This character originally has no meaning of possessive.
- I have it on good authority that it does. If not, can you tell me which kanji was/were used for the possessive "no" before hiragana was standardized for the use of particles and okurigana? — Hippietrail 15:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I am open to being wrong if it's discussed. I don't know very much about Japanese after all. Here is part of a reply I received today, before I started posting changes to Wiktionary, in answer to a question of mine, on the topic of Korean and Japanese particles before Hangul and Hiragana:
- I actually expected 之 to be the answer but since he has a phd in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese linguistics, I've just taken his word for it. I wasn't worried by the vowel length since I'm used to kanji having several different readings anyway. — Hippietrail 16:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- @Hippietrail -- this character was one of the several 万葉仮名 (man'yōgana) that was used to spell no. See the Wikipedia article for more, at man'yōgana.
- That said, 万葉仮名 used this way were purely phonetic and had no meaning component, so the 能 character did not itself embody any meaning of possession. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)