Do the Japanese really love nature more than all other people ?

[Glenn]

Why is it that Japanese language itself does not differentiate as much between animals as English or other European languages (e.g. turtle vs tortoise, mouse vs rat vs shrew vs vole, whale vs rorqual vs orc, or using the kanji for fish [魚] in the kanji for whale [鯨]) ?

1) I think you should ask the Chinese about that.

2) Aren't you assuming a bit too much in the way of knowledge of biological classifications 3000 years ago? It's nice that we know this now, but I doubt the Chinese knew it when they were creating the characters.

3) 魚 doesn't always mean "fish," but also has the meaning of a creature that lives in water (according to the 新漢語林: 水中に住む動物の総称。) Incidentally, it also has the meaning of an ornamental dressing that one would wear on one's clothes. This meaning comes from the practice of government officials using fish shaped badges on their waists to prove their positions during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 CE). It can even have the meaning of a horse with white hair around its eyes (no reason given for that one).

Kanji have a long history, so it's not always possible to say "I know X means Y on its own, so it must have that meaning everywhere."

By the way, "tele" and "homo" in English are now considered words that are mere abbreviations of fuller words ("television" and "homosexual," respectively), and they depart from their original meanings as bound morphemes ("distant" and "same," respectively). They have both already combined with other elements with their new meanings: "televangelist" and "homophobe" are examples. While not exactly the same, the creation of kanji bears some similarity to this process, so it's not like Chinese or Japanese are the only ones to do this.

Also, in scientific texts the Japanese use katakana for animal names anyway, in which case the kanji becomes irrelevant to scientific classification. If you use the kanji the words carry other meanings, whereas the katakana word is sterile and scientific. For example, 狼 can mean a person who appears sensitive and kind, but will attack as soon as they are shown an opening, whereas オオカミ only means a predatory mammal of the dog family.

By the way:
turtle -- ウミガメ
tortoise -- カメ
mouse -- ハツカネズミ
rat -- ネズミ
shrew -- トガリネズミ
vole -- ハタネズミの類・野ネズミ
whale -- クジラ
rorqual -- ナガス［イワシ］クジラ
orc (I assume you meant "orca") -- シャチ, and also the loan words キラー・ホェール and オルカ

Looks like they're pretty differentiated to me. In fact, not only that, but they look better organized as well. All of the rodents end in ネズミ, and two of the three whales end in クジラ.

[Mikawa Ossan]

rat -- ネズミ

I always thought rat was ドブネズミ


EDIT: Sorry, Glenn! I like the point you make, though, and I agree.

[Maciamo]

1) I think you should ask the Chinese about that.
2) Aren't you assuming a bit too much in the way of knowledge of biological classifications 3000 years ago? It's nice that we know this now, but I doubt the Chinese knew it when they were creating the characters.

Are you saying that a country that decided to drop half of its culture to adopt Western systems, sciences, and invented new kanji compound for them, a country that has imported so many linguistic terms from European languages, could not have changed the kanji for whale or just supress it and replace it by katakana or hiragana as has been done with other words. No, there was no will to do so because for the Japanese it isn't really a problem to associate whales with fish. After all, don't they all live in water ?

By the way, "tele" and "homo" in English are now considered words that are mere abbreviations of fuller words ("television" and "homosexual," respectively), and they depart from their original meanings as bound morphemes ("distant" and "same," respectively). They have both already combined with other elements with their new meanings: "televangelist" and "homophobe" are examples. While not exactly the same, the creation of kanji bears some similarity to this process, so it's not like Chinese or Japanese are the only ones to do this.

I would associate this more with the creation of new words from old kanji (e.g. 写真). The Japanese are masters in word combinations that completely depart from the originally meaning (e.g.リモコン) and mixing Japanese with foreign words to form new terms (e.g. カラオケ, from "空" and "orchestra"). But this has nothing to do with biological classification. You are arguing about purely linguistic formations.

By the way:
turtle -- ウミガメ
tortoise -- カメ
mouse -- ハツカネズミ
rat -- ネズミ
shrew -- トガリネズミ
vole -- ハタネズミの類・野ネズミ
whale -- クジラ
rorqual -- ナガス［イワシ］クジラ
orc (I assume you meant "orca") -- シャチ, and also the loan words キラー・ホェール and オルカ
Looks like they're pretty differentiated to me. In fact, not only that, but they look better organized as well. All of the rodents end in ネズミ, and two of the three whales end in クジラ.

