Talk:On'yomi

Moved from article text

'It was often previously referred to as translation reading, as it was recreated readings of the Chinese pronunciation but was not the Chinese pronunciation or reading itself, similar to the English pronunciation of Latin loanwords. Old Japanese scripts often stated that on'yomi readings were also created by the Japanese during their arrival and re-borrowed by the Chinese as their own.' 62.73.69.121 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Who referred to it as translation reading? It doesn't make sense, since translation reading is what we find when the Japanese use Japanese words, not when they use approximations of Chinese pronunciation. When English people pronounce Latin loanwords with English phonetics, that can't be called 'translation reading' either.

"Old Japanese scripts"? Writings? Texts? But I don't think they stated that, because Chinese (re-)borrowing from Japanese happened long after the Old Japanese period. Unless 'old' literally means 'from before 2010'.

By definition, no on'yomi readings of individual characters could be 'created' by the Japanese, since On'yomi readings are defined as being based on the Chinese pronunciation of a character. Nor could Chinese people (re-)borrow these pronunciations with presumably Japanese phonetics back. What the Japanese have created and the Chinese have (re-)borrowed are new compounds of existing old words with existing On'yomi readings. And that is not stated 'in old/Old Japanese texts' (which would make it probably dubious and irrelevant at least for the lede), but is a well-known fact mentioned in contemporary linguistic literature. Of course, they weren't created 'during their arrival' (what would that mean - while they were sailing?), but during the period after it.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)