Let me jump in to an example right away, completely typical. If I search for すすぐ, I get 4 different 漢字 that all have this word (or rather, its すす "prefix") as 訓読み: 濯ぐ, 洒ぐ, 漱ぐ, 嗽ぐ. (Actually, supposedly there's a 5th one, 涑ぐ, which seems to be pretty rare/obscure, and I don't have a reliable definition for it. I'm not even sure that 涑ぐ is a valid word. The definition I have for 涑 is "river in Shansi province [in China]", and it seems implausible to me that this river would be called すすぐ, even by the Japanese. Therefore, I'll just ignore 涑ぐ.)

The meanings for all four (濯ぐ, 洒ぐ, 漱ぐ, 嗽ぐ) have to do with washing/rinsing. The most parsimonious explanation for this assignment of four different 漢字 to the same 訓読み and (roughly) the same meaning is that they got apportioned among various facets of the same original Japanese "root" word, すすぐ.

My question is: how interchangeable are these characters with respect to this specific 訓読み? For example, how do the following four written sentences compare?:

口を濯ぐ。
口を洒ぐ。
口を漱ぐ。
口を嗽ぐ。

They all would sound identical (くちをすすぐ), and would be intended to mean "to rinse one's mouth". Would all four be considered correct (even if, in some cases, unusual)? Or would some of the above come across as "spelling errors"?

I want to stress that this question refers strictly to 訓読み. The issue of multiple 漢字 having the same 音読み is another matter altogether.

TIA!

PS: FWIW, if I Google for the (double-quoted) string "口をx", for x in the set {濯, 洒, 漱, 嗽}, the numbers of hits are:

口を濯: 347K
口を洒: 3
口を漱: 165K
口を嗽: 59

But this may reflect IME preferences more than anything else...

There are lots of words like that.
見る (Is more like "see".)
観る (Is more like "watch".)

There are little differences between them but it's OK (just OK) to use them interchangeably. I think 濯ぐ is used with clothing more. (I'm not sure.)

(Disclaimer: this is intended as opinion, not authoritative.)

My impression is that this kind of thing falls into one of a few categories:
(a) general free variation between two choices (possibly with one 'popular' choice)
(b) pretty definitely separated usages between senses
© one kanji used generally, with alternatives which only apply to a particular subsense
So I think the degree to which the kanji are interchangeable depends on the word.

For this particular example, checking a couple of dictionaries shows that they seem to divide the kanji up between different senses. So 大辞林 has 雪ぐ as specific for the 'wiping out a disgrace' sense, and 漱ぐ as specific to the 'gargling, rinsing the mouth' sense, with 濯ぐ the most general usage. This seems to be reflected in your google results: people either use the specific 漱ぐ or the general 濯ぐ (probably influenced by 濯 being Jouyou, although not with this reading).

Neither 大辞林 nor 明鏡 have 嗽ぐ as a possibility for すすぐ; they (and EDICT) give the reading for that as くちすすぐ (which might also be 漱ぐ).

While some are interchangeable, most of them aren't (they are, but you change the meaning slightly without knowing what you're saying). If you aren't sure on the subsenses, only use the common ones.

For example, 聞く can be written 訊く. However, 訊く means that you listened to something quickly/hastily, and it almost always means "ask" more than "listen". If that's not what you're aiming for, using that kanji would be incorrect, and what's worse is, people might not realize it. You would be saying something you didn't mean to, without you even knowing it.

I recommend looking these things up in kanjigen, which has good examples and explanations of the different usages.

Yea, it totally depends on the word. Each Kanji has its own pertinent usages and they may or may not overlap between Kanjis. You have to look it up in the dictionary.

In this case,

洗濯物を濯ぐ to rinse laundries.
汚名を濯ぐ　 to restore one's reputation (to rinse off a stigma)

they can not be 漱ぐ.

口を濯ぐ
口を漱ぐ

are both OK, but the first one sounds more like it is in everyday situations and the later sounds more literary, as if a traveler in a story is rinsing his mouth at riverside or something.

I don't think 洒ぐ and 嗽ぐ are commonly used for すすぐ.

Tobberoth Wrote:For example, 聞く can be written 訊く. However, 訊く means that you listened to something quickly/hastily, and it almost always means "ask" more than "listen".

訊く doesn't have a connotation of haste/speed, it's meaning is more about deliberate intention within human interactions. I don't know how to explain it too well, but I'll try despite the risk of sounding silly 訊く is more like you're consciously SEEKING an answer to something by your question. It holds more weight than 聞く. Maybe the best way to explain it would be to say it's kinda' like the difference in English between "investigate" and "ask" they're similar concepts, but one is more deliberate, more probing and extracting in nature.

