if parents are to use a suffix with their sons, they are more likely to use kun. Either way, the article should probably be more clear. Bloodnose (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Omission of suffixes

There was an edit at 21:19, January 31, 2006 by User:JALockhart that changed the end of the first paragraph in the "Use" section from "...considered very bad manners unless the person has given you permission." to "...considered very bad manners unless."

The "unless" needs to be removed or the end of the sentence needs to be restored. I don't speak Japanese so I don't know which it should be.

--Kevin 01:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Chin suffix

I don't believe User:Haeleth's claim that "chan" becomes "chin". This is very dodgy to me - "chin" means "penis" in Japanese, and calling someone "Tanaka^chin" would be like calling them "Tanaka-penis". Very dubious. --DannyWilde 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Chin chin" is penis, but not "chin" by itself. And if it helps to restore some of the dignity of the word for you, the first thing I would think of if I heard chin by itself is the first person pronoun that used to be used by the emperor (used in the speech that Emperor Showa made announcing the surrender of Japan, for example.) -Jefu 01:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Like I said, it's "occasionally" used in online and popular culture. For example, the character 神尾観鈴 in the popular game and anime AIR is almost exclusively referred to by fans as 観鈴ちん, which gets 35,500 Google hits. In this context it is simply a cutesy pronunciation of "-chan", not a reference to the penis.
I have restored this note, but I've moved it to the section at the end on popular culture and made the limitations I've observed in its usage clearer: is this an acceptable compromise for you? Haeleth 12:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know about "chin" at all, and it still seems far out to me, but it seems you were right all along. Necoandjeff (User:Jefu) probably knows what he's talking about, so if he says he's heard it, it's probably not so uncommon - I'm sure I haven't though, and I don't have the bravery to call someone "Tanaka chin". "Chama" is actually pretty standard, it's not manga or something. it can go with "chan" or "sama". San->chan, sama->chama, like "chiisai" -> "chitchai". --DannyWilde 15:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Are you happy to have "chin" and "tan" in the main section too? I'll label them non-standard, at any rate. Haeleth 15:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Although anime is not exactly a great place to look for refernces you can see the usage of chin and tan as well as other suffixes like chama and such in the series "Sister Princess." --Chikiko 19:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In all experiences that I have heard the word chin, or mistakenly used the word chin, it has been taken to mean penis on it's own. I have deleted accordingly 21/05/2007
Don’t know the extent of your experiences with chin, so I fail to see what your experiences should be sufficient for deleting it (especially while leaving other artifacts—like an extraneous “and the” that should have also been deleted), since you don’t even bother to identify yourself. My experience with the chin (which encompasses raising three boys in Japan) coincides with the article material, so I have put it back. Fwiw, I don’t consider animé or manga to be a valid source of information on how the Japanese language is used. Jim_Lockhart 07:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Old thread, but thought I'd just place myself behind JALockheart on this one; There's a markant overweight of anime references in all Japan related articles, and especially refering to anime in questions about normal Japanese is bizarre.

Also, in examples, the common names used are Taro and Kanako for males and females respectively. That]s what they're for, so why is everyone writing Misa and Yoshimitsu and such? Makes one wonder if you'd use John Lock and Ally McBeal in english articles about workplace ethics, or perhaps Mickey Mouse. Anyway, I agree with -chin being common, while not formal in any way, it's "cute", and in case anyone lives under a rock, being cute is quite the in thing to be ;p Frankly, if you've spent any length of time in Japan, and think you've never heard "chin" under circumstances it wouldn't mean penis, you probably shouldn't be editing articles on conversational Japanese. Southsailor (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sama/san/shi

All the edits I made about san/sama/shi were deleted by User:Haeleth. I'm sure it is right; why delete it? Mystified. --DannyWilde 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I was trying to simplify the page, and I noticed that that information was duplicated under both "-san" and "-shi"; I was trying to remove the redundant information, and apparently I carelessly removed it all. My apologies. Haeleth 12:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sakana-san

Why did User:Haeleth delete the stuff about "sakana-san"? Mystified. --DannyWilde 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the comment on "usagi-san" would be a suitable replacement, as it seemed to me to be a more general instance of the same phenomenon. I wasn't aware that "sakana-san" for fish being cooked was used in regular adult speech - I had assumed (presumably mistakenly) that it was only used by adults when speaking to children. Haeleth 12:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
You've obviously never seen a Japanese TV cooking programme. --DannyWilde 12:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Not for many years. Thanks for the example. Haeleth 15:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
This is still flagged "dubious". It definitely exists, but IMHO it's a feature of feminine/childish speech and would not be used by males, or anybody in polite speech. Jpatokal (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sensei

