Timeline for Why does 鱧 not contain the 口 radical?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 23, 2020 at 4:25 | comment | added | dROOOze | Generally, it's probable in Japanese that the kanji structure may not reflect the word that the kanji represents in Japanese very well. In this case, れい and ハモ aren't even synonyms. But this is an assignment of a Japanese word to a kanji, and the difficulty of association between the word and the kanji is at the mercy of whoever assigned the kanji to the word. | |
| Aug 23, 2020 at 4:23 | comment | added | dROOOze | @DariusJahandarie you're right, the on'yomi is not used. But the kanji structure reflects the on'yomi. This is what I mean by "we can't really do anything about that", as the objective analysis of the kanji structure is what it is; anything else is really opinion-based. "A type of fish" is the direct relation to semantic component 「魚」, and れい is its on'yomi. | |
| Aug 23, 2020 at 4:19 | comment | added | Darius Jahandarie | And I could be wrong but I don’t think the 音読み is ever used for this character. | |
| Aug 23, 2020 at 4:18 | comment | added | Darius Jahandarie | Right, but “「鱧{れい}」 (a type of fish)” seems confusing because the fish is called ハモ. | |
| Aug 23, 2020 at 4:14 | comment | added | dROOOze | @DariusJahandarie ハモ is kun'yomi. Phonetic components relate only to on'yomi (れい). Yes, this is the unfortunate thing about kanji structure, but we can't really do anything about that... | |
| Aug 23, 2020 at 4:10 | comment | added | Darius Jahandarie | But isn’t this ハモ...? | |
| Aug 23, 2020 at 3:19 | history | answered | dROOOze | CC BY-SA 4.0 |