Actually the reason this post caught my eye is because I read「憂国」this morning and made a note of seeing 訊くin it to use as an example in explaining kanji differences in words to a student who asked a few days ago, haha! Small world

*three minutes later after locating the book to give the example*

「軍人の妻たる者は、いつなんどきでも良人の死を覚悟していなければならない。それが明日来るかもしれぬ。あさって来るかもしれぬ。いつ来てもうろたえぬ覚悟があるかと訊いたのである。」

The reason 三島 used 「訊く」instead of 「聞く」is because the choice of 訊くby itself sets a stronger tone and severity. Even though his tone of voice is never described, by the use of 訊く the author gives it a probing, investigating tone simply by using that kanji. No further words or descriptions necessary, as it would be in English to convey the same idea.

Writing this post is giving me déjà vu. I think when I first signed up on this website I wrote a bunch of posts like this because people kept insisting the use of kanji varieties isn't a strong literary tool or something >.<

I was probably the one who said that, and I'm still suspicious. I know that native speakers can have certain feelings when seeing specific kanji, but to establish whether a particular kanji is being used in a particular way, it's not enough to ask one native speaker what feeling they get from the sentence. The Microsoft IME gives 先生に訊く as an example for that kanji (which it just defines as たずねる); it's hard to believe that is intended to have a severe tone. Searching google for 訊く also doesn't seem to me to support the idea. (訊く can only mean "ask" in contrast to 聞く which can mean "ask" or "listen", so writers may be influenced to use the former kanji when the word means "ask".)

It's hard to get into a big discussion about this because it's so subjective and speculative, but I think it's more likely you're seeing in 訊く a reinforcement of the feeling you're already getting from the context.

Well, the kanjigen entry on 訊 states "逃げ口上を考えるひまを与えないように、口早にといただす。" and my Japanese teacher also said the main point of 訊 was hastiness... Indeed, the hastiness isn't from "just listening to something for a second", but the point is that you ask something quickly and intently, often in an aggressive way. According to my teacher, it would be incorrect to use 訊 in a situation where you expect a long answer or a discussion.

訊く means "to ask". 聞く can be "to ask" or "to hear" or "to listen".

In Aijin's example, Mishima "asked" if his comrades were committed. (I haven't read that book but as it is Mishima, it's something along that line I believe.) That's why it HAD TO be "訊く". You don't just go out there and "listen" if your comrades are committed when you are going to have a revolution. You "ask" if they are committed.

"道を訊ねる" is a common expression and it simply means "to ask direction".

彼に聞く and 彼に訊く both mean "to ask him" and there is more urgency, or more activeness, in 訊く, but 訊く per se does not have the sense of urgency. It's just 訊く is more towards "to ask" and 聞く is more like "to listen". The Kanji 訊 may have a different meaning though.

Oh man, my hate for Mishima's prose has no bounds.

Yudantaiteki Wrote:I was probably the one who said that, and I'm still suspicious. I know that native speakers can have certain feelings when seeing specific kanji, but to establish whether a particular kanji is being used in a particular way, it's not enough to ask one native speaker what feeling they get from the sentence.

I am not sure if I fully understand what you mean. In my mind there's two different types of kanji variation for a single word:

• When the variation itself actually represents a significantly different idea as to the point of being a different word (some people consider this a variation in a word through kanji–since their is a root meaning–while others consider them to be completely seperate words in themselves due to not being able to use them interchangably)
IE: 町 ; 街
住む；棲む
　　

• When the variation in kanji still possesses the same basic meaning at its core, with only a subtle alteration in meaning through the variation in kanji.
IE: 青い；蒼い
　　　訊く；聞く


You're only arguing against the reality of the second kind and not the first, right?

FutureBlues Wrote:Oh man, my hate for Mishima's prose has no bounds.

I am not really a fan either. Just going through a lot of materials currently to find stories/pages, ANYTHING that my tutees might be able to read. One guy is really interested in the whole samurai/seppuku thing so naturally I looked through some 三島, haha! Too much of the vocab was archaic for an intermediate student I decided though.

Aijin Wrote:I am not sure if I fully understand what you mean. In my mind there's two different types of kanji variation for a single word:

I guess to me there are two basic kinds -- those that are recognized widely, and those that aren't. Some differences are very obvious and will be found in almost any reference work -- for instance, the use of 撮る in 写真を撮る. In this case there is no literary value or expressiveness because the use of the kanji is fixed by convention. When an author writes 写真を撮った it means nothing more than that he's following normal orthographic conventions.

I would say 蒼い　vs. 青い works here too because the difference is described both by the Microsoft IME and Koujien, so two widely used resources agree on that.

When you get into 訊く vs. 聞く is harder to say. The IME simply says that 訊く is 尋ねる. The Koujien gives only 尋ねる。問う。 as the definition involving 訊く (which it just says [訊く」とも書く). From those resources, it seems like the only difference is that you can use 訊く when the word means "to ask".

