Forum:Who is Mizugetsu on Chapter 347?

I know of a Suigetsu. But not a "Mizugetsu". Could it be that the manga made a typographical error when translating? Also, What is his powers? Is he Suigetsu? Or is he his brother? Please help me b/c I don't understand what took place in that chapter. If you could provide an explaination. I'd really appreciate it a lot. Thank you. --98.183.186.210 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What translation are you reading? I can't find that name anywhere in One Manga's scanlation... ~Hakinu (talk 00:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember seeing that the first time Suigetsu is introduced. I think the translator mistakenly used Mizu, which means water, instead of Sui, which also I believe means water.  So short answer is there is no Mizugetsu, it was a mistake.  I think.


 * I think it's a typo.


 * Ok. Thanks! I was just wondering. :)--216.54.14.84 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's Suigetsu. The translator must've translated it as a prefix instead of a noun. "Sui" is a noun, "mizu" is a prefix. But they both mean water.

Apatheia, if you're going to explain something, do it right... Kanji have two types of pronunciations: In the case of the kanji for, the on'yomi is "sui" and the kun'yomi is "mizu." In other words, if you have to use the terms "noun" and "prefix" (which aren't completely accurate, by the way), "mizu" would be the noun and "sui" the prefix.
 * On'yomi: Generally used when the kanji is used in combination with others,
 * Kun'yomi: Generally used when the kanji is used on its own.

As for the topic; back when Suigetsu was only known from text spoilers and very low quality scans, the exact pronunciation of his name was unknown. Mizugetsu was simply one possible solution, which later turned out wrong. --ShounenSuki (talk 18:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was simply explaining it in the context of the story, not trying to explain the entire usage of On'yomi and Kun'yomi. In that particular instance, it would've been sui because it was being used as a noun instead of a prefix. Don't be so eager to correct people.


 * Explaining "sui" as a noun is wrong in any context, including this one. Your explanation was confusing and incorrect. As I said before, if you're going to explain something, do it right. --ShounenSuki (talk 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Except sui is a noun. Prefixes aren't used in names, and so it would have be a noun. Also, in the original, it even gives sui as a furigana, so there's no need to argue about it.


 * Apatheia please sign u'r comments...use 4 tides i.e ~ ..AlienGamer | Talk 19:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Apatheia, I'm not arguing about whether or not "sui" is correct. I'm arguing that your explanation is faulty. First of all, neither "mizu" nor "sui" are actual prefixes. Only "mizu" can be considered an actual noun. "Sui" is only used in compound nouns; when used on its own, it is the abbreviation for.
 * Also, saying prefixes aren't used in names is also incorrect. The prefix for can be found in names. E.g. . --ShounenSuki (talk 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)