American Anime

[Vyk]

That dictionary entry was stupid. Animation involving futuristic violence and sex? Have you seen Heavy Metal? That was made by us westerners. And I don't think anyone would call it anime. What we refer to as anime is all about the style, not the content. Anime to me doesn't equate to futuristic, violence, and/or sex. Sorry, but I think Wiki wins this battle

[ShunNakamura]

Three- Loan words do not change definition because they are loanwords. The dictionary entry should be listed under slang- since that's what it is- and the encyclopedia entry should be alterred as well, since the entire point of an encyclopedia is to be comprehensive about a subject it addresses. If it doesn't, then it needs to be updated.

Ah, but until the dictionary/encyclopedia change that is what the english word means. In the end what that means is that no one can get on the backs of those who use the word anime as japanese animation. If you want the definition changed go write a letter to those who handle the dictionaries and encyclopedia.


And to requote it thanks to vyk

an·i·me Audio pronunciation of "anime" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-m)
n.

A style of animation developed in Japan, characterized by stylized colorful art, futuristic settings, violence, and sex.

The major part of the definition is "A style of animation developed in Japan".

The second bit is like many other entries that say particually or especially or any other of those words that are trying to give examples.
And plenty of anime contains at least two of the above. Kimi Ga Nozomu Eien has 3 out of four present somewhere in it. Robotech has 3 out of 4 present in some point(and depending on how you take the sex part of the entry it may even have that[basically some in my area characterize something as sex pretty broadly, next will be an example]). Sailor Moon has 3 out of 4(colorful art, violence, and according to the parents in my area sex). The Gundam series has 3 out of 4. etc....


you get the drift it isn't the best definition ever but many animes do contain at least some of the elements above. Meaning that anyone who is totally unfamilar with anime could easily characterize it as such. heck I know many people in my area who do characterize it as such, the reason being they see many futuristic, violent, colorful anime with alot of sex appeal in it. Therefor, it would be fair to say that for many english speakers anime could be distinguished from other forms of popular animation by such.

List some popular animes-

Gundam series(at least was popular, dunno about now). Futuristic with violence and was fairly colorful if memory serves.
DBZ. Violent and colorful.
Inuyasha. Violent and colorful, and possibly sex depending on how you read that part of the entry(people here have a habbit of using the word sex to mean anything related to sex(in other words sex apeal falls into it)).
Naruto. Violent and colorful.

other then gundam I just named off some I saw lastnight while flipping channels.

But we have gotten lots of mecha anime over here(futuristic) I know. Just about the only part of the entry that gets me is the sex one. however, if they meant 'dealing with sex' such as sex appeal then I could understand it. The dratted fanfare is one my big gripes about anime.

[Mercen-X]

America doesn't make 'anime.'

[Ryushikaze]

WHEN A LOANWORD IS BORROWED, THE DEFINITION DOES NOT CHANGE EVEN IF THE WORD IS USED INCORRECTLY. If we started using patio to refer exclusively to a specific subset of porch, when the language of origin does NOT make this distinction, then WE ARE USING THE WORD WRONG.

So guess what, the dictionary definition is not incorrect, BUT IT IS INCOMPLETE. Actually, it's incorrect, too- it actually excludes a significant portion of that which it seeks to define.

As for your '3 out of the 4' argument, so does Avatar. So does Danny Phantom. Reboot had all damn four. So does Totally Spies.

A useful definition would manage to separate the defined from what it supposedly does not define.
And come to think of it, 'developed in japan' is bull<img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"> too. Betty Gorram Boop is the stylistic origin of Anime, and Osamu Tezuka said himself he wanted to look like Disney.

[Vyk]

Also I really don't think a viable definition should have the hitch that "for most people its this way". A definition should be ... well.. definite.

[ShunNakamura]

The 3 out of four argument was in reply to vyk's response. What I was saying is that much of the anime that is popularized here can indeed be at least partially characterized by those traits.

Personally I have never aggreed with it when the dictionary adds thos extra bits on; however, many entries have things of that ilk, and what they are there for is to further help indicate what qualifes as taht word to those unfamilar with it.


Obviousally you are wrong on the change of the definition. Dictionary and Encyclopedia both agree, the common usage here agrees, etc. You do realize words CHANGE over time? Well whether or not that knowledge is available to you, words DO change. This means that while it may have once meant one thing it can change to mean another. There are many examples of the words changing.

Regardless Anime is now defined in the english language as meaning Japanese style animation.

[Ryushikaze]

Then what is the japanese style?

If you think there is such a thing, you are wrong.

Of course, it cheeses me right off that korean stuff is also called Anime by the same smegheads who want to insist that the word ONLY means japanese stuff.

Listen, the dictionary and the encyclopedia may be in basic agreement, but they are incorrect in their omission of details, especially since there is are a lot of people who can and will insist on the most accurate usage of loanwords, and they are those who are actually knowledgeable about the language.
Of course, it should always be remembered that newer definitions do NOT override the older ones, and the dictionary should include all in usage, and the encyclopedia all the information. NEITHER DO THIS.

Also, the encyclopedia should not be biased by language of writing, another reason it should be corrected so that it includes all the relevant information.

[ShunNakamura]

The dictionary uses what is I term as the common usage. It can't possibly hope to include all uses without having 24/7 spybots on every english speaking member on the planet.

The dictionary is charged with making available the common definitions of words in the english language(I will also tack on american region for extra benifit, I don't know what the Austrailian English dictionary says on anime afterall).

And I can indeed vouch that just about anyone I speak to uses anime in the way the dictionary defines it.

The only ones that don't are the ones using it in the Japanese way. And since that isn't the English/American usage the dictionary here doesn't list it.

Perhaps if enough people begin using it in that way it will be added, but currently it is only a select few online I have run into who insist on that usage.

[Ryushikaze]

The problem is that Anime is a loanword. The dictionary is supposed to recognize these loanwords and give their original definition. Corrupted local definitions are slang usages of these words.

[ShunNakamura]

I really don't see anywhere stating that a loanword has to have the exact same definition as what it did originally.

Such as some japanese uses of english words are not how we use them(or so I have read). Etc....

Anyways just to quote the encyclopedia "For example, anime (アニメ) is gairaigo derived from the word "animation", but has been reborrowed into English with the meaning of "animation from Japan""

"egregious - Originally described something that was remarkably good. The word is from the Latin egregius (outstanding) which is from e-, ex- (out of) + greg- or grex (flock). Now it means something that is remarkably bad or flagrant."

This is to show that a borrowed word does not need to carry the same meaning, that it can indeed evolve to be something different in the language. If you notice the dictionary does not carry the original definition of egregious.

[Ryushikaze]

I wouldn't call any latin word a 'loanword' of english since modern english is the offspring of roughly four languages- of which one is latin- mutating into each other due to cultural contamination. This is a totally different process than deliberately borrowing a word wholesale from another language.

Let's use a different example. Katana. The word means sword. Any sword. Period. Though the term has been used in both history and modern media to refer- because of its popularity- to a specific type of katana- the bastard sword wielded by the samurai- the word does NOT mean solely this type of sword, and actually the particular idiom is only true when the samurai no katana is worn in a particular fashion- it otherwise becomes a tachi. However, it is still a katana- in the broad sense- when worn as a tachi, and it is still a tachi when worn as a katana. This is similar to the inane distinction made between japanese and american animation, when the two share as much style as they diverge.

That's straying slightly off topic, actually. Let me return back to the point. While one can use the term Katana to refer to a particular type of sword, the word does mean sword, and can in fact be used to apply to a british sabre, the same way that the word sabre can be used to apply to the samurai sword. The terms are inclusive, not exclusive, as anime is.

Similarly, well meaning but somewhat ignorant fans of japanese anime use the simple term anime to mean solely the anime that comes from japan. This is a similar usage to 'katana'. It works as slang, but not as a comprehensive definition.

Y'know, it strikes me, the self same people who want to change the meaning of anime to make it more special are the same sort of people who fight tooth and nail for things to remain as they were in the animation they so adore. The irony.

[ShunNakamura]

English usage of Katana

dictionary- a curved single-edged sword traditionally used by Japanese samurai

Encyclopedia- The katana (刀) is the Japanese sabre or longsword (大刀 daitō), although many Japanese use this word generically as a catch-all word for sword. Katana (pronounced ka-ta-na) is the kun'yomi (Japanese reading) of the kanji 刀 ; the on'yomi (Chinese reading) is tō. In Mandarin, it is pronounced dāo. While the word has no separate plural form in Japanese, it has been adopted as a loan word by the English language, where it is commonly pluralised as katanas.

Once again a loan word that is slightly different when used in the english language. Loan words do NOT need to have the exact same meaning.



Now as a note, I got no problem with people who use the word anime to refer to all forms of animation(since I see it as a viable use of it), however, it IS defined as japanese style animation. Meaning any who use it that way are well within being right and shouldn't have the 'purists' trying to shove them around. Their use is just as right as the 'purists'(and actually in this region that is the correct usage; however, the internet breaks down region barriers so I could care less who's culture you use when using words, just make sure others know what you mean).

[Vyk]

He wasn't trying to shove anyone around. He pointed out a corrective bit a of trivia, and got understandably irritated when it was not only ignored but argued against incorrectly. And then came the retarded dictionary "definition", that certainly had to be debated for its lack of actualy sustaining a definition. Its just a debate that's continuing because counterpoints keep coming. He's not necissarily trying to shove it down yours or anyone else's throat. Just pointed out the usage was incorrect. The way a lot of people like to point out that the "common" usage of OTAKU is incorrect. We accept this, shrug, and move on.

The fact remains, anime is a term that originated in Japan to refer to animation. Nothing less distinctive than that. Animation. Any animation. All animation.

You can argue that well the word is japanese in origin, and since the japanese apparently have no word to make a distinction towards their own style of animation, and we have our own term for animation (cartoons), I'll use their word for animation to refer to specifically their animation.

Which is apparently exactly the same thing that happened with the word katana.

