Chinese/Japanese interference
Nigel Greenwood
started learning some Japanese. It's a curious sensation in some ways,
as I already "know" most of the the difficult side of the script
(kanji) & have had to learn kana. But beyond that there is the problem
of vocalizing the kanji: I suppose I'll learn to "hear" Tookyoo rather
than Dong1jing1, but with many compounds (assuming I knew them in the
first place!) I find if difficult to banish the Mandarin reading from
my head.
I'd be interested to hear how others with a similar background,
including native Chinese speakers, have coped with this problem.
Nigel
--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical
Greek/IPA/Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk
Lee Sau Dan
Nigel> Having studied Chinese, on & off, for nearly 30 years, I've
Nigel> recently started learning some Japanese. It's a curious
Nigel> sensation in some ways, as I already "know" most of the the
Nigel> difficult side of the script (kanji) & have had to learn
Nigel> kana. But beyond that there is the problem of vocalizing
Nigel> the kanji: I suppose I'll learn to "hear" Tookyoo rather
Nigel> than Dong1jing1, but with many compounds (assuming I knew
Nigel> them in the first place!) I find if difficult to banish the
Nigel> Mandarin reading from my head.
I have the same difficulty with Kanji's too. But I tend to associate
them with Cantonese pronunciations instead. But I'm a bit luckier,
because Cantonese pronunciations often sound much closer to the
Japanese pronunciations than Mandarin does. And a knowledge of both
Mandarin of Cantonese increases my ability to guess and memorize the
pronunciations of many words written in Kanji's.
Nigel> I'd be interested to hear how others with a similar
Nigel> background, including native Chinese speakers, have coped
Nigel> with this problem.
Just a matter of getting used to. Many Japanses Kanji words sound
similar to Chinese (esp. Cantonese), and there are certain sound
correspondences. (It's sometimes easier -- ironically -- to guess how
a Japanese word written with Kanji's is pronounced, than to guess how
the same characters are pronounced in Mandarin, for a native speaker
of Cantonese.)
Of course, for Japanese native words written in Kanji (e.g. "mitsu",
"kawa", "yama", "oka", "cho"/"machi", "sakura", etc.), one has to
memorize the pronunciations, because the pronunciations of these
Kanji's in Chinese is totally unrelated to the Japanese
pronunciations. Repeat and repeat and repeat and you'll memorize it,
just like any words in any foreign language.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Bart Mathias
> Having studied Chinese, on & off, for nearly 30 years, I've recently
> started learning some Japanese. It's a curious sensation in some ways,
> as I already "know" most of the the difficult side of the script
> (kanji) & have had to learn kana. But beyond that there is the problem
> of vocalizing the kanji: I suppose I'll learn to "hear" Tookyoo rather
> than Dong1jing1, but with many compounds (assuming I knew them in the
> first place!) I find if difficult to banish the Mandarin reading from
> my head.
>
> I'd be interested to hear how others with a similar background,
> including native Chinese speakers, have coped with this problem.
Well, I guess a year of intensive Korean isn't really similar to 30
years of off-and-on Mandarin. Maybe that's part of the reason I found
it easy to stop thinking of "tookyoo" as "tongkyeng." But once you
start using actual sentences in Japanese, "dong1jing1" just doesn't fit
in. It takes motivation to say something as strange sounding as
"watashiwa dong1jing1no aru ping4yuan4ni tsutomete imasu."
It occurs to me that that hypothesis can't explain how I managed to stop
thinking of "tookyoo" as "tokio," after 13 years of thinking of it that
way, but the corollary feels like part of the reason I found it easy to
start thinking of Japan as "rr4ben3" (however I should spell "rr" these
days) instead of "nihon" when I started Mandarin after several years of
Japanese.
Incidentally, in the long run going from Chinese or Korean to Japanese
is a lot more efficient than the other way 'round! You can guess the
ones you haven't learned (well, not that many on a Mandarin basis, I guess.
Bart
Bart Mathias
Well, not the "cho" side of "cho"/"machi." Native Japanese "mitsu" is
rare in modern Japan. Much more likely to be a "Chinese" reading.
Bart Mathias
Lee Sau Dan
Bart> Well, not the "cho" side of "cho"/"machi." Native Japanese
Bart> "mitsu" is rare in modern Japan. Much more likely to be a
Bart> "Chinese" reading.
I don't think so.
Lee Sau Dan
Bart> Nigel Greenwood wrote:
>> Having studied Chinese, on & off, for nearly 30 years, I've
>> recently started learning some Japanese. It's a curious
>> sensation in some ways, as I already "know" most of the the
>> difficult side of the script (kanji) & have had to learn kana.
>> But beyond that there is the problem of vocalizing the kanji: I
>> suppose I'll learn to "hear" Tookyoo rather than Dong1jing1,
>> but with many compounds (assuming I knew them in the first
>> place!) I find if difficult to banish the Mandarin reading from
>> my head.
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear how others with a similar background,
>> including native Chinese speakers, have coped with this
>> problem.
Bart> Well, I guess a year of intensive Korean isn't really
Bart> similar to 30 years of off-and-on Mandarin.
You learnt Korean together with Hanja?
Bart> Incidentally, in the long run going from Chinese or Korean
Bart> to Japanese is a lot more efficient than the other way
Bart> 'round! You can guess the ones you haven't learned (well,
Bart> not that many on a Mandarin basis, I guess.
No that many if you only consider the phonetic similarities. However,
if you take into account the writing system, then it's a different
story. As an analogy, imagine seeing the word "impossible" in
*French* text. If you already know English, you may have already
guessed what it means. But if you heard it spoken (in French)
instead, you may not recognize that it is that word.
Mapping <dong1jing1> to tookyoo is easy if you're only doing it
phonetically. As you said, <dong1jing1> simply can't fit the Japanese
phonology, and one would quickly get used to using tookyoo when
speaking Japanese. (Similarly, I say "die Schweiz" when speaking
German, ""Switzerland" when speaking English, and "suisse" when
speaking French. No problem.) However, breaking the habit of
pronouncing the 2 characters for tokyo as <dong1jing> and developing
the new habit of pronouncing them as tookyoo does take time and
concious effort. Just like refraining from pronouncing "impossible"
the English way, and starting to get used to pronouncing it the French
way.
Bart Mathias
>>>>>>"Bart" == Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> writes:
>
>
> Bart> Well, not the "cho" side of "cho"/"machi." Native Japanese
> Bart> "mitsu" is rare in modern Japan. Much more likely to be a
> Bart> "Chinese" reading.
>
> I don't think so.
You should. 密 and 蜜 are the only common "mitsu." Really smart guys
might know 樒 and 櫁--well, the readings should be obvious to anyone.
Only the second of these is a word in Japanese, but the "mitsu" reading
is (rather obviously) Chinese in all four cases.
You might be thinking of 満つ/盈つ, not a word in modern Japanese, or
光, which shows up in names but so far as I know has never been a
Japanese *word*. 三 is pure Japanese "mitsu" in a number of compound
words, but is no longer a word itself.
As to "cho" = "machi" ("chou" in word-processor romaji), the 丁 in the
character used to write it (町) reveals its Chinese origin.
Bart Mathias
Bart Mathias
>
> Bart> Well, I guess a year of intensive Korean isn't really Bart>
> similar to 30 years of off-and-on Mandarin.
>
> You learnt Korean together with Hanja?
Sure. I think everyone did who studied it 52 years ago.
I remember my first bus ride through Tokyo from the airport to the Air
Force base. I could recognize all the banks and drugstores, etc., etc.,
even though I had no idea what they might be called in Japanese.
I did have trouble with some characters at first. I probably was
confounded by such as 国, having learned only 國.
> Bart> Incidentally, in the long run going from Chinese or Korean
> Bart> to Japanese is a lot more efficient than the other way
> Bart> 'round! You can guess the ones you haven't learned (well,
> Bart> not that many on a Mandarin basis, I guess.
>
> No that many if you only consider the phonetic similarities.
> However, if you take into account the writing system, then it's a
> different story.
Well, yes. I wasn't particularly interested in Mandarin, but I had to
take three semester (first, second, and fourth) as a degree requirement.
We used Chao's _Mandarin Primer_, and the exercise book had all the
answers in grass writing, with a note that any student who could read
them could feel free to use them. I finished my homework quite quickly.
> As an analogy, imagine seeing the word
> "impossible" in *French* text. If you already know English, you
> may have already guessed what it means. But if you heard it
> spoken (in French) instead, you may not recognize that it is that
> word.
>
> Mapping <dong1jing1> to tookyoo is easy if you're only doing
> it phonetically. As you said, <dong1jing1> simply can't fit the
> Japanese phonology, and one would quickly get used to using
> tookyoo when speaking Japanese. (Similarly, I say "die Schweiz"
> when speaking German, ""Switzerland" when speaking English, and
> "suisse" when speaking French. No problem.) However, breaking
> the habit of pronouncing the 2 characters for tokyo as
> <dong1jing> and developing the new habit of pronouncing them as
> tookyoo does take time and concious effort. Just like refraining
> from pronouncing "impossible" the English way, and starting to get
> used to pronouncing it the French way.
I don't think that is a good example. A French person might very well
say I have never pronounced "impossible" in the French way (but a couple
of first-semester classmates gave me a bit of a swelled head by asking
me how long I had lived in France), I was never tempted to pronounce it
the English way in a French context.
Bart Mathias
Mike Wright
> Having studied Chinese, on & off, for nearly 30 years, I've recently
> started learning some Japanese. It's a curious sensation in some ways,
> as I already "know" most of the the difficult side of the script
> (kanji) & have had to learn kana. But beyond that there is the problem
> of vocalizing the kanji: I suppose I'll learn to "hear" Tookyoo rather
> than Dong1jing1, but with many compounds (assuming I knew them in the
> first place!) I find if difficult to banish the Mandarin reading from
> my head.
>
> I'd be interested to hear how others with a similar background,
> including native Chinese speakers, have coped with this problem.
I coped by starting at a younger age. :-P Also by joining the Army and
letting DLI force-feed me both languages.
I began my own study of Japanese in Taiwan, about 2 years after
graduating from the DLI Mandarin class in Dec. 1963. I had a
Chinese-language version of the Naganuma _Basic Japanese Course_ text,
which used kanji with furigana throughout. I remember finishing the
book, but not much else about it.
About 6-12 months later, while at Ft. Hood, TX, I got word that my
application for the DLI Japanese course had been accepted. I still had
six months before class started (in Mar. 1967, I think), and I had
access to the DLI texts, so I jumped into studying those, and got
through about half of the texts before I went off to DLI. That helped a
lot with the actual course.
By the the time I started on the Japanese DLI texts on my own, I had
begun to learn some Taiwanese Hokkien from my wife, and had studied some
Vietnamese in a little course at Ft. Hood, run by returned interrogators.
I had already discovered that a large proportion of Vietnamese military,
political, and technical terminology came from Chinese, and that it was
often similar in pronunciation to the Hokkien cognates. When I got back
into Japanese, I was on the lookout for similar correspondences.
