Quote:
Josh Lerner wrote:
I stand in awe of both your ability to obfuscate simple ideas
|
Careful, your sarcasm is showing.
When I want to do scholarly linguistic argument, I''ll make a note of your critique. When I want to make a point about suggestive poetic references of concepts with some historical and developmental connections to O Sensei, Wikipedia is as good as any ready source for kanji/hanzi to cut and paste. I stand by my points ...
The kanji -- onyomi or otherwise -- is a jumping off point to the Chinese, as a poetic subtext available to and, by some substantial layers of reference, significant to O Sensei -- nothing more. I was fairly clear about that and the limits of my observation.
Quote:
Josh Lerner wrote:
I don't know what "kunyomi inverse of 慣用音" means,
|
It means the inverse of the kan yo-on wrong/invented/mistaken "onyomi" that became so widespread that they are accepted as such not withstanding. Kind of like false etymologies in English, after a while there's no point arguing it anymore. (Kind of like this esoteric kanji-reading issue.)
Quote:
Josh Lerner wrote:
... nor do I know what you mean by "an assumption based on a true kunyomi homophone at the time of adoption."
|
The inverse process is where there are independent homophones in both Japanese and Chinese at the time of adoption that are cognate even before the introduction of the kanji. The later classification into kunyomi/onyomi can arbitrarily pick one as "kunyomi", even though the Chinese is the original associated with the kanji.
Quote:
Josh Lerner wrote:
... compounds ... written in hiragana, ... a noun phrase. ... not the norm. ... All of which doesn't really matter in terms of your theory of onyomi and Chinese poetry anyway, since Ueshibe didn't invent the word.
|
Who said I said that? You are not a poet, I take it. O Sensei was. Perhaps not the most accomplished of poets, but accepting that and exploring all systems of reference to guage his layers of meaning are valid and useful explorations.