Talk:Umami

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tyingmyshiu. Peer reviewers: JBonz, Cmbio401.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

English

Why the unusual Japanese word just simply the word “savoury” or “savoury” [US]? This Wikipedia English version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.3 (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

A tycoon wanted to have sushi for dinner, but a tsunami had hit the coast and the fish markets were gone, so instead he decided to hibachi a burger with a side of ramen. Afterwards he played some sudoku then did some zen meditation, and finally sent a 'sleepy' emoji to his friend before going to bed.

Each of the wikilinked words above is a loan word from Japanese, in common use in english. Umami is a perfectly serviceable word. Is there a problem you perceive with using the word? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that “savory” isn’t a good translation; it can apply to flavors that are not umami. Strebe (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's interesting the words you chose. "Tycoon" links to "Business Magnate", with tycoon as an alternate loanword from Japanese. Hibachi, Sushi, Sudoku all refer to things that are Japanese creations, without existing English words to use in their place. "Zen" is the Japanese pronunciation of a Chinese word taken from a Sanskrit word. But Umami? Umami isn't any of those. The Wikipedia page repeatedly uses "savoury" as a way to explain Umami. Savoury being the word English-speaking people understand. If you need to explain what Umami is with an English word, there's definitely a larger discussion to be had. Umami and Savoury are not interchangeable, and Umami has a specific scientific background that Savoury lacks. From a Scientific standpoint, Umami is the word that is used, and not even as a loanword. But for general parlance, for a casual discussion about taste - savoury is the word. It's an existing word, it's the sole word used to explain what Umami is, and before the word Umami was decided on, the fifth taste was savoury. People who repeatedly try to paint the tension over shoving the word "Umami" into the language as racist are not having an honest discussion. Maybe there will be a day far in the future where Umami stands on its own without savoury next to it to explain things, but until that happens people are going to bristle at this "Umami is the word there can be no debate" attitude towards a word which needs another word to explain it. Clearly the forced adoption of Umami is not going as well as some people want to pretend. And given how well you illustrated how easily some Japanese loanwords slip into English with no friction and a wide adoption - clearly there's something to the resistance to Umami beyond "you're racist if you don't like this word". Even with a Scientific background, Umami is an ill-defined concept. And while "savoury" can apply to flavours that are not "Umami" - how do you explain that? Shouldn't the Wikipedia article go into depth on that? I'd find that an interesting read. Instead the Wikipedia article uses them interchangeably. This is part of the problem. This is part of the resistance. I do feel there is a large amount of a "smarter than you" attitude when it comes to Umami. You clearly believe you know what Umami is and is not, but you have not used that knowledge to explain things in the article. But you are very happy to insult others and call them racist for not understanding what you very definitively know about a word that Wikipedia uses interchangeably with savoury. Umami is a difficult word. It means something, it's hard to explain, and in the meantime everyone is just going to explain Umami as savoury - but it doesn't mean savoury. But that's the word we're going to use to explain it. But don't think Umami is savoury, it's not, and if you think it is you're racist. Gee what a fun, non-problematic word! Let's compare it to Sudoku while we're at it, I remember the great Sudoku wars where everyone wanted to call them by their traditional English name. You see it yet? If you really want to hasten Umami adoption, maybe find another slant on how to separate Umami and savoury that isn't "the non-racists use Umami". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.86.5 (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a lot of problems with this commentary but the one I’m going to spend a few seconds on is to point out that the word “racist” never appeared in this discussion, nor any sentiment like it, until you (= 100.14.86.5) mysteriously invoked it. Strebe (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no idea why this has 'triggered' anon-ip so deeply. His/hers is the first "resistance" to the word umami that I've come across. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well put. Savory has always been considered a 5th taste. The adoption of a foreign word to describe what has often been described as "savory" in the West does indeed have a stink of pretention about it.

The fact that there is a historical word "umami" that is NOT the same as the modern technical word "umami" adds another layer of confusion, because it would seem to defeat the idea that the historical usage of "savory" cannot simply be modernized in the same way. This modernization of savory "is pronounced identically, is etymologically descended from it, but it means something different", just like umami and umami. I would like someone to explain why this sleight of hand works for "umami" but not for "savory". 70.115.137.104 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You can take that up with the rest of the world. This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Strebe (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

He was questioning the neutrality of the article. The guidelines are not a sledgehammer you can slam casual users with, you should read them with the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. This article NEEDS to be named Savoury, rather than an obscure Japanese word. ~2025-31845-47 (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Where Did Savory Go?

