Talk:具足
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Eirikr in topic Etymology and any Chinese connection
Etymology and any Chinese connection
[edit]@Justinrleung, Tooironic, Mar vin kaiser, 沈澄心, The dog2, RcAlex36, any other interested Chinese editors --
Could any of you peruse your Chinese-language sources to see if there might be any mention of Middle Chinese 具足? I'm a little surprised to think that there might be coinages based on Sinic components so early in Japanese, and I keep thinking there must have been an LTC term that was borrowed in toto. But I don't have the right resources to check for sure.
TIA! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- All I can offer is the definition in the 漢語詞典: 1. 猶具備。 ▶ 漢 王充 《論衡‧正說》： “善善惡惡， 撥亂世反諸正， 莫近于《春秋》。 若此者， 人道、王道適具足也。” ▶ 《百喻經‧認人為兄喻》： “昔有一人， 形容端正， 智慧具足， 復多錢財。” ▶ 元 德異 《＜壇經＞序》： “一一法門， 具足無量妙義。” ▶ 郭沫若 《盲腸炎‧向自由王國的飛躍》： “我是相信在產業未進步、物質條件未具足的國度中以實現社會主義為目的之政治革命是愈早愈好的。” 2. 充足。 ▶ 許地山 《債》： “說到具足生活， 也是沒有涯岸的。” ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Tooironic: Brilliant! If I've got this aright, that first snippet is from the Lunheng and is dated to the first century, well early enough for the JA term to be a borrowing. It also looks like this 具足 is treated in the text as a single term? Or is this a collocation of independent 具 and 足? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes that should be correct. Note however that the line between "single term" and "collocation" in Chinese is very fine. Different editors will see the line differently, so dictionaries will include some two-character 詞, but not others. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Cool beans, thanks! I think that all suffices to be able to safely say that the JA term in evidence in the 700s was not a coinage within Japanese, but rather a borrowing from Middle Chinese. I'll update the JA etym accordingly. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes that should be correct. Note however that the line between "single term" and "collocation" in Chinese is very fine. Different editors will see the line differently, so dictionaries will include some two-character 詞, but not others. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Tooironic: Brilliant! If I've got this aright, that first snippet is from the Lunheng and is dated to the first century, well early enough for the JA term to be a borrowing. It also looks like this 具足 is treated in the text as a single term? Or is this a collocation of independent 具 and 足? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Eirikr: The Buddhist sense is very much likely from a Middle-Indo-Aryan language, cf. my recent edit. IMO this is one of the most brilliant translation in the Chinese Buddhist lexicon. --Frigoris (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Frigoris: That's really cool! I love finding (and finding out about) nuggets like that. Thanks for the ping! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)