Re : question about Japanese
ueshiba kouji
>Speaking of kana, can the katakana be presented in the order of the
>Iroha poem, or only the hiragana?
Katakana has complete one-to-one correspondence to Hiragana (and
vice versa) even for "wi", "we", and "wo". Therefore you can
easily arrange Katakana in the order of Iroha.
BTW it has a little difficulty to write Iroha in Roma-ji, for Roma-ji
lacks "wi", and "we" (and "wo" in two systems) offically,
because such phonological elements are lost in current standard
Japanese.
If it's the query to ask there is any real example of such writing in old
days, I can't name it concretely, though I'm sure there must be, for
there is, practically, no room to do otherwise, when Iroha is to be quoted
in the document which is written in Katakana (and Kanji).
BTW, there is one example of "waka"(Japanese poetries) written
in Katakana on 1142 a.d., each of which begins with "i", "ro", "ha"
so on in the sequence of Iroha poem and ends with the same kana,
as shown below,
"Iroirono hanawo tumiteha .......sonahete tuyuno-miwokuI"
"ROkurokuni mekuriahutomo ..... okonahe sakano-konokoRO"
"HAkanakumo konoyono......mitiwo tatoru-wakamiHA"
Kouji Ueshiba
ues...@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp
p.s. please refer to another post of mine, too.
Roger Morris
>
> Katakana has complete one-to-one correspondence to Hiragana (and
> vice versa) even for "wi", "we", and "wo".
>
For what it's worth, I don't recall seeing a hiragana version of 'ヴ'.
ueshiba kouji
>used. AFAIK only iroha order was used until quite recently.
I'm not sure what Bill wants to mean by "Quite recently".
It's incorrect, if it means "(until) the end of WWII". ( in fact there were
very drastic changes in the broad range of language usage after the war).
We don't know precisely when "gojuu-on-zu", that is "aiueo" grids, was
invented, though there is one example of it written in early 11 c. in one
annotation of the Buddhistic text (Kujaku-kyou-ongi).
Please note we can only have now the first example of "iroha"
wriiten later in 1079 a.d.
Afterwards, Gojuu-on-zu seems to have been used mainly in the circle
of linguistic scholars ( for phonological study on Shittan (Sanskrit),
Chinese
and Japanese ), while Iroha was used broadly for/by general public.
You can see Gojuu-on-zu along with Iroha refered to in the Arte Breve da
Lingoa Iopoa... ("Nihongo-shou-bunten") written by Padre Joam Rodriguez
in 1620 a.d.
You can also find in the first volume of Kojiki-den by Motoori Norinaga that
he arranged the kanji(s) used in Kojiki in Gojuu-on order.
BTW this volume is very important in the study of Japanese ancient
phonology, for he declared (if not definitively) there had been two
different phonological elements for some of the kana in ancient
days,
pointing out two different sort of Manyou-gana (that is, kanji(s))
had
been used for ko, me, ki, to, mi, mo, hi, bi, ke, gi, so, yo, no
(though he
said "nu").
This is the phenomenon known today as "joudai-tokushu-kana-
zukai", that there were two different phonological elements (now
called "kou-rui" and "otsu-rui") for e, ki, hi. mi, ke, he, me, ko,
so
to, no, mo, yo, ro and their voiced sounds.
Ishizuka Tatsumaro, Norinaga's disciple, made clear this fact
finally
in his "Kanazukai-oku-no-yamamichi around 1800 after the thorough
study of the Manyou-gana usage in Kojiki, Nihon-shoki and Manyou
-shuu, though it was forgotten until Hashimoto Shinkichi found the
fact again around 1910.
After the middle of Meiji, it seems to have been used more widely.
For example Dainihon kokugo jiten adopted the arrangement in Gojuu-on
order in 1913, while some popular dictionary in early meiji had kept the old
trandition of iroha order. I don't know when this change happened, though
I wonder it might be related the Shougakkou-rei in 1900.
BTW, though Iroha poem was (is ?) very popular, there were at least two
sort of such "song(s)" or the methods to learn the kana,
- ame-tuti no uta ("song of heaven and earth")
This consisted of 48 kana(s) (different from 47 kana(s) in iroha poem.
"e" in "ya" row was separated from "e" in "a" row, because it was
seemingly made up in early Heian period.
- "tawini uta"
this "uta" (song) was created by Minamoto no Tamenori and shown
in his book "Kutizusami" written around 970.
>I don't know when iroha began to be used.
Tamenori, in his book above, criticised the "ame-tuti no uta" didn't match
the pronounciation in his day, while he said nothing of iroha poem. This
means there were not iroha poem then, or it was rarely used. (please note
he was a famous scholar/man of letters in his day and in position to know
it well, if popular)
On the other hand we know iroha poem was written down in Konkoumyou
-saishou-oukyou ongi, one annotation of Buddhistic text, in 1079 with
Manyou-gana.