You are good at confirming what I had just explained above with more detailed examples. Indeed, in Japanese, a "turtle" is a "sea tortoise", and the Muroidea (family of the mice, shews, voles, gerbils, rats, hamsters...) are just ネズミ, with an adjective differentiating them. The same is true for Cetacea, only roughly divided in クジラ (whale) and イルカ (dolphin), a bit like small children do in the West. I am suprised that English doesn't have a unique word for "sperm whale" (cachalot in French) or "roe deer" (chevreuil in French), or does not differentiate between owls with external ears (hibou in French) or no external ears (chouette in French) so imagine my disappointment with Japanese language, despite Japan having such a special relationship with whaling. Japanese language also lacked differentiation between weasel, skunk, mink, ermine, polecat, all commonly refered to as いたち, although the English words is sometimes used for スカンク (skunk) or ミンク (mink). You have to admit that even when an English word has been imported, most Japanese (especially if they do not speak English well) do not use these loan words. Likewise, I rarely heard the Japanese making a point in differentiating a mouse from a rat.

[Glenn]

Are you saying that a country that decided to drop half of its culture to adopt Western systems, sciences, and invented new kanji compound for them, a country that has imported so many linguistic terms from European languages, could not have changed the kanji for whale or just supress it and replace it by katakana or hiragana as has been done with other words. No, there was no will to do so because for the Japanese it isn't really a problem to associate whales with fish. After all, don't they all live in water ?

So what's your problem with this, then?:

3) 魚 doesn't always mean "fish," but also has the meaning of a creature that lives in water (according to the 新漢語林: 水中に住む動物の総称。)
...
Kanji have a long history, so it's not always possible to say "I know X means Y on its own, so it must have that meaning everywhere."

I would associate this more with the creation of new words from old kanji (e.g. 写真). The Japanese are masters in word combinations that completely depart from the originally meaning (e.g.リモコン) and mixing Japanese with foreign words to form new terms (e.g. カラオケ, from "空" and "orchestra"). But this has nothing to do with biological classification. You are arguing about purely linguistic formations.

I agree that it's closer to that (in fact, identical), but kanji are still created with meaningful elements, so it's not entirely non-analogous.

I would argue that 魚 on the left of 京 to make 鯨 has nothing to do with biological classification. In fact, I think that's what I am arguing. Since 魚 (as a radical) has a broad meaning of an animal that lives in water, I don't see the problem with it.

What I should have done is left that out the first two points, as they merely complicated the issue. But then again, I think the point is clear that even if 魚 only meant "fish" at first, it came to have other meanings later, and by the time the Japanese were importing Western words and science, the meaning of "animal that lives in water" was probably firmly in place, so there was no need to change it.

You are good at confirming what I had just explained above with more detailed examples. Indeed, in Japanese, a "turtle" is a "sea tortoise", and the Muroidea (family of the mice, shews, voles, gerbils, rats, hamsters...) are just ネズミ, with an adjective differentiating them. The same is true for Cetacea, only roughly divided in クジラ (whale) and イルカ (dolphin), a bit like small children do in the West. I am suprised that English doesn't have a unique word for "sperm whale" (cachalot in French), so imagine my disappointment with Japanese language, despite Japan having such a special relationship with whaling. Japanese language also lacked differentiation between weasel, skunk, mink, ermine, polecat, all commonly refered to as いたち, although the English words is sometimes used for スカンク (skunk) or ミンク (mink). You have to admit that even when an English word has been imported, most Japanese (especially if they do not speak English well) do not use these loan words. Likewise, I rarely heard the Japanese making a point in differentiating a mouse from a rat.

So ネズミ should be translated as "rodent," then. It seems to have more of that meaning anyway. I don't know why it's glossed as "rat; mouse," but then again, I don't know why 夜叉 is glossed as "female devil" either.

Along the same lines, the Japanese gloss of ウミガメ is obviously intended to cover the meaning of "turtle" as "sea turtle" as opposed to "land turtle," which would be a tortoise. To be honest, it looks like the English words are vague in their meaning, as "turtle" can mean anything in Family Testudinidae, or it can mean only some of those belonging to Families Cheloniidae (seven species) and Dermochelyidae (the leatherback), whereas "tortoise" is considered a herbivorous turtle that lives on land. However, it seems that this case is much like the one of ネズミ, in that the gloss is wrong. カメ is the general term "turtle" (not the sea turtle) and everything else is a specific kind of カメ. It seems that "tortoise" would be more appropriately glossed as ゾウガメ.

Without going through all of the クジラ it looks again as though it's just a general name, and that more specific creatures that fall under that category are some kind of クジラ.

From what I have read, skunk aren't even native to Japan, so it's no wonder they'd import the word. ミンク doesn't refer to native Japanese mink, by the way, only American and European ones. The Japanese ones are イタチ.

[Maciamo]

So what's your problem with this, then?:

The last sentence was highly sarcastic. Only a little child that hasn't had any notions of biology would put all "the animals living in the sea" under the same category. Btw, it's been a several hundreds years since we have classified whales as mammals and not fish.

