Meaning "coming from" kanji

Bunpro
#1

It’s a very minor thing but there’s a phrasing I encounter in many grammar points on bunpro that always rubs me the wrong way. For instance:

全く～ない is an expression that combines the adverb 全()く, with a phrase that uses another word in its ない form. It is often translated as ‘not at all (A)’. Literally, it is closer to ‘completely not (A)’, or ‘entirely not (A)’, coming from the kanji 全()'s meaning of ‘whole’.

This “meaning coming from kanji” phrasing is sort of backwards, no? Especially for kunyomi words where, if I understand correctly, the kanji was selected post-hoc based on its meaning, not the other way around.

Here are a few other examples of the same phrasing:

そう (the adverb), should not be confused with そう, the auxiliary verb. そう (the adverb) comes from the kanji 然う, while the auxiliary verb does not have a kanji form.

The auxiliary verb べき, being the attributive form of べし, is a structure in Japanese that is often paired with verbs to express that something ‘ought to be done’. It implies some sort of moral obligation, or that (A) is the only reasonable course of action. This comes from the kanji 可()き, which carries the meaning of being something ‘permissible’ (indicating that any other action would not be acceptable).

ら is a suffix (component used after the main part of a word) that implies that there is ‘more than one’ of something. Due to this, ら is often called a ‘pluralizing suffix’. ら comes from the same kanji as 等, and the literal meaning is closer to ‘(A) etc’.

3 Likes
という理由で・というりゆうで - Grammar Discussion
#2

I always kind of thought of it as like the roots of words in english. Where sometimes the roots don’t exactly line up due to language evolving. But I see what you mean and maybe they could clarify it a bit better then the half sentence they bring it up and stop talking about it in.
Like maybe explaining in more detail how it comes from, instead of just saying it

3 Likes
#3

Right but that’s my point, the kanji and the etymology are two separate things. I’m not well versed in Japanese etymology but I believe that at least some of these terms come from Old Japonic roots and the associated kanji was selected at some point based on the Chinese meaning, but the meaning was already there.

Like if we decided to start writing English with Chinese characters we could select “食” to spell “eat”, but that doesn’t mean that the meaning of “to eat” comes from 食. Languages are spoken before they’re written.

That being said once again I really don’t know much about the history of the Japanese language, maybe the situation isn’t as clear cut as I believe it to be.

4 Likes
#4

I get where you are coming from. I wonder about this a lot as well, though in one sense as far as modern Japanese is concerned it is as if the meaning comes from the kanji rather than the base word itself. Especially in the case of something like 等 where there are several Kunyomi words that have essentially the same meaning but are different parts of speech e.g. ひとしい・など・〜ら

So while yes in one sense the original meaning does come from somewhere else for each of these words, now they have been tied together and if anything have become more similar in meaning now thanks to being unified under one kanji.

I agree that there can always be better verbiage concerning the exact etymology of words and grammars, this is an interesting issue you bring up.

5 Likes
#5

You are absolutely right that the kanji were selected to represent meanings that already existed in Japanese. It really depends which way you want to look at it, the non-specific kana being made more specific in their meaning by the addition of kanji, or a kana meaning being applied to a concept that didn’t exist yet in Japanese. Considering the vast majority of kanji that were incorporated into the language came between around 600 to 800 AD, it’s reasonable to think that there would have been a mix of ‘let’s apply this kanji to this word we already have’, and ‘let’s put this kana on this kanji to represent this word we didn’t have until now’.

While the words did exist before kanji was a part of the language like you say, the kanji itself is usually a really handy tool for knowing exactly what specific meaning any particular kana word is implying. We really appreciate this kind of feedback, it’s a super interesting part of the language that isn’t often taught as a part of grammar. We incorporate it as a tool to help with memorization, but are definitely open to suggestions on ways to improve the descriptions!

7 Likes
#6

Oh absolutely no objection from me here, that’s certainly useful, it’s really just the way it’s phrased that stood out to me.

I think personally I would probably say that the kanji is “associated” to the word, not that the meaning “comes” from it. But again, that’s really a nitpick, I just wondered if there was a deeper rationale behind it.

3 Likes
#7

‘Associated’ is fine, IMHO, but we could brainstorm a bit to perhaps find other alternatives also.

When brainstorming like this, I usually start by trying to find a word which very closely approximates the concept in question. Then, having this kind of ‘anchor’ word, which might not be the most convenient word, I’ll then try to come up with shorter, easier to remember, more common, etc., words which are still quite close to the anchor word.

For example, in this case, I propose an anchor word which is ‘to denote’. (Others may have better anchor words; this is just a starting point for me; it’s brainstorming after all :slightly_smiling_face: )

‘To denote’ means something like:

In other words, ‘denote’ classifies the ‘association’ as one of ‘definition’ or ‘meaning’, especially in the sense of a ‘literal definition’ or ‘literal meaning’.

Example of the distinction: The word ‘puppy’ denotes ‘a young dog, prior to maturity’. But I love dogs so much that I pretty much call every dog a ‘puppy’, even though it may be a very old dog. So, for me, ‘puppy’ also connotes ‘beloved’, as well as ‘cute’.

Furthermore, ‘denotation’ or ‘to denote’ does not imply any form of precedence or priority. The kanji 全 is (often) used to denote the meaning of ‘whole’, regardless of whether the kanji came before the Japanese word or not.

So, some examples from above could be written something like:

  • Literally, it is closer to ‘completely not (A)’, or ‘entirely not (A)’, coming from the kanji 全()'s denotation of ‘whole’.
  • そう (the adverb) is denoted by the kanji 然う, while the auxiliary verb does not have a kanji form.
  • This is denoted by the kanji 可()き, which carries the meaning of being something ‘permissible’ (indicating that any other action would not be acceptable).

So, as a rough starting point, one could replace examples of ‘coming from’ with ‘being denoted by’ (or similar expressions of ‘denote’).

The next step after picking an anchor word like denote is to try to find an easier, more natural word, since ‘denote’ is not that common of a word, not everybody knows it, and has many synonyms or close-synonyms which are more familiar.

But when coming up with such alternatives, having the anchor of ‘denote’ allows one to compare the alternatives to something fairly solid: “Does this alternative match closely to ‘denote’, or does it stray too far away from it?”

Example: I notice that in one of the examples, they used the phrase “which carries the meaning of”. That’s a pretty close match to what the anchor-word ‘denote’ means, and it’s more natural than ‘denote’, so I’m thinking it’s a pretty good alternative also. Personally, I think it’s more accurate than just ‘associated’, so personally I would prefer even that longer phrase to just ‘associated’, as a replacement for “coming from (a kanji)”.

I leave further brainstorming to others, if they are interested. :sweat_smile:

3 Likes