Talk:Mount Tate

Tateyama, Tate-san

I must first profess little knowledge of Nihongo. At any rate, based on similar articles of Japanese mountains, should the kanji 山 not be read as san rather than yama? I suppose this has an English precedent for using Tateyama, however if the proper reading is san, as is mentioned in the article on Mount Fuji, then Tate-san should at least be mentioned. – mpdimitroff (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this, but I've been trying to learn some basic Japanese, especially a reading knowledge of it, the past few years (with minimal progress). As far as I know, the kanji 山 when used as a whole word by itself is always pronounced yama. But in compound words and names, it can be read as either san (onyomi reading) or yama (kunyomi) depending on the particular compound or name. (That Wiktionary:山 page you linked has several good examples of this.) Only one of the two readings is correct in any given case, but there is no way to tell which particular reading is correct unless you already know the proper pronunciation, which most native speakers would for common words and names. Often, they need help too in the form of furigana which tells how to pronounce the kanji, and these are used on some Japanese maps. In any case, 立山 is always read as Tateyama, while 富士山 is always read as Fujisan. The info in the Mount Fuji article regarding san vs. yama refers only to the particular case of Fuji. Looking through the list of 100 Famous Japanese Mountains, it seems like 山 is pronounced san (or zan) in the majority of the names, but as yama in about 1/4 of them. --Seattle Skier (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd think it's "san," but it's "yama". Names are weird.Whitneyzac (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The kanji 山 has two readings: (i) the ON-reading 'san' (sometimes 'zen' as in Iozen) , and (ii) the kun-reading 'yama'.

Which one is used depends on the mountain. For Fuji, it's Fujisan, and for for Tate is Tateyama (see the Japanese page). Tatesan would be the incorrect reading. Macgroover (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This Tateyama is not a volcano

This seems to be a common source of confusion, which took me a long time to sort out, so let me explain: this Tateyama (3015 m) is not the same as the volcano Tateyama (2621 m). The two mountains are located only about 2km apart, but the higher and vastly more famous Tateyama, which is one of Japan's "Three Holy Mountains" (Sanreizan) and is the intended subject of this article, is entirely non-volcanic. Here's a good explanation from the "Tate-yama". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution.: Tate-yama volcano is a dissected andesitic-to-dacitic stratovolcano on a plateau surrounded by high peaks of the North Japan Alps. Tate-yama is named for the granite-and-gneiss peak of Tate-yama, which lies immediately to the east.

I have updated the article, with a note about the neighboring volcano.--Seattle Skier (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no mountain called Tate or Tateyama

I'm a Japanese and I lived in Toyama. Now I found this article and go into a spin. Because there is no mountain called "Tate" or "Tateyama". Tateyama is not a mountain name but a name for mountains of this area. (collective term of mountains in this area). The 3,015 m peak is a mountain called 大汝山 "Onanjiyama" sometimes we just say "Onanji". The 3,003 m one is 雄山 "Oyama". The 2,832m one is 浄土山 "Jodosan". I can't edit main article because I can't write it in right English.--TSousui (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Japanese wiki page for this says the same thing about how there isn't a specific mountain called Tateyama in the strict sense. It does say that Oyama is sometimes referred to as Tateyama, though, which seems to contradict this. I'm more inclined to believe you than the Japanese wiki, but since I'm not an expert on this and can't seem to find a source, I don't feel comfortable editing the article to say that. Whitneyzac (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the article to reflect what the Japanese wikipedia article says. There doesn't seem to be any peak called Tateyama strictly, and locals tend to use Tateyama to refer to the range rather than the peak. However, it's common to say "I'm climbing Tateyama when refering to that mountain in general terms". The point marked at 3,015m on Google Maps is clearly marked Onanjiyama. The best reference I can find is the Toyama Police website. I'll look for something better. Macgroover (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Naming

So, if the prefectural government calls this Mount Tateyama, why isn't this article called that? Is there any official basis for calling it Mount Tate? Whitneyzac (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I know a little about Japan and I think Tateyama would be a better title for the article. SnailsSpace (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I just checked out the article Mount Fuji and maybe I'm wrong about this. SnailsSpace (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Tate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227172634/http://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/nps/park/parks/chubu.html to http://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/nps/park/parks/chubu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)