Therefore we may safely assume it was invented around 1000 a.d.
> I imagine you couldn't have
>iroha ordering without a minimal phonetic set of characters.
It isn't correct if Bill urges iroha appeared when/after each kana conveged
into one character.
Iroha poem, in this respect, was one arrangement of the phonological
elements in Japanese at that time, though I never deny the fact that
it was used to study the reading/writing of kana character(s).
It need not be related to the specific written character, that is, it can
have be and was created in the days when multiple kana characters were
used to one phonological element.
Please note the convergence of kana into one (current) character began with
the introduction of type printing in Meiji era, and was accomplished by the
Shougakkou-rei (Primary school law) in 1900, when each character was defined
officially for HIragana and Katakana.
Even today, some people like to use Hentai-gana (Manyou-gana in its broader
sense, which has different shape with ordinary one) when they write private
letter or "waka" in hand.
Kouji Ueshiba
ues...@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp
Bruce Tomlin
�
ueshiba kouji
Roger Morris wrote in message <35E8E879...@dtseng.com>...
>For what it's worth, I don't recall seeing a hiragana version of 'ヴ'.
Only becuse loan words are to be written in principle in Katakana according
to the current standard notation.
If you want, you can easily write う゛ぁいおりん for ヴァリオリン violin.
Please search some books published e.g. in Meiji era, and you can find
such example her and there.
Kouji Ueshiba
ues...@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp
Mike Wright
expertise to tell me how wrong I am.)
ueshiba kouji wrote:
>
> Mike Wright wrote in message
>
> >While I expect that iroha order has been, in fact, commonly used
> >for katakana,
>
> Katakana ?
> As I wrote in another post, iroha poem (in its written form) was used
> to educate children to reading/writing of the characters mainly of
> Hiragana, for it was used more widely and Katakana was used
> mainly by priests, scholars, or officials. Of course there were
> exceptions, though such was the general tendency.
So, if all the katakana were listed, in what order would that have been done,
if not iroha? Or, would katakana always only be picked up, never taught and
never listed?
> >Since the iroha poem is thought to date back somewhere around
> >100 years before that,
>
> I'm not sure this is correct or not.
> There is one fact iroha wasn't so popular (if it was) around 970 as
> shown in another post.
100 seemed like a nice round number, though it was probably less than that.
Miller says, "...it is thought today to have been the work of the priest Kuuya
(903-972) or of the priest Senkan (918-983), or of one of their disciples."
So, the minimum possible time between the iroha and the gojuu-on would be
between 983 and 1004, or a mere 21 years.
I see no reason to assume that it became immediately popular--especially if
there were competing systems. But, if as you say below, "gojuu-on order was
used only in limited environment", then the chances are that iroha order was
predominant for quite some time, making it the most likely candidate for the
listing of katakana.
> > and since katakana came into general use from about 901,
>
> Please tell us what you mean by this date of 901.
> I wonder we can never specify such definitive date because kana
> evolved step by step from kanji.
How definitive is "about"? As for 901, Miller doesn't say where it comes from.
I presume from some historical or literary event.
> "general" ? whom you mean by the word ?
"I" mean whatever Miller meant. Here's the entire sentence from which this was
taken: "As was also the case with hiragana, the period from about 901 on saw
katakana too come into general use, apart from its continued employment for
glosses and marginalia to Chinese texts for which it continued to be popular,
with subsequent reduction in the number of signs employed and a gradual
graphic drift away from the flowing ductus which characterized the hiragana
into a more rigid and angular style."
> >So, it's not like the iroha order was the only one used up till relatively
> >modern times,
>
> Yes, Gojuu-on order was used in some occasions. (Ametuti no uta
> was lost when iroha appeared)
> At the same time it can be said Iroha order was used much more
> widely, maybe up to the middle of Meiji, and gojuu-on order was used
> only in limited environment.
>
> jguy@alphalink wrote :
>
> >> The sharp angles and strokes of katakana were considered more
> >> masculine and military than the flowing hiragana.
>
> Only his imagination.
> Katakana isn't the one invented by the military nation.
He didn't say that it was. He said that it appealed to the military mind
"during the Japanese colonial expansion". Since I have no insight into such
minds, nor any sources, I can't comment about this point.
> >Another point that Miller makes is that, contrary to what I've seen stated
> in
> >messages either here or on sci.lang.japan, "In its earliest specimens the
> >katakana script has a rounded, smooth ductus not unlike that of many early
> >hiragana specimens...[followed by] a gradual graphic drift away from the
> >flowing ductus which characterized the hiragana into a more rigid and
> angular
> >style.
>
> I don't know why Miller can tell such brave observation.