Until about a decade ago I had no idea what Umami was. I'm in the US BTW. Now we are to accept umami as a replacement to savory? I know savory when I taste it, I'm not so sure about umami. I really doubt any English language cookbook over 20 year old mentions umami. Why don't we just accept the five basic tastes as ....shioaji, kanmi, nigami, sanmi, and umami? My basic question for the article is.... Shouldn't there be an explanation as to Western culture replacement of a known term with a still mostly confusing term?Flight Risk (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly here. “Savory” is not synonymous with “umami”; it’s merely the closest single word in English. What has been known forever in English as “savory” is not a basic taste. There is no receptor for “savory”. Meanwhile “umami” as applied to the basic taste, while a Japanese word, is a neologism that is not synonymous with the historical Japanese word “umami”. It is pronounced identically, is etymologically descended from it, but it is written differently and means something different. The point is, umami (neologism) is newly identified as a fundamental taste. Savory is not, and neither is (historical) “umami”. Strebe (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

When you say "umami", do you mean the historical usage or the modernization that was aligned with flavor science?

Why not just modernized "savory" the way the definition of "umami" was modernized? 70.115.137.104 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not a forum. We don’t discuss how the world “ought” to be. Strebe (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems that, at least in some dialects, savory has become an exact equivalent to umami. I had to look up the definition of savory to find out that (supposedly) it's primarily used to refer to any dish that isn't sweet. As a young, Canadian-English speaker, I would never use it in that way and I don't know anyone who would. Clearly the etymology section is missing some linguistic divide, since so many people are being confused by the article and coming to this talk page (including myself). Someone should find sources specifying for what dialects the terms are equivalent, for what dialects they are not, and how a loanword came to replace an existing, (synonymous?) word. Kcrisck (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems that, at least in some dialects, savory has become an exact equivalent to umami. Which umami? The traditional Japanese meaning, or Ikeda’s early 20th-century invention?

I had to look up the definition of savory to find out that (supposedly) it's primarily used to refer to any dish that isn't sweet. That is a Modern English generalization of the Middle English form that could describe any dish that was all of: fragrant, pleasing, not sweet. The modern generalization got rid of the fragrant and pleasing traits. The Middle English savory is very close in meaning to the (traditional) Japanese umami (旨味).

As a young, Canadian-English speaker, I would never use it in that way and I don't know anyone who would. How would you use it?

since so many people are being confused by the article and coming to this talk page (including myself). Some of the people who come here and complain seem to be irritated at using a loan word and (mistakenly) believe that savory already means what Ikeda’s umami (旨み) means. It doesn’t, in any dialect that I know of, but perhaps young Canadians of some region use it that way — but why, when the loan word already means that without needing to supersede a useful word?

Strebe (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is causing confusion by assuming everyone uses the same definition of savory. All I'm saying is that the etymology section also needs to explain the various meanings of the word savory and how they do or don't differ from umami. It's not possible for so many people to be mistaken about the meaning of savory. Kcrisck (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not possible for so many people to be mistaken about the meaning of savory. Of course it is. Many words are commonly misused. I was hoping to understand what your understanding of savory is/was so that I could understand better what needs to change in the article. I like the idea of setting out the various meanings of savory and umami/うまみ/旨み/旨味. The primary problem there is that such a schema needs to come from a single, reliable source; otherwise it is either unsourced (original research) or becomes synthesis, neither of which is permitted. Strebe (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Ikeda didn't coin the word umami

Ikeda merely gave a new scientific meaning to umami, a word that is attested at least as early as the 18th century. The word is a nominalization of the adjective umai (good), formed by suffixing -mi to its stem. Both umai and -mi are very basic words that had existed for centuries before Ikeda. It seems that sources from outside Japan mistook "naming" for "coinage". Harinaki (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Although Strebe in another topic claims that umami is written in a different form from the traditional ones, the form Ikeda popularized, うま味, can be found in earlier literature such as this used in a traditional sense. The form might have not been used very commonly, but there's hardly any novelty to it to be counted as a neologism. Harinaki (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You aren’t arguing against any argument I made. I updated the article text. It was a mess, as you rightfully pointed out. If you think the present text is wrong, by all means, fix it or discuss it. Strebe (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I might have nitpicked at your use of the word neologism, which may or may not be a misuse. And it's not like I'm arguing against you, so I didn't reply to you. I just wanted to make it clear that the reason umami may be a neologism is not because some people differentiate its written form. I think some people wrongly assume it is and your earlier post might promote this misconception. And I appreciate you making corrections to the article. I don't know well about the Wikipedia rules, and so I wasn't sure what to do when I disagree with a seemingly reliable cited source and I can't cite anything to definitely disprove it. Harinaki (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

No, your suspicion of the term neologism is well founded. I don’t support its use here. It isn’t the word that Ikeda created; it’s another definition for it that he created, as well as selecting a specific orthography. And you are correct: that orthography was not due to him, either. In academic terms, this is a “neosemy”. Thanks for sparking the improvements. Strebe (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)