Not a big deal. The only reason this debate got so heated is you found it prudent to vigilantly defend an arguably incomplete (if not incompitent) "definition".

[JKTrix]

Hopefully this arguement on the 'definition' can find its way back to the actual topic.

There are some 'American Anime'--sort of. The show IGPX, for example, was created by Production IG (Ghost in the Shell) in Japan alongside Cartoon Network. 'Spider Riders' is another show where it's a collaboration between a Japanese studio and a North American company (I think it was in Canada). I recently read somewhere that a Japanese production studio will be producing 'anime' specifically for the American audience. Hopefully this will improve the quality of some of these other American attempts at the stereotypical Japanese Anime Style.

However, the fact is that a vast majority of American cartoons are made for children. There are quite a few shows that are aimed at more mature audiences such as Aeon Flux, Heavy Metal, The Simpsons and the American stuff that comes on Adult Swim, but the fact remains that 'cartoon watching' is socially classified as "For Kids".

In Japan it's a little different. While there are tons of anime made for children, it isn't as dominant as it is in the west. It is probably still regarded as a juvenile activity, but it doesn't have the same social stigma over there as it would if an adult in the West started talking about cartoons in general. Of course, there are the 'otaku' who are obsessive about this stuff--they are generally looked down upon.

It's easy to see how the different mindsets of these two areas can affect the type of animation you see normally. In the US, it's basically a strictly "for Kids" activity. The Simpsons was a freak of nature. Other shows like Family Guy and Futurama enjoyed some success, but fluctuated in their airtime. The 'mature' oriented cartoons don't catch fire among their target audience as well as the child oriented ones become popular in their target audience.
In Japan, anime is serious business. They don't have the critical limitation of 'cartoons are for kids', so they can spread out along any and every genre and generally provide a more fulfilling experience. More often than not, shows have a focus. They have a definite goal, a definite end, and an unraveling story that continues as the show progresses. The sense of purpose in some of the higher quality shows is one of the things that truly sets it apart from most of its American counterparts, simply because they're targeting a more mature audience who can actually sit still long enough to soak everything in.

While Japanese animation does everything American animation does, Japanese animation is able to be much more expansive in terms of what it produces. Comparing the two is possible, but must be limited to shows that are created with similar intentions (i.e. can't compare Bugs Bunny to Evangelion, something like Pokemon to Powerpuff girls would be more appropriate). It isn't entirely fair to say 'Anime is better! Look at FMA!', because there are no comparable American animated shows.

So to reiterate, Japanese animation is bigger, broader, more diverse than American animated shows are. Comparisons are negligible.

[ShunNakamura]

He wasn't trying to shove anyone around. He pointed out a corrective bit a of trivia, and got understandably irritated when it was not only ignored but argued against incorrectly.

Meaning any who use it that way are well within being right and shouldn't have the 'purists' trying to shove them around.

I really dislike failure of logic.

I don't see anywhere around where I mentioned shoving that was a direct reference to Ryushikaze. Just to 'purists' in general. And often times I run into them they are both uppity and rude.

And besides if it was really as much as a no issue it would have refered to orgininally as a point of trivia, and this would not have become an issue.

And presenting the english sources that define and present usages of english words is really the only way to officially argue the english meaning of the word.

And then came the retarded dictionary "definition", that certainly had to be debated for its lack of actualy sustaining a definition. Its just a debate that's continuing because counterpoints keep coming.

The definition isn't *that bad*. Not as good as it could be, but it sums up the common usuage decently enough to stand. And the encyclopedia doesn't throw on the textra stuff.

Just pointed out the usage was incorrect. The way a lot of people like to point out that the "common" usage of OTAKU is incorrect. We accept this, shrug, and move on.

and I just pointed out that the usage(when concerning the english language) is correct, and the 'purists' usage is incorrect.

The fact remains, anime is a term that originated in Japan to refer to animation. Nothing less distinctive than that. Animation. Any animation. All animation.

For example, anime (アニメ) is gairaigo derived from the word "animation", but has been reborrowed into English with the meaning of "animation from Japan"

In japan anime means animation, in English it means animation from japan. Pretty simple. I have already shown that loan words do not need to retain thier original meaning.

You can argue that well the word is japanese in origin, and since the japanese apparently have no word to make a distinction towards their own style of animation, and we have our own term for animation (cartoons), I'll use their word for animation to refer to specifically their animation.

Or I could argue that that is exactly what it means, seeing as how the dictionary, the encyclopedia AND the common usage all agree on that definition?

Which is apparently exactly the same thing that happened with the word katana.

A loan word that didn't keep it's original/historic definition? No big deal, languages evolve.

Not a big deal. The only reason this debate got so heated is you found it prudent to vigilantly defend an arguably incomplete (if not incompitent) "definition".

The definition appears fairly complete,though there are things I would change about it. Rather the reason it got so long is because people such as yourself and Ryushikaze are unwilling to admit that the correct english usage is as the dictionary defines it.


And anyways it seems to me that the original post was indeed trying to say that others were wrong for using the English definition of the word.