What is the difference?

[Kejebra]

A certainly peculiar thing that I have been wondering about, others too I've discovered, it was stated by Chryuop here

"I have a question. It is something that really been wandering in my head for a long time. Why some words have a meaning in Kanji, but they are always used with other kanji to get to the same meaning?
For example 現 in itself already mean "reality", why not using that kanji alone?"

So the question is: Do I really need both kanjis for the world reality, whats the difference?

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by Kejebra

A certainly peculiar thing that I have been wondering about, others too I've discovered, it was stated by Chryuop here

"I have a question. It is something that really been wandering in my head for a long time. Why some words have a meaning in Kanji, but they are always used with other kanji to get to the same meaning?
For example 現 in itself already mean "reality", why not using that kanji alone?"

So the question is: Do I really need both kanjis for the world reality, whats the difference?

There is, indeed, a significant difference. Instead of thinking of all Kanji as standalone words, think of them as components. The same sort of idea exists in English, and for similar reasons.

Kanji are not originally Japanese. They were "borrowed" from Chinese, and applied to the Japanese language. Over time a lot of things have become very strongly intertwined, but in the end they are not (except for a few special cases) originally Japanese. Written Japanese combines these components to form specific meanings.
A similar example in English would be the use of Latin and Greek roots for words. Segments themselves carry meaning, but in most cases they are combined to form the final word. Alone, and you would just sound strange.

In both languages, this is particularly strong when it comes to ideas and concepts that are not easily defined.
In English, the word "reality" is formed from "real" and "ity" - "real" being the part that carries the actual meaning, "ity" just transforms it into a noun. But yet I doubt that you would use "real" in place of "reality" - it simply wouldn`t be correct.

[kenmei]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

There is, indeed, a significant difference. Instead of thinking of all Kanji as standalone words, think of them as components. The same sort of idea exists in English, and for similar reasons.

Kanji are not originally Japanese. They were "borrowed" from Chinese, and applied to the Japanese language. Over time a lot of things have become very strongly intertwined, but in the end they are not (except for a few special cases) originally Japanese. Written Japanese combines these components to form specific meanings.
A similar example in English would be the use of Latin and Greek roots for words. Segments themselves carry meaning, but in most cases they are combined to form the final word. Alone, and you would just sound strange.

In both languages, this is particularly strong when it comes to ideas and concepts that are not easily defined.
In English, the word "reality" is formed from "real" and "ity" - "real" being the part that carries the actual meaning, "ity" just transforms it into a noun. But yet I doubt that you would use "real" in place of "reality" - it simply wouldn`t be correct.

lehmans terms: kunyomi vs onyomi ?

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by kenmei

lehmans terms: kunyomi vs onyomi ?

In this context? That really isn`t what is being asked. The base of the question isn`t how the Kanji is being read - but rather why you don`t just use one when it carries that meaning. The reading is pretty much irrelevant in this case (at least in my understanding of the question).

[Kejebra]

So essentially the two kanji that represents reality is actually made up of the mainword "real" and the complimentary word "-ity"?

So by adding a kanji I can transform any noun to a verb (for instance by adding that second kanji together with the kanji for "mortal", and I get the word "mortality")?

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by Kejebra

So essentially the two kanji that represents reality is actually made up of the mainword "real" and the complimentary word "-ity"?

So by adding a kanji I can transform any noun to a verb (for instance by adding that second kanji together with the kanji for "mortal", and I get the word "mortality")?

No, that`s not what I`m saying. I was making a comparison to a similar type of thinking in English. They aren`t the same, just the same basic ideas.

The English word reality is made up of real and ity. Japanese etymology is different than English, so the only bits that really overlap is the fact that the words are made of parts that carry meaning alone.

[Kejebra]

Hmm, you see, I'm an artist, and right now I'm into drawing and writing about things that oppose eachother, for example love - hate, true - false etc.

And I'm also very interested in the japanese culture (even though I know next to nothing about writing it). So I was thinking of drawing some kanji and put up on my walls, or even get a tattoo (if my friends allow me to).

So here is the tricky thing. I've done some research and I find it very disturbing that I sometimes see words, like reality and plenty of others, depicted with only one kanji and sometimes with two. I suppose that for a native speaker this might seem as no problem at all, but I just can't get it into my head.

I don't want to draw anything wrong, and most certainly not get a tattoo that is wrong. What would happen if I draw only the first symbol in the word reality compared to using two?

One other example I think I saw. Love and Hate was depicted. But when the word Hate was alone it had another kanji next to it.

(inside my head is a tornado)

[enyafriend]

It's not so confusing, actually.

If one were to stop thinking all things from the English point of view, and begins to accept the culture, the rule, the laws and the peculiar ways of Japanese language and remembers them that way, it'll be less tough on them in trying to decipher and unscrambling all doubts.

Coming back to the subject in question, sometimes words do not and cannot stand on it's own. Even though they may mean the same thing, but they simply must work in pairs. That's the way things are.

[Nyororin]

I think that you also have to keep in mind that Kanji aren`t only used in Japan - they`re originally from China and the written Chinese language consists entirely of them.
The meanings of the characters themselves have had a lot of time to change between the countries. Something that may be written with one in China may be written with 2 in Japan, and the other way around. In some cases, the meanings have diverged so much over time that they no longer mean anything similar.
And, as with most every language, there is more than one way to say the same thing.

[Kejebra]

I'm starting to get a better picture now.

However, I have to say something more. I can speak English, Swedish, German and some French. In all those languages there are easy grammatical rules to follow. Yet, in Japanese there seems to be an absence of them, or possibly that they apply in a different way that is hard for me to understand.

As enyafriend said: They can't stand on their own. Even though they may mean the same thing. They just simply must work in pairs. That's the way things are.

Now THAT seems like something you can't keep track on. To know when they must work in pairs and when they musn't or doesn't.