Although they weren't as transparent as Vietnamese-Hokkien, I still
found Japanese-Hokkien correspondences useful for learning Sino-Japanese
kanji readings.
It would have been more difficult with only Mandarin to go on, I'm sure.
Since my real Japanese learning at DLI was oriented toward the spoken
language, I don't think I ever had much interference from Mandarin.
One thing I've always done, though, is to pronounce kanji in Mandarin if
I don't know the Japanese pronunciation. For some reason, that doesn't
feel odd to me. Maybe that's because my wife and I used to mix up
English, Japanese, Mandarin, and Hokkien rather randomly in our daily
speech--sometimes with words from all four languages in a single
sentence, with the syntax usually being an English-Chinese blend.
One situation where I did experience interference among languages was
during intensive training at DLI. I'd had two years of Spanish in high
school and a bit in college, but whenever I tried to say something in
Spanish during my Mandrin course, it would come out in Mandarin after
just a word or two of Spanish.
The same thing happened to my Vietnamese during my Japanese course. It
seems that my Spanish and Vietnamese were not deeply enough engrained to
overcome the languages that were being pounded into my head six hours a
day, five days a week.
--
Mike Wright
http://www.raccoonbend.com
Touko
>
> I'd be interested to hear how others with a similar background,
> including native Chinese speakers, have coped with this problem.
>
say that it's not that hard to dissociate Chinese pronunciations from
kanji, especially if you memorize kanji in two- or three-word phrases.
Japanese tends to group characters together in phrases that aren't used
in Chinese, or that have different meanings from their Chinese
counterparts (手紙 is "letter" in Japanese but "toilet paper" in
Chinese).
I'd also recommend speedanki.com; it's a flashcard site that helps a
lot with learning kanji readings in phrases rather than individual
words.
Touko
Dylan Sung
"Nigel Greenwood" <ndsg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1159448063....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Having studied Chinese, on & off, for nearly 30 years, I've recently
> started learning some Japanese. It's a curious sensation in some ways,
> as I already "know" most of the the difficult side of the script
> (kanji) & have had to learn kana. But beyond that there is the problem
> of vocalizing the kanji: I suppose I'll learn to "hear" Tookyoo rather
> than Dong1jing1, but with many compounds (assuming I knew them in the
> first place!) I find if difficult to banish the Mandarin reading from
> my head.
>
> I'd be interested to hear how others with a similar background,
> including native Chinese speakers, have coped with this problem.
>
When I read a piece of text in Chinese, it usually is in Hakka. Whenever I
try to sustain a reading in Mandarin, it gets slower and slower as I tend to
get the tones exactly right. Occasionally I read in Cantonese pronunciation,
but in the end, it all trails off into Hakka. Whilst reading Japanese, I
tend to use the kun reading for those characters with trailing kana in verbs
if I know it, otherwise, the kun, which often lapses into Hakka again. Since
I don't publically speak Japanese with any fluency or competency, I say I'm
only a reader in the language. So, every of languages which I read in just
comes back to the one I've grown accustomed to reading in, and that's my own
dialect of Hakka.
/kin33 Nit33/ wa, anata no tanjoobi desu ka?
If I'm not sure whether kyou and it's alternate reading konnichi....
Dyl.
Nigel Greenwood
Lee Sau Dan wrote:
> Mapping <dong1jing1> to tookyoo is easy if you're only doing it
> phonetically. As you said, <dong1jing1> simply can't fit the Japanese
> phonology, and one would quickly get used to using tookyoo when
> speaking Japanese. (Similarly, I say "die Schweiz" when speaking
> German, ""Switzerland" when speaking English, and "suisse" when
> speaking French. No problem.) However, breaking the habit of
> pronouncing the 2 characters for tokyo as <dong1jing> and developing
> the new habit of pronouncing them as tookyoo does take time and
> concious effort.
I should have made it clearer that I was referring to reading (both
silently & especially out loud). Of course I already know that the
word for letter is "tegami", & when speaking -- or at least trying to
-- that's the word I'll use. But when reading, as soon as I see the
kanji for "tegami" it's going to take some doing to suppress my
immediate instinct to say or hear "shou3zhi3" (even if in Chinese the
letter wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on!).
> Just like refraining from pronouncing "impossible"
> the English way, and starting to get used to pronouncing it the French
> way.
But didn't Napoleon say "Impossible n'est pas français"?
BTW -- I'm afraid this is rather OT, but what the hell ... We have
something analogous to _on_ & _kun_ readings in English. At this time
of year the weather reports often include the _on_ reading of "autumn",
as in "The weather really is getting rather autumnal". I suppose this
is because the _on_ & _kun_ readings of "autumn" are so similar (just a
difference in stress). OTOH it's a rare weather report that includes
the _on_ "vernal" for spring weather. As for "(a)estival" & "hibernal"
-- I think not (though we do use the "compound" hibernate). The
equinoxes use _on_ readings, while the solstices are resolutely _kun_.
Lee Sau Dan
Bart> Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bart" == Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> writes:
>>
Bart> Well, not the "cho" side of "cho"/"machi." Native Japanese
Bart> "mitsu" is rare in modern Japan. Much more likely to be a
Bart> "Chinese" reading.
>> I don't think so.
Bart> You should. 密 and 蜜 are the only common "mitsu."
Sorry. I mean <mizu>.
Bart> 三 is pure Japanese "mitsu" in a number of compound words,
Bart> but is no longer a word itself.
But it is still written with that Chinese character.
Bart> As to "cho" = "machi" ("chou" in word-processor romaji), the
Bart> 丁 in the character used to write it (町) reveals its
Bart> Chinese origin.
I can't see how.
--
Lee Sau Dan
Lee Sau Dan
>> You learnt Korean together with Hanja?
Bart> Sure. I think everyone did who studied it 52 years ago.
Bart> I remember my first bus ride through Tokyo from the airport
Bart> to the Air Force base. I could recognize all the banks and
Bart> drugstores, etc., etc., even though I had no idea what they
Bart> might be called in Japanese.
Same feeling for a literate Chinese visiting Japanese.
Bart> I did have trouble with some characters at first. I
Bart> probably was confounded by such as 国, having learned only
Bart> 國.
But it isn't that difficult to grasp. Japanese's Kanji
simplifications are much more moderate than what the PRC in China has
done. Most characters are still easily recognizable. Indeed, many of
them are based on variant forms often seen in other styles
(e.g. "running" style and "grass" style).
Bart> Well, yes. I wasn't particularly interested in Mandarin,
Bart> but I had to take three semester (first, second, and fourth)
Bart> as a degree requirement. We used Chao's _Mandarin Primer_,
Bart> and the exercise book had all the answers in grass writing,
Bart> with a note that any student who could read them could feel
Bart> free to use them. I finished my homework quite quickly.
Wow! You can read grass style? I can't! :O
--
Lee Sau Dan
Paul D
> Bart> As to "cho" = "machi" ("chou" in word-processor romaji), the
> Bart> 丁 in the character used to write it (町) reveals its
> Bart> Chinese origin.
>
> I can't see how.
Maybe because 丁 is a phonetic component that lends its pronunciation to
町. This only happens with the Sino-Japanese readings.
Peter T. Daniels
> BTW -- I'm afraid this is rather OT, but what the hell ... We have
> something analogous to _on_ & _kun_ readings in English. At this time
> of year the weather reports often include the _on_ reading of "autumn",
> as in "The weather really is getting rather autumnal". I suppose this
> is because the _on_ & _kun_ readings of "autumn" are so similar (just a
> difference in stress). OTOH it's a rare weather report that includes
> the _on_ "vernal" for spring weather. As for "(a)estival" & "hibernal"
> -- I think not (though we do use the "compound" hibernate). The
> equinoxes use _on_ readings, while the solstices are resolutely _kun_.
For a consistently carried-through "on" and "kun" approach to English,
see Henry Rogers, (Blackwell Textbook of) Writing Systems (2005).
It's not such a great pedagogical device, because the student first has
to grasp what's going on in Japanese, but it's an interesting way to
look at things.
Tak To
> Nigel Greenwood wrote:
>
>>BTW -- I'm afraid this is rather OT, but what the hell ... We have
>>something analogous to _on_ & _kun_ readings in English. At this time
>>of year the weather reports often include the _on_ reading of "autumn",
>>as in "The weather really is getting rather autumnal". I suppose this
>>is because the _on_ & _kun_ readings of "autumn" are so similar (just a
>>difference in stress). OTOH it's a rare weather report that includes
>>the _on_ "vernal" for spring weather. As for "(a)estival" & "hibernal"
>>-- I think not (though we do use the "compound" hibernate). The
>>equinoxes use _on_ readings, while the solstices are resolutely _kun_.
But autumn and autumnal are not even homographs! Why is the
"autumnal" considered an _on_ reading? Just it is stressed at
the second syllable whereas "autumn" is stressed on the first?
Are you going to claim that similar (,-) vs (-,-) pairs are
(e.g., tribune vs tribunal) are also kun-on pairs?
> For a consistently carried-through "on" and "kun" approach to English,
> see Henry Rogers, (Blackwell Textbook of) Writing Systems (2005).
>
> It's not such a great pedagogical device, because the student first has
> to grasp what's going on in Japanese, but it's an interesting way to
> look at things.
I am completely lost. Which pedagogical device are you talking
about? Categorizing the difference pronunciations in homographs?
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
Tak To wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Nigel Greenwood wrote:
> >
> >>BTW -- I'm afraid this is rather OT, but what the hell ... We have
> >>something analogous to _on_ & _kun_ readings in English. At this time
> >>of year the weather reports often include the _on_ reading of "autumn",
> >>as in "The weather really is getting rather autumnal". I suppose this
> >>is because the _on_ & _kun_ readings of "autumn" are so similar (just a
> >>difference in stress). OTOH it's a rare weather report that includes
> >>the _on_ "vernal" for spring weather. As for "(a)estival" & "hibernal"
> >>-- I think not (though we do use the "compound" hibernate). The
> >>equinoxes use _on_ readings, while the solstices are resolutely _kun_.
>
> But autumn and autumnal are not even homographs! Why is the
> "autumnal" considered an _on_ reading? Just it is stressed at
> the second syllable whereas "autumn" is stressed on the first?
> Are you going to claim that similar (,-) vs (-,-) pairs are
> (e.g., tribune vs tribunal) are also kun-on pairs?
"Autumnal" is not an ordinary word. It is scientific or poetic.
"Autumn" is an ordinary word.
> > For a consistently carried-through "on" and "kun" approach to English,
> > see Henry Rogers, (Blackwell Textbook of) Writing Systems (2005).
> >
> > It's not such a great pedagogical device, because the student first has
> > to grasp what's going on in Japanese, but it's an interesting way to
> > look at things.
>
> I am completely lost. Which pedagogical device are you talking
> about? Categorizing the difference pronunciations in homographs?
I'm certainly not going to copy out vast stretches of the book for you.
You might approach the concepts a little less literally.
