Talk:単亜語: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 13:

*冬 통, 頭 톳, 発 팓 ([[単亜語/常用字/1|常用字/1]]): why 통 and 팓?

*鳥 촛 ([[単亜語/大学|大学]]): seemingly omitted from modification, given 天 턴 (should be 댯 I guess — or did 촛 continue Mandarin~~/Jin~~/Xiang taboo?)

*鳥 촛 ([[単亜語/大学|大学]]): seemingly omitted from modification, given 天 턴 (should be 댯 I guess — or did 촛 continue Mandarin/Xiang taboo?)

*題 테, 反 폰 ([[単亜語/出身論|出身論]])

*飛 피 ([[単亜語/詩経/国風/周南|周南]])

Line 22:

[[User:物灵|物灵]] ([[User talk:物灵|talk]]) 05:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess 鳥 촛 might go after Japanese ちょう non-parallel to 天てん, but in Dan’a’yo this seems to be expected parallel. [[User:物灵|物灵]] ([[User talk:物灵|talk]]) 02:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

== A reference on the role of sino-xenic morphemes in Japanese/Korean ==

<blockquote>There is nothing ‘high-’ or ‘low-brow’ for phonetic loans, as is for language itself, nor should those concepts be used in research. However we should recognise that in Japanese, sino-xenic loanwords are not only more ‘internalised’ but can achieve the kind of internalisation not viable for European loanwords. The Chinese–Japanese dictionary, as an example, explains ''dǎpò'' as ''dahasuru. uchiyaru'', while sino-xenic ''dahasuru'' is explained by Kōjien as ''uchiyaru''. There are many more examples.

Phonetically seen, ''daha'' or ''dǎpò'' is irrevelant to ''utsu'' and ''yaburu''. But why did the lexicographers explain like this? Didn’t this reflect some subconsciousness in them? [The subconsciousness might be that,] ''da'' and ''utsu'' is somewhat related, so do ''ha'' and ''yaburu'' [via denoted characters].

音译词本身和语言一样没有高下之分，“高贵”或者“低贱”的概念不该用于研究。但是我们依然应该承认，汉源音译词不仅在日本语体系里更“内化”，而且它本身可借助汉字达到欧源音译词达不到的内化程度。比如我们查词典，汉语“打破”一词中日大辞典解释为“打破する．打ち破る．”，而“打破する”这个汉语借词，广辞苑解释为“打ち破る”。这样的例子还有很多很多。

如果我们只看语音形式，[dähä]或者[täpʰo̞]和[ɯᵝtsɯ]、[jäb ɯᵝɾ ɯᵝ]当然没有半点关系。但是编篡词典的人为什么要这么解释呢？难道这不反映了他们心里的某些潜意识吗？[dä]这个语素和[ɯᵝtsɯ]是联系在一起的，[hä]这个语素和[jäbɯᵝɾɯᵝ]是联系在一起的。

[https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/504877378 日本语的英语借词问题之我见]

</blockquote>

For the development of this language, it is crucial to understand the role of sino-xenic morphemes in Japanese/Korean, since they are not native. I believe the post (though written as a response to an intentionally snarky criticism, and in Chinese), particularly the passages quoted above, is a good start. The fact that ''da'' is somewhat related to ''uchi'' or [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:orthographic_borrowing ''yôpsô'' to ''hagaki''] is a groundstone for this language. This also means that how characters/words are perceived in modern languages is more important than how they are used in classical texts.

[[User:物灵|物灵]] ([[User talk:物灵|talk]]) 08:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *冬 통, 頭 톳, 発 팓 ([[単亜語/常用字/1|常用字/1]]): why 통 and 팓?
-*鳥 촛 ([[単亜語/大学|大学]]): seemingly omitted from modification, given 天 턴 (should be 댯 I guess — or did 촛 continue Mandarin/Jin/Xiang taboo?)
+*鳥 촛 ([[単亜語/大学|大学]]): seemingly omitted from modification, given 天 턴 (should be 댯 I guess — or did 촛 continue Mandarin/Xiang taboo?)
 *題 테, 反 폰 ([[単亜語/出身論|出身論]])
 *飛 피 ([[単亜語/詩経/国風/周南|周南]])
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 [[User:物灵|物灵]] ([[User talk:物灵|talk]]) 05:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
+I guess 鳥 촛 might go after Japanese ちょう non-parallel to 天 てん, but in Dan’a’yo this seems to be expected parallel. [[User:物灵|物灵]] ([[User talk:物灵|talk]]) 02:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
+== A reference on the role of sino-xenic morphemes in Japanese/Korean ==
+<blockquote><p>There is nothing ‘high-’ or ‘low-brow’ for phonetic loans, as is for language itself, nor should those concepts be used in research. However we should recognise that in Japanese, sino-xenic loanwords are not only more ‘internalised’ but can achieve the kind of internalisation not viable for European loanwords. The Chinese&ndash;Japanese dictionary, as an example, explains ''dǎpò'' as ''dahasuru. uchiyaru'', while sino-xenic ''dahasuru'' is explained by Kōjien as ''uchiyaru''. There are many more examples.
+<p>Phonetically seen, ''daha'' or ''dǎpò'' is irrevelant to ''utsu'' and ''yaburu''. But why did the lexicographers explain like this? Didn’t this reflect some subconsciousness in them? [The subconsciousness might be that,] ''da'' and ''utsu'' is somewhat related, so do ''ha'' and ''yaburu'' [via denoted characters].
+<p>音译词本身和语言一样没有高下之分，“高贵”或者“低贱”的概念不该用于研究。但是我们依然应该承认，汉源音译词不仅在日本语体系里更“内化”，而且它本身可借助汉字达到欧源音译词达不到的内化程度。比如我们查词典，汉语“打破”一词中日大辞典解释为“打破する．打ち破る．”，而“打破する”这个汉语借词，广辞苑解释为“打ち破る”。这样的例子还有很多很多。
+<p>如果我们只看语音形式，[dähä]或者[täpʰo̞]和[ɯᵝtsɯ]、[jäb ɯᵝɾ ɯᵝ]当然没有半点关系。但是编篡词典的人为什么要这么解释呢？难道这不反映了他们心里的某些潜意识吗？[dä]这个语素和[ɯᵝtsɯ]是联系在一起的，[hä]这个语素和[jäbɯᵝɾɯᵝ]是联系在一起的。
+<p>[https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/504877378 日本语的英语借词问题之我见]
+</blockquote>
+For the development of this language, it is crucial to understand the role of sino-xenic morphemes in Japanese/Korean, since they are not native. I believe the post (though written as a response to an intentionally snarky criticism, and in Chinese), particularly the passages quoted above, is a good start. The fact that ''da'' is somewhat related to ''uchi'' or [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:orthographic_borrowing ''yôpsô'' to ''hagaki''] is a groundstone for this language. This also means that how characters/words are perceived in modern languages is more important than how they are used in classical texts.
+[[User:物灵|物灵]] ([[User talk:物灵|talk]]) 08:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)