6245
What is the difference for word compounds that can exist with 送り仮名 and without
and still retain the same pronunciation?

As an example:

> 巻き貝 と 巻貝
>
> 取り引き と 取引

If I'm correct, both of these are pronounced 「まきがい」 and 「とりひき」. Do they mean
the same thing? If so, what would be a good reason for choosing one over the
other. Also, how did it come about to be this way?

The only reason I could guess that both exist is because 「取り引き」 makes the
reader pronounce it a specific way without leaving anything to question, but
please correct me if this is incorrect.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-23T05:01:51.783
6242
2022-11-04T03:49:28.903
2014-03-06T07:57:20.540
4091
1328
question
word-choice orthography okurigana
Why can some words be written with or without okurigana? How do the uses differ?
When I was taught vocabulary, in some cases I was given words with okuriganas,
in some cases without, and in exams, getting the okuriganas wrong would be
blamed. Based on this education, my answer is: "Yes there is a difference: one
of the two spellings is correct, and there is no rule telling you which one it
is."
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-23T06:02:36.033
6243
2012-07-23T06:02:36.033
356
6242
answer
I had the same question as you a long time ago, and at the time a translator
friend gave me the following explanation.

With these kinds of compounds _(I always forget if they're compound verbs or
something else, so forgive me that I'm lacking terminology)_ , writing with
okurigana or not is equally fine. The reason the okurigana can be omitted is
that those particular combinations of words have become so commonplace that
the furigana is no longer always needed for people to know what they are.

You will see even more variance than what you have in your question. Attaching
okurigana to only one word, for example `取引き`, can also happen. And then when
you throw in swapping hiragana for kanji, it gets even more varied.

Why would you choose one over the other? Knowing your audience and whether or
not they can infer the right compound and reading without the furigana. Also
for style. But make no mistake: the meaning and pronunciation are _exactly_
the same.

Hope that helps.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-07-23T07:32:03.977
6244
2012-07-23T07:32:03.977
119
6242
answer
Even though they are both used, there is an official one and those that are
not.

When you consider the history of kanji incorporation into Japanese, first,
there were Chinese writings. Then, people tried to read them as Japanese. Two
techniques appeared: (i) kaeri-ten, which marks how the Chinese characters in
the original Chinese writing are to be permuted when read so that the Chinese
writing can be read as if it is Japanese, and (ii) okurigana, which marks the
inflectional endings that vary in Japanese but not in Chinese.

Hence, the purpose of okurigana is to mark the varied part of a word. This
works for verbs. Now, once a verb is turned into a noun, and starts to be
recognized as a noun that is independent of the original verb, there is no
more purpose to keep the okurigana. That is where the reduction of okurigana
happens.

Variation among the okurigana reflects the fact that it is not clear when a
deverbal noun is created: some people might feel a word is still an inflected
form of a verb whereas other people may feel that the word has evolved into an
independent noun and has lost connection to the original verb. There is an
[official web page
送り仮名の付け方](https://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/kijun/naikaku/okurikana/index.html),
but people have varied perception.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2012-07-23T08:20:18.993
6245
2022-11-04T03:49:28.903
2022-11-04T03:49:28.903
38861
6242
answer