Talk:能

This character originally has no meaning of possessive.


 * I have it on good authority that it does. If not, can you tell me which kanji was/were used for the possessive "no" before hiragana was standardized for the use of particles and okurigana? &mdash; Hippietrail 15:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * 之/乃 are used for possessive "の". Japanese is the language that distinguish long and short vowel. 能 is always long, possessive "の" is always short.


 * I am open to being wrong if it's discussed. I don't know very much about Japanese after all. Here is part of a reply I received today, before I started posting changes to Wiktionary, in answer to a question of mine, on the topic of Korean and Japanese particles before Hangul and Hiragana:


 * "I should point out, though, that some spellings were much more common in Japanese than others: e.g., no was normally 能, though other spellings existed (乃廼笶篦)." (Marc Miyake www.amritas.com)


 * I actually expected 之 to be the answer but since he has a phd in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese linguistics, I've just taken his word for it. I wasn't worried by the vowel length since I'm used to kanji having several different readings anyway. &mdash; Hippietrail 16:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * -- this character was one of the several that was used to spell no.  See the Wikipedia article for more, at .
 * That said, used this way were purely phonetic and had no meaning component, so the  character did not itself embody any meaning of possession.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"To can"
Is "to can" proper grammar? It sounds quite strange, as opposed to just the bare "can". Audacity (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Skill"
Can this also be translated as "skill" in Chinese? 98.123.38.211 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)