Thread: ikkyo vs ikkajo
View Single Post
Old 01-24-2008, 05:32 AM   #13
Peter Goldsbury
  AikiWeb Forums Contributing Member
Peter Goldsbury's Avatar
Dojo: Hiroshima Kokusai Dojo
Location: Hiroshima, Japan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,219
Re: ikkyo vs ikkajo

Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
Uh, different JO I in different kanji. Peter or Josh or Jun could confirm.

What you see in the waza name is KAJO which, I believe, corresponds roughly to "catalogue"...

Ron (not a Japanese language scholar, and I certainly don't play one on tv )
I have the benefit of a 'captive' audience of Japanese (and Chinese) graduate students whom I can ask. I also consulted my Japanese monolingual dictionaries, especially the 13-volume Kokugo Dai-Kanwa Jiten.

The Japanese students were unanimous that kajou 箇条 was no longer used in everyday Japanese. Basically, it is a combination of 箇, which is a counter for inanimate objects, and 条, which has a variety of meanings within the general range of article (as in a legal contract), line, clause. So 条件 are conditions (jouken), as in 'I will agree, subject to the following conditions' (which are then specified).

The Chinese students all agreed that kajou had a different kanji in Chinese 個条: the Japanese combination of ka and jou was not used in modern Chinese.

There are three other combination using the Japanese kanji for ka. These are kagetsu (counted month), kanen (counted year), and kasho (counted place). However, I have only seen the last one in ordinary Japanese. Kasho means place, as in 'From Hiroshima to Miyoshi there are roadworks in three kasho' 箇所.

The two characters in question 箇 and 個 can be read as either KA or KO and both are counters of inanimate objects. So the second one is combined with the character for person to mean, individual 個人.

I hope that this casts enough darkness on the issue. However, I can see why Kisshomaru Ueshiba decided to change the prewar counters completely. 一教 (ikkyou) etc represented a major break with prewar tradition.

P A Goldsbury
Hiroshima, Japan
  Reply With Quote