4 ms·
But koko/kore/kono vs soko/sore/sono doesn’t seem to match that hypothesis. How do you make sure you’ve got enough examples to prove the argument?
by antiterra 5y ago
But koko/kore/kono vs soko/sore/sono doesn’t seem to match that hypothesis. How do you make sure you’ve got enough examples to prove the argument?
- wodenokoto 5y agoThe structure of the argument as presented in the book is “we see this sound symbolism in onomatopoeia” and gives a very large list of examples, followed by “this can be used to explain other phenomenons such as [insert parents statement]” You are right that it is interesting how and if ko-so-a-do fits this pattern, but I don’t think it’s a “gotcha” against sound symbolism in Japanese.
- kazinator 5y agoThat's not clear to me; I am not a researcher within the linguistic field. What is clear is that the hypothesis cannot be some strawman like "every corner of the Japanese language exhibits hard/soft sound symbolism: every grammar construct, every vocabulary item, ...". How much there has to be to separate a trend from coincidence is beyond me, but ways of quantifying it suggest themselves. For instance, frequency of occurrence of sound-symbolic constructs in speech. Some pretty common devices fit this pattern. Another one is kara (strong assertion of causality) versus no de (weak assertion of causality). Words like koto, kara, keredomo and the question particle ka come up all the time, as do no, node, noni and so on.