I'd like to point out that the charter of 蘭亭社 was updated last month, which includes additional definitions.
天火狐 On 27 June 2017 at 17:48, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > I knew CFJ 3492 was a slippery slope. Silly judge. > > > > This, though, pretty clearly fails the "sufficiently clear" test of > > CFJs 3471-3472 (and ultimately 1460). > > For reference: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1460 > > FWIW, as a Japanese learner, I'm pretty sure the message is mostly > gibberish. > > First line: The Google translation seems reasonable, but Japanese > doesn't distinguish present and future so it was probably intended in > the present. 'Fukudokko' is Google's translation of '福德公', which is > not in the dictionary as either a word or a name (the three kanji mean > 'luck', 'virtue', and 'public', but you can't combine arbitrary kanji > to make a word). Note that unlike Chinese, Japanese doesn't generally > represent foreign words with kanji picked phonetically - it uses > katakana for foreign words instead - so it couldn't really be that. > The last bit combines an object marker with a passive verb (to be > acquired/won), so it would have to be the so-called 'suffering > passive', where the object (gentleman of 福德公) is the one hurt by the > action being done, not necessarily its direct subject or object. But > then, *what* is being acquired? Are you acquiring the gentleman who > is also suffering from it? > > Second line: "Official bulletin time: " … I think the rest is an > attempt to specify a date and maybe time, but it's way off. > ('Mizukazuki' is really 'minazuki' and it's an archaic name for June, > but it doesn't seem to be an archaic date either). > > Third line: "'A' treasure of 蘭亭社 [another non-word] and estate: none". > 'A' is actually the katakana for the vowel sound 'a', which is not > generally found by itself; theoretically it could be okurigana, meant > to spell a word together with 宝 (treasure), but that would be a weird > combination and definitely isn't in the dictionary. > > Fourth line: "The above" > > Fifth line: [his signature] >