Is "sensei" commonly used for authors and artists? I am familiar with the use for manga artists by manga fans, but (as far as I know, anyway) generally authors and artists are not referred to as "sensei". Mystified again. Any comments? --DannyWilde 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly commonly used for authors, if perhaps not generally. It may be restricted to modern authors, and usage may be restricted to their fans, since those are the contexts in which I'm familiar with the usage. It is certainly not restricted to manga artists. As a random example, see this page for an example of the novelist ja:京極夏彦 being referred to as 京極先生.
As for artists, note that ja:教育関係者に対する呼称 includes 芸術家 and 音楽家 in its non-exclusive list of professions with which the title is used.
I have replaced this note: I hope you will consider the new wording more appropriate. I'm not happy with "creative professionals", since it's sometimes used for skilled amateurs as well, but I can't think of a better blanket term for authors/artists/musicians right now. Haeleth 12:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Dono/tono

Is "tono" used as a title? Daijirin implies not - sv どの it has "名詞「との」から", and no examples of title usage sv との. Haeleth 15:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Tono by itself can be used as a title of respect for people of very high status (although it would probably only be used like this in a joking manner nowadays). It becomes "dono" when appended to a name. (Added by Jefu ) [[Sorry. That was an unintentional omission. -Jefu 01:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)]]
The Tono sama was some kind of lord, wasn't he? As far as I know, there aren't any actual people who are entitled to be referred to as tono-sama in current-day Japan. As the article says, the "dono" comes on formal letters, for example members of professional organizations, etc. --DannyWilde 00:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
It isn't a specific title, just a term of respect for someone of very high position, like sensei. It was used for daimyo, etc. but I think it has probably had different uses in different periods. And it can be used as a term of respect when addressing the tono, without adding the sama as well. But I agree that it isn't common today unless used in a joking manner. -Jefu 01:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Jackie Chan

The article contains the text "On the other hand, Chinese with a surname that might be rendered "chan" in English are usually referred to as "chen" in Japanese. For example, kung-fu star Jackie Chan is called ジャッキー・チェン (Jakkii Chen) in Japan." Does this have anything to do with Japanese titles, or is "chen" simply the Japanese pronunciation of the kanji 陳 (as a modern Chinese surname? Fg2 00:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this passage is unnecessary. -Jefu 00:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree! --DannyWilde 01:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a consensus to me. I've removed it. I also changed the bit about chan being used for adults who are cute/kawaii. I rather think of it as simply a term of affection. -Jefu 03:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The traditional question I ask at this point is, have you tried asking a Japanese person about it? One of the first people I met when I first came to Japan was this great big Russian, and the male people in the lab called him "Ivan-chan" because they said he was "cute". Similarly, ask a Japanese person why Arnie is called "Shuwa-chan" and they'll probably tell you "because we think he's cute". --DannyWilde 03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no doubt that that is what they would say (assuming you mean kawaii). But that's not how I would describe the phenomenon in an English encyclopedia. I think "title of affection" or "term of affection" captures it better than "cute." And if you look up the word kawaii in a Japanese dictonary and compare it with what you see when you look up cute in an English dictionary, you'll see that the Japanese term is used a little more broadly anyway. By the way, do you call him "Arnie" because you think he's cute? -Jefu 03:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Chan does not imply cuteness unless the situation and context calls for it. Chan is a term of indearment or affection, and can be used among close friends. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.202.104 (talk • contribs) .
On a side note, I would advise against using Schwa-chan altogether. It's a really, really old joke, and using it nowadays makes you look lame. Or in the case of us blonde long-nosed gaijin, cute. But certainly not the kinda cute you wanna be going for :) TomorrowTime 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I like Jackie Chan

Kun in Diet

In Diet of Japan, members of diet and ministers are called with kun by the chairpersons. For example, Koizumi Junichiro is called as "Koizumi Junichiro kun".

