Talk:JESmon

The trans parameter in the attacks doesn't seem to be meshing with the table headers.KrytenKoro06 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2015 (CST)
 * Fixed. --Grandy02 (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2015 (CST)

Meaning of "JES"
According to Jesmon's technique: OS Generics (refer to generic programming), will "JES" stand for Java Enterprise System/Java Embedded Server or something start with Java XXX ? (Actually I know nothing of programming, when I search from the internet, it seems that java is related to generic programming)

Generics
From withthewill:

"EDIT: Found a way to justify "Aus Generics" without handwaviness, though to be fair "Os Generics" gives more results on google. "Aus Generics" can also be translated in German as "From/Of Generics". "Os Generics", meanwhile, would be portueguese for "The Generics". Both would evade the technobabble objection to "OS", and both are about equally supported on google as not only translations for ausu, but also used in conjunction with "Generics". "

So, what's your opinion? OS, Os, or Aus?KrytenKoro06 (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2015 (CST)
 * Technically, "the generics" in Portuguese would be "Os Genéricos". 09:24, 28 February 2015 (CST)
 * Just placing it here so I don't forget, "Avus Genericus" is Latin for 'Generative Ancestor' (Avus matches アウス in Classical Latin, but  is pronounced [v] in Church Latin. Genericus uses [g] in Classical, but [dʒ] in Church which would fit ジェネリクス). It doesn't make much sense, but phonologically it (somewhat) fits.--Garmmon (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2017 (CDT)
 * Yeah, sounds way better.KrytenKoro06 (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2017 (CDT)

The capitalization of "JES"
Why is the name being displayed this way when all official sources have it uncapitalized? It looks ridiculous and seems like it was changed just because someone else liked it better this way and wanted force it on everyone else regardless of what the official name is.
 * Agreed with this. It looks terrible and there's nothing that specifies it as such. I'd say the same goes for the Dorumon line. --Blaze Dragon (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2021 (GMT-3)
 * its either JESmon, EBEmon, BEMmon, and the DORUmon, or Jesmon, Ebemon, Bemmon, and the Dorumon. There is no source that capitalises the Doru in Dorumon so if it has to be DORUmon, then for consistency this has to be JESmon. there is no source that says "DORUmon", and yet we're using it. it is only listed here as DORUmon as its an acroym for Digital or uknown monster, therefore JESmon is justice edge swordsman. you cant have one capitliaised and not the other.Muur (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2021 (CDT)

Can you just quit with your god complex just admit that you changed this just so you could force your views on others without confirms sources. What's next? are you going to hack every piece of media and change the names to your imagined "Real Thing".
 * dude I'm not the one who put Dorumon to DORUmon. Check his talk page, I wanted Dorumon not DORUmon. It was put to DORUmon as it's an acronym. Muur (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2021 (CDT)