I would argue that 魚 on the left of 京 to make 鯨 has nothing to do with biological classification. In fact, I think that's what I am arguing. Since 魚 (as a radical) has a broad meaning of an animal that lives in water, I don't see the problem with it.

So Japanese language does not have a term just for "fish". Wonderful !

So ネズミ should be translated as "rodent," then. It seems to have more of that meaning anyway.
...
Without going through all of the クジラ it looks again as though it's just a general name, and that more specific creatures that fall under that category are some kind of クジラ.

Even better ! Now Japanese language lacks terms for "mouse" (or "rat" ?) and for "whale".

From what I have read, skunk aren't even native to Japan, so it's no wonder they'd import the word. ミンク doesn't refer to native Japanese mink, by the way, only American and European ones. The Japanese ones are イタチ.

Are you saying that a Japanese weasel is exactly the same animal as a Japanese mink ?

Giraffes, rhinoceros, elephants, lions and tigers aren't native to Japan or Europe, and yet Japanese and European languages have unique words for them. Why not smaller mamals ? I see a lack of interest in distinguishing animal species, and thus a lack of interest in nature. It only takes one person to create new words for the above. This person hasn't been born in Japan yet (or my 2 electronic dictionaries and Wikipedia in Japanese need a serious revision).

[Glenn]

The last sentence was highly sarcastic.

You mean the "what's your problem with this?" Yeah, I should have worded that differently.

Btw, it's been a several hundreds years since we have classified whales as mammals and not fish.

Well, a pineapple isn't an apple, and I don't know what grapefruits have to do with grapes, and eggplants certainly aren't grown by planting eggs, nor do they sprout them, yet we use these words all the time.

So Japanese language does not have a term just for "fish". Wonderful !

No, I said 魚 as a radical has a broader meaning. It also means "fish," though (see English "turtle" above). As a character in its own right it means anything belonging to 魚類, which includes jawless fish, bony fish, and cartilaginoid fish.

Even better ! Now Japanese language lacks terms for "mouse" (or "rat" ?) and for "whale".

No, they have them. I think it's highly possible that they use the broad terms for specific creatures, most likely the most common ones, and that they have acquired that meaning over time, but the scientific usage is different. There are words like that in every language.

Perhaps it would be better to say that there should also be the gloss "rodentia" there (or something like that) to give the impression that it's a scientific classification and not just rats and mice. As was written above, ハツカネズミ is "mouse" and ドブネズミ is "rat." As for whales, like I said, I didn't look into that one very deeply, but I see a pattern emerging.

Are you saying that a Japanese weasel is exactly the same animal as a Japanese mink ?

Well, from what I'm looking at now, it appears that way. However, under wikipedia's "mink" heading they don't list Japan at all, so it could be that the people who put イタチ into English had different ideas of what they should call it.

Giraffes, rhinoceros, elephants, lions and tigers aren't native to Japan or Europe, and yet Japanese and European languages have unique words for them. Why not smaller mamals ? I see a lack of interest in distinguishing animal species, and thus a lack of interest in nature. It only takes one person to create new words for the above. This person hasn't been born in Japan yet (or my 2 electronic dictionaries and Wikipedia in Japanese need a serious revision).

In the case of giraffes it's because they had a strange mythological creature called きりん, and when they saw a giraffe they thought it was strange, so they gave it that name (simplified version).

The others I don't know about off-hand, and I don't have time to look them up right now.

[Maciamo]

Well, a pineapple isn't an apple, and I don't know what grapefruits have to do with grapes, and eggplants certainly aren't grown by planting eggs, nor do they sprout them, yet we use these words all the time.

Indeed, but eggplant is only American English (the proper British English word is aubergine). As for grapefruits, it is because they grow in clusters/bunches like grapes (such "bunches" are called "grappe" in French). But I never understood why English has chosen "grapefruit" rather than "pomelo", "pompelmo", "pamplemousse", "pompelmoes", "Pampelmuse" or something like that, like in other Western European languages. "Pamplemouse" would have been an easy English adaptation.

No, I said 魚 as a radical has a broader meaning. It also means "fish," though (see English "turtle" above).

So there is only one word for "fish" and for "species that live in the water". It still show a lack of scientific rigour.

Perhaps it would be better to say that there should also be the gloss "rodentia" there (or something like that) to give the impression that it's a scientific classification and not just rats and mice. As was written above, ハツカネズミ is "mouse" and ドブネズミ is "rat." As for whales, like I said, I didn't look into that one very deeply, but I see a pattern emerging.

The grey, big rats regarded as varmint are called ドブネズミ while the white ones used for tests/experiments are called ラット

Thanks for the update. I always thought, and according to my pocket Random House dictionary, they were 大鼠（おおねずみ）.