Only exception is that when Doi Takako was a chairperson of Lawer house, she called people with San.--Mochi 11:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"Removed pointless use of kana"

On the Japanese titles page, Peter Isotalo removed the kana for "-chan," calling them "pointless." Seeing as all the other entires include kana, it doesn't seem so pointless as it's keeping within the style already established for the page. Please let me know you all think. --nihon 22:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This discussion may be overflowing from the discussion occuring on Talk:Japanese language. To me, it seems reasonable to have the kana for "chan" here to show how the word is written. --DannyWilde 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That was my thought as well. I didn't want to get into an edit/revert war, though, so that's whay I posted here. --nihon 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the editor in question thought about his edit very carefully. If he really does have a reason to remove the kana for "chan", he should explain it here. --DannyWilde 23:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The point of using any kana that doesn't specifically describe the kana itself escapes me. Anyone who can read kana knows how "san" or "chan" is spelled. To anyone who doesn't read kana, it's just unreadable eye-candy. And then there's the whole slew of users for whom the characters don't show up at all and just annoy. Really, there is no benefit to using it and I would really recommend cutting down on Japanese script in general in an English-language encyclopedia.
Peter Isotalo 00:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The whole point of an encyclopedia, however, is to help people learn. Having the kana there fits in with the way most of the Japanese-related articles are written: the kana/kanji is shown the first time it's introduced. It can be very useful to someone who is learning, and those of us who can read most anything we come across can just skip over it. Having the kana there is a definite bonus to someone who is just learning about things, IMHO. --nihon 00:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it a little inconsistent to have Japanese writings for some of the titles and not for others? I think the amount of kana for each title is very small, it's not overwhelming, and despite what Peter Isotalo says I can imagine many people who can read some kana who don't know how "chan" or "san" or "chin" or "tan" are spelt, for example "usually kana" or "usually kanji", and leaving out the kana would not be helpful to them. When I was learning Japanese in the UK, I wouldn't have known that kind of thing. I'd like to keep this small amount of kana. --DannyWilde 06:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure it's modaretely useful (you can learn kana without Wikipedia in a few days) as some sort of teaching tool to the relativly small minority of Westerners that study Japanese, but I'm more concerned about the majority that is bound to be either bothered or dumbfounded by it, either through lack of proper software or knowledge of Japanese. Either way, it's an encyclopedia, not a language learning tool.
Peter Isotalo 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The reason for reading an encyclopedia article, in this case one about Japanese, is to learn something about the language. Thus, an encyclopedia article about a language point is indeed a tool/resource/method/whatever for learning (about) the language. Otherwise it is no use. --DannyWilde 10:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
As this format is widely used in many Japanese articles on Wikipedia (showing the Japanese for whatevere is being discussed), it would be inconsistent to not use it in this article. Anyone I've asked about it (about 20 people, those who either can't read Japanese, or those who don't have Japanese fonts installed on their system) hasn't seemed to care either way. So, in my opinion, we should leave the kana for those who are interested in it. Those who aren't interested will just ignore it, IMHO. --nihon 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If you want to learn kana, all you need is the article itself (kana). Anything other than that for educational purposes is acting spoiled about superfluous text-clutter. The difference between learning a language and learning about a language is the difference between a textbook and an encyclopedic article. If you want to learn Japanese, you check out a textbook. If you want to learn about Japanese, you look up Japanese language or any of its sub-articles. Someone with the ambitions of doing the former should be urged to learn kana while someone who just wants to read about the general characteristics shouldn't be expected to have to learn a single stroke of Japanese writing.
And please stop using occurances of certain info as an argument that the info be kept. Self-supporting arguments are always lame.
Peter Isotalo 16:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I support Danny and nihonjoe on this issue. The kana aren't hurting anything but your feelings. - Sekicho 16:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Having the kana in the article isn't forcing anyone (or even "expecting" them) to learn one bit of Japanese. All it's providing is the information should they wish to use it. It's not like the entire article is written in Japanese--that would be overkill. Providing the relevant kana/kanji for the current discussion is hardly "expecting" anyone to learn it. --nihon 20:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Iemoto

Doesn't iemoto imply that the title, the headmanship of the school is inherited - not necessarily from father to son but sometimes by adoption or by marriage into the family? // Habj 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge Japanese martial arts titles with this page

The page Japanese martial arts titles is somewhat confusing, and the field would probably become clearer if the page was merged into this one. // Habj 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I merged the content from the above referenced page into a new section. Brianglass 04:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Shishou

  • Is "shishou" considered a Japanese title? I hear it means master and is given to a master of an art, like dance or martial arts.
師匠 does mean "master" or "teacher". --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should qualify that: 師匠 Shishō is used to mean master [of an art], but it is generally heard as a title only in reference to practitioners of rakugo and similar traditional arts.
If someone is going to add it to this article, they should check out the details first, otherwise their contribution could turn out to be of similar veracity to many of the others here—i.e., based on cursory impressions rather than reality; a good example of dubious material is that about the use of sama in Reo-sama. Jim_Lockhart 05:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes to section on "-kun" in conjunction w/vandalism repair

The following post- "rv vandalism" sentence does not make sense:

In a business setting, particularly in young women, may also be addressed as kun by older males of senior status.

I have reverted it to the form I rewrote into a week or so ago:

In business settings women, particularly young women, may also be addressed as kun by older males of senior status.

Since this is factually accurate, I so no reason why it cannot stand as it is; i.e., without "business settings" being chanced to "a business setting", given that it is a generalization. The other nonsense should speak for itself. Also, the statement that male pets are sometimes referred to with "-kun" attached to their names is not inaccurate: it is not at all unusual for neighbors to refer to one another's male pets (particularly dogs and cats) with "-kun" attached to their names. In this case, it is not a term of respect, but one of familiarity. (Of course, it would be strange for a pet owner to refer to her/his own animal this way).

The paragraph on the use of "kun" vs "san/chan" at school (by faculty) also comes across as slightly strange: "kun"/"san", yes; but I don't think "kun"/"chan" is right unless the "kun/chan" are part of a fixed nickname. Further, these usages are not as carved in marble as the current text suggests; e.g., a child whose name begins with the syllables "nori" will almost always be nicknamed "Nonchan" regardless of sex. Similarly, the sentence about "-kun" not being used towards one's own child is worded to restrictively: there are situations in which a parent will add "-kun" or "-chan" to her/his own child's name, though not when referring to the child in conversation with a third party.

HTH, Jim_Lockhart 11:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The part with chan being used by school faculty strikes me as weird aswell. I'm just about ready to change it myself, except I don't have enough reliable information and experience to make a change I could be happy with.

--Bumptrout 10:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:-tan

Bincho-tan is a word for a kind of charcoal (備長炭); the normal word has no connection with the -tan of this article. Is the usage in the article different from 備長炭? Fg2 05:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised. Sounds like a typical dajare.   freshgavin TALK    06:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess it does! Fg2 07:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Not so sure about the usage described in the article, but –tan is used as a sort of variation on chan and seems to come from small children's talk, since some little kids say tan instead of chan, and sometimes the usage seems to stick in nicknames. Jim_Lockhart 13:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is that really dumb anime of the same name. Bincho-tan is used as wordplay in that instance.--SeizureDog 08:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Teme

Is teme/temae a suffix?


No. Jim_Lockhart 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is, have you ever read a true Japanese novel? Often "teme" is used as a honorific that means bastard. - JayEmmAre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.58.112 (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What's a "true Japanese novel"? Guess I haven't read one of those, since I've never heard of (or seen) テメェ used as suffix. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

-San and familiarity?

"Both san and its more formal equivalent, sama, imply a kind of familiarity. In formal speech, the title shi may be preferred." San does not imply familiarity at all. It is the most common and most general title and the default title to use when you speak to a stranger (totally NOT familiar). In fact, leaving out -san implies familiarity with a person and not the other way around. This is kind of a very big mistake in the otherwise good article. And shi is used very seldom in speech, mostly in writing. I deleted that sentence.

Are you entirely certain of this fact though? My mother(Japanese), for instance, refers to one of her few Japanese friends as "Kyoko-san". They are very good friends, and I am 100% certain of what she calls her. Now, my mother has lived in the United States for many years, along with her friend, but I don't think they would forget basic Japanese courtesy. This gives me the impression that -san is really not so informal or impolite in some cases. Is there any information out there that points to the contrary? 68.18.24.38 00:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Even close friends can and will continue using -san throughout their lives. It is not a sign of familiarity. In fact, every language class and textbook I've ever seen indicates that it is the standard suffix used when you are unsure what the proper form of address is because it is completely unoffensive. Oh, and it should be pointed out that your mother is already using a more familiar construction (first name + san) for her friend.

The sentence that was deleted seems to make a valid point, although it could be clearer. There is a general lack of clarity in the article regarding the distinction between titles used in address terms (talking to someone), and titles used in reference terms (talking about someone). When referring to someone, use of -san or other titles can imply that the speaker knows them personally, whereas to refer to them with no title often shows a more neutral attitude. For example in academic writing, scholars are always cited with no title, but in seminar discussions it is common to add -san or -sensei (depending on the kind of relationship) to the names of those who have some connection to the speaker (eg. as supervisor, colleague, sempai, etc.). In sum, what I'm trying to show is that -san implies a connection (called "familiarity" in the deleted sentence) in this case. So I think anonymous editor above has missed the point. The use of -san in address/reference terms for someone who is close to the speaker is a separate question. 125.175.181.79 10:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

content from Japanese Suffixes article

I compared content from both articles so I can create a redirect, leaving out content already present in the current article, here's what left from japanese suffixes:

  • (for chan)If the speaker were to use this suffix to a person his/her age then he/she would have to realize that the ~chan suffix is a casual suffix and is mainly used only for girls, if they are the same age or only a little bit younger than the speaker. If a boy was to call another boy his name and add -chan onto the other boy's name, then it could be deemed as an insult, unless it was said as a joke, or under other circumstances.
  • (for sensei)This suffix is a little different than others used in the Japanese language in that -sensei can also be used just by itself when talking to someone. So instead of having to add the person's name and then the suffix, the speaker can just say sensei which is the same as just saying Professor or Teacher.
  • (new section:combination)These suffixes can all be used in combination in whichever way a person decides to use them. One such example would be the use of -chan and -sama. If someone were wanting to express both affection and respect, he/she could say -chama to have both meanings in one suffix. There are many different ways that a person could interchange and combine each of the suffixes. This is the opposite of what the English have as prefixes before a name; there is little freedom to interchange prefixes such as "Mr., Mrs., or Ms."

Now, I have no knowledge of japanese titles. So if you think some of this text is valid please leave it alone or add some content. If you disagree, then say it. If there's no answer by March 2, 2007. Then I'll just add them to their respective section.--Janarius 15:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

-niichan

I've just been watching Naruto on Youtube and in ep. 137, the suffix "-niichan" is used. Can this be added with a definition? Jddriessen 21:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Niichan is, of itself, not a suffix. It is used in addressing (or referring to) an older brother or—less frequently—an elder brother-like figure. In such situations, it’s often appended to a name. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
-nii can apparently be used as a big-brother suffix, as in Bleach 64 when Ichigo's little sister addresses him as "Ichi-nii". This suggests a whole category of possible familial referents that could be listed in yet another subsection if the others can be found. Jeffryfisher (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Obaa

What does Obaa chan mean?

Grandmother--Sotaru 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably best rendered as "Grandma" or "Granny" as it's a familiar form, Obaa-san is grandmother. Samatarou (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Noji

Ok, I found this title in the Anime Samurai 7, and I looked around here because I've never seen this one before. I didn't see it in the article, or I may not have looked hard enough. Regardless, can anyone tell me what Noji means? 74.167.170.215 04:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Weaboo. It means weaboo.

A matter of curiosity

What would the honorific title be for a friend who is a girl the same age as the speaker - kun, san or chan? The article isn't clear on this point. RobbieG 09:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear because there isn't a 100% certain answer, it depends on the speaker and how close they are. In general, best use san. However if both are female teens or young adults they might well use chan. Also if the speaker is a male he might use chan, although if they are not close friends she might not appreciate this (not that this would stop a thick-skinned boy using it anyway). Kun is unlikely to be used with a girl, the only times I've heard it used was towards a younger girl, when the speaker didn't want to use chan because it would sound inappropriately familiar, e.g. in a work or school context. Samatarou 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
A native Japanese speaker would simply not use -kun to address a girl. It isn't done. Nandesuka (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That is rubbish, it's uncommon and not particularly polite, but certainly done. Southsailor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

merge Dono

Resolved

I implemented the merge discussed here. Nandesuka (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

love

  • What title would you use for your girlfriend?
  • What title would you use for your boyfriend?
  • What title would you use for your wife?
  • What title would you use for your husband?
  • What title would you use for someone you really love?

--75.181.81.73 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a text book. But, to answer your questions - for a male talking to a female, kimi would fit most of those. In the reverse, things get hazier, but the name or a derivative thereof might be used; after childbirth, otoosan is also common. Problem is, these are not clear cut instructions, and it really varies from case to case, from person to person. Your questions are simply too broad to be answered satisfactorily. After all, could you answer them even for the English language? TomorrowTime (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What does "kimi" translate too? --75.181.81.73 (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You. Historicaly, it used to be used for high nobility, but that meaning is gone now. The most famous example of this historic usage is the Japanese anthem, Kimi ga yo. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

what wouuld you call someone you love, though? Arutoa (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, typically you just refer to people you are talking to by their name. If Mikako is talking to her very close friend Mayu about her new handbag, she might say to her "Wow, Mayu's handbag is so pretty!" If you're talking about honorifics, that's very context specific. There's no one right answer. Nandesuka (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you! Arutoa (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bozu?

