In Plain-language explainer 1 and Plain-language explainer 2 we saw tachi, kumoru, and namida. Here we check, in the original, how they actually connect within Kanazawa Shōzaburō’s “Jimoku-bikō” argument. (The English renderings of the quotations below are ToL translations.)
Starting point: not only a phenomenon of Japanese
After introducing the back-and-forth between names of things and of actions, Kanazawa says:
この現象は独り我が国語のみに止らず、最も関係の深い韓語との比較上に於ても、等しく見られるところのもので…
(This phenomenon is not limited to Japanese alone; in comparison with Korean, the language most closely related [in Kanazawa’s view], it is seen equally, and …)
Here Kanazawa places Korean, as a premise, as the language “most closely related.” That premise underlies everything that follows. As examples, Kanazawa gives Japanese kau (buy) and Korean kap (price), Japanese kiru (cut) and Korean khar (knife), and so on.
Next: from “na” to “naku”
The story of namida is as we saw in Plain-language explainer 2. The key sentence in this argument is the following.
処が現今の国語に、ナ（目）といふ語はないが、目でする作用に泣くといふのがある。
(But in present-day Japanese, though there is no word na [eye], there is naku [to weep], as an action done with the eye.)
From here Kanazawa draws the idea that even when the name of a thing (eye) disappears, only the name of its action (weep) remains. Words for actions are, he says, like fossils of old names of things.
To nose, mouth, and ear
Kanazawa spreads the same hand to nose, mouth, and ear. The correspondences between Korean and Japanese that Kanazawa gives are as follows.
| Body part (Korean) | Corresponding Japanese action |
|---|---|
| ip (mouth) | iu (to say) |
| kui (ear) | kiku (to hear) |
| kho (nose) | kagu (to smell) |
| (nun = eye) | na → naku (to weep) |
Further, Kanazawa says that Japanese koe (voice) and ka (scent) may also be words related to Korean kui (ear) and kho (nose).
The conclusion
The chief conclusion of this argument is the following sentence.
これを要するに、目・鼻・口・耳などといふ語の古語は韓語に多く伝はり、其の作用の泣く・嗅ぐ・言ふ・聞くなどといふ語が国語に残つてゐる。
(To sum up: the old words for eye, nose, mouth, ear, and the like are largely handed down in Korean, while the words for their actions — weep, smell, speak, hear — remain in Japanese.)
Kanazawa’s claim is clear. In Japanese, the old names of body parts were lost (or replaced by other words), and only the names of their actions remained. In Korean, the names of the body parts are what remained. And it is tied to the premise that the two languages were once the same language.
What to keep in mind when reading
Two points are worth confirming in reading this argument.
First, Japanese also has its own words for body parts: me, hana, mimi, kuchi. Kanazawa thought that, apart from them, older forms were handed down in Korean. But that is not proved in this argument; it is a conjecture standing on the premise that Japanese and Korean are related.
Second, the sound correspondences are not shown systematically. Iu with ip, kiku with kui, kagu with kho are correspondences made by picking similar sounds; how sounds correspond regularly between Japanese and Korean is not shown. Similar-sounding matches can be found, to some extent, even by chance. Showing regular sound correspondences is the basic procedure of linguistics for proving a genealogical relation between languages. Within what this argument shows, Kanazawa’s correspondences do not meet that procedure. We sort out this point again in the verdict article.
Summary
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Premise | Korean is the language “most closely related” to Japanese (Kanazawa’s premise) |
| Na → naku | The word na (eye) is gone, but the eye-action naku (weep) remained |
| Examples of correspondence | mouth ip ↔ iu, ear kui ↔ kiku/koe, nose kho ↔ kagu/ka |
| Conclusion | Old words for body parts in Korean, the words for their actions in Japanese |
| Caution | The Japanese–Korean relation is unproved; regular sound correspondences are not shown |
In a nutshell — Kanazawa Shōzaburō saw naku, kagu, iu, and kiku as fossils of lost names of body parts and looked for their true source in Korean. The argument stood on the premise that Japanese and Korean are related.