Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Direction of writing[edit]

The "Infobox" currently says "Direction: Left-to-right", which is incomplete or misleading since Japanese can also be written vertically. Someone has now added an explanatory note below this, but ideally the "Direction" field should be changed. However, the way in which the "Left-to-right" text is generated is ridiculously cryptic, and I do not understand how to change it. Perhaps someone else will be able to do it. 31.49.180.129 (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the writing style to to Mixed. Would you rather prefer "Left-to-Right, Top-to-Bottom"? Lourdes 01:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If written vertically, it is written top to bottom, and right to left. If written horizontally, it is most often left to right, just like standard English text. In the early to mid-1900s, there were some cases of horizontal text being written right to left, but that style has fallen out of favor and is very rarely seen these days. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nihonjoe. I don't know how to represent all of this because the direction factor only gives flat results (like "Mixed" or "Left-to-Right, Top-to-Bottom"). So what I could do is maybe I could write "Left-to-Right, Right-to-Left, Top-to-Bottom" and then give clarification as per your note inside the infobox. What do you say? Lourdes 11:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe use "Varies" and add an explanatory footnote? Feel free to use my wording if you wish, and tweak it as needed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nihonjoe, 31.49.180.129, I have done the changes. Hope it looks fine? Lourdes 00:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Looks good to me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comments, FWIW. I wonder whether we need to explain this in detail both here and in the "Direction of writing" section. Would it be neater to just have a link? Also, I think the labels "ISO 15924" and "Jpan, 413" are confusing. It gives the impression that the textual description is a part of that ISO standard, but when you click on the link and look at the relevant entries there is nothing bearing any relation to this text. 109.146.248.31 (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the weirdness of the formatting ("Direction" appearing above the ISO 15942 letter code), I just put it in the "footnotes" parameter. V2Blast (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would something like "Vertical: top-to-bottom; Horizontal: left-to-right" work? Is there enough room in the section to fit that? Separate lines? Rourensu (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right-to-left[edit]

@Redav: You'd added a "clarify" tag in this edit, and after re-reading the text several times, I'm still not sure what is unclear to you. Could you explain better what the issue is that you see?

As I understand the phenomenon of right-to-left writing in Japanese, it's considered a special case of vertical top-down, then right-to-left writing, and thus it (historically) wasn't considered to be fully horizontal right-to-left writing.

For example, 駅京東 is read right-to-left, but is considered to be three columns of vertical text, which just happen to be one character high. One reads the 東 column first, comes to the end of that column, and proceeds to the second column 京, and then on to the final column 駅.

駅↓京↓東↓
　　↖　↖

Any text of more than one character in height would be read top-down first, not right-to-left first.

が↓に↓東↓
住↓は↓京↓
む↓私↓駅↓
　　↖　↖

This would be read top-down, then left-to-right.

Does that help? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Below is my reply. Redav (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiríkr Útlendi:

A) I do not particularly appreciate the removal of a clarification tag before the clarification has been given and acknowledged. It also makes it hard for me to look up the piece of text involved on the device I am using. So I will answer from memory.
B) The text discusses only two ways of writing:
1) right-to-left in (multiple-line) columns;
2) left-to-right in (multi-column) lines.
The first needs no explanation in terms single-line columns. So logical inference would connect that explanation with the horizontal writing style also discussed. But that one is left-to-right, not right-to-left as the explanation says. Therein lies my confusion.Redav (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Redav: I confess I don't understand your comment here either.
I linked to your specific edit above. You could use that link to jump directly to the relevant section.
Here's the paragraph at issue (emphasis mine):

In addition, the practice of writing horizontally in a right-to-left direction was generally replaced by left-to-right writing. The right-to-left order was considered a special case of vertical writing, with columns one character high, rather than horizontal writing per se; it was used for single lines of text on signs, etc. (e.g., the station sign at Tokyo reads 駅京東).

As I noted above in the visual example, this kind of writing cannot apply to left-to-right horizontal writing, as you suggest in your "clarify" comment.
Does that help at all? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the text that I can now see, is the following.
  • In the dedicated section “Direction of writing, only two writing orders are mentioned, being on the one hand vertical right-to-left and on the other hand horizontal left-to-right. This has lead at least one reader (i.e. me) to assume that it is the premise for the remainder of the text that (only) these two have been in use, unless and until further down in the text some new clear explicit message to the contrary follows.
  • After that, no such new clear message about e.g. a third writing order is given explicitly.
  • Then, in the separate section “Post-World War II”, which is also quite a distance away from the dedicated section, the remark under discussion is made.
  • It now seems to me that there, implicitly, a third writing order is mentioned, namely horizontal right to left.
I have needed multiple rereads (and your input of being puzzled by my feedback) to get to the hypothesis that a third writing order, i.e. horizontal right-to-left, has indeed also been in use. As for you, you may have been aware of the latter, but it was new to me and, in my opinion, it was not at all clear from the text. That is to say: yes, it was mentioned with the correct words (horizontal right-to-left), but no, it seemed so disconnected from the context that it did not reach me and confused me.
If my hypothesis is correct, I propose with respect to the third writing order that:
  • it be mentioned clearly and explicitly in the dedicated section;
  • it be clearly referred to from the “Post-World War II”-section;
  • it be explicitly distinguished from horizontal left-to-right.Redav (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories