Research on researches of 50-onzu (Japanese syllabary chart) in the 18th and 19th century

谷森义见的《谷森清菜杂子》可以读到，它主要与大谷彻《关于文艺瑞三的日本音节表研究》（1878年）坂木原义野地方涩味进行了比较，此外，在放文件中也有“日本音节”的段落，在“日本音节”的段落中似乎是“Koji Ruien”的Mozu Takami Ko-bunko“当佐藤Jojitsu”日本音节”佐藤Jojitsu是大，它是相关的，他们被认为是。能够结束并成为明确的考虑是什么，过去的日本语言学史研究一直被忽视的大多数学者，直到西方语言学后，它已成为明治时代以来，元典Norinaga wag介绍。在本研究中，大谷彻明确指出，关于大谷彻的研究，没有参考大谷彻之前的成果。大屋彻是与上田一俊等人一起在文部省国语调查委员会进行研究的人，虽然他不是一个积极接受西方语言学的学者。后世的学者常常引用这样的人的功绩，引用一个前人的功绩是很少的。这不仅是成为本研究中心的谷森义臣的成就，其他人的成就也大同小异。这对于日本文字学史的研究来说是有失偏颇的，今后有必要加以纠正。当然，我们也不可以什么都不管，尽管在神的时代性的肯定等方面存在着很多问题，也不仅是日本文献学史研究，而且明治以前各学者的研究成果，都应使研究日本史时参照从典永以来的文献。这是因为通过本研究可以明确，他们所做的文献挖掘和整理工作是值得重视的。

'Tanimori Seisai Zakko' of Tanimori Yoshiomi can be read, and it compared it chiefly with OOYA Toru' the Japanese syllabary chart research on Bungei Ruisan' (1878) Sakakibara Yoshino place astringency, and besides, there were paragraphs of "Japanese syllabary" also in the put document and Mozume Takami Ko-bunko in the paragraph of "Japanese syllabary" of being seemed it 'Koji ruien ' "when Sato Jojitsu" Japanese syllabary" Sato Jojitsu was large and it was related, and they were considered."Being able to end and having become clear consideration were whats the Japanese philology history research of the past has been neglecting most of various scholars until the West linguistics after it had become the Meiji era since Motoori Norinaga wag introduced. OOYA Toru clearly pointed out no reference to the achievement before OOYA Toru about the research of OOYA Toru in this research. OOYA Toru is a person who was researching with Ueda Kazutoshi etc. in the committee of the investigation of the national language of the Ministry of Education though it is not a scholar who positively takes the West linguistics. Scholars of future generations often quote such people's achievements, and it is a little that a former achievement is quoted. This is not only an achievement of Tanimori Yoshiomi that became the center of this research, and as for other people's achievements, similar.It biased for the Japanese philology history research, and it will be necessary to correct this in the future. Of course, we may not disregard everything though there are a lot of problems of the affirmative of the age of gods character etc., too. Moreover not only the Japanese philology history research but also various scholars' achievements before the Meiji era should make it referred since Norinaga when a Japanese history is researched. It is because it is clarified that the document excavation and the arrangement that they did are the appreciable one by this research.