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

可以读到谷森吉美所著的《谷森赛赛札子》，主要与OOYA Toru的《文井瑞山的日语音节表研究》（1878年）坂原吉野所作的《日文音节表研究》进行了比较，此外，在放的文献中也有“日文音节”的段落，在“日文音节”的段落中，Mozume Takami Ko-bunko似乎是“Koji瑞恩”，“当佐藤日文“日文音节”大的时候，它是相关的，它们被考虑了。”能够结束并成为明确的考量，是过去日本文献史研究一直被大多数学者所忽视的，直到西方语言学进入明治时代，从森永本典开始。OOYA Toru在本研究中明确指出，对于OOYA Toru的研究，没有参考OOYA Toru之前的成果。OOYA Toru虽然不是积极接受西方语言学的学者，但在文部省国语调查委员会中与上田和敏等人一起进行研究的人。后世的学者常常引用这样的人的成就，而很少引用前人的成就。这不仅是谷森吉美成为本研究中心的成就，其他人的成就也是类似的。这是对日本文献史研究的偏见，今后有必要加以纠正。当然，我们也不能忽视一切，虽然也有很多关于神的年龄的肯定等问题。此外，无论是日本文献史研究，还是明治时代以前各路学者的成就，在研究一部日本历史时，都应该参考纪永以来的内容。因为本研究明确了他们所做的文献挖掘和整理是值得重视的。

'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.