View Single Post
Old 08-25-2004, 10:45 PM   #1
Location: Taito-ku, Toyko
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 38
Multiple vs Single Kanji Words

Through my brief study of Kanji, I have noticed that there are some single characters that carry a concept that is normally conveyed through the use of multiple characters.

For example, 名 , has the kun-yomi reading of 'Na' which means 'name'. However, the common useage of 'name' is 名前 or 'Namae'. While I understand that the on-yomi reading of 名 have meaning other than name, the kun-yomi pronunciation does not. What is the reason for this "extra" Kanji? Is it just a matter of synonyms? Politeness? Are there extra connotations being lost in translation?

(On a side note, I'm curious why 'mae' is chosen, as I understand it to mean 'before' or 'previously' and the words "name before" make no sense to me.)

Other examples of this are:

校 - school
学校 - school

電 - electricity
電気 - electricity

Neither of these words have kun-yomi pronunciations. The concept of school, at least, must have existed in Japanese culture before the borrowing of Chinese characters. Why would the Japanese not simply graft their word (that involves two Kanji) onto the single Kanji that shares the same concept? The pairs make sense as the second reinforces the first, but it seems to only add to the amount of writing. Was this a pride thing at one point; a matter of one-up-manship, either between the Japanese and Chinese, or the educated and the non? Are there meanings that I am unaware of that are being clarified by the second Kanji? Anybody know how the Chinese express these examples (with a single hanzi, the same pair of hanzi, or otherwise)?

I assume there are more examples of words with both kun- and on-yomi pronunciations (like 'namae') that I am not aware of (I only know about 70 or so Kanji), so I'm curious as to both accounts of why the extra kanji is added.

I plan to simply accept this and will try to learn as many of these 'proper' combinations, but I'm curious as to the reasoning behind it. Thanks.

  Reply With Quote