First of all, while you do have good reason to change it. I have a few questions, out of curiosity. Have you consulted with the higher ups first about the caps? It does strike me as much of a headache as using Hackmon/Huckmon or Blucomon/Bulucomon. Second, while you do ask about proof for the use of DORU in caps (it is a good question you do have), where’s the proof the name is supposed to be directly translated as JES? Without that, it’s making the change a bit too subjective IMHO. Anyways personally, I think it should be Jesmon mostly because while it’s true JES is an acronym. It does suspiciously sound too similar to Jesus, which Kenji Watanbe himself admitted when pronouncing his name. I could say for the pre-evolutions, that Baou means “Blade Lord”, and the use of Savior particularly—which does match with the saying “Our lord and savior, Jesus Christ.” If the connection isn’t enough, Re-46 literally calls him as the messiah—which no other card uses for any other Digimon. In some media too (Tri and ReArise specifically), Hackmon was a holy messenger, which again, seems to be another similarity. There’s probably more connections somewhere, but it does strike me a bit more than a coincidence. That and the dub uses Jesmon plain and simple. I don’t see anyone that actually uses JESmon, even with sub name/term conventions. I feel it should be more of a question on why DORU is all caps. I also realized there’s a whole lot of Digimon pages to change because they’re acronyms (outside of DRB lore). Cenrji (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2021 (CST)
 * yes, it was an admin who decided to caps acronym names. anyway the name isnt from jesus, bandai already debunked that officially.Muur (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2021 (CST)
 * Alright, so who in particular suggested that and do you have a source for that bit of info being debunked? And you telling me personally you aren’t the least bit convinced there’s no relationship to the name? Bandai could’ve easily said that statement to avoid controversy, but I suppose that’s too speculative. No matter. I was only just stating my subjective views anyways, which aren’t exactly meant to be taken for fact and I hold no weight on authority for the names. JESmon seems unnecessary to me, but that’s just me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cenrji (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2021 (CST)
 * https://twitter.com/jinke_jinke/status/841292804454154240 watanabe sad its a coincidence and bandai said its from "justice edge swordsman". https://twitter.com/bandai_digimon/status/982095833175801867 the sources were already on this page. anyway this was already talked to death at the time and the decision was to caps acronym digimonMuur (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2021 (CST)
 * FWIW I’m pretty sure your own Watanabe proof link proves the opposite of what you’re saying: he fully consciously “thought it might be good if it sounds like ‘Jesus’”. Chortos-2 (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2022 (CST)
 * You're misunderstanding a mistranslation due to Google Translate. "響きとしてはイエスのように聞こえるのも良いかなと思いました" more accurately translates to "I thought it was good to hear that it sounded similar to Jesus". In essence, it's an unintentional coincidence, but Watanabe thought it was a pleasant surprise and liked the idea anyways.
 * Also keep in mind that the Tweet was in response to someone asking if Jesmon's name was related to Jesus. Watanabe didn't bring it up himself. He replied that "Jesmon's name is a coined acronym of various words" and basically followed up with "But I do think it's cool that it sounds like Jesus." --YongYoKyo (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2022 (CST)
 * It seems to me that you’re translating it much the same way as I am. (As it happens, I speak some Japanese and want to believe I understand this sentence without Google Translate or similar. I’m far from a professional translator though.) He doesn’t make it explicit whether he thought this when he coined the name or at some later point in time. But given the past tense and the immediate context, I find it entirely plausible—indeed, likely—that it’s the former. I interpret it like this: “I made it as an acronym, and then I thought, hey, this sounds like Jesus, that’s cool! I wanna keep that.” He didn’t start with Jesus, but it sure sounds to me that he was aware of it. At the very least, it’s ambiguous enough that it doesn’t prove the opposite. Not that I was ever a fan of the Jesus Jesmon theory myself. Chortos-2 (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2022 (CST)
 * More accurately, “I made it as an acronym, and I also kinda liked how it sounded like ‘Jesus’.” All in the same past tense describing the same event IMO. Chortos-2 (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2022 (CST)
 * You're forgetting that when Bandai finally got around to officially publishing the etymological origin of Jesmon in the second Tweet, there is absolutely zero mention of 'Jesus'. There's no ambiguity there, and it should be enough proof to debunk any such theories. It's no longer an issue of plausibility, but that the 'Jesus' origin is not officially recognized, while the acronym is officially recognized as the origin.--YongYoKyo (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2022 (CST)
 * You’ll note that I didn’t comment on the second link (it’s fine) nor on the rename (I’ll keep my opinion to myself). Chortos-2 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2022 (CST)
