Talk:Uruma

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Etymology

The following passeage, added by Prburley (talk · contribs)[1] was removed.

In the [[Japanese language]] the name of the city is written using [[hiragana]] syllabary instead of [[kanji]] characters. The word ''uruma'' is typically rendered in kanji as {{Nihongo|宇流麻|}}; at the time of the formation of the city of Uruma, however, kanji usage was not adopted.<ref name="n"/>

No corresponding statement was found in the source cited. --Nanshu (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I did find it here, however, on the website of the 具志川市・石川市・勝連町・与那城町合併協議会 (http://www.city.uruma.lg.jp/h-gappei/html/topics_meishou01.html). "名称: 検討委員会からの選定理由. 珊瑚の島という意味で沖縄の美称である。また、景観の見事な沖縄の島々を示す言葉で、この4市町の海に面した素晴らしい景観を表し、新市が未来へ飛躍することと、美しい沖縄(4市町)の心を世界に発信することをすることを願う。「ひらがな」であることから子供たちにも親しみやすい。" A bit more explanation at (http://www.city.uruma.lg.jp/3/2764.html).Prburley (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second link (from the Uruma City website) explicitly states: 書籍・文献等を調べたところ、漢字での表記は「宇流麻」とあり琉球の古称ということですが実際にこの漢字が使われていたかは不明です。This should be in the article. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If you really think that the choice of hiragana is worth mentioning, do it with the new source. FYI, the text of the Omoidegusa can be found here. You can see that Uruma is written in hiragana. --Nanshu (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the source. The passage you reinstated sounds as if uruma is typically rendered as 宇流麻. That's false and the city does not make such a claim. Actually, it's rare. The Q&A page is needed because kanji is the default choice for Japanese cities and other administrative entities. The former council for merger looked for the kanji for uruma only because it was considered normal to do so. That's obvious to Japanese readers (but not necessarily so to English readers) and hence not clearly stated in the source. You should not take it out of context. --Nanshu (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]