User talk:YEokkwang

The reading of そして紫の幻想曲は全てを受け入れる

May I have the source of your reading? I know Yukari makes more sense but the reading I provided is taken directly from the game file. I am aware that the game file isn’t always correct as I found one that is misspelled before, but I would believe the game file for now unless you got the reading directly from the composers themselves. --Spike! (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't check the files in HDD at all, but this track is a Toho doujin track related to Yukari Yakumo("八雲 紫" in kanji), and Yukari's name is specified in the Toho games. What's more, I have never heard that a Toho player or fans read "八雲 紫" as "Shi Yakumo", that's all.
I don't think we can modify what the authorities have identified, even if the HDD data is different from it, we should follow the original settings. --Yeokkwang FOREVER (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, in game readings can be wrong (see: the various ways they spelled "RoughSketch" in REFLEC) --totally not by MENDES (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• I know that the song is related to Yukari Yakumo so reading 紫 as Yukari makes sense (as I stated before). The thing is that the reading in the game file is likely submitted by the composers themselves. The reason why I think like that is that other songs also have obscure readings that the game file (supposedly) know how to read. I don't even have to go anywhere for an example. 幻想曲 in this song's title is read as "fantasia" in the game file. I did see 幻想曲 read as fantasia before (maybe you too) but how else are you supposed to know that it doesn't read as "gensoukyoku". Also, a counterargument to the RoughSketch thing is that this is a very different situation. This song is a contest song which probably requires the composer to submit everything, as opposed to RoughSketch commissioned songs which I don't think he needs to submit the reading of his own name every time hence the inconsistency. --Spike! (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

But I say: "Gensōkyoku"(Romaji) and "fantasia"(English) has same means here, that is to say, whether I write "Gensōkyoku" or "fantasia" can mean the same meaning. But in japanese, kanji "紫" doesn't means same things when it was read as "Shi" or "Yukari", even "murasaki", you'll distort the original meaning if you got wrong pronunciation.

For example, in japanese, you can't read "Murasakiiro"(むらさきいろ,"紫色" in kanji) as "Yukariiro"(ゆかりいろ)("紫" stands for nouns, and further to represent colors here), and you can't read "shiki"(しき, "紫気" in kanji) as "murasakiiki"(むらさきいき)("紫" stand for phonetic here).
Here, "紫" represents neither phonetic nor color, so it can only express the pronunciation of name and a name of japanese can never have ONLY ONE KANA.
Besides, I doubt that a toho doujin composer will make such mistakes.
Please don't look at the contents of semi-alphabetic writing with the idea of pure alphabetic writing. It's quite normal for "a word to have multiple pronunciations and each pronunciation corresponds to different meanings" in such languages as Chinese, Japanese,and Korean. Depending on the circumstances, the specific pronunciation must not be exactly the same. --Yeokkwang FOREVER (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Sorry for a very late reply. Been very busy.) Your explanation is a bit confusing but according to what I tried to understand, you seem to get it wrong. You seem to get to the conclusion by reduction that is totally wrong. There is nothing preventing you from reading 紫 shi or murasaki or yukari. Just for an example: 紫 alone is read murasaki totally fine to mean "purple" as well as 紫色. In fact, murasaki alone is much more commonly used since murasakiiro is way too long of a word. So your argument is invalid now since the 紫 in the title can totally be read as murasaki fine, but that is not even the main reason why it is wrong. I'm not gonna explain further though since I don't have time. My main point of writing this is: We should base our content on a more credible source rather than some speculations (that is not even correct). --Spike! (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)