I don't know if anyone that contributes to this article is familiar with Ken Akamatsu's Negima! franchise, but one of the B-tier characters always refers to the main character as "Negi-bozu" in the manga. The notes at the start of each volume give a listing of several honorifics and state that -bozu is used to refer to a child, sort of like calling a kid "squirt" or "half-pint." I didn't see it in this article or the discussion, so I thought I'd bring it up and see if it's worth mentioning here. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bozu is the word for a Buddhist priest. By association (Buddhist priests have shaven heads; as do - traditionaly - small kids in Japan) the words has come to also mean "kid", "squirt" or whatnot. To answer your question: yes, small children are often adressed to as "bozu" in Japan, and a name-bozu form is conceivable, but it's hardly a standard honorific compound. I don't think it merits mention. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Using -san in English

There's no section for using -san or other honorifics in English when speaking with Japanese people. For example, is it appropriate for an American businessman to use -san? Or, is it inapproriate for an American businessman to omit -san or other honorifics?

It would be nice if this article specified if honorifics are only used within the Japanese language, or if they are expected to be used in other languages when interacting with Japanese people. Fredsmith2 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me ask you this: You meet with a Mexican business partner, and insist on addresing him as Señor Lopez. Apropriate? Inapropriate? It's the same thing, really. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that you know this? Or is it just a guess extrapolated from knowledge of Mexican/American business relations? What if the Japanese business partner uses an honorific first when addressing someone who doesn't speak Japanese, such as "Fred Smith-san"? I don't know of Mexican business partners who call their American associates by Senior, but I have heard of Japanese business parters calling their American associates by -san. Again, my question is article-centric. It's unclear from the article or these talk discussions if honorifics are only for use within the language of Japanese, or if it's something that happens in English while speaking with Japanese people. And if the latter, should non-Japanese-speaking people use this in addressing Japanese people?Fredsmith2 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I may have been a bit too snappy, sorry. I don't think there is a rule per se on this, but I would personaly discourage such use as a somewhat anachronistic and unnecessarily marked use of the word. However, I have yet to met a Japanese person that would actually take offense to that, so it's really anybody's call. I choose not to do it, as I find it a bit patronising. But again, there is no clear-cut rule. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage

There are more complex issues with using honorifics in Japanese. It's not just set on things like what your relationship is with the person or object, but also on if the person is present or not present and contextual things like if the people you're talking to know the person and their particular relationship to you at a given time. There is also lack of honorifics which is its own honorific. Therefore, this article needs a lot more work. Because it makes the use of Japanese honorifics look straight forward, which its not. Japanese is a contextual language, so honorifics often follow contextual rules that are not just between the direct listener and speaker... You can find more from Jeffery's dictionary. He had a DL about it a few years ago. Something along the line of a crash course in Japanese. Also, get some references into this article. Some linguistic site somewhere must have covered this.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, would it be fair to say that -san roughly translates as "my father" or "Papa", -kun as "my son" or "my boy", and -sana as "my Lord" or "Sire"? If not too misleading, adding those and similar concrete observations at the beginning of sections might make the articles immediately more intelligible. —209.40.67.38 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be withstanding the primary point of the poster above you - Japanese is a contextual language - there is always context that has to be observed, and there are no straightforward solutions to problems like these. Sure, ringo is (almost) always apple, but when it gets to a social word like -san or -kun, you can almost never tell how they should be translated without the broader context. In some contexts, it can be "Papa" or "my son"; in most, it can't. Hence, the answer to your question is: no. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of "O-" honourifc prefix

Could the O- honourifc prefix be included in this article as an entry? While it appears as part of family names (Onii-san, Obaa-san, Okaa-san, etc), it is also used historically in women's names instead of the -san suffix, such as "O-maki" instead of "Makie-san" and "O-Ren" instead of "Ren-san". 142.58.43.125 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Still no response to this. I'd like to have this included as well. mahaabaala (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard it used as an honorific before a name, but o- is often attached not only to titles (e.g. okaasan) but also to many inanimate things such as a favourite food or drink: ocha (tea), odango (dumplings) ... Samatarou (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Kensei?

