"Ben Bullock" <usenet@sljfaq.org> wrote ...
> "Bart Mathias" <mathias@hawaii.edu> wrote ...
>> Exactly.  Calling "ton" a word that means "pig" rather than "taxi" is
>> akin to saying "hypo" is a word meaning "under" or "ette" is a word
>> meaning "small."  I'm not positive "ton" is always a prefix, but at any
>> rate, it would seem to be a word-forming element.
> 
> I'm sorry but this discussion is not useful. One of the problems on 
> Wikipedia is people adding "mini Japanese lessons", complete with Chinese 
> characters, that are of  absolutely no use to 99.9% of readers, to the 
> articles. "Ton and buta are both words meaning pig and pork" in the context 
> of that article is easily good enough. 

So what nerp decided _not_ to provide a link to that article and is now arguing 
on the basis of its context?