Now, the Kanjigen does not give きく as a reading for 訊, but the first definition says とう。逃げ口上を考えるひまを与えないように、口早にといただす。広く、罪をせめとう。罪をとがめたずねる。また、たずねる。質問をする。

Finally, the Koujien definition of 訊 is たずねること。問いただすこと。

Given this, I think it's very hard to say what Mishima might have had in mind in choosing to use 訊く there instead of 聞く. It could simply be that he used it because the meaning is "ask". None of the sources I have support your idea that using 訊く makes the tone more severe, and I think it's likely that you're being influenced by the context of the passage to read that meaning into the kanji choice.

I think I understand your point a bit better now: basically whether or not kanji variations have merit as a literary technique, right?

If that's the case I don't think 訊くis a good example, because it's not really a literary technique just in the way that the difference between "ask" and "interrogate" aren't literary techniques in English, since by their intrinsic meaning they hold different weights. It's hard for me to PROVE their is a distinct difference, because knowledge of words is something accumulated through life, from countless contexts. A word's meaning is a constantly evolving organism, not in any way constrained to the definition of a dictionary; dictionary definitions are merely an attempt at accurately portraying a word's meaning in a given culture. An impossible task for the most part, seeing as what constitutes our conception of any given word is a conglomerate of all our experiences with it...

*kills literary tangent*

But I wouldn't say that my view of 訊く being intense, severe, sharp and to-the-point (I am drawing a black on the right English word to describe that) is at all a personal opinion. It was what I was taught in school, and the difference between 訊く and 聞く is common knowledge as far as I know; anyone at a university should know it. But yes, it is used for situations like interrogating criminals, confessions, etc. Which is why it has the tone I described, and why 三島 used it.

If he had written, 「いつ来てもうろたえぬ覚悟があるかと聞いたのである。」it simply wouldn't be the same. Just like in :
"When I came home late at night my husband asked me about where I had been."
"When I came home late at night my husband interrogated me about where I had been."
Both express the same basic concept, but the tones are completely different.
(To anyone reading this that is more of a beginner to Japanese: that English isn't a translation of the Japanese sentence, just a random example.)

I remember reading a book during a writing class that specialized in the different images and tones conveyed by different synonyms as well as words with alternate kanji usages. It didn't focus on all the different contexts of each so much as detailing the imagery commonly held to be portrayed by each one. For example, if a word had two possible kanji it might list things like, "sharp; precise in target; pinprick;narrow; chilling" while for the other kanji variation it might have, "broad in scope, dull" etc.
Sadly I have absolutely no clue what it was called I'll try to research it though. Probably out of print, but there's gotta be similar books published as tools for writers.

Of course I can't prove to you that kanji variation is a valid literary technique; but it's certainly something that is taught in writing classes, and higher end literary analysis classes. There's a reason authors choose to write things the way they do; it isn't arbitrarily picked. The very fact that they chose to write a word the way they do is proof that there is a difference in their mind, otherwise they wouldn't have done it Requiring furigana by using obscure words or variations is something discouraged by publishers, so when an author does do it, there is usually valid reasoning behind it. Of course this isn't nearly as present in modern literature as it used to be, but I'll save my Japanese Literature Is Being Dumbed Down Like Hell rant for another thread

This summer I'll try to find a lot of sources and examples for the concept though, and post a thread here once I do for discussion about it etc. The whole concept is something I've been waiting to try and explain to students so I need to do the research eventually anyway

I'll try to give at least one example off the top of my head: I remember reading a poem where the poet used 朧 in place of おぼろ. Why use a kanji very few people will be able to read? Because the poem was using a dragon's shadow on the moon as a metaphor for something (can't even remember what, haha!), so when he used おぼろ he decided to strengthen that effect through the repetition of imagery by using 朧 since 月 and 龍 were used in the previous lines. Even though barely anyone can read 朧 the kanji itself conveyed a literary effect that left more of an impression with the combination of rare kanji + furigana than just writing it in hiragana would have. Only reason I remember that example is mostly because I have liked that kanji ever since

Aijin Wrote:I remember reading a poem where the poet used 朧 in place of おぼろ

I love the example! Thanks!

I'm reading a crime novel 「眠りの森」 by 東野敬悟 now. Naturally the main character is a detective and is always asking questions. It seems that 訊く is always used regardless of severity. It's not just the tough, biting questions that get 訊く and it's not only being used in interrogation scenes. I don't have the book on hand, but I noticed everytime anyone asks anything, 訊く is used even in situations as innocent such as a waiter asking a customers order.

I haven't read the novel in question, but if 訊く is being used every single time in place of where 聞くnormally would be used then it's most likely simply a choice of writing style on the author's part, much like how some authors choose to write いる and ある in their kanji forms every time.

If 訊く is used for even simple questions, it could be a demonstration of characterization in that the character makes EVERY question heavy and narrow, like an interrogation mostly. In other words, someone who is so complete in their roll as detective that even asking a waiter about the day's specials is a form of interrogation almost.
But if the author is using it for every character in every situation, likely its simply a stylistic choice and is negating most of the difference between 訊く and 聞く.