Dylan Sung
>
> BTW -- I'm afraid this is rather OT, but what the hell ... We have
> something analogous to _on_ & _kun_ readings in English. At this time
> of year the weather reports often include the _on_ reading of "autumn",
> as in "The weather really is getting rather autumnal". I suppose this
> is because the _on_ & _kun_ readings of "autumn" are so similar (just a
> difference in stress). OTOH it's a rare weather report that includes
> the _on_ "vernal" for spring weather. As for "(a)estival" & "hibernal"
> -- I think not (though we do use the "compound" hibernate). The
> equinoxes use _on_ readings, while the solstices are resolutely _kun_.
>
In Japanese ON readings refer to readings of kanji primarily from Chinese
sources in the past, whilst KUN readings refer to native Japanese words
which have been associated with them. Often multiple ON and KUN readings
exist for kanji, some extremely rare, others used only in names.
What I thought you meant by the ON and KUN analogy in English was that
different words relating to essentially the same of similar things deriving
from different languages, for example,
cow, bull, beef, heffer, bovine
cockerel, chicken, hen
pig, pork, hog
sheep, ovine, ewe, ram
"Autumn" and "autumnal" just seems like the use of a noun over an adjective
to me.
Dyl.
Tak To
> Tak To wrote:
>
>>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>Nigel Greenwood wrote:
>>>
>>>>BTW -- I'm afraid this is rather OT, but what the hell ... We have
>>>>something analogous to _on_ & _kun_ readings in English. At this time
>>>>of year the weather reports often include the _on_ reading of "autumn",
>>>>as in "The weather really is getting rather autumnal". I suppose this
>>>>is because the _on_ & _kun_ readings of "autumn" are so similar (just a
>>>>difference in stress). OTOH it's a rare weather report that includes
>>>>the _on_ "vernal" for spring weather. As for "(a)estival" & "hibernal"
>>>>-- I think not (though we do use the "compound" hibernate). The
>>>>equinoxes use _on_ readings, while the solstices are resolutely _kun_.
>>
>>But autumn and autumnal are not even homographs! Why is the
>>"autumnal" considered an _on_ reading? Just it is stressed at
>>the second syllable whereas "autumn" is stressed on the first?
>>Are you going to claim that similar (,-) vs (-,-) pairs are
>>(e.g., tribune vs tribunal) are also kun-on pairs?
>
> "Autumnal" is not an ordinary word. It is scientific or poetic.
> "Autumn" is an ordinary word.
But the kun-on difference is not a vernacular-literary one!
>>>For a consistently carried-through "on" and "kun" approach to English,
>>>see Henry Rogers, (Blackwell Textbook of) Writing Systems (2005).
>>>
>>>It's not such a great pedagogical device, because the student first has
>>>to grasp what's going on in Japanese, but it's an interesting way to
>>>look at things.
>>
>>I am completely lost. Which pedagogical device are you talking
>>about? Categorizing the difference pronunciations in homographs?
>
> I'm certainly not going to copy out vast stretches of the book for you.
You can't describe a pedaogical device in one or two sentences?
> You might approach the concepts a little less literally.
It seems that Dylan is just as baffled as I am as to what Nigel or
you think "Kun-On in English" means.
Dylan Sung
"Tak To" <ta...@alum.mit.edu.-> wrote in message
news:RfydnSv2xokG64DY...@comcast.com...
Perhaps a definition from Nigel might clear things up a little.
Dyl.
Oliver Cromm
> A French person might very well say I have never pronounced
> "impossible" in the French way (but a couple of first-semester
> classmates gave me a bit of a swelled head by asking me how long I
> had lived in France), I was never tempted to pronounce it the English
> way in a French context.
Here in Montreal the example works, because you sometimes have to read
half a sentence until you establish whether you are in an English or a
French context. And then there are more subtle examples like borrowed
French words in English and v.v.
Interesting: Fr. "désigner" /dezinje:/ vs. "designer"/dizaInE:r/.
(F'up2 sci.lang)
--
A computer will do what you tell it to do, but that may be much
different from what you had in mind. - Joseph Weizenbaum
Bart Mathias
That is what I meant, but I see now that it was a bit cryptic.
Bart
Bart Mathias
>>>>>>"Bart" == Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> writes:
>
>
> >> You learnt Korean together with Hanja?
>
> Bart> Sure. I think everyone did who studied it 52 years ago.
>
> Bart> I remember my first bus ride through Tokyo from the airport
> Bart> to the Air Force base. I could recognize all the banks and
> Bart> drugstores, etc., etc., even though I had no idea what they
> Bart> might be called in Japanese.
>
> Same feeling for a literate Chinese visiting Japanese.
>
>
> Bart> I did have trouble with some characters at first. I
> Bart> probably was confounded by such as 国, having learned only
> Bart> 國.
>
> But it isn't that difficult to grasp. Japanese's Kanji
> simplifications are much more moderate than what the PRC in China has
> done.
I was going to say, "You can say *that* again." But in effect my reply
does that for you, so please don't. :-)
> Most characters are still easily recognizable. Indeed, many of
> them are based on variant forms often seen in other styles
> (e.g. "running" style and "grass" style).
Well, I know that now (and have for nearly 50 years), but I managed to
go through 10 months of Korean study, where Han(c)ca was sort of an
after-thought, without learning any sousho, and probably no gyousho either.
> Bart> Well, yes. I wasn't particularly interested in Mandarin,
> Bart> but I had to take three semester (first, second, and fourth)
> Bart> as a degree requirement. We used Chao's _Mandarin Primer_,
> Bart> and the exercise book had all the answers in grass writing,
> Bart> with a note that any student who could read them could feel
> Bart> free to use them. I finished my homework quite quickly.
> Wow! You can read grass style? I can't! :O
Not always. But consider that the answers to exercises would use only
characters that came up in the lessons. When it's words I know in an
appropriate context I get by. (I do find that the ability is apparently
one thing that fades with senile dementia, <pardon my French>!)
Bart
Lee Sau Dan
Oliver> Interesting: Fr. "désigner" /dezinje:/
Oliver> vs. "designer"/dizaInE:r/.
But these are two different words. The French one is a verb. The
English one is a noun refering to a person doing that action. They
refer to different things!
But "impossible" in French and "impossible" in English both mean the
same thing. They are also spelt the same. But the pronunciations are
pretty different.
--
Lee Sau Dan
Mike Wright
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> Tak To wrote:
>>
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nigel Greenwood wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTW -- I'm afraid this is rather OT, but what the hell ... We have
>>>>> something analogous to _on_ & _kun_ readings in English. At this time
>>>>> of year the weather reports often include the _on_ reading of
>>>>> "autumn",
>>>>> as in "The weather really is getting rather autumnal". I suppose this
>>>>> is because the _on_ & _kun_ readings of "autumn" are so similar
>>>>> (just a
>>>>> difference in stress). OTOH it's a rare weather report that includes
>>>>> the _on_ "vernal" for spring weather. As for "(a)estival" &
>>>>> "hibernal"
>>>>> -- I think not (though we do use the "compound" hibernate).
And "estivate".
> The
>>>>> equinoxes use _on_ readings, while the solstices are resolutely _kun_.
>>>
>>> But autumn and autumnal are not even homographs! Why is the
>>> "autumnal" considered an _on_ reading? Just it is stressed at
>>> the second syllable whereas "autumn" is stressed on the first?
>>> Are you going to claim that similar (,-) vs (-,-) pairs are
>>> (e.g., tribune vs tribunal) are also kun-on pairs?
>>
>> "Autumnal" is not an ordinary word. It is scientific or poetic.
>> "Autumn" is an ordinary word.
>
> But the kun-on difference is not a vernacular-literary one!
Yep. Even "daiben" (shit) is an "on" reading.
The whole point of "on" vs. "kun" is that "on" readings are
(mispronounced) Chinese and "kun" readings are native Japanese. I don't
see how the equvalent situation could even arise in an alphabetically
written language. We would have to write some sequence of letters that
would sometimes be read as "cow" (kun--native English) and sometimes as
"beef" (on--mispronounced French).
>>>> For a consistently carried-through "on" and "kun" approach to English,
>>>> see Henry Rogers, (Blackwell Textbook of) Writing Systems (2005).
>>>>
>>>> It's not such a great pedagogical device, because the student first has
>>>> to grasp what's going on in Japanese, but it's an interesting way to
>>>> look at things.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am completely lost. Which pedagogical device are you talking
>>> about? Categorizing the difference pronunciations in homographs?
>>
>>
>> I'm certainly not going to copy out vast stretches of the book for you.
>
> You can't describe a pedaogical device in one or two sentences?
>
>> You might approach the concepts a little less literally.
>
> It seems that Dylan is just as baffled as I am as to what Nigel or
> you think "Kun-On in English" means.
I was totally baffled, myself. I thought at first that it might have
something to do with "autumn" vs. "fall", but couldn't find any
reference to "fall".
Aidan Kehoe
Ar an triochadú lá de mí Méan Fómhair, scríobh Mike Wright:
> The whole point of "on" vs. "kun" is that "on" readings are (mispronounced)
> Chinese and "kun" readings are native Japanese. I don't see how the
> equvalent situation could even arise in an alphabetically written
> language. We would have to write some sequence of letters that would
> sometimes be read as "cow" (kun--native English) and sometimes as "beef"
> (on--mispronounced French).
I could easily imagine someone switching from classical to received-English
pronunciation of various Latin expressions in English, depending on whether
those listening had a classical background or not.
--
Santa Maradona, priez pour moi!
Mike Wright
Perhaps it will clarify things a bit for Sau Dan to point out that the
Modern Mandarin final /iN/ generally appears in Japanese as either <ou>
(go-on 吳音) or <ei> (kan-on 漢音).
As far as the initial goes, modern Japanese <chou> had an earlier kana
spelling of <chi ya u>, where <chi> would have been /ti/ in Old
Japanese, so <chou> might have originally been something like /tyau/,
related to a Chinese pronunciation of /tiajN/, as reconstructed for some
homophones by Pulleyblank for Late Middle Chinese. (Hokkien /ting/ is
pronounced something like [tiEN], by the way. Don't know whether that's
due to conservation or innovation.)
Someone has mentioned that the back-vowel /u/ in Japanese might
represent an attempt to pronounce the Chinese velar /N/. I think there
might also be some other theory regarding an earlier pronunciation of
Japanese /u/ that involved a nasal quality, but can't recall what it may
have been. (And I may simply be delusional.)
(It's 5:30 AM and I haven't been to bed yet, so I can't even think about
when go-on borrowings were supposed to have taken place.)
Joachim Pense
> Having studied Chinese, on & off, for nearly 30 years, I've recently
> started learning some Japanese. It's a curious sensation in some ways,
> as I already "know" most of the the difficult side of the script
> (kanji) & have had to learn kana. But beyond that there is the problem
> of vocalizing the kanji: I suppose I'll learn to "hear" Tookyoo rather
> than Dong1jing1, but with many compounds (assuming I knew them in the
> first place!) I find if difficult to banish the Mandarin reading from
> my head.
>
> I'd be interested to hear how others with a similar background,
> including native Chinese speakers, have coped with this problem.
>
I have a similar issue with English. When I read a number like 785 in
an English text, I don't "hear" seven-hundred-eighty-five, but
"siebenhundertfünfundachtzig".
Joachim
Mike Wright
But neither would be "native" in the same sense that Japanese "kun'
readings are. Of course, English seems to have a much more complex set
of origins than does Japanese. It's not quite clear exactly what should
qualify as "native" in the case of English--though I don't think that
words of obvious Latin or French origin qualify.
I do find myself modifying my pronunciation for English-speaking
listeners in the case of Japanese and Chinese words that have become
common. Now that my missionary fervor has cooled, I just go ahead and
say "kuhrotty" instead of "karate". I still have a problem bringing
myself to say "carry okie", but I try.
Peter T. Daniels
Mike Wright wrote:
> Tak To wrote:
> > But the kun-on difference is not a vernacular-literary one!
>
> Yep. Even "daiben" (shit) is an "on" reading.
>
> The whole point of "on" vs. "kun" is that "on" readings are
> (mispronounced) Chinese and "kun" readings are native Japanese. I don't
> see how the equvalent situation could even arise in an alphabetically
> written language. We would have to write some sequence of letters that
> would sometimes be read as "cow" (kun--native English) and sometimes as
> "beef" (on--mispronounced French).
Just within English, there are subsystems: <ph> betokens a Greek
etymology, <f> a Germanic one, for instance.
> >>>> For a consistently carried-through "on" and "kun" approach to English,
> >>>> see Henry Rogers, (Blackwell Textbook of) Writing Systems (2005).
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not such a great pedagogical device, because the student first has
> >>>> to grasp what's going on in Japanese, but it's an interesting way to
> >>>> look at things.
> >>>
> >>> I am completely lost. Which pedagogical device are you talking
> >>> about? Categorizing the difference pronunciations in homographs?
> >>
> >> I'm certainly not going to copy out vast stretches of the book for you.
> >
> > You can't describe a pedaogical device in one or two sentences?
> >
> >> You might approach the concepts a little less literally.
> >
> > It seems that Dylan is just as baffled as I am as to what Nigel or
> > you think "Kun-On in English" means.
>
> I was totally baffled, myself. I thought at first that it might have
> something to do with "autumn" vs. "fall", but couldn't find any
> reference to "fall".
"Autumn" and "fall" are both everyday words. "Autumnal" is not.
Lee Sau Dan
Joachim> I have a similar issue with English. When I read a number
Joachim> like 785 in an English text, I don't "hear"
Joachim> seven-hundred-eighty-five, but
Joachim> "siebenhundertfünfundachtzig".
Exactly what I do with other languages. esp. when I come across years
like "1995" in French. I'd simply say [j@t5 kau35 kau35 n13] instead
of bothering with the French lengthy thing "mille neuf cent
quatre-vingt-quinze".
Lee Sau Dan
Mike> The whole point of "on" vs. "kun" is that "on" readings are
Mike> (mispronounced) Chinese and "kun" readings are native
Mike> Japanese. I don't see how the equvalent situation could even
Mike> arise in an alphabetically written language.
Why not? How do you pronounce "e.g." (when used in English)? If you
pronounce it "exempli gratia", then that's ON reading. If you
pronounce it "for example", then it's KUN reading.
Similarly, "i.e." has a KUN reading of "that is", and an "ON" reading
of "id est". etc.
Of course, this phenomenon is not as ubiquitous in English as it is in
Japanese.
Mike> We would have to write some sequence of letters that would
Mike> sometimes be read as "cow" (kun--native English) and
Mike> sometimes as "beef" (on--mispronounced French).
You've forgotten that English has many words that are not pronounced
as written?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
Paul Blay
> Why not? How do you pronounce "e.g." (when used in English)? If you
> pronounce it "exempli gratia", then that's ON reading. If you
> pronounce it "for example", then it's KUN reading.
Personally I pronounce it "イージー".
Tak To
> Why not? How do you pronounce "e.g." (when used in English)? If you
> pronounce it "exempli gratia", then that's ON reading. If you
> pronounce it "for example", then it's KUN reading.
>
> Similarly, "i.e." has a KUN reading of "that is", and an "ON" reading
> of "id est". etc.
Most Americans I know _read_ "e.g." as "yee gee" and "i.e." as "eye
yee"; and _say_ "for example" and "eye yee", respectively. I have
never heard anyone read or say "exempli gratia" and "id est".
I don't think "exampli gratia" or "id est" are common enough to be
called "readings" at all.
> Mike> We would have to write some sequence of letters that would
> Mike> sometimes be read as "cow" (kun--native English) and
> Mike> sometimes as "beef" (on--mispronounced French).
>
> You've forgotten that English has many words that are not pronounced
> as written?
There are plenty but very few have dual (common enough) readings
in the same dialect.
OTOH there are words that have different pronunciations based on
the parts of speech (e.g., produce - noun vs verb) but I am not
sure they fit the kun-on analogy.
Tak To
> I do find myself modifying my pronunciation for English-speaking
> listeners in the case of Japanese and Chinese words that have become
> common. Now that my missionary fervor has cooled, I just go ahead and
> say "kuhrotty" instead of "karate".
or "karate-do"...
> I still have a problem bringing myself to say "carry okie", but I try.
That's a tough one. :-)
I have learnt no to say "crepe" the French way, but I draw the
line at "D'Artagnan".
Tak To
Yes, but "autumn/autumnal" isn't such a case.
Harlan Messinger
> Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
>> Why not? How do you pronounce "e.g." (when used in English)? If you
>> pronounce it "exempli gratia", then that's ON reading. If you
>> pronounce it "for example", then it's KUN reading.
>>
>> Similarly, "i.e." has a KUN reading of "that is", and an "ON" reading
>> of "id est". etc.
>
> Most Americans I know _read_ "e.g." as "yee gee" and "i.e." as "eye
> yee"; and _say_ "for example" and "eye yee", respectively. I have
> never heard anyone read or say "exempli gratia" and "id est".
Americans don't have a /y/ at the beginning of the name of the letter
"e". I suppose it's possible in "i.e.", but I have a glottal stop.
I read "e.g." either as such or as "for example", and I read "i.e."
either as such or as "that is".
Peter T. Daniels
Tak To wrote:
> Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
> > Why not? How do you pronounce "e.g." (when used in English)? If you
> > pronounce it "exempli gratia", then that's ON reading. If you
> > pronounce it "for example", then it's KUN reading.
> >
> > Similarly, "i.e." has a KUN reading of "that is", and an "ON" reading
> > of "id est". etc.
>
> Most Americans I know _read_ "e.g." as "yee gee" and "i.e." as "eye
> yee"; and _say_ "for example" and "eye yee", respectively. I have
> never heard anyone read or say "exempli gratia" and "id est".
Most Americans you know are native Tamil-speakers??? (They're the ones
that put a [j] before an initial high front vowel.)
Mike Wright
> Mike Wright wrote:
>
>>Tak To wrote:
>
>>>But the kun-on difference is not a vernacular-literary one!
>>
>>Yep. Even "daiben" (shit) is an "on" reading.
>>
>>The whole point of "on" vs. "kun" is that "on" readings are
>>(mispronounced) Chinese and "kun" readings are native Japanese. I don't
>>see how the equvalent situation could even arise in an alphabetically
>>written language. We would have to write some sequence of letters that
>>would sometimes be read as "cow" (kun--native English) and sometimes as
>>"beef" (on--mispronounced French).
>
> Just within English, there are subsystems: <ph> betokens a Greek
> etymology, <f> a Germanic one, for instance.
But those are different ways of writing the same sound, not different
ways of pronouncing the same written word.
>>>>>>For a consistently carried-through "on" and "kun" approach to English,
>>>>>>see Henry Rogers, (Blackwell Textbook of) Writing Systems (2005).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not such a great pedagogical device, because the student first has
>>>>>>to grasp what's going on in Japanese, but it's an interesting way to
>>>>>>look at things.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am completely lost. Which pedagogical device are you talking
>>>>>about? Categorizing the difference pronunciations in homographs?
>>>>
>>>>I'm certainly not going to copy out vast stretches of the book for you.
>>>
>>>You can't describe a pedaogical device in one or two sentences?
>>>
>>>
>>>>You might approach the concepts a little less literally.
>>>
>>>It seems that Dylan is just as baffled as I am as to what Nigel or
>>>you think "Kun-On in English" means.
>>
>>I was totally baffled, myself. I thought at first that it might have
>>something to do with "autumn" vs. "fall", but couldn't find any
>>reference to "fall".
>
> "Autumn" and "fall" are both everyday words. "Autumnal" is not.
But, again: "kun" does *not* mean "everyday", it means "belonging to the
native Japanese substrate"; "on" does *not* mean "literary or unusual",
it means "Chinese loan word". And, these terms only apply to
pronunciations of some particular kanji (or, sometimes, strings of kanji).
So, when 大 is read "oo", that is a "kun" reading, and when it is read
"dai", that is an "on" reading. Likewise, when 便 is read "tayo", that
is a "kun" reading, and when it is read "ben", that is an "on" reading.
When these two kanji are combined as 大便, the compound is read
"daiben". This is an everyday word, but is still a combination of two
"on" readings.
Note that there are compounds that involve both "on" and "kun" readings
of the component kanji. For example, "daisu(ki)" can be written as 大好
き, in which "dai" is an "on" reading of 大 and "su" is a "kun" reading
of 好 (with "ki" being an inflected ending written in hiragana). This is
an extremely common word, meaning "very well liked".
Some kanji combinations have both "kun" and "on" readings. For example,
大人 ("big" + "person") can be read:
"otona" (kun: "adult")
"ushi" (kun: polite term used in addressing an important person)
"taijin" (on: "giant"; "adult"; polite term used in addressing an
important person--depending on context)
"daijin" (on: in the compound "daijinbutsu" 大人物, "great man", in
which "jinbutsu" means something like "person")
Japanese being what it is, some "kun" kanji combinations cannot be
analyzed in terms of correspondences between individual kanji and
strings of sounds. For example, "ushi", above, cannot be broken down
with "u" applying to the kanji 大 and "shi" to the kanji 人. Likewise,
"otona" cannot be broken down into either "o + tona" or "oto + na".
This is particularly common for native Japanese plant and animal names.
For example, 大角豆 is read "sasage" (meaning "cowpea"; literally, "big
horn pea/bean"), but there would be no justification for claiming that
大 and 角 are each being read "sa" and that 豆 is being read "ge".
To tell the truth, I'm not even sure that "kun" is appropriate for such
unanalyzable kanji strings, but I don't know what else to call them. I
guess it depends on whether we're talking about the kanji, in which case
I would not say that 大 has "kun" readings of "u" and "sa".
Mike Wright
> Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
>>Why not? How do you pronounce "e.g." (when used in English)? If you
>>pronounce it "exempli gratia", then that's ON reading. If you
>>pronounce it "for example", then it's KUN reading.
>>
>>Similarly, "i.e." has a KUN reading of "that is", and an "ON" reading
>>of "id est". etc.
>
> Most Americans I know _read_ "e.g." as "yee gee" and "i.e." as "eye
> yee"; and _say_ "for example" and "eye yee", respectively. I have
> never heard anyone read or say "exempli gratia" and "id est".
That's the case for me.
> I don't think "exampli gratia" or "id est" are common enough to be
> called "readings" at all.
I agree, but it's the closest thing we've seen so far.
>> Mike> We would have to write some sequence of letters that would
>> Mike> sometimes be read as "cow" (kun--native English) and
>> Mike> sometimes as "beef" (on--mispronounced French).
>>
>>You've forgotten that English has many words that are not pronounced
>>as written?
>
> There are plenty but very few have dual (common enough) readings
> in the same dialect.
>
> OTOH there are words that have different pronunciations based on
> the parts of speech (e.g., produce - noun vs verb) but I am not
> sure they fit the kun-on analogy.
I don't think so. For me, "kun" means "pronunciation from native
substrate" and "on" means "obvious foreign loan", and the contrast only
makes sense when applied to words that are written identically.
As an example of why I say "obvious" above, Japanese has what is
considered a "kun" reading of "uma" for 馬 "horse", vs. "on" readings of
"ma", "me", and "ba". Roy Andrew Miller (_The Japanese Language_, page
206) claims that "uma" represents a very early (pre-literate?) loan of
the Chinese /ma/. Other examples are the "kun" readings of "ume" for 梅
"plum" (on: "bai") and "fude" for 筆 "writing brush" (on: "hitsu").
Because the loans are basically "prehistoric", they have become fully
fully naturalized.
Mike Wright
> Tak To wrote:
>
>> Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>>
>>> Why not? How do you pronounce "e.g." (when used in English)? If you
>>> pronounce it "exempli gratia", then that's ON reading. If you
>>> pronounce it "for example", then it's KUN reading.
>>>
>>> Similarly, "i.e." has a KUN reading of "that is", and an "ON" reading
>>> of "id est". etc.
>>
>> Most Americans I know _read_ "e.g." as "yee gee" and "i.e." as "eye
>> yee"; and _say_ "for example" and "eye yee", respectively. I have
>> never heard anyone read or say "exempli gratia" and "id est".
>
> That's the case for me.[...]
Except, as a couple of folks have noted, I pronounce 'e' as "ee", not as
"yee".
Harlan Messinger
But these aren't on and kun in the sense that those terms have in
Japanese. My choice of reading isn't conditioned on the particular use
of these abbreviations. Indeed, they only have one use each. It has to
do with the circumstances in which I'm reading them, and even then it's
fairly arbitrary.
Mike Wright
I found the reference I was looking for. In _The Japanese Language_ (pp.
204-207), Roy Andrew Miller reconstructs Old Japanese nasal vowels, /i~/
and /u~/, which would have been used to in attempting to pronounce
Chinese final /N/. Don't know how this reconstruction is viewed in
modern times.
> (It's 5:30 AM and I haven't been to bed yet, so I can't even think about
> when go-on borrowings were supposed to have taken place.)
It looks like LMC (as early as 647 AD) and go-on (712 AD for the Kojiki)
are a pretty good fit.
Harlan Messinger
> But didn't Napoleon say "Impossible n'est pas français"?
>
> BTW -- I'm afraid this is rather OT, but what the hell ... We have
> something analogous to _on_ & _kun_ readings in English. At this time
> of year the weather reports often include the _on_ reading of "autumn",
> as in "The weather really is getting rather autumnal". I suppose this
> is because the _on_ & _kun_ readings of "autumn" are so similar (just a
> difference in stress).
There isn't any on or kun here. "Autumn" and "autumnal" are different
written representations. On and kun are about the Chinese-derived versus
the native Japanese pronunciations being applied to the same written
character in different environments.
Even the two different pronunciations of the single written form
"record" aren't on and kun, because they aren't from two disparate sources.
Bart Mathias
But "daiben" would be much more accurately rendered as "bowel movement."
Not literary, but a different register sort of in the same direction
as literary.
The remark reminds me of a photo of a bilingual directory in a Chinese
clinic or hospital someone e-mailed me a few days ago. One part of the
gynecology and obstetrics department is listed as
<character I don't know! Classifier 170 on left, flesh or perhaps moon
on the right>道鏡検査室 Cunt Examination
I've been wondering if that was some wiseguy's deliberate sabotage.
> [...]
Bart Mathias
Bart Mathias
> Mike Wright wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Someone has mentioned that the back-vowel /u/ in Japanese might
>> represent an attempt to pronounce the Chinese velar /N/. I think there
>> might also be some other theory regarding an earlier pronunciation of
>> Japanese /u/ that involved a nasal quality, but can't recall what it may
>> have been. (And I may simply be delusional.)
>
>
> I found the reference I was looking for. In _The Japanese Language_ (pp.
> 204-207), Roy Andrew Miller reconstructs Old Japanese nasal vowels, /i~/
> and /u~/, which would have been used to in attempting to pronounce
> Chinese final /N/. Don't know how this reconstruction is viewed in
> modern times.
The fact that there is no reason to believe that Old Japanese had any
/i~/ and /u~/, except possibly as a way to replicate a foreign sound,
leaves that as simply a guess.
Another guess would be that originally 丁 was /tiyagu/; /g/ was clearly
often [N] in some environments, and earlier borrowings used /g/ plus
echo vowel for Chinese final /N/--viz. /saga/ for 相 in many proper
nouns. Velars have been a bit unstable before high vowels in Japanese;
nowadays they say "ohayoo" instead of "ohayaku," "oyoide" instead of
"oyogite" for "swimming," etc.
I prefer this guess to Miller's, maybe just because it's mine.
Bart Mathias
>> [...]
Bart Mathias
> [...]
> Some kanji combinations have both "kun" and "on" readings. For example,
> 大人 ("big" + "person") can be read:
>
> "otona" (kun: "adult")
>
> "ushi" (kun: polite term used in addressing an important person)
Say what?
Bart Mathias
Bart Mathias
What do those Tamil guys put between the [j] and the high front vowel so
one can tell it's there, and not just the beginning of the vowel?
Bart Mathias
Bart Mathias
> [...] Japanese has what is
> considered a "kun" reading of "uma" for 馬 "horse", vs. "on" readings of
> "ma", "me", and "ba". Roy Andrew Miller (_The Japanese Language_, page
> 206) claims that "uma" represents a very early (pre-literate?) loan of
> the Chinese /ma/. Other examples are the "kun" readings of "ume" for 梅
> "plum" (on: "bai") and "fude" for 筆 "writing brush" (on: "hitsu").
> Because the loans are basically "prehistoric", they have become fully
> fully naturalized.
I realize this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but "horse"
could easily have come from elsewhere (cf. the Korean and Mongolian terms).
"Fude" from Chinese is *extremely* unlikely. The "d" is bad enough, but
the "e" sticks out like a sore thumb. Probably from /pumI/ "pattern,
writing" plus /te2/ "hand, tool."
Bart Mathias
Mike Wright
However, "daiben" seems to me to be very much an "everyday"
word--perhaps just more polite than "kuso". It's not the kind of term
that only shows up in medical journals--or in poetry. Likewise for
"benjo". (And is there a "lower register" word for "toilet?)
Still, maybe I should have stuck with kanji that are used in the
everyday language and don't even seem to have "kun" readings, like 茶,
汽, 特, or 毒.
> The remark reminds me of a photo of a bilingual directory in a Chinese
> clinic or hospital someone e-mailed me a few days ago. One part of the
> gynecology and obstetrics department is listed as
>
> <character I don't know! Classifier 170 on left, flesh or perhaps moon
> on the right>道鏡検査室 Cunt Examination
阴 is the PRC short form for 陰. (So, it's "moon" on the right. 阳 is
the short form for 陽.)
In this case, 阴道 (陰道) is the same as 阴门 (陰門).
> I've been wondering if that was some wiseguy's deliberate sabotage.
Judging from Engrish.com, which now includes many Chinese items, it's
not impossible that it was just a really inept translation.
> Bart Mathias
Mike Wright
> Mike Wright wrote:
>
>> Mike Wright wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Someone has mentioned that the back-vowel /u/ in Japanese might
>>> represent an attempt to pronounce the Chinese velar /N/. I think there
>>> might also be some other theory regarding an earlier pronunciation of
>>> Japanese /u/ that involved a nasal quality, but can't recall what it may
>>> have been. (And I may simply be delusional.)
>>
>> I found the reference I was looking for. In _The Japanese Language_
>> (pp. 204-207), Roy Andrew Miller reconstructs Old Japanese nasal
>> vowels, /i~/ and /u~/, which would have been used to in attempting to
>> pronounce Chinese final /N/. Don't know how this reconstruction is
>> viewed in modern times.
>
> The fact that there is no reason to believe that Old Japanese had any
> /i~/ and /u~/, except possibly as a way to replicate a foreign sound,
> leaves that as simply a guess.
Well, he does hypothesize /u~/ as an intermediate between /bi/ and /mi/
and the syllabic nasal in cases such as "tobite" -> "tonde" and "yomite"
-> "yonde". In regard to the former, he says, "Some texts show such
forms as _toude_ which indicate an intermediate stage with a nasalized
_u~_; others indicate a change directly from _tobite_ to _tonde_ without
this intermediate stage."
He also says, "The late Old Japanese period also saw the development of
a naslized _i~_, established in certain late Old Japanese dialects as a
separate phoneme contrasting with non-nasalized _i_, and perhaps this
development should be completed with an intermediate stage _toi~te_."
However, he doesn't provide any supporting documentation, so I don't
know how to judge this claim.
> Another guess would be that originally 丁 was /tiyagu/; /g/ was clearly
> often [N] in some environments, and earlier borrowings used /g/ plus
> echo vowel for Chinese final /N/--viz. /saga/ for 相 in many proper
> nouns.
Really? I would never have guessed--even though I lived in Sagamihara
(Air Force housing area) for 2.5 years. Any other cases like this where
the /g/ has been retained?
> Velars have been a bit unstable before high vowels in Japanese;
> nowadays they say "ohayoo" instead of "ohayaku," "oyoide" instead of
> "oyogite" for "swimming," etc.
Are any of those lost velars attested to in earlier kana spellings--or
did the change in pronunciation occur too early? I understand that these
changes can be implied from other forms: "oyogu" implying "oyogide" and
"hayaku" implying "ohayaku". I just wonder whether the intermediate
forms ever show up in actual writing.
> I prefer this guess to Miller's, maybe just because it's mine.
It's only human.
Mike Wright
Right outa Nelson. You think it should oughta be written 牛? :-p
Mike Wright
> Mike Wright wrote:
>
>> [...] Japanese has what is
>> considered a "kun" reading of "uma" for 馬 "horse", vs. "on" readings
>> of "ma", "me", and "ba". Roy Andrew Miller (_The Japanese Language_,
>> page 206) claims that "uma" represents a very early (pre-literate?)
>> loan of the Chinese /ma/. Other examples are the "kun" readings of
>> "ume" for 梅 "plum" (on: "bai") and "fude" for 筆 "writing brush"
>> (on: "hitsu"). Because the loans are basically "prehistoric", they
>> have become fully fully naturalized.
>
>
> I realize this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but "horse"
> could easily have come from elsewhere (cf. the Korean and Mongolian terms).
