Talk:国

Kanji same as simplified Chinese?
Why is the Japanese kanji the same as the Chinese simplified character? Aren't kanji based on traditional Chinese characters? 69.81.158.11 09:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Can this be explained? 24.93.170.200 02:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Japanese simplification was based on traditional Chinese characters. Cynewulf 21:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Most Simplified characters are based on the handwritten forms that even Traditional users use. In this case, the Traditional and Simplified characters are two separate characters that have the same meaning and pronunciation. The Simplified one is an ideogram of a king within his borders, while the Traditional one show "one language" and a sword with a banner and a drop of blood, signifying the first person, within borders. Simplified simply stopped using the more complex one. The Japanese, on the other hand, borrowed both characters centuries ago, long before there was a Simplified style. In Japanese, the complex character is rarely used. —Stephen 10:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

kuni from 郡
"The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics https://books.google.com.tw/books?isbn=0190266848 William S-Y Wang, ‎Chaofen Sun - 2015 - ‎History Kamei (1954) examined these examples meticulously and rejected Karlgren's claims, except for kuni 郡, kinu 絹, uma 馬, and ume 梅 which he treated as more admissible and probable cases of early borrowings." Jidanni (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @Jidanni -- what examples are you talking about? Your comment here is a bit of a non sequitur.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Direct link: here
 * , this is what meant: Like uma and ume,  and  might be borrowed from Middle Chinese; possibly kuni by the same shift found in  or . It's possible, but the latter  →  shift is likely unlikely. ～ POKéTalker (Ŧ◉C) 01:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @POKéTalker, brilliant, thank you for the link.
 * FWIW, I agree with Kamei that at least the Karlgren examples given at that link strike me as quite unlikely. Apparently Karlgren suggests that JA  came from LTC ?  Baffling hypothesis, in terms of both phonetics and semantics.  Likewise with his JA  or  purportedly coming from .  Comes across as nonsensical -- wild overreaching at best.
 * Meanwhile, I agree with you that the phonetics for JA coming from LTC  are not entirely convincing.  I suppose it's possible it might have come from some other early ZH dialect; compare modern Min Nan reading kìn.  However, KDJ suggests a native JA compound of  +, with  likely cognate with .  That said, I cannot find any other apparent instances of nuno abbreviating to just nu -- but then again, I haven't done more than a quick survey, just now, and there is the reading no, which could conceivably appear as nu in different ages or dialects.
 * Anyway, with regard to this entry, Karlgren's and Kamei's suggested prehistoric (i.e. before we have Japanese writing) borrowing from LTC  could perhaps work phonetically (not sure how to account for voiced /g/ in ZH vs. unvoiced /k/ in JA), and the semantics aren't far off either.  We could include this as a suggested derivation, properly attributed of course.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 郡 is now unvoiced in most Chinese now too. (But I am an amateur.) Jidanni (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)