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)