>
> "Fude" from Chinese is *extremely* unlikely. The "d" is bad enough, but
I'll give you the "d"--for now.
> the "e" sticks out like a sore thumb.
I dunno. I kinda like the "take" reading of 竹 coming from Chinese, too.
Do you think that the "e" is worse than the "a" in "saga"?
> Probably from /pumI/ "pattern,
> writing" plus /te2/ "hand, tool."
pumite -> punde -> pude -> fude?
Howzabout:
pumite -> pu~de -> pude -> fude?
Peter T. Daniels
Mike Wright wrote:
> > Just within English, there are subsystems: <ph> betokens a Greek
> > etymology, <f> a Germanic one, for instance.
>
> But those are different ways of writing the same sound, not different
> ways of pronouncing the same written word.
>
> >>>>>>For a consistently carried-through "on" and "kun" approach to English,
> >>>>>>see Henry Rogers, (Blackwell Textbook of) Writing Systems (2005).
> > "Autumn" and "fall" are both everyday words. "Autumnal" is not.
>
> But, again: "kun" does *not* mean "everyday", it means "belonging to the
> native Japanese substrate"; "on" does *not* mean "literary or unusual",
> it means "Chinese loan word". And, these terms only apply to
> pronunciations of some particular kanji (or, sometimes, strings of kanji).
Then go up to Toronto and complain to the author.
Peter T. Daniels
Do you not distinguish between "ear" and "year"?
Mike Wright
Where does he live? I'll send my niece's husband around.
Bart Mathias
> Bart Mathias wrote:
>
>> Mike Wright wrote:
>>
>>> vowels, /i~/ and /u~/, which would have been used to in attempting to
>>> pronounce Chinese final /N/. Don't know how this reconstruction is
>>> viewed in modern times.
>>
>>
>> The fact that there is no reason to believe that Old Japanese had any
>> /i~/ and /u~/, except possibly as a way to replicate a foreign sound,
>> leaves that as simply a guess.
>
>
> Well, he does hypothesize /u~/ as an intermediate between /bi/ and /mi/
> and the syllabic nasal in cases such as "tobite" -> "tonde" and "yomite"
> -> "yonde". In regard to the former, he says, "Some texts show such
> forms as _toude_ which indicate an intermediate stage with a nasalized
> _u~_; others indicate a change directly from _tobite_ to _tonde_ without
> this intermediate stage."
It seems to me there's a step missing in the logic there.
> He also says, "The late Old Japanese period also saw the development of
> a naslized _i~_, established in certain late Old Japanese dialects as a
> separate phoneme contrasting with non-nasalized _i_, and perhaps this
> development should be completed with an intermediate stage _toi~te_."
> However, he doesn't provide any supporting documentation, so I don't
> know how to judge this claim.
If it can be documented, I bet Gunther Wenck has done so someplace in
_Japansche Phonetik_. I don't remember--I read what seemed like a lot
of it but just touched the surface. But it's hard to imagine what kind
of evidence could support the claim.
I'm tempted to quote from a couple letters from Miller that I have
saved, but I guess that would be like talking about someone behind his
back. Anyway, there were a *lot* of errors--many, but hardly all,
nit-picky, to be sure--in the first edition of _The Japanese Language_.
I reluctantly decided not to use if for my course in the history of
the language.
>> Another guess would be that originally 丁 was /tiyagu/; /g/ was
>> clearly often [N] in some environments, and earlier borrowings used
>> /g/ plus echo vowel for Chinese final /N/--viz. /saga/ for 相 in many
>> proper nouns.
>
> Really? I would never have guessed--even though I lived in Sagamihara
> (Air Force housing area) for 2.5 years. Any other cases like this where
> the /g/ has been retained?
I would have said a lot, had I not just performed a strenuous search.
I'm probably thinking of other cases of Chinese consonant finals saved
with vowels other than /i/ or /u/. I can offer these probables:
香美 for "Kagami," 当麻 for "Tagima" (but this is not an echo vowel
case), and *maybe* 良仁 for "Nagahito." I have a list containing these
two-syllable kana, but I haven't read enough to encounter them in real
life, so far as I recall: 英 /aga/, 興 /kogo/, and (another non-echo
case) 鍾 /sigu/.
>
>> Velars have been a bit unstable before high vowels in Japanese;
>> nowadays they say "ohayoo" instead of "ohayaku," "oyoide" instead of
>> "oyogite" for "swimming," etc.
>
> Are any of those lost velars attested to in earlier kana spellings--or
> did the change in pronunciation occur too early? I understand that these
> changes can be implied from other forms: "oyogu" implying "oyogide" and
> "hayaku" implying "ohayaku". I just wonder whether the intermediate
> forms ever show up in actual writing.
All of them are attested, even still used in poetry if no where else.
What we see is "oyogite" rather than "oyogide," a rather unlikely form
(two nigori in a row was "kapu," so to speak), but old texts rarely
distinguished p/b, t/d, k/g, or s/z.
/ohayaku/ is still used, just not for "ohayoo gozaimasu" = "Good
morning" or "Nice to see you so early."
Bart Mathias
Bart Mathias
> Bart Mathias wrote:
>
>> Mike Wright wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Some kanji combinations have both "kun" and "on" readings. For
>>> example, 大人 ("big" + "person") can be read:
>>>
>>> "otona" (kun: "adult")
>>>
>>> "ushi" (kun: polite term used in addressing an important person)
>>
>>
>>
>> Say what?
>
>
> Right outa Nelson. You think it should oughta be written 牛? :-p
Yer right. Nelson and two of my dictionaries of early Japanese have it,
but not my regular dictionaries. My guess is you'd have a hard time
convincing a Japanese person that it's a proper reading, but maybe I'm
wrong.
Bart Mathias
Of course, but the vowel ([I]) is hardly high and front. Have you ever
noticed how few languages with an [i] but no [I] have distinctions like
"ear" and "year" or even "e" ([Ij]) and "ye" ([jIj])? Of the languages
I've had a close look at, there's only English.
Bart Mathias
Lee Sau Dan
Paul> "Lee Sau Dan" <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote ...
>> Why not? How do you pronounce "e.g." (when used in English)?
>> If you pronounce it "exempli gratia", then that's ON reading.
>> If you pronounce it "for example", then it's KUN reading.
Paul> Personally I pronounce it "イージー".
Really? You pronounce letter "G" as "ジー"? Without rounding the lips?
--
Lee Sau Dan
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Brian M. Scott
<mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in
<news:gI2dnVORoIiXrYLY...@hawaiiantel.net> in
sci.lang,sci.lang.japan:
[...]
> Of course, but the vowel ([I]) is hardly high and front.
In vowel space as a whole it is: it's higher than mid and
fronter than central.
[...]
Brian
Bart Mathias
> Bart Mathias wrote:
>
>> Mike Wright wrote:
>>
>>> [...] Japanese has what is
>>> considered a "kun" reading of "uma" for 馬 "horse", vs. "on" readings
>>> of "ma", "me", and "ba". Roy Andrew Miller (_The Japanese Language_,
>>> page 206) claims that "uma" represents a very early (pre-literate?)
>>> loan of the Chinese /ma/. Other examples are the "kun" readings of
>>> "ume" for 梅 "plum" (on: "bai") and "fude" for 筆 "writing brush"
>>> (on: "hitsu"). Because the loans are basically "prehistoric", they
>>> have become fully fully naturalized.
>>
>>
>>
>> I realize this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but "horse"
>> could easily have come from elsewhere (cf. the Korean and Mongolian
>> terms).
>>
>> "Fude" from Chinese is *extremely* unlikely. The "d" is bad enough, but
>
>
> I'll give you the "d"--for now.
>
>> the "e" sticks out like a sore thumb.
>
>
> I dunno. I kinda like the "take" reading of 竹 coming from Chinese, too.
> Do you think that the "e" is worse than the "a" in "saga"?
"take" may have come from Chinese, assuming it didn't grow in Japan when
the Japanese got there, but if it was borrowed, it was borrowed as
/taka/. The /ke2/ (aka ke<subscript>B) of /take2/ is a development of
/ka/ + /i/.
>> Probably from /pumI/ "pattern, writing" plus /te2/ "hand, tool."
>
>
> pumite -> punde -> pude -> fude?
I'd be inclined to make "pumte" or "pumute" the second step. By the way,
it looks like <nasal obstruent> <vowel> <voiceless obstruent> -->
<voiced obstruent> was very common in (late?) prehistoric and early
historic Japanese.
> Howzabout:
>
> pumite -> pu~de -> pude -> fude?
[pu~de] is just too hard to say, unless it really earns its keep (the
proper linguistic term for this kind of "earning its keep" escapes me at
the moment). There wouldn't have ever been enough /u~/ vs. /u/
contrasts. I'm inclined to go along with the notion that all voiced
obstruents were prenasalized in old Japanese anyway, so you'd end up
with /pu~nde/, and that ain't sublime.
Bart Mathias
Lee Sau Dan
Mike> In this case, 阴道 (陰道) is the same as 阴门 (陰門).
Wrong. 陰道 is vagina. 陰門 or 陰戶 is vulva.
You could have told the difference from the meanings of the second
character in each of these compounds.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
Bart Mathias
> Bart Mathias wrote:
>
>> Mike Wright wrote:
>>
>>> Yep. Even "daiben" (shit) is an "on" reading.
>>
>> But "daiben" would be much more accurately rendered as "bowel
>> movement." Not literary, but a different register sort of in the same
>> direction as literary.
>
>
> However, "daiben" seems to me to be very much an "everyday"
> word--perhaps just more polite than "kuso". It's not the kind of term
> that only shows up in medical journals--or in poetry. Likewise for
> "benjo". (And is there a "lower register" word for "toilet?)
Maybe "kawaya," but it think it just sounds odd, rather than base.
"otoire" is higher than "benjo, but sounds feminine to me.
"
For my generation--and as I recall you're not that far behind (and I
keep forgetting to tell you it's nice to have you back)--"bowel
movement" is not a medical journal term.
> Still, maybe I should have stuck with kanji that are used in the
> everyday language and don't even seem to have "kun" readings, like 茶,
> 汽, 特, or 毒.
I might be the only living person who believes that 汽 has a kun, namely
"ke." But I do believe it.
>> The remark reminds me of a photo of a bilingual directory in a Chinese
>> clinic or hospital someone e-mailed me a few days ago. One part of
>> the gynecology and obstetrics department is listed as
>>
>> <character I don't know! Classifier 170 on left, flesh or perhaps
>> moon on the right>道鏡検査室 Cunt Examination
>
> 阴 is the PRC short form for 陰. (So, it's "moon" on the right. 阳 is
> the short form for 陽.)
I don't get the "So." Does that 今 云 combination have some connection
to the moon that I don't know about?--Oh, oh, I just caught on: "Moon"
for "shadowed, negative, northern exposure" "sun" for "bright, positive,
southern exposure." Hey, I never claimed not to be dense!
> [...]
Bart Mathias
Let me rephrase that. "... the vowel ([I]) is hardly very high or very
front."
What counts is that it's far enough away from [j] to allow tongue
movement, a change in sound.
Bart Mathias
Chris Kern
posted the following:
>I don't think so. For me, "kun" means "pronunciation from native
>substrate" and "on" means "obvious foreign loan", and the contrast only
>makes sense when applied to words that are written identically.
I think the root meanings of the terms are fairly clear -- "on"
literally means "sound", and "kun" means something like reading (i.e.
understanding the meaning). So an "on" yomi is one associated with
sound, whereas "kun" is associated with meaning. This isn't a perfect
description but it makes sense, I think.
-Chris
j...@csse.monash.edu.au
>Mike Wright wrote:
>> Bart Mathias wrote:
>>> Mike Wright wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Some kanji combinations have both "kun" and "on" readings. For
>>>> example, 大人 ("big" + "person") can be read:
>>>>
>>>> "otona" (kun: "adult")
>>>> "ushi" (kun: polite term used in addressing an important person)
>>>
>>> Say what?
>>
>Yer right. Nelson and two of my dictionaries of early Japanese have it,
>but not my regular dictionaries. My guess is you'd have a hard time
>convincing a Japanese person that it's a proper reading, but maybe I'm
>wrong.
Is うし (ushi) a "KUN" reading of 大人? According to Nelson, that sense for
大人 can be read either たいじん (taijin) or うし (ushi). I betcha the
うし reading is a 義訓 or 熟字訓, and neither ON nor KUN.
--
Jim Breen http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/
Clayton School of Information Technology,
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
ジム・ブリーン@モナシュ大学
Mike Wright
>>>>>>"Mike" == Mike Wright <ne...@raccoonbend.com> writes:
>
> Mike> In this case, 阴道 (陰道) is the same as 阴门 (陰門).
>
> Wrong. 陰道 is vagina. 陰門 or 陰戶 is vulva.
>
> You could have told the difference from the meanings of the second
> character in each of these compounds.
It certainly makes sense. I wonder why only two of my Chinese
dictionaries--one English-Chinese and one Chinese-English--clearly make
the distinction--and none of my Japanese dictionaries do. Part of the
problem is that some are missing one and some are missing the other, but
also, several show 陰門 as "vagina".
Mike Wright
> Mike Wright wrote:
>
>> Bart Mathias wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Wright wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> Yep. Even "daiben" (shit) is an "on" reading.
>>>
>>> But "daiben" would be much more accurately rendered as "bowel
>>> movement." Not literary, but a different register sort of in the
>>> same direction as literary.
>>
>> However, "daiben" seems to me to be very much an "everyday"
>> word--perhaps just more polite than "kuso". It's not the kind of term
>> that only shows up in medical journals--or in poetry. Likewise for
>> "benjo". (And is there a "lower register" word for "toilet?)
>
> Maybe "kawaya," but it think it just sounds odd, rather than base.
> "otoire" is higher than "benjo, but sounds feminine to me.
> "
> For my generation--and as I recall you're not that far behind (and I
> keep forgetting to tell you it's nice to have you back)
Thanks. I just need to stay away from the off-topic stuff, so that I
don't get burned out too quickly.
>--"bowel
> movement" is not a medical journal term.
But it *is* kinda poetic, doncha think?
I guess I should once again mention my co-workers in Japan, Ben Moriwaki
and Ben Mayewaki, known as "Big Ben" and "Little Ben", respectively. Our
Japanese employees obviously thought that it was funny, but they were
very careful never to translate the "Big" and "Little" using on-yomi.
>> Still, maybe I should have stuck with kanji that are used in the
>> everyday language and don't even seem to have "kun" readings, like 茶,
>> 汽, 特, or 毒.
>
> I might be the only living person who believes that 汽 has a kun, namely
> "ke." But I do believe it.
And now you have to explain why.
While you're at it, can you decipher the entry for 汽 in _Ueda's
Daijiten_? It includes a "ke" reading, but way too much other stuff.
Maybe that's why Pulleyblank didn't try to reconstruct Middle Chinese
pronunciations for it.
>>> The remark reminds me of a photo of a bilingual directory in a
>>> Chinese clinic or hospital someone e-mailed me a few days ago. One
>>> part of the gynecology and obstetrics department is listed as
>>>
>>> <character I don't know! Classifier 170 on left, flesh or perhaps
>>> moon on the right>道鏡検査室 Cunt Examination
>>
>> 阴 is the PRC short form for 陰. (So, it's "moon" on the right. 阳 is
>> the short form for 陽.)
>
> I don't get the "So." Does that 今 云 combination have some connection
> to the moon that I don't know about?--Oh, oh, I just caught on: "Moon"
> for "shadowed, negative, northern exposure" "sun" for "bright, positive,
> southern exposure." Hey, I never claimed not to be dense!
Nice, huh? It's one of the few cases where I think the short forms are
really clever. Actually, though, they predate the PRC, because Mathews'
has them, along with forms that have 日 and 月 under ⽓.
j...@csse.monash.edu.au
>It certainly makes sense. I wonder why only two of my Chinese
>dictionaries--one English-Chinese and one Chinese-English--clearly make
>the distinction--and none of my Japanese dictionaries do. Part of the
>problem is that some are missing one and some are missing the other, but
>also, several show 陰門 as "vagina".
EDICT/JMdict has "(female) genitalia; pubes". I have just added "vulva".
As for 陰道, is it a Japanese word? I can only pin it down to an
obscure family name (かげみち)..... OK, found 陰道/いんどう in 大辞林.
Two senses: （１）膣(チツ)のこと。 and （２）閨房(ケイボウ)の術。
I've added that too.
BTW, for 陰門, 大辞林 has 女性生殖器の外陰部。玉門。 which is
quite correct.
Mike Wright
> Apud Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> (sci.lang.japan) hoc legimus:
>
>>Mike Wright wrote:
>>
>>>Bart Mathias wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mike Wright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>Some kanji combinations have both "kun" and "on" readings. For
>>>>>example, 大人 ("big" + "person") can be read:
>>>>>
>>>>>"otona" (kun: "adult")
>>>>>"ushi" (kun: polite term used in addressing an important person)
>>>>
>>>>Say what?
>>>
>>>Right outa Nelson. You think it should oughta be written 牛 :-p
>
>
>>Yer right. Nelson and two of my dictionaries of early Japanese have it,
>>but not my regular dictionaries. My guess is you'd have a hard time
>>convincing a Japanese person that it's a proper reading, but maybe I'm
>>wrong.
>
>
> Is うし (ushi) a "KUN" reading of 大人? According to Nelson, that sense for
> 大人 can be read either たいじん (taijin) or うし (ushi).
Ueda's has about the same thing.
> I betcha the
> うし reading is a 義訓 or 熟字訓, and neither ON nor KUN.
What is 義訓?
Does 熟字訓 refer to those unanalyzeable multi-kanji compounds like 大角豆?
Lee Sau Dan
>>> <character I don't know! Classifier 170 on left, flesh or
>>> perhaps moon on the right>道鏡検査室 Cunt Examination
>> 阴 is the PRC short form for 陰. (So, it's "moon" on the
>> right. 阳 is the short form for 陽.)
Bart> I don't get the "So."
In the 5000-year old Yin-Yang theory based on the "Book of Changes",
the moon is associated with Yin, and the sun is associated with Yang.
Further, in Chinese, the moon is also called 太陰 while the sun is
commonly called 太陽, showing their association with Yin and Yang,
respectively. So, the PRC simplified form followed this line of logic
and simplifed Yin and Yang as 阴 and 阳, respectively.
Bart> Does that 今 云 combination have some connection to the
Bart> moon that I don't know about?
I think the 今 there is a phonetic radical.
Bart> Oh, oh, I just caught on: "Moon" for "shadowed, negative,
Bart> northern exposure"
That's collectively known as Yin.
Bart> "sun" for "bright, positive, southern exposure."
That's what Yang is association with.
Bart> Hey, I never claimed not to be dense!
BTW, if you have studied Korean for such a long time, you should have
long exposure to this Yin-Yang theory.
Lee Sau Dan
Chris> I think the root meanings of the terms are fairly clear --
Chris> "on" literally means "sound", and "kun" means something
Chris> like reading (i.e. understanding the meaning).
I suppose "kun" is related to "trained", "learnt/taught".
j...@csse.monash.edu.au
>What is 義訓?
I'm not sure what if anything is the difference between 義訓 and 熟字訓.
AFAIK 義訓 refers to cases like 啄木鳥 [げら] /(n) woodpecker/
where げら is an old word for woodpecker which has become associated
with the 啄木鳥 compound, although the kanji and mora have no
correspondence. A classic is 煙草/たばこ. 煙 (smoke) + 草 (grass), but
the "reading" is from Portuguese.
熟字訓 seems to cover all non-mappable yomikata, including common ones
like 今日/きょう, 田舎/いなか, etc.
Maybe Bart can straighten me/us out on 義訓 and 熟字訓.
Many Japanese call these 当て字 (ateji), which is wrong. Ateji are things
like 如露/じょろ where the kanji are there for pronunciation and not
semantic content.
Paul Blay
> Many Japanese call these 当て字 (ateji), which is wrong. Ateji are things
> like 如露/じょろ where the kanji are there for pronunciation and not
> semantic content.
Keep up the good fight - I hear that you're losing on the こんにちわ front ;-)
j...@csse.monash.edu.au
こんにちわ is an ateji? Why, wipe the drool off my chin.
I see こんにちわ gets 11.5 megaGoogits. Fortunately for my sanity,
こんにちは gets nearly 80 megaGoogits. My real favourite (こにちわ) only
racks up 43 kiloGoogits.
Paul Blay
> Apud Paul Blay <blay...@gu-gurume-ru.com.invalid> (sci.lang.japan) hoc legimus:
>><j...@csse.monash.edu.au> wrote ...
>>> Many Japanese call these 当て字 (ateji), which is wrong. Ateji are things
>>> like 如露/じょろ where the kanji are there for pronunciation and not
>>> semantic content.
>
>>Keep up the good fight - I hear that you're losing on the こんにちわ front ;-)
>
> こんにちわ is an ateji? Why, wipe the drool off my chin.
こんにちわ is something that is "wrong" but increasingly used.
> I see こんにちわ gets 11.5 megaGoogits. Fortunately for my sanity,
> こんにちは gets nearly 80 megaGoogits.
I wouldn't hold out much hope for the next generation - in all the time
I've been in online Japanese games I've never once seen someone use
こんにちは.
Peter T. Daniels
Don't know, but he's emeritus at UT.
Peter T. Daniels
Bart Mathias wrote:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:03:37 -1000, Bart Mathias
> > <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in
> > <news:gI2dnVORoIiXrYLY...@hawaiiantel.net> in
> > sci.lang,sci.lang.japan:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >>Of course, but the vowel ([I]) is hardly high and front.
> >
> >
> > In vowel space as a whole it is: it's higher than mid and
> > fronter than central.
>
> Let me rephrase that. "... the vowel ([I]) is hardly very high or very
> front."
And "very" did not figure in the conditions for the process. Would you
have preferred "non-low, non-back"?
> What counts is that it's far enough away from [j] to allow tongue
> movement, a change in sound.
And in Tamil-English, of course, the phenomenon also occurs with [E].
Presumably also with [ej], though I don't "hear" any examples just now.
Lee Sau Dan
jwb> I'm not sure what if anything is the difference between 義訓
jwb> and 熟字訓. AFAIK 義訓 refers to cases like 啄木鳥 [げら]
jwb> /(n) woodpecker/ where げら is an old word for woodpecker
jwb> which has become associated with the 啄木鳥 compound,
jwb> although the kanji and mora have no correspondence. A classic
jwb> is 煙草/たばこ. 煙 (smoke) + 草 (grass), but the "reading" is
jwb> from Portuguese.
I have always wondered why <tabako> is not written with katakanas.
j...@csse.monash.edu.au
>>>>>> "jwb" == jwb <j...@csse.monash.edu.au> writes:
jwb> ................. A classic
jwb> is 煙草/たばこ. 煙 (smoke) + 草 (grass), but the "reading" is
jwb> from Portuguese.
>I have always wondered why <tabako> is not written with katakanas.
It usually is now. The relevant Googits are:
煙草 6M
たばこ 9M
タバコ 22M
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:1159707139....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,sci.lang.japan:
> Bart Mathias wrote:
>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> [...]
As in 'wye (w)over yex' (y/x). (My colleague's [w] on-glide
isn't as prominent as the [j].)
> Presumably also with [ej], though I don't "hear" any examples just now.
I'm trying to 'hear' him say the name of the first letter;
I'm pretty sure that it's [jej].
Brian
Mike Wright
Thanks, Jim. I'm glad to finally have a proper term for those
bling-blanged things.
> Maybe Bart can straighten me/us out on 義訓 and 熟字訓.
>
> Many Japanese call these 当て字 (ateji), which is wrong. Ateji are things
> like 如露/じょろ where the kanji are there for pronunciation and not
> semantic content.
--
Mike Wright
http://www.raccoonbend.com
Mike Wright
You aren't saying that こんにちわ is being written by native speakers,
are you?
Paul Blay
> Paul Blay wrote:
>> I wouldn't hold out much hope for the next generation - in all the time
>> I've been in online Japanese games I've never once seen someone use こん
>> にちは.
>
> You aren't saying that こんにちわ is being written by native speakers,
> are you?
Where have you been living?!
Dylan Sung
<j...@csse.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
news:XcKTg.39218$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Apud Mike Wright <ne...@raccoonbend.com> (sci.lang.japan) hoc legimus:
>>It certainly makes sense. I wonder why only two of my Chinese
>>dictionaries--one English-Chinese and one Chinese-English--clearly make
>>the distinction--and none of my Japanese dictionaries do. Part of the
>>problem is that some are missing one and some are missing the other, but
>>also, several show 陰門 as "vagina".
>
> EDICT/JMdict has "(female) genitalia; pubes". I have just added "vulva".
>
> As for 陰道, is it a Japanese word? I can only pin it down to an
> obscure family name (かげみち)..... OK, found 陰道/いんどう in 大辞林.
> Two senses: （１）膣(チツ)のこと。 and （２）閨房(ケイボウ)の術。
>
> I've added that too.
>
> BTW, for 陰門, 大辞林 has 女性生殖器の外陰部。玉門。 which is
> quite correct.
>
玉門 Jade gates???!
I wonder how we can re-interpret Li Bai (李白）'s poem
關山月
明月出天山， 蒼茫雲海間；
長風幾萬里， 吹度玉門關。
....
Who blew the harmonica there???
lol.
Dyl.
Chris Kern
posted the following:
>Paul Blay wrote:
>> I wouldn't hold out much hope for the next generation - in all the time
>> I've been in online Japanese games I've never once seen someone use こん
>> にちは.
>
>You aren't saying that こんにちわ is being written by native speakers,
>are you?
I see we have an idealist here.
-Chris
Mike Wright
North Texas.
Paul Blay
> Paul Blay wrote:
>> "Mike Wright" <ne...@raccoonbend.com> wrote ...
>>
>>> are you?
>>
>> Where have you been living?!
>
> North Texas.
That was more of a "what world" question. ;-)
I've been living in the UK (Berkshire) but even I know that
if you pick 5 native Japanese speakers _under 20_ you'll
be lucky if any of them _don't_ write こんにちわ online.
Kevin Wayne Williams
I even had a pen-pal correct こんにちは to こんにちわ once.
KWW
Dylan Sung
"Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message
news:muOdnd3uif19doPY...@hawaiiantel.net...
> Mike Wright wrote:
>> [...] Japanese has what is
>> considered a "kun" reading of "uma" for 馬 "horse", vs. "on" readings of
>> "ma", "me", and "ba". Roy Andrew Miller (_The Japanese Language_, page
>> 206) claims that "uma" represents a very early (pre-literate?) loan of
>> the Chinese /ma/. Other examples are the "kun" readings of "ume" for 梅
>> "plum" (on: "bai") and "fude" for 筆 "writing brush" (on: "hitsu").
>> Because the loans are basically "prehistoric", they have become fully
>> fully naturalized.
>
> I realize this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but "horse" could
> easily have come from elsewhere (cf. the Korean and Mongolian terms).
>
> "Fude" from Chinese is *extremely* unlikely. The "d" is bad enough, but
> the "e" sticks out like a sore thumb. Probably from /pumI/ "pattern,
> writing" plus /te2/ "hand, tool."
>
> Bart Mathias
For modern Chinese dialects, the pronunciations in IPA for 筆 can found here
Dyl.
Dylan Sung
"Paul Blay" <blay...@gu-gurume-ru.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Kc_Tg.44142$8V4....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Good morning" doesn't seem to be a common usenet greeting to people
either...
Dyl.
Dylan Sung
"Dylan Sung" <dylanwhs....@pacific.net.hk> wrote in message
news:4oc2imF...@individual.net...
>
> For modern Chinese dialects, the pronunciations in IPA for 筆 can found
> here
Of course, it would help if I gave a link...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dylwhs/258385987/
>
> Dyl.
Nigel Greenwood
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> I read "e.g." either as such or as "for example", and I read "i.e."
> either as such or as "that is".
There's a limerick that sheds some light on this:
When Gauguin was visiting Fiji
He said, "Things are different here, e.g.
While Tahitian skin
Calls for tan, spread on thin,
You must slosh it on here with a squeegee.
Nigel
--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical
Greek/IPA/Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk
Paul Blay
> "Good morning" doesn't seem to be a common usenet greeting to people
> either...
I always assumed that was because of the time difference.
It's never "morning" when I'm online.
One thing I've noticed playing Trickster is that when somebody leaves
the party the traditional 挨拶 is お疲れ (or just 乙).
Nigel Greenwood
Dylan Sung wrote:
> "Tak To" <ta...@alum.mit.edu.-> wrote in message
> news:RfydnSv2xokG64DY...@comcast.com...
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> You might approach the concepts a little less literally.
> >
> > It seems that Dylan is just as baffled as I am as to what Nigel or
> > you think "Kun-On in English" means.
> >
>
> Perhaps a definition from Nigel might clear things up a little.
Indeed. Peter's right in surmising that I didn't expect to be taken
quite so literally; but I think I do owe group members a bit of an
explanation.
[Background: as most of you will know, "autumn" is the usual word for
the season in the UK -- we don't use "fall".]
Whenever I hear a weather forecaster (or even someone in casual speech)
talking about "rather autumnal weather", I feel like asking "Okay, if
you're so clever, why don't you talk about estival & hibernal weather?"
The answer if of course that the everyday "English" word autumn is
almost directly from the Latin, which in turn yields the adjective. I
suppose that the mental leap required is to imagine a concept for each
season (corresponding to the kanji in Japanese), each concept having an
On version (Latinate) and a Kun version (native English/vernacular):
with "autumn" the two happen to coincide in BrEng. That's all I meant!
If you now want some closer analogues to On & Kun, how about page
formats in printing? Only a dunce would pronounce 4to and 8vo as
"fourto" and "eightto"; but once we get to 16mo both "sextodecimo" and
"sixteenmo" are found & used. As for 32mo & 64mo ... well, the Kun
readings "thirtytwomo" and "sixtyfourmo" are standard (& not being a
Classical scholar I couldn't even tell you what the On versions are).
In a similar vein the "&" in "&c." (for "etc.") has the On reading "et"
(or its downmarket version "eck"). Curiously, I seem to remember being
told at school many years ago that "viz." was pronounced "namely": like
the name of Jahveh, "viz." was never meant to be uttered. But maybe my
memory is playing its usual tricks.
Stretching things a bit again now, there's something like an On/Kun
duality in certain French nouns based on adjectives: eg "surdité"
(deafness) from "sourd" (the first time I came across it I naively
assumed it was a misprint). Similarly, "calvitie" (baldness) from
"chauve". In such cases the noun reverts more closely to the Latin
form. This reversion to Latinate forms is also seen in adjectives from
place names, both in French (les Ruthénois from Rodez) & Spanish
(jienense from Jaén & gaditano from Cádiz).
Last night on the radio I heard a topical example of what might be
called a Kun reading when the announcer pronounced Clostridium
difficile as /"dIfIsi:l/, as if the specific name were French. He'd
have been closer to the mark if he'd read it as Italian.
Lee Sau Dan
>> I've been living in the UK (Berkshire) but even I know that if
>> you pick 5 native Japanese speakers _under 20_ you'll be lucky
>> if any of them _don't_ write こんにちわ online.
Dylan> "Good morning" doesn't seem to be a common usenet greeting
Dylan> to people either...
But <konnichiwa>, or in Kanji 今日は, doesn't mean good morning. It
means good afternoon, or "good day". "Good morning" is 御早う,
<ohayoo>.
bogus6...@mailinator.com
> I have a similar issue with English. When I read a number like 785 in
> an English text, I don't "hear" seven-hundred-eighty-five, but
> "siebenhundertfünfundachtzig".
>
> Joachim
I am a native speaker of English, and numbers like 130,000 get me
tongue-tied: I want to say "thirteen..." but that doesn't work.
Bart Mathias
>>>>>>"Bart" == Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> writes:
>
> [...]
> Bart> Does that 今 云 combination have some connection to the
> Bart> moon that I don't know about?
>
> I think the 今 there is a phonetic radical.
By golly, I think so too. Of course, if you accept the "cover" origin
of 今 and the "hidden" sense of the character written with 今 over 云 (I
don't have a dictionary that verifies this), it could be one of the many
cases of semantic phonetics.
> Bart> Oh, oh, I just caught on: "Moon" for "shadowed, negative,
> Bart> northern exposure"
>
> That's collectively known as Yin.
Once again, my thinking exactly! In fact, one can get from "Moon" to
"shadowed, negative, northern exposure" only by passing through "Yin."
> [...]
> Bart> Hey, I never claimed not to be dense!
>
> BTW, if you have studied Korean for such a long time, you should have
> long exposure to this Yin-Yang theory.
Not "for a long time," but "a long time ago." I never got around to
leaarning, or even guessing the necessary existence of, the word 太陰.
Figuring out Mike's "So" was my first realization of the obvious
connection between Yin and the moon.
Bart Mathias