6

Is お土産{みやげ} an 当{あ}て字{じ}、 熟字訓{じゅくじくん}、 or something else?

For 「お土産」 to be 当て字, the「み」reading must be part of the 音{おん}、訓{くん} readings or a 名乗り{なのり} reading for the「土」kanji. This is not the case.

For 「お土産」 to be 「熟字訓」, the meaning of the characters 「土」and「産」when placed side-by-side must approximate the meaning of "souvenir". And this is not the case.

So, is the reading of 「お土産」 classified as "non-standard", but not in the sense of 「当て字」 or「熟字訓」? Maybe there is a 3rd classification for words with non-standard readings? Is this 3rd classification maybe "難読{なんよ}み" (I've found very little info about 難読み so far).

Eiríkr Útlendi
  • 35,463
  • 1
  • 67
  • 114
user312440
  • 2,900
  • 3
  • 19
  • 36
  • Since when must a reading be part of the *on* or *kun* in order to be ateji? I thought that's what ateji **was** -- a character (*ji*) that has been applied (*ate* rareta) to a given reading/meaning. Things like 木乃伊{みいら} "mummy" where the characters have nothing to do with the reading. – Eiríkr Útlendi May 26 '14 at 04:01
  • 1
    「[難]{なん}[読]{よ}み」をググってもあまりヒットしないようですが、「[難読漢字]{なんどくかんじ}」で調べたら、何かもう少し分かるかも知れません。 –  Jun 16 '14 at 15:30

2 Answers2

8

I think you might be getting deceived by the English word "souvenir" in thinking 土 + 産 has no meaning connection to みやげ. The English word tends to mean something you buy for yourself to remember your travel. The Japanese word is for things you buy to give to others that reflect the cuisine of where you travelled.

産 means either to birth a child or to produce goods or the goods necessary for life.

And 土 means earth, dirt, and some other things but particularly relevant is that it means 地方 ("geographic area" but much more colloquially used than the heady-sounding English equvalent). [Thanks snailboat for the improvement!]

Seems like a 熟字訓 to me. Moreover, the Japanese Wikipedia specifically lists it as one stating:

その土地の特産品、旅先で仕入れた品物、記念品。土産物（みやげもの/どさんぶつ）。

virmaior
  • 8,126
  • 1
  • 22
  • 50
  • @snailboat -- agreed and improved. I try to get an answer in on the sort of questions where I'm competent and may have rushed it a bit. I've always hated it when people translate from お土産 to "souvenir". It's up there with "octopus balls" and "my senior" – virmaior May 26 '14 at 01:52
  • @virmaior, I'm curious, what's wrong with translating お土産 as "souvenir"? – dainichi May 27 '14 at 01:36
  • @dainichi --> souvenir is from the french word to remember (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souvenir) and is a keepsake you buy to remember a place you went. お土産 are food stuffs you buy to give to your coworkers, friends, etc. that they eat because you went somewhere. So two problematic differences: (1) souvenirs are for the person who travelled whereas お土産 are for the people who didn't. (2) souvenirs should be objects that endure whereas お土産 should be consumables. So it's nearly entirely unhelpful to translate these words as each other, because the overlap is merely "good bought while traveling" – virmaior May 27 '14 at 04:42
  • 2
    @virmaior, I don't agree. Souvenirs can be given, and お土産 can be inedible. – dainichi May 27 '14 at 06:15
  • @danichi My claim is that the concepts are rather different and translate poorly. Merely, pointing out that there could be overlap (notice how you are using 可能形?) does not show a good identity between the concepts. Does the concept of souvenir expand out in ways where you can give them to others? Sure. Can お土産 include things outside of food? Sure. But how often are these words used in the overlapping fashion versus to identify significantly different concepts where the overlap produces miscommunication? – virmaior May 27 '14 at 07:30
  • @dainichi For instance, I was given さんどら抹茶 today as an お土産 from a fellow professor who visited Tokyo. People go to Tokyo *regularly* and bring back お土産 for their ゼミ. The sentence: "Every time I go to Tokyo [4 times a year and a 2 hour flight] I bring back a souvenir" makes little sense. – virmaior May 27 '14 at 07:34
  • 1
    @virmaior, I am very aware that there are situations where they do not overlap. Translations are almost never perfect. Your very strong statement "I've always hated it" (notice how you are using an absolute?) just lead me to believe that you thought there was **no** overlap. – dainichi May 27 '14 at 12:46
  • I have always hated it. The absolute is not accidental. I do not think the terms should be translated. I think they should be transliterated and explained as I do with most food terms and many cultural terms. – virmaior May 27 '14 at 13:09
  • I don't see in any problem in referring to food items you give your friends as 'souvenirs', as long as you bought them on a trip. British English speaker here. – Angelos Jul 17 '17 at 22:32
  • @AeonAkechi I think that's a confusion. Do you feel obligated to buy 'souvenirs' for your boss and all of your co-workers any time you take a vacation? If so, then maybe it works; if not, then I think there's a significant cultural meaning gap between the terms. – virmaior Jul 17 '17 at 23:23
  • @virmaior No, but it would be a nice gesture. – Angelos Jul 18 '17 at 01:09
  • @AeonAkechi but for o-miyage, it is not a "nice gesture"; it's a deep cultural requirement. Ergo, my position on this term. – virmaior Jul 18 '17 at 01:33
  • I'm not entirely sure on the "nice gesture" vs. "deep cultural requirement." You're sure to get a bit of talk behind your back if you don't bring お土産 but I wouldn't say that it is as absolute as you say, for even if the root of the meaning of お土産 lies with foodstuffs today people purchase and bring back inedible お土産. Were this not the case, what word would you use to substitute お土産 in Japanese that has a closer meaning to "Souvenir" in French when the item is not a food item? – psosuna Jul 19 '17 at 00:34
  • If anything I would argue that the tradition of a souvenir in Japanese cultural context, which is お土産, is built on a tradition of the お土産 being originally food but is not necessarily food any longer and so now may mean one and the same as souvenir, because in reality, the cultural backlash might be about the same: "What kind of person goes on a trip and doesn't bring back a souvenir for his acquaintances?" might be universally understood between many western cultures and Japanese culture all the same – psosuna Jul 19 '17 at 00:39
  • (1) as i indicated in my answer, I *would not* substitute; I would transliterate. (2) being on the ground in Japan, out of the dozens of times I've received or given o-miyage, I think I've gotten a non-food item once, so I don't accept there's been some seismic shift towards non-food in Japan. (3) there's zero backlash in the USA for not bringing people things when you go on a vacation. Conversely, if anything coworkers would have found it quaint or strange depending on the type of gift and the relationship. So I don't think it's universal. – virmaior Jul 19 '17 at 00:48
3

Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary has this to say about the etymology of みやげ (my additions in [square brackets]):

「みあげ」の変化で、「みあげ」は「見上げ」、すなわち、よく見て、人に差し上げる品の意という。あるいは「御（み）上げ」か。「どさん（土産）2」と意味が近似するところから「土産」の字を当てる
A shift from miage, where miage means 見{み}上{あ}げ, in other words, to look something over and then give it to someone. Alternately, may be from 御{み}上{あ}げ [where the mi is an honorific]. The spelling 土産 is used given the similarity of meaning with sense 2 of 土産{どさん}.

That sense 2, a gift [for others] from an area where one has visited, arose as an extension of the kanji-based meaning of product of a specific area.

Eiríkr Útlendi
  • 35,463
  • 1
  • 67
  • 114