Talk:Yamato-damashii

Hi Nishidani. Thank you for starting this article and for your 22 October edits. I agree that it "should best be shortened" and parts (like the 3 autonyms) moved elsewhere. You note, "There are voluminous histories of the concept, which are not touched here." I wonder if you'd be able to add some of them, particularly anything in English. I fixed the formatting for consistency in block quotes and references (which were already inline citations rather than endnotes), but I didn't fix your occasional changes of double quotes "Japan" to single quotes 'Japan'. I know that British and American linguists use quotes differently for semantic meanings, either single or double, in contrast with literal meanings. Shouldn't we aim for consistency? Either style is OK with me, but I suggest the article should use the same format and not differ from paragraph to paragraph. Also, I might be obtuse, but don't see the advantage of splitting the "History" section 2 into "Origin of the term" section 1 (with only Genji) and "Later History" section 3 (with the other Heian texts, etc.). If you think it's essential that the origins come first, how about recombining into one History section followed by the Lexicology section? Please let me know what you think. Best wishes. Keahapana 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

That I started the article gives me no proprietorial rights to it, obviously. I haven't had time to do much work on it, and welcome the substantial contributions you have made.

(1) The substantial history I am familiar with is a Japanese source, which I've now added.

(2)The " " looks ugly: and worries the eye aesthetically, at least for me. I prefer the least pleonastic ' .. '. The double serves for italics. But you're right, consistency is the thing.

(3) You're certainly not obtuse. The point in my highlighting the quote from Genji monogatari, and placing it higher, was simply that the text is about yamatodamashii and the origin of the phrase should be given precedence over the philological history, since the latter derives from the former. To place it way below under the philology, instead of foregrounding it up top, looks like a hysteron-proteron procedure, and may be confusing to readers who chance on the page.

(4) The problem however that you put your finger on, lexicology as opposed to history is an important one, and personally I think the lexicological side should precede the general historical survey of how the term developed. The philological side has two elements (a) etymology (b) graphic history. Perhaps we should showcase the Genji quote, and clip from the philological excursus, only those elements which bear on 'yamato+damashii', not graphically, but in terms of the respective etymologies of 'yamato' and 'tamashii'. To showcase the Genji quote from the outset is important, because this first use is quite distinctive, and evinces no tension or the binary distinction of a cultural kind which later came to dominate.

(5) It may be that one will be forced to redevelop the graphic history with the textual history, conflating the two, once (4) is completed. I think the sequence after Genji is the Ôkagami(大鏡): Konjaku Monogatari (今昔物語集); Nakahara no Moromoto's

Chûgaishô (中外抄); the Gukanshô (愚菅抄), and the Eihyakuryô Waka (詠百寮和歌). But this is no mean task, and perhaps for the moment adjust the material with minor changes until we've sorted this out.

Cripes. This is a tall order, and I'm trapped in a lot of other pages, but I hope there's no haste. Let me know in turn. Best regards Nishidani 10:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding the Saitô reference (a good book) and Wikilinks. I see your point about having Genji first. Perhaps the quote could go into the lead paragraph, with the English translations moved elsewhere. Let's come back to this, I don't have time now either. I'm currently having problems with the "Wa (Japan)" page. Best wishes. Keahapana 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Only two of us around for the mo', so no hurry. In any case, that was excellent work, far more time-consuming than my own dabble. Yep, you're right, the quote could go into intro. Take you're time. My doctor says my ticker shouldn't wear out for the forseeable six months!, despite being up to the gills in the backwash from other more controversial pages. Best Regards and keep up the fine work

p.s. Changed the characters for the 1972 book. My copy has やまとだましい Nishidani 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Yamato Damashi → Yamato spirit … Rationale: The English is "Yamato spirit", and in any case the standard transliteration should be Yamato damashii, which many articles refer to and which is currently also a redirect. Either version would be preferable. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Yamato Damashi. --Xanthoxyl 18:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe Yamato Spirit makes more sense, as it's a unique, named entity. Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 07:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think this "Yamato Spirit" title should be changed "Yamato-damashii" for two reasons.

• The OED enters Yamato-damashii as an English word (defined "the Japanese spirit").
• WP has a duplicate article Yamato-damashii.

Unless someone strongly objects, I'll merge this page into that one. Best wishes. Keahapana 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article was rated of top importance for the Wikipedia Project Japan, but I don't think it belongs in that category. Seems mid or high at best. Anyone else have an opinion?Prburley (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply