Is the 又〜も grammar point factually accurate?

[sorega]

Is the fun fact appended to the 又〜も grammar point, which deals with the relative etymologies of 又 and 叉, factually accurate, strictly speaking?

The origin of 又 appears to be a drawing of a hand, per the Outlier Character Dictionary, which in turn cites 古文字譜系疏證. This matches its original meaning in Chinese, which is "right hand.”

The origin of 叉 appears to be a piece of food held in a hand, reflecting its original meaning, “to hold an object between one’s fingers” (this time citing 李學動’s 字源). This character then came to be used for “fork,” as in the utensil, and then finally metaphorically for roads or rivers that split.

The text of the fun fact as it currently stands is this:

The kanji 又また and 叉また share an interesting relationship. 又また is used to refer to things that reach a point of separation, but then fold back on themselves (being translated as ‘again’, or ‘in addition’). On the other hand, 叉また refers to things that reach a point of separation, and then split (being translated as ‘a fork in the road’, or ‘crotch’).

I find this passage very confusing. The kanji “又” was borrowed to mean “repetition or continuation” as early as Classical Chinese, the sense of “furthermore/in addition” is already attested to in Middle Chinese (4th-11 century CE). While Japanese certainly uses kanji in different and creative ways, it strikes me as odd to claim that the sense of “in addition” is derived by metaphor from the actual meaning of “[to] reach a point of separation, than fold back on themselves.” 又 meaning very straightforwardly “again” is probably older than the Nara period!

While I’m all for mnemonics that ignore etymological accuracy to help explain and retain information, I’m not sure how this passage, in its current draft, furthers a learner’s understanding of the usage of また in modern Japanese. This particular point, また …(も), is used as a logical connector in Japanese analytical/academic writing all the time as a straightforward calque of “in addition,” with no particular nuance of separation or folding together. One reference book I own (留学生のための論理的な文章の書き方) lists 又/また as a synonym for 更に, a common usage that would really confuse someone trying to use this mnemonic.

I’m also not sure how useful it is to compare 又 and 叉 at the N3 level in the first place, given that the latter is an unusual Jinmeiyō kanji. Regardless, the latter does not refer to “things that reach a point of separation, and then split;” it refers to things that look like a fork. Because 叉 meant fork and still occasionally means fork in both Chinese and Japanese (叉燒/Cha Siu probably being the big one in common).

Admittedly, perhaps the case can be made that the また of 又 and the また of 叉 share an ancient proto-Japonic root, as both readings are kunyomi. But the above passage specifies that it is referring to the kanji of the words, which I think the evidence for is really weak.

Since this passage is unsourced, I can’t know exactly which authority it’s drawing this information from. But, regardless of source, I don’t think this claim as it is currently written holds up. I really hope this passage can be flagged for a rewrite, edit, or deletion as the mod team finds appropriate. And users with opinions or more information on this passage are welcome to reply with their thoughts!

[CursedKitsune]

Since you clearly put a lot of thought into your post I’d like to respond in kind. I think you make some good points but below is probably where my opinion slightly differs to yours.

@sorega

Admittedly, perhaps the case can be made that the また of 又 and the また of 叉 share an ancient proto-Japonic root, as both readings are kunyomi. But the above passage specifies that it is referring to the kanji of the words, which I think the evidence for is really weak.

また is a Japanese word and the kanji is just used to represent it as to disambiguate in writing. It is not an ancient proto-Japonic link; it is a current link. Kanji is not commonly used to represent this word when it is being used as a function word (opposed to as a content word) however using kanji does allow to further specify meaning if one really wants to. It is here where I think you’re perhaps putting the cart before the horse. What kanji are used to refer to in modern Japanese and what kanji originally depicted or referred to when borrowed from China may be related but it is not primarily how speakers of the language think about or understand kanji. By which I mean: We shouldn’t derive meaning entirely from how kanji were once used in the past and instead should primarily focus on how they are used now. Historical use and etymology is useful to know and interesting though so I am not trashing it by any means. For example, in the case of 又 meaning “right hand”, it is clear that meaning is not in use any longer in Japanese (there are also two other “right hands” besides 又, namely 右 and 有).

Applying a current usage first approach to また, there are a handful of common kanji that are read as また that all have similar but distinct uses (又、亦、股、復、叉、and arguably 跨る fits here as well) - there are actually even more than this according to my dictionary but those are the ones I know about. In the case of 又 and 叉 my 新字源 dictionary gives following definitions, when meaning また：

又：ア さらに。そのうえ。(略) イ ふたたび。ふたたびする。(略）

叉：ふたまた。分岐。

And my children’s dictionary gives the following definitions:

又：(ア) 1. 同じく。やっぱり。2. ふたたび。もう一度. 3. 今回ではなく、この次。べつ。4. ほかに。さらに。(イ) そのうえに。そのほかに。

叉：一つのものが二つに分かれている所。(略)

Make of this what you will but the usage is clearly different. In the case of 又 the Bunpro description is perhaps a little vague however I think 叉 pretty much undeniably refers to things that bifurcate when used to write また. When the onyomi is used you are correct that it tends to refer to types fork or fork-like things (音叉, etc.) but that is neither here nor there.

Essentially I am half in agreement that the original Bunpro description is perhaps a bit beyond the average N3 learner and likely a bit vague, at least in part, however I would say that having a usage-first approach for kanji is better for language learning than an kanji-etymology first approach and in that respect the Bunpro description isn’t necessarily inaccurate. I don’t read the Bunpro description as making claims about the kanji etymology, just the current usage in Japanese. I would imagine the mental image is also useful for some people (a repeated convergence vs a single divergence). I guess I haven’t come to a conclusion here myself. What do you think?

---

Separate note about チャーシュー. In my experience it is written as 焼豚 the majority of the time in Japanese. I misread it on menus as やきぶた for an unreasonably long time so this is burned into me now as a core memory…

[casual]

Thank you both for insightful posts.
I thought I’d comment as an average N3 learner.

This description essentially goes completely above my head:

又 is used to refer to things that reach a point of separation, but then fold back on themselves (being translated as ‘again’, or ‘in addition’)

Without giving an example of which “things that fold back on themselves” 又 is currently used to refer to, or used to refer to in the past, it is both too abstract to stick, and makes me question if I even understand what the author means.

By the way, searching a dictionary for *又* doesn’t really give any words where it refers to those things in modern Japanese. There are only variations of again, forks, cousins and names.

EDHCC (Howell, Morimoto) is a little bit more helpful in trying to give an etymological example:

又: A depiction of a person’s right arm contracted in surrounding or protecting an object resting on the shoulders → above; beyond → again; moreover; or.

叉: The relevant seal inscription form is an abbreviated form# of 爪 (pick/pluck) + an object → stab at an object with a forked implement to catch or sandwich it → fork (in the road); (Edo-era) Y-shaped weapon for apprehending criminals.

It still isn’t immediately clear how folded right arm produced “again”, but at least it’s a more understandable mental image.

Since I’m in no position to judge correctness, at this point I’d just shrug, purge the fun fact(?) from memory and try to remember which words 又 is actually used in.

[sorega]

Thanks for the response @CursedKitsune, your posts are always great. Coincidentally, when I was searching the forums before hitting post to see if this topic was appropriate, I came across your own fact-check-the-fun-fact thread from last year so hey! Thanks for the inspiration as well.

Anyways, as to your point, I guess my original post can be boiled down to this — I think fun facts on Bunpro grammar explanations should be at least one of two things: (1) helpful or (2) informational.

I don’t think this particular fun fact is very (1) helpful — as @casual points out above, the practical applications of the fun fact as it stands is hard to discern. The image Bunpro provides as a mnemonic, “folding back on itself,” doesn’t really make sense with most usages of 又 in contemporary Japanese, including the 又～も grammar point it’s attached to!

But there’s also a value in providing more (2) information for its own sake — as long as it is accurate, of course. So, on that note:

I looked up また in the 古語辞書 (Dictionary of Classical Japanese) and you’re right, @CursedKitsune, また as in 叉 and また as in 又 are the same Old Japanese word.

The dictionary definition of 叉 corresponds to your sources, meaning forked or split, but the definition of 又 is interesting:

(a) も一つ。(b) その上に。(c) 再ひ。(d) やはり。(e) それとは別に。(f) 格別。(g) 話題を変えるときなどに使う。それから。

As we can see, many of these definitions are naturally derived from また’s original meaning of “splitting,” splitting from the topic of the sentence, moving apart from what I was talking about, and so on. It’s this straightforward image of splitting, actually identical to, and not in contrast with, the other また (叉), that the modern grammar point 又～も (in addition), appears to derive from.

I can see now what the original author of this grammar point is getting at: a few of the rarer ancient definitions of また could be described as a “folding back in” with some creative license, like (c) 再ひ or (d) やはり. But I think it’s very confusing to clarify a usage of 又 that is not relevant to the grammar point at hand. And I also think it’s odd to draw such a strong distinction between 又 and 叉, when most of the time, including in this very grammar point, they are similar in the “splitting from what I was talking about, (additional phrase B)” sense.

Anyways, judging by @CursedKitsune’s previous thread, which did not result in a change (yet), it seems like revising/clarifying Bunpro’s grammar content is not a priority at the moment — which is very understandable and probably the correct decision at this point in time, in my opinion. Still, @Asher, if the Bunpro team ever gets down to a second draft of its grammar content, please do keep this thread bookmarked somewhere!