4 ms·

That's because you're thinking in English. "Kingly" is a very English way of thinking of things (as in king-like behaviour for example). In Chinese and Japanese

by chewxy 10y ago

That's because you're thinking in English. "Kingly" is a very English way of thinking of things (as in king-like behaviour for example). In Chinese and Japanese, there simply isn't a way to describe it as elegantly as in English In Chinese it'd be 王道 (the tao of the King if translated directly to English), which has a completely different connotation (it's more holistic in concept (i.e. it has an overloaded meaning) when compared to "kingly" in English, which has a more singular-use meaning). "Royal" itself is an overloaded adjective in English. AFAIK there are no adjectives in the east asian language that has the same semantic meaning as "royal" - The Japanese version would simply be 王の, which translate to "belonging to the king", while the chinese version would be 王室的 or 王室之(belonging to the king's office(I guess you could say crown)[0]). Ditto with "regal". There simply isn't any proper translation for the adjectives in English. Other than that, in Chinese, there is the concept of a radical, which can be combined to inform the readers about the context it's used in. In Japanese, as bemmu wrote, it'd be additional kanas to inform of context. [0]Fun fact: 之 and の used to denote the same things up to about 300-ish years ago I believe (timeline could be wrong). In Japanese 之 may be pronounced the same as の. Either way, the Chinese and Japanese words are very much the same, barring some minor kanji differences. Grammarwise, however, it's a completely different language

gizmo686 10y ago
>"Kingly" is a very English way of thinking of things. I'm not sure about that. Japanese has adjectival nouns (commonly referred to as na-adjectives), and the 的 suffix. Additionally, as you identify, the の particle also serves this function; but you give it a much more restrive role that it actually has (as is typically in English language Japanese learning material. In general, の marks the genitive case, which simply means that the first noun modifies the following noun in some way. It is often used to show possesion, but can also be used in a way close to ~ly in English.
thaumasiotes 10y ago
> That's because you're thinking in English. No, it's because I thought making the point in English made more sense in an English-speaking forum than making the point in Chinese. I'd go with 像国王一样(的) "like a king" or 适合国王(的) "fit for a king" for the English senses of "kingly". The point is that, as bad as the Chinese writing system is, it's still fundamentally a writing system. 女, 娘, and 妮 may all variously mean "girl" (actually, 女 is an adjective), but they are written differently because they are different words (or, as the case may be, stems). Conversely, it makes sense to talk about the pronunciation of a Chinese character. Japan somehow overlooked this principle when trying to adopt writing, and the Japanese system is a total mess. Japanese 漢字 can only be read in context; in isolation, they represent a grab bag of some unrelated words with shared semantics along with assorted nonsense syllables. > Other than that, in Chinese, there is the concept of a radical, which can be combined to inform the readers about the context it's used in. In Japanese, as bemmu wrote, it'd be additional kanas to inform of context. This appears to be... nonsense? The concept of a character radical is not restricted to Chinese. It refers to a part of the character that gives you a hint about the overall meaning. For example, the radical of 冷 "cold" is the 冫 on the left, which means "ice". The radical of 切 "cut" is the 刀 "knife" on the right. And the radical of 漢 "the Han race" is the 氵, which means "water" (they're not all helpful). They are an inherent part of the character and are totally independent of any context. And the kanas you describe as "inform[ing] of context" in the OP do no such thing; they encode grammatical suffixes which have no characters of their own. Chinese uses (wait for it...) Chinese characters for the same purpose; Chinese grammatical markers, unlike Japanese ones, do have dedicated characters. Radicals are a completely unrelated phenomenon.

by chewxy 10y ago

gizmo686 10y ago

>"Kingly" is a very English way of thinking of things. I'm not sure about that. Japanese has adjectival nouns (commonly referred to as na-adjectives), and the 的 suffix. Additionally, as you identify, the の particle also serves this function; but you give it a much more restrive role that it actually has (as is typically in English language Japanese learning material. In general, の marks the genitive case, which simply means that the first noun modifies the following noun in some way. It is often used to show possesion, but can also be used in a way close to ~ly in English.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

> That's because you're thinking in English. No, it's because I thought making the point in English made more sense in an English-speaking forum than making the point in Chinese. I'd go with 像国王一样(的) "like a king" or 适合国王(的) "fit for a king" for the English senses of "kingly". The point is that, as bad as the Chinese writing system is, it's still fundamentally a writing system. 女, 娘, and 妮 may all variously mean "girl" (actually, 女 is an adjective), but they are written differently because they are different words (or, as the case may be, stems). Conversely, it makes sense to talk about the pronunciation of a Chinese character. Japan somehow overlooked this principle when trying to adopt writing, and the Japanese system is a total mess. Japanese 漢字 can only be read in context; in isolation, they represent a grab bag of some unrelated words with shared semantics along with assorted nonsense syllables. > Other than that, in Chinese, there is the concept of a radical, which can be combined to inform the readers about the context it's used in. In Japanese, as bemmu wrote, it'd be additional kanas to inform of context. This appears to be... nonsense? The concept of a character radical is not restricted to Chinese. It refers to a part of the character that gives you a hint about the overall meaning. For example, the radical of 冷 "cold" is the 冫 on the left, which means "ice". The radical of 切 "cut" is the 刀 "knife" on the right. And the radical of 漢 "the Han race" is the 氵, which means "water" (they're not all helpful). They are an inherent part of the character and are totally independent of any context. And the kanas you describe as "inform[ing] of context" in the OP do no such thing; they encode grammatical suffixes which have no characters of their own. Chinese uses (wait for it...) Chinese characters for the same purpose; Chinese grammatical markers, unlike Japanese ones, do have dedicated characters. Radicals are a completely unrelated phenomenon.