Isn't it incredible that one of the world's most common mammals, the rat, does not have a clear name in Japanese ? In some dictionary it is ドブネズミ ("gutter mouse/rodent"), in others it is just ネズミ ("mouse/rodent"), in others ラット (from English) and in others yet 大鼠 ("big mouse/rodent") ! None of them are unique words, only adjective + noun compounds, except if "nezumi" alone means "rat", in which case it cannot mean "mouse" or "rodent" without having a double usage again.

[undrentide]

These parks may be packed, but it would be because the Japanese go to the same places justly because there are so few big national parks.

Is it really so?
I learnt from the internet source that the number of national parks in Japan is 28, total 2,051,179ha.
It is 5.43% of the total land (37,768,366ha). But I don't know about other countries. I'm very much interested, and searched further on the net and found interesting data.

http://earthtrends.wri.org
Biodiversity and Protected Areas > Data Tables


Note:
(1)-(3) Number of area (Total size in 1,000ha)
(4)(5) Number
*It seems that National Parks in Japan are not categorized as (1) by UNEP-WCMC.
I think that there are various way to measure the status of nature in each country and the above data is not everything.
There are many different ways to appreciate nature.
But at least the above data is some indication, and Japan is not so bad.
There are 7 national parks which are over 100,000ha - it is less than UK or Germany but not so astonishingly few either.



Note:
Number of Total Know Species, 2004 (Number of threatened species, 2003)

*It's sad to see that the number of threatened species increaseced rapidly, especially birds in Japan.
Biodiversity and Protected Areas > Country Profile shows more details, though the data is older than the above.

Biodiversity in Japan is far better than I expected from a post in this forum in the past which states as if there were far less botanical diversity in Japan than other European countries.

[Glenn]

Indeed, but eggplant is only American English (the proper British English word is aubergine). As for grapefruits, it is because they grow in clusters/bunches like grapes (such "bunches" are called "grappe" in French). But I never understood why English has chosen "grapefruit" rather than "pomelo", "pompelmo", "pamplemousse", "pompelmoes", "Pampelmuse" or something like that, like in other Western European languages. "Pamplemouse" would have been an easy English adaptation.

Isn't "aubergine" French? Thanks for the info on grapefruits -- at least it makes some sense now. But then again, why aren't bananas called grapenanas or something? They grow in bunches too.

I wonder what they call eggplant in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

So there is only one word for "fish" and for "species that live in the water". It still show a lack of scientific rigour.

I think there is only one word for "fish" (well, I guess three if you count いお and うお as separate readings for 魚), which includes eels, sharks, and all the other things that are usually associated with the English word. The component 魚 can also mean an animal that lives in the water. It isn't a word, but a part of other characters. For instance 鮑 is an abalone and 鯱 is a killer whale.

I don't think there is much scientific rigour in common names for the animals and plants in English, either, which is probably why the scientific names are given in Latin.

Isn't it incredible that one of the world's most common mammals, the rat, does not have a clear name in Japanese ? In some dictionary it is ドブネズミ ("gutter mouse/rodent"), in others it is just ネズミ ("mouse/rodent"), in others ラット (from English) and in others yet 大鼠 ("big mouse/rodent") ! None of them are unique words, only adjective + noun compounds, except if "nezumi" alone means "rat", in which case it cannot mean "mouse" or "rodent" without having a double usage again.

Well, like undrentide said, ラット is specifically a lab rat. I'm curious about 大鼠, though, as it doesn't show up in 大辞林, 明鏡国語辞典, the EXCEED dictionary, or 英辞郎. It's in Random House, though, and I'm pretty sure I heard it in Kill Bill.

I don't see why 鼠 couldn't have one usage as a word and another as a part of a word, especially if it were an abbreviation (like "homo" or "tele"), but, at any rate, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Here's the definition of 鼠 in 明鏡国語辞典: 一般に小形で、尾が細長いネズミ目ネズミ科の哺乳類。 上下一対の門歯が発達し、終生伸び続ける。農作物や食 料品を食い荒らすほか、病原体を媒介することも� る。 「ねずみ算」の語が� るほど繁殖力は� 盛。「ドブネズ ミ・クマネズミ・ハツカネズミ・アカネズミ・ハタネズ ミなど、その種類はきわめて多い。So, maybe "rat/mouse" is more appropriate, and "rodentia" is too broad (or perhaps "Murinae" would be most appropriate, but who uses that in everyday speech?). But just the English word "rat" isn't all that accurate, it seems.

I guess it's worth noting here that glosses are in most cases apporximations of words, so most likely one-to-one correspondences are rare. Lately I'm finding that using J-E/E-J dictionaries cause lots of misunderstanding in word usage, and even checking a Japanese dictionary can leave you at a loss as to how a word is actually used sometimes.

[caster51]

about Japanese four seasons, It is neither only the weather, trees nor a temperature etc.
I think I think the traditional thing of the season can be included.