Talk:Kanbun

Untitled

What does that line mean? 瀬人様 08:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the first line of this famous story. "There was a man of the state of Chu who sold shields and spears..." Jpatokal 17:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

---

from the article: (Kanbun also abbreviates kanbungaku 漢文学 "Classical Chinese Literature", a required subject in high school.) In a rough English analogy, kanbun is like English speakers reading e.g. as "for example" instead of "exempli gratia".

that's a pretty crazy "addition" right there. It's also really quite wrong, on multiple levels. someone who knows more about wikipedia than me should get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.185.129 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"subject"

Can "ni" really function as the subject marker in a sentence like this? 150.204.100.173 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, too. If it is something that was used in Old Japanese that isn't used anymore, that should be noted to avoid confusion. I could not find ni being used for a subject marker (instead of wa or ga) in neither A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar nor A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammar, both published by The Japan Times. Thanks to anyone who can answer this! Geekdiva (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, we're talking about the Japanese used in the Example section:

So hito ni tate to hoko o hisa-gu mono a-ri

Chu man (subject) shields and spears (direct object) sell-ing man wa-s

Should this be changed or is it correct in older Japanese and we should add a note clarifying that? Thanks again, Geekdiva (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The current gloss is a little inexact. The Japanese phrase is indeed not actually using "Chu man" as a subject, it's saying that within the people of people in Chu (So hito ni) there is a man (...mono ari). In modern colloquial Japanese, I'd write that as "Chu hito (no naka) ni wa, ... hisagu mono (ga) aru".

I'm not entirely sure what the Chinese version is really saying though. In modern Chinese, 楚人有...者 would be a similar "Chu people have ... (a) man"; however, the article talks about using it as a nominalizer and implies that 有 means "is" (modern 是), not "has". So is the Chinese using it as a subject or not? Jpatokal (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's exactly as you would expect in modern Chinese. "The people of Chu had..." and the final 者 nominalizes (and 'personalizes', so to speak) the part that comes after 有. To translate it as if it were a copula is actually wrong. 138.246.8.49 (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

... to ... to

Kanbun readings must satisfy the formal grammar of Classical Japanese. For this specific example, see ja:矛盾 (Anonymous coward) 129.199.129.29 (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise the verbal ending would be "ある" even "いる" in the first place. (The same coward) 129.199.129.29 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

129.199.129.29 is right. While there is a little bit of freedom in readings, the basic form is expected to follow established forms of classical Japanese. In the construction A與B, this is always going to be "A to B to". Also notice the use of kaeriten in the image, which indicates the same thing. This particular phrase is so common and well-known that it may be found in many introductory kanbun texts, where it can easily be verified. 122.208.129.10 (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

與 in the example

Why is 與 after 盾矛 in the example? Should it not be reordered as 楚人盾與矛鬻者有, as 與 becomes the first と in a ...と...と pattern? Then it would translate as 楚人に盾與(と)矛とを鬻ぐ者有り.Asoer (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a common mistake for learners with Chinese background. In classical Japanese, 與, instead of むた, should be interpreted as 共 and kun-read as ともに (in modern Japanese a close term would be 一緒に). Check out couple examples of how to use 共に in classical and modern Japanese here: [1]. Notice that in both example sentences (「母子－元気です」 「声涙（せいるい）－下（くだ）る」), "母 子 ともに" and "声 涙 ともに" both follow the structure of "A B ともに) Hence, ordering it as 盾矛與 (read 矛　盾　共に) exactly corresponds to 盾、矛を一緒に売る人がいる per Japanese grammar. -- Andyx96 (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggest to change page name

Suggest changing page name to "Kanbun Kundoku" or "Classical Chinese reading in Japanese" etc. The full artical is talking about Kanbun Kundoku, not Classical Chinese. And there's no any suggestion that in English context we can abbreviate Kanbun Kundoku into "Kanbun". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linee39 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. The English academia is slowly corrupting the meaning of "Kanbun" to something that it doesn't mean in Japanese at all. I am not sure if this is because they have not learned modern Japanese, or because "Kanbun" is the name of the subject and they have misunderstood what it refers to. It merely means "(literary) Chinese texts", regardless of whether written by a Chinese speaker or Japanese speaker. This article is rather about the associated reading method, which would more aptly be referred to as "kundoku". We should find better calques, or use the terms properly. 2600:6C64:507F:AA6C:9C36:FD65:4F9D:40C1 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Creole

I understand that there is a Japanese source saying this is a creole language (Pijin Kureōru-go), but shouldn't a creole have native speakers? Wouldn't mixed language be a better description? This seems more like Spanglish than Bonin English. --Error (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Not only that, but isn't it only a written form of language? And wasn't it only used by the Japanese to communicate with other Japanese? It doesn't seem like a Creole at all to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.145.244.194 (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I came here to comment about this. I can't read Japanese and I don't have access to that source anyway, but this really doesn't seem like a pidgin at all, let alone a creole. Erinius (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've asked for input from Wikiprojects Languages and Japan, and I've already changed the wording of the lead to say that the whole "Kanbun is a pidgin/creole" is just one guy's opinion. Now I'm gonna be a little WP:BOLDer and just remove the pidgin and creole categories and remove Kanbun from listings of pidgins and creoles. Erinius (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Still not sure what to do with the "language family" parameter of the infobox. Obviously "Literary Creole..." is wrong but I'm not totally sure what to replace it with? Erinius (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"Semi-translation"? "Macaronic language"? "Critical apparatus"? "Notation"? --Error (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I chose something based largely off the short desc. I set the language family color to gray but that may be wrong. Erinius (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I left a note at WT:WPJ, but I'll copy it here. The source involved is from a fairly reliable publisher but is probably not peer reviewed. In 2017, an IP editor whose only edits are to add references to this idea/book was briefly active on both the Japanese Wikipedia and here. I would support the idea that mentioning this qualifies as undue weight. It's one chapter in an edited volume and while the title is somewhat polemical and can be translated in the way shown here, it can also be understood as a kind of hypothetical (e.g., "Considering [the implications of calling] kanbun a pidgin/creole language"). Overall, the analysis would have to depend upon a redefinition of "pidgin" and "creole" to incorporate this niche case at the very least, so on balance I would support removal. Dekimasuよ! 06:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. So you'd support removing any mention of Kanbun Kundoku being a pidgin entirely? What about just softening the way that suggestion is mentioned even further, ie by saying something like "one author has said Kundoku could be considered a pidgin"? Erinius (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I had a chance to look at the chapter itself, and I can confirm that the author does not claim that kanbun kundoku is a pidgin language, so in my opinion the reference should be removed entirely. In the conclusion of the chapter, he says (my translation), "[Kundoku] is a contact language, but there are wide differences between it and pidgin/creole languages (差は大きい).... 1) Kundoku was not established under a colonial situation. 2) Pidgin and creole languages tend to form in places where people are illiterate, but kundoku was born among people with a high level of learning in kanji and the use of the Japanese kana system. 3) Whereas pidgin and creole languages are formed at the lower classes of society, kundoku developed among educated people at the highest levels of society. 4) ...." etc., I think you get the idea. At the end he says, "This paper does not intend to argue that kundoku should simply be considered as one of the pidgin/creole languages. On the contrary, I suggest that we should consider the 'kundoku type' to be one form taken by contact languages." Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that solves that. Thanks for the help! Erinius (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"㆗" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ㆗ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 12#㆗ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CrazyBoy826 02:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)