 * My point is exactly because you didn't comment on it. Evidences do not exist in an isolated vacuum, especially when the evidences correlate with each other (i.e. the acronym). If you comment on one half of the evidence, you have to take into account how the second half of the evidence applies to it.
 * The second half of the proof dismisses any of the ambiguity you propose exists in the first half of the proof, so such ambiguity and theories built upon that ambiguity are irrelevant. Your argument only holds ground if the second half of the proof didn't exist, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the second half.--YongYoKyo (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2022 (CST)
 * I’m really not looking to get into an argument over the capitalization of “JES”, but I absolutely do not see how a lack of mention of a certain etymology in one official source (the second link) negates its mention in another (the first link). More to the point here, I don’t like when a claim is based on evidence that contradicts (or at best doesn’t support) it, no matter how important or even how true that claim itself may be. Chortos-2 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2022 (CST)
 * Again, the 'mention' was only brought up because he was addressing a fan who directly asked about 'Jesus'. And again, even said 'mention' never stated that 'Jesus' was the etymology; just that he liked the similarity, regardless of whether that similarity was noticed during or after the fact. In a state where they weren't addressing a fan who's specifically asking about 'Jesus', the etymology they published was the acronym, and only the acronym. In the first place, I'd wager that if that fan didn't say anything about 'Jesus' and only asked about Jesmon's etymology, Watanabe wouldn't even bring up 'Jesus' either.
 * "I don’t like when a claim is based on evidence that contradicts (or at best doesn’t support) it"
 * The 'lack of mention' alone isn't the point of evidence. It's the fact that they 'mentioned a completely different origin in its place with absolutely no signs of the other' that is the evidence. Besides, you should ask yourself that same question; you're letting some hypocrisy show. Your 'evidence' literally states that "Jesmon's name is coined from an acronym of various words" in the very first sentence, while the second sentence doesn't exactly support your claim either.--YongYoKyo (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2022 (CST)
 * What claim am I meant to have made? Did you confuse me with the thread starter? You seem to think I want the name to be changed because of Jesus. I don't. I've repeatedly stated I'm not arguing, and have no intention of arguing, for either spelling. I don't even know which I prefer. Even if I did prefer lowercase, it wouldn't be because of Jesus: nothing forbids it from being an additional pun etymology with uppercase letters, either. I didn't even think Jesus was any viable at all until today, but ironically Muur's tweet link showed me this. You seem to think I don't believe JES is an acronym. Why would I not? It clearly says that it is. That doesn't mean it can't be something else at the same time. I'm still not sure it is. But if Muur wanted to prove that Watanabe said it wasn’t, he should have chosen a better link. All I'm asking is for people to make their arguments consistent. Chortos-2 (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2022 (CST)
 * I don't know why you're so adamant about giving it relevance if you weren't in favor of it, because again, Watanabe never confirmed it was the origin, even partially. He only stated that he liked the similarity. I don't know why you're overlooking the context. Yes, non-confirmation alone doesn't contradict it on its own, but that non-confirmation was in response to essentially a "yes or no" question on whether 'Jesus' is the origin. Not to mention, he gave confirmation on a different alternative origin to begin his reply.
 * Let me give an analogy. Someone asks if your name means 'AAA'. You respond with "My name means 'BBB'. I really like that it sounds like 'AAA'". Logically, you would take that as "Ah, so your name means 'BBB', not 'AAA'". No one would interpret that as "Ah, so your name means 'BBB' and 'AAA'", but that's exactly what you're doing. --YongYoKyo (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2022 (CST)
 * To me, it seems you’re the one ignoring context: Muur asserted Watanabe said it was a coincidence. He didn’t. (He didn’t fully deny it, either.) That’s it. I have to say I’m quite lost as to what your goal in this argument with me is.
 * I do believe he implies that he was aware of it before the name went public. As to whether it was observed after the name had fully been coined or it influenced the exact choice of acronym, he doesn’t say. Admittedly, my phrasing in my first comment may have been too sloppy. Depending on your understanding of “coincidence” in this context, the former case might or might not qualify. (To me, in that case it “was” a coincidence but ceased being one because it was embraced by the time of the name’s public release.)