You'll have to ask him. Earlier on the same page (126), he says, "Like the
hiragana, it too derives from cursively written man'yoogana, but in general
the katakana was developed from cursive forms of parts or segments of the
individual man'yoogana characters, rather than, as in the hiragana, entire
Chinese characters written cursively." That's a pretty explicit statement, so
I would guess that he had some sources for it.
> As far as I see the examples of Katakana from around 900 to around
> 1200, they are all a little round, not sharp edged, because they were
> written with "hude" in hand.
Actually, I seem to recall my shodoo sensei getting a bit cursive when writing
my name (raito maiku) at the edge of my models. So, cursive forms might or
might not be the originals. For now, only Miller knows why Miller thought as
he did (and perhaps still does).
> They may have, though, become straight or rigid when they were used
> in official documents or especially engraved into board for printing.
But why katakana and not hiragana/hentaigana?
> It's a natural change according to the usage and purpose, not the
> drifting of kana itself ??
Are you distinguishing between "change" and "drifting"? I don't quite
understand. I don't think that kana does anything "itself". All change is
"according to the usage and purpose" of the people who use it.
The cursive forms that eventually became hiragana are sometimes much more
extremely abbreviated than any soosho I've ever seen (e.g., i, ku, te, hi, and
he), with the most abbreviated forms taking centuries to beat out the longer
forms of the same kanji, as well as those of alternate kanji. That seems like
quite a drift--or, is it only change?
--
Mike Wright
http://www.mbay.net/~darwin/language.html
_____________________________________________________
"First perfect your instrument. Then, just play."
--Charlie Parker
Bill Vaughan
<ues...@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote:
>Bill Vaughan wrote in message <35e627be...@newsread.exodus.net>...
>
>>used. AFAIK only iroha order was used until quite recently.
>
>I'm not sure what Bill wants to mean by "Quite recently".
>It's incorrect, if it means "(until) the end of WWII". ( in fact there were
>very drastic changes in the broad range of language usage after the war).
>We don't know precisely when "gojuu-on-zu", that is "aiueo" grids, was
>invented, though there is one example of it written in early 11 c. in one
>annotation of the Buddhistic text (Kujaku-kyou-ongi).
Thanks for the correction.
I'm always wary when someone _else_ says "I can't find my
references right now, but..." I guess I should apply the same
wariness to myself. Memory is tricky and often wrong.
I could have looked harder for my copy of Miller -- it is in a box
in the garage while the living room gets painted -- or maybe I just
should have remembered that the actual order of the consonants in
gojuu-on is originally from Sanskrit and therefore must have come from
the Buddhist missionaries in the Nara period or earlier.
--Bill
Tad Perry
>On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 15:51:28 +0900, "ueshiba kouji"
><ues...@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>>
>>>used. AFAIK only iroha order was used until quite recently.
>>
>>I'm not sure what Bill wants to mean by "Quite recently".
>>It's incorrect, if it means "(until) the end of WWII". ( in fact there were
>>very drastic changes in the broad range of language usage after the war).
>>We don't know precisely when "gojuu-on-zu", that is "aiueo" grids, was
>>invented, though there is one example of it written in early 11 c. in one
>>annotation of the Buddhistic text (Kujaku-kyou-ongi).
>
> I'm always wary when someone _else_ says "I can't find my
>references right now, but..." I guess I should apply the same
>wariness to myself. Memory is tricky and often wrong.
> I could have looked harder for my copy of Miller -- it is in a box
>in the garage while the living room gets painted -- or maybe I just
You mean you're going to *leave* it there. I studied with the man and
he couldn't conjugate a Japanese verb right if it bit him on the...
Oh, forget it. Other than that he knew his stuff. It was confusion not
lack of knowledge.
Tad Perry
Peter T. Daniels
> or maybe I just
> should have remembered that the actual order of the consonants in
> gojuu-on is originally from Sanskrit and therefore must have come from
> the Buddhist missionaries in the Nara period or earlier.
Be careful about "must have"--the order is motivated, not arbitrary, and
could well have been devised independently more than once.
(We're at a total loss for the order a-b-c or the South Semitic version
h-l-H, but the explanation for the Arabic order a-b-t-T-x-H-j is
completely obvious.)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Gerald B Mathias
: Bill Vaughan wrote:
: > or maybe I just
: > should have remembered that the actual order of the consonants in
: > gojuu-on is originally from Sanskrit and therefore must have come from
: > the Buddhist missionaries in the Nara period or earlier.
: Be careful about "must have"--the order is motivated, not arbitrary, and
: could well have been devised independently more than once.
A misreading of what Bill said? Buddhist missionaries aren't the only
possibility for who introduced it, but most likely. "The Nara period
or earlier" is a little daring, though.
The current order of the gojuuon is not the only one attested, curiously.
But the vowel order, also based on Indic practice, is constant.
Bart