Should Kensei be included in the article? JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Another use for -dono

I've been translating a Japanese children's book about Minamoto no Yoshitsune, and at one point the term "Kamakura-dono" is mentioned; my Japanese friend tells me this means "the leader of the Kamakura shogunate" (i.e. Minamoto no Yoritomo). Is this correct, and thus can -dono be used to indicate the leader of a shogunate (or perhaps other body)? Dave-ros (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think -dono is directly equated to "leader"; in the context, "Kamakura-dono" is probably how Minamoto no Yoshitsune was refered to as the leader of the Kamakura shogunate. I think as leader, the Kamakura shoganate is being personified as the leader, Minamoto no Yoshitsune (so, he is being refered to as Kamakura and the government) and because he's in a position of power, the appropriate honourific is applied (-tono) - so, Kamakura-dono. 24.84.218.226 (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The most significant use of tono/-dono is to address one's feudal lord. Basically, it translates as "Lord Kamakura". Or some other english title like "his excellency". This is the meaning described in the article; if you think it's somehow distinct, you're confused. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Chwan and Swan

I have heard some men refer to women they are infatuated with with the honorifics chwan and swan instead of chan and san. Why do they misspell or mispronounce it? -- Azemocram (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? Particularly, where did you get the spelling? The consonant+wa paradigm has been eliminated from the Japanese language a long time ago. Are you sure this particular honorific you speak of is not just a quirk by one person? TomorrowTime (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

-kyou?

This article says

Gender notwithstanding, Japanese suffixes show various levels of respect, which we could compare to English as follows:

  • san (さん), sama (様) → Mr, Mrs, Miss
  • dono (殿) → Sir, Madam
  • kyou (卿) → Lord, Lady, Dame

Nevertheless, "sama" is used for Shinto gods ("kami-sama"). But as there are millions of them, they do not necessarily deserve the same respect or fear as the single and omnipotent Judeo-Christo-Islamic god.

The most referential titles are "denka" (殿下) and "heika" (陛下). The first one means "His/Her/Your Highness" and is used for royal/imperial family members. The second means "His/Her/Your Majesty" and is used for the Emperor or Empress — or King and Queen, in other monarchies around the world.

Is -kyou a valid (archiac?) suffix? Should it be mentioned?

Apologies for my ignorance. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The suffix is valid, but highly specialized - according to my dictionary, it was only used for the eight ministers under the historical ritsuryo governing system, so I doubt it really merits mention. Incidentally, the article you linked to uses the wrong character for the suffix, while your copy here uses the correct one. Either the article has been changed in the meantime to have the wrong character in it, or you corrected it when copying. On a side note, I find the "meh, they have plenty of gods, so they don't respect them like we do our guy" statement kinda condescending. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hm. That's odd - when I edit this page, the correct character shows up, but when I view the talk page itself, the character is wrong. Must be because the correct character is archaic... TomorrowTime (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

皇太子 and 皇太子妃

As far as I can tell, the example on "denka" says "Her Royal Highness, Crown Prince(!) Victoria of the Kingdom of Sweden". Please disregard this if I'm wrong. 80.203.101.223 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, 皇太子 is not a male-exclusive word, it means the first in line for the throne, the heir apparent, regardless of sex. You may have seen 皇太子妃 translated as "princess" in a dictionary, but that is assuming this princess is wed to a prince who is heir apparent. 皇太子妃 means "the partner of the 皇太子", so there are cases where the gender roles may be reversed. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Family and personal names

It would be helpful if the article made clear in which situations using the personal name would be preferred, when using the family nae would be preferred, and when the use of either would be considered acceptable. Carolina wren (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Gakusei [...] is not normally used as an honorific.

Then I'm confused as to why it is part of this article. Is it still used as a honorific but only rarely? In what context would it be appropriate? This could probably use clarification... Markus Ramikin (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Kun uses

In the section it mentions that the word is mostly associated with men. So has there ever been any case where a female uses it on another female? And if so what would it imply? I think that could be important. Sarujo (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the only time that this might conceivably happen (joking between friend aside, of course) is when two women who have a seat in the Diet address each-other publicly. I don't think that's really worth mentioning as it implies nothing in particular. Do you have any other examples? TomorrowTime (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering as the suffix as pointed out was a sign of affection and people would use to the opposite gender. One case male/female case is in Spirit of Wonder, the old man (name escapes me) calls China China-kun, and female/male example Dragon Ball with Bulma calling Son Goku Son-kun. Still, there wouldn't any use for it in the case of two females that had some kind of affection for the other? Or would such nicknames be taboo in such a situation that was perceived by a majority as wrong? Sarujo (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
An older, more senior woman can refer to a younger, junior woman with a 'kun' honorific and it would not be out of place. 122.49.168.102 (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Being a native speaker, but I've never known such a usage. I'm afraid you are wrong. Oda Mari (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article discusses -bo but not -ko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agapeyojimbo (talk • contribs) 21:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hime

Noticed no mention of the honorific "hime" ...had to look it up elsewhere. Various places suggest it is/was similar to chan, but now considered derogatory/rude. TheSapient (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Hime" (姫) is not the equivalent of "chan" - Hime is translated today as "Princess" and literally refers to a young woman of high birth/nobility. For example, the title of Hayao Miazaki's animated movie "Princess Mononoke" is written as "Mononoke-hime" (もののけ姫)in Japan. It originally referred to any beautiful young woman, but would never be attached to the name of an ordinary person today. It is also used to refer to female deities, although in that case it is written with different kanji. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hime> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiyusan (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Sensei be merged into Japanese_honorifics#Sensei_and_hakase. These two pages have significant overlap, and Sensei is lacking proper citation. This article is of a reasonable size so the merging the small amount of additional information in Sensei will not cause problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Stillwaterising (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What should be done instead (IMHO) is to make the entry on this page a summary of the content on Sensei and then move any extra information from here to there. There is certainly more than enough information for Sensei to be a standalone article (and I could also see merging "hakase" into the Sensei article as hakase is simply a more specific type of sensei). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree. IF "Sensei" is dismissed as being merely an honorific it will be a terrible error. It has such a huge standing and a range of nuanced social and cultural roles in Britain as well as a 1000 times more in its country of origin. I think already it has here more meanings than terms like president and almost as many as gaffer. Is anyone seriously considering putting all the meanings of gaffer under honorifics? Let alone similar terms like boss? Sensei has both casual and formal usage that will only expand with manga-type culture and deserves entries as an English language term as well as Japanese. JamesG89.197.11.202 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Concur

Recommend to proceed with all the above points incorporated. Editor needed to oversee merger. TexasRazor (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

-tan

The description of "-tan" is empty. Chiefly I see "-tan" used on the internet in comments on cat pictures, where it has a cute childish tone. The Japanese version of this page has the following definition for たん／タン: "Often used with Moe subjects (chiefly female). Use outside the Internet is rare. Babyish version of "-chan"; in this case, it is very common on the Internet." However there's no citation there. Is it OK to include a translated version of another wikipedia page when the original has no citation? Snogglethorpe (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese honorifics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Chan and Kun

I know that, technically, Chan can be used for children or babies of either sex. But my experience in Japan has been that Chan is regarded almost exclusively as a female marker. A baby or child, even a newborn, will usually be called Kun if male (e.g. "Taro-kun") or Chan if female ("Akiko-chan"). It's common for names to be shortened within the family using suffixes. For example "Motohiro" (a male name) might become "Mo-kun". "Akiko" (a female) might become "Aki-Chan". But calling a male baby or child Chan (or a female as Kun) would be generally odd and very unusual.

Since Kun is used even for male babies and very young boys, some older male pre-teens and teens are sensitive about it and regard it as condescending and childish if coming from an adult. They prefer San, which is more "adult" and respectful. Although this is also true for women, they seems less sensitive about it, and even college or adult women are sometimes addressed informally as Chan.

Since Chan is regarded as so feminine, it is also used in Gay speech, and Japanese (male) gay people may use Chan to refer to themselves or others. Gay men who do this often use other Japanese female speech conventions or words (atashi, ~kashira, ~wa at end of sentence, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.110.193 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Respect for ones Office (Ex: daitōryō)

I had to change オバマ大プ統領 (President Obama) to トランプ大統領 (President Trump). I don't really care for President Trump either, but I still have respect for him and the office. This is not a political forum or a place to put political easter eggs. Save that for some other place. Wikipedia is a place for credible sourced facts and nothing more.

有り難うございます。 Inunotaisho26 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Inunotaisho26: The example is just an example of usage, not a listing of who the current president is. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Common honorifics in the lead section

Is the list of common honorifics needed in the lead section of this article? I feel like the body of the article covers the common honorifics and their meanings already. Pikaryaa (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RampagingKoala.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

-bo

article says -bo is only for males, but the most famous one of all -- "hara-bo" (rock star) -- is female!

we should add "normally" or something, right? 2601:19C:527F:A680:4112:4C11:D698:8BAC (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

-chama

i dunno how common the term is; was it coined wholesale for the manga obochama-kun? or was it already in use, at least in slang? i believe the latter, but i cannot say for certain. 2601:19C:527F:A680:4112:4C11:D698:8BAC (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

partial names

article totally fails to mention how these suffixes often replace part of the name!

the example "kanako" does indeed yield "kanako-chan" but it often yields "kana-chan" as well. and occasionally "ka-chan" or "K-chan" even.

i think there are even cases of girls changing to onyomi for the nickname. like himari or haruna becoming "you-chan". 2601:19C:527F:A680:4112:4C11:D698:8BAC (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japanese_honorifics/Archive_4&oldid=1222720117"