 * His response in your analogy was: "My parents wanted to give me a foreign name, and they liked how this specific name sounded like 'AAA'." Indeed, this may be even closer: “…and they thought it would be cool if it also sounded like 'AAA'” due to the presence of 良いかな, which is used for both “isn’t it good (that)” and “wouldn’t it be good (if)”. Were they hoping for a pun when they started looking for a name? Maybe, maybe not. Were they aware of the AAA when they settled on my current name? Seems certain. Is it a coincidence that I really ended up with that name? No way. Japanese is a language of context, and I am confident that if he wanted to say that he observed this similarity only when fans told him about it or similar, his Japanese wording would have been different. Here, he’s using the same past tense for both sentences, no topic switch markers, no words of discovery or accident, and も further shows that he’s still talking about the same thing/event in the past. Condensed, he’s saying “it’s not the primary meaning, but also yes”. Yes, maybe he wouldn’t have mentioned it if he wasn’t asked about it: maybe he considers it an unimportant fun detail. Maybe the name choice wouldn’t have changed if he hadn’t noticed this. But it does sound to me—from this particular tweet—that he did notice it and did consciously accept and embrace it. Of course, I do fully allow the possibility that I’m too confident in my language skills. In that case, I’d be delighted to hear a linguistic argument. (By the way: in your suggested translation “I thought it was good to hear that…”, it seems that you’re understanding 聞こえる as “hear (that)”. It also means “sound (like)”, which I believe is the only possibility here given that in the sentence structure it is directly modified by イエスのように “in a way like Jesus”: イエスのように聞こえる => sound like “Jesus”.)
 * But given the overall heavy reliance on context and omission of implied details in Japanese, I do give you that it is technically ambiguous, as almost all natural Japanese is. But even if I treat it as ambiguous, I don’t see how it can support Muur’s claim that “Watanabe said it’s a coincidence”. He may not have ruled it out, but he didn’t say it either. I don’t know if Watanabe has ever said the same thing in a less ambiguous way; if he really has, I would have no problem with that. Should the spelling even depend on what Watanabe said at all? Maybe, maybe not; doesn’t matter. My real point is only that a claim was made in an authoritative way that isn’t supported by the evidence provided. It appears to have been intended as a word-of-god proof to shut off speculation. If one is taking that route, one should make sure their “proof” really is just that. Chortos-2 (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2022 (CST)
 * Essentially, your whole point is based on your interpretation that sharing the same tense is equivalent to a conjunction that joins the two sentences. It goes without saying that there's a very big distinction between them. It should also be pointed out that this Tweet takes place 3 or 4 years after Jesmon's debut. By then, Watanabe should've long been exposed to the 'Jesus' theory in the community that he has no reason to treat it as a current or surprising event. You also keep saying the lack of mention doesn't count as proof, but you're treating the lack of mention of certain word conventions as proof.
 * Above all, you're still overlooking the context. Yes, the ambiguity alone doesn't necessarily support one side or the other, but that's not the point. The point is that it followed a non-ambiguous answer in response to a "yes or no" question that demanded no ambiguity. If you answer a "yes or no" question with a different alternative, anyone would take interpret as a "no". You don't need to preface that alternative answer with an explicit confirmation of denial; it's unnecessary. The non-ambiguous answer itself serves as the 'confirmation' of denial, until confirmed otherwise. But as you yourself admitted, such an ambiguous follow-up doesn't necessarily contradict nor confirm anything.--YongYoKyo (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2022 (CST)
 * To paraphrase, if it was in any other scenario, such ambiguity leaves plenty open to interpretation. However, in this scenario, where the circumstances demand a unambiguous answer on the exact subject in question and a confirmation on an alternative answer is given without any ambiguity; non-admission or the lack of confirmation is equivalent to an admission of denial. That is what I mean when I repeatedly tell you to mind the context.--YongYoKyo (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2022 (CST)
 * No personal offence, but it seems to me that it’s you who’s misunderstanding the Japanese in the tweet here. I’ve explained much more than mere verb tense, and you’re still not providing any linguistic argument. Clearly, this isn’t going to go anywhere without involving more Japanese speakers. You’re also making huge leaps in reasoning about denial and admission that I don’t agree with, as well as treating etymology/ideas as binary black and white, which it isn’t. Besides, the original tweet’s main question wasn’t “is it related to Jesus or not?” it was “what is the origin of the name?”, which is precisely what Watanabe answered. And he did answer the secondary question about Jesus by explaining exactly how much the name was related to that. I came into all of this knowing nothing about where the Jesus etymology had come from and whether there was any merit to it, and I opened that tweet expecting to see an unambiguous denial, because it was linked as evidence of that. What I saw wasn’t a denial at all. Chortos-2 (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2022 (CST)
 * (In particular, “sharing the same tense is equivalent to a conjunction that joins the two sentences” not the tense, but the use of も in the second sentence very much is. But I’m just repeating myself at this point, so I’ll stop.) Chortos-2 (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2022 (CST)
 * Apologies; this one phrase I responded to here may have been a linguistic argument like I had asked for. I’m eager to hear something more substantial, though. Chortos-2 (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2022 (CST)