48559
today I came across a certain sentence and I was confused by one word in it:

> 親指の腹で石を支えながら、人差し指と中指の間に **挟む** 。

When I read this, I mistook 挟む for 狭｛せば｝む, and apparently, 狭｛せば｝む is barely
used outside literature. When I type せばむ on my computer, it won't even return
狭む (I get "世バム"). Finally I realized it was the wrong radical, and that the
word I was interested in is 挟｛はさ｝む.

However, 狭む and 挟む _do_ seem to be very similar: both (can) hold the meaning
"to insert (A) into (B)" - difference is 狭む gives a more fierceful
translation, "to jam in", instead of simply inserting. But they have different
radicals: 手 and 犬. I've always viewed the radicals as disjoint, in that they
would not bear a relation to one another.

Q: Is there a reason these words have such similar meanings, or is this case
simply a coincidence?

(Also it must be noted that 挟｛はさ｝む has several meanings, only one of which is
"to insert". So maybe I'm reading too much into it. But thanks in advance.)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-22T00:10:55.990
44738
2017-07-07T17:06:32.917
2017-06-20T08:28:13.237
622
14037
question
kanji etymology classical-japanese chinese jōyō-kanji
Similarity between 挟む and 狭む
はさむ reminds me of a sandwich, ham and egg between two pieces of bread.

Both characters have a common radical, simplified 夾, on the right, which seems
to have the sandwich meaning. You see 大 (big guy) is sandwiched by 人. I hope
[this page](https://ja.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%A4%BE) helps. (I found a good
picture in [this page](https://www.npwo.or.jp/info/382), which illustrates the
origin. The big guy is surrounded by small people.)

夾 is an advanced kanji character I think. I have seen it only in 夾竹桃 and 夾雑物,
both of which I can't write without a dictionary.

Ancient chinese probably used 狭 for something that brings negative impression
because it surely does if we are sorrounded by beasts!
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-22T01:10:56.240
44745
2017-03-22T01:10:56.240
20352
44738
answer
# 1. Why is the verb 狭{せば}む so rare/weird?

As user `naruto` said in the comments, the reason you don't see 狭{せば}む much in
modern Japanese (and that your input method can't handle it) is that this is a
Classical Japanese ( _bungo_ 文語) verb, of the _shimo-nidan_ conjugation; it
inflects as 狭め(ぬ), 狭め(て), 狭む(ぞ), 狭むる(人), 狭むれ(ど), 狭めよ(!). (If you want to learn
more, you can try a Classical Japanese grammar). In Modern Japanese, _shimo-
nidan_ verbs like, say, 求{もと}む got a _shimo-ichidan_ form like 求{もと}める, so in
the case of Classical 狭{せば}む we can predict modern 狭{せば}める, which is indeed a
fairly common verb (108k hits in Google Books for 狭め). And there's also the
intransitive variant, 狭まる, which works as a modern verb too.

As for the rarity of the kanji, both ‹挟› and ‹狭› are part of the Jōyō Kanji
table (they're shown right next to each other, in fact), meaning we are
supposed to learn them; the Jōyō readings for them (i.e. the readings that
have to be learned) are:

  * 挟：キョウ、はさむ、はさまる
  * 狭：キョウ、せまい、せばまる、せばめる

狭{せま}い is undoubtedly the most common reading of ‹狭›, and you should definitly
learn it and take care to distinguish from ‹挟›.

Now for your main question, which can be subdivided into two distinct
questions:

# 2. Is there a relationship between the similar-looking kanji 挟 and 狭?

Questions about kanji are properly questions about Chinese.

In Mandarin these are read as _xié_ and _xiá_ , which sounds very similar (and
in Japanese _on'yomi_ , which comes from old Chinese, they're identical: _kyō_
). They also share a component, which in the old form is written as 夾, and in
[even older
forms](http://www.chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E5%A4%BE)
is clearly a pictograph of a person between two other things, possibly two
people, perhaps holding them with their arms:

[![Bronze form of
夾](https://i.stack.imgur.com/m5rOF.gif)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/m5rOF.gif)

Used by itself, 夾 also sounds similar: _jiā_. What's more, the meanings of the
three words all seem related. This is usually a hint of an etymological **word
family**. Let's consult Schuessler's etymological dictionary:

  * 夾 _jiā_ < * _krêp_ : press between, be on both sides, support.
  * 狹 _xiá_ < * _ɦkrêp_ : narrow.
  * 挾 _xié_ < * _gêp_?: grasp under the arm, hold onto, conform.

There are a bunch of complications, but for our purposes what I wanted to show
you is that there were a bunch of similar Chinese _words_ , to which they
ascribed the same basic _character_ (夾), and then distinguished the various
nuances by adding _determiners_ (stuff like 扌 or ⺨). Sometimes they added the
determiners quite willy-nilly, and in the earlier stages of Chinese writing
they were kinda optional and in flux. This process was very productive in
general—in the case of 夾 we also have things like 峡 _xiá_ gorge, ravine (also
used in Japanese); 鋏 _jiá_ tongs (sometimes seen in Japanese for 'scissors',
_hasami_ ); 梜 _jiá_ chopsticks (now archaic); 浹 _jiā_ soak; 陜 _xiá_ variant of
狹…

# 3. Is there a relationship between the Japanese words _sebamu, sebameru,
semai, hasamu, hasamaru_?

To answer this we first have to set aside kanji and think of Japanese itself
(it's always good to keep in mind that Japanese has an existence independent
of Chinese writing).

We've seen how _sebameru_ is a regular derivation of old _sebamu_ , 'to
narrow; to cause grief'. And _sebamaru_ is the intransitive form, 'to become
narrow' (like _tomeru/tomaru_ ).

It's very easy to connect the adjective _semai_ to these verbs, via a root
_seb-/sem-