PDA

View Full Version : How is Uchinan-guchi written?



Jason H.P. Yoo
27th April 2007, 00:42
Given that some consider it more a separate language than merely a dialect, does it have a separate script? Or is it written as Japanese with katakana?

Shikiyanaka
27th April 2007, 12:13
Hi Jason,

it is written in Japanese.

The i-ro-ha writing was introduced to Ryukyu quite early, and for example the "Omoro-saushi" gathered in 16c or so are written in Hiragana.

If you take Okinawa-te, than I would suggest you write in Kanji and add the Furigana "Uchinâ-dî".
Same for Uchinan-guchi. It's written Okinawa-guchi in Kanji.

Other terms, especially technical terms, are corrupted Chinese language, usually written today in Katakana (as many other foreign terms). So, in order to know the original foundadtion of the term "Tonfa" (usually written in Katakana), you would need to find the Chinese Hanzi originally used for this item.

All pretty mixed up, but mainly Japanese is used, either HIragana, Katagana, or Kanji with Furigana.

Jason H.P. Yoo
5th May 2007, 03:39
Hi Jason,

it is written in Japanese.

The i-ro-ha writing was introduced to Ryukyu quite early, and for example the "Omoro-saushi" gathered in 16c or so are written in Hiragana.

All pretty mixed up, but mainly Japanese is used, either HIragana, Katagana, or Kanji with Furigana.

I see. How does this work, though? If I understand correctly, Uchinaagushi is fundamentally syntactically different from Japanese?

Shikiyanaka
7th May 2007, 09:17
This thing is so complex, too much for me to do here.

Try to get a copy of the following:
Chamberlain, Basil Hall: Essay in Aid of a Grammar and Dictionary of the Luchuan Language. In: Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan. Vol. XXIII. Supplement.

Try also this:
German PDF on difference and similarities (http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/sulj/pdf/JR1992vwan.pdf)

Shikiyanaka
7th May 2007, 11:42
I see. How does this work, though? If I understand correctly, Uchinaagushi is fundamentally syntactically different from Japanese?

According to Rickmeyer, 1988, the syntax seems to be very similar to Japanese, it's only the... read for yourself:


I hope my comments conveyed a certain insight into the morphologic mechanisms of [the] Ryűkyű [language], which clearly display that syntactically [the] Ryűkyű [language] indeed goes completely parallel to Japanese, but in the morphology is affected by fusion, accompanied by alternation, two attributes, which prohibit to classify this language as agglutinating. According to the traditional terminology it would have to be designated as „inflecting“, a terminus I’d rather like to avoid, as the word „flexion“ often in contrast to derivation is also used for agglutinating variances in the morphology. [That’s why] I’d like to designate this kind of language as „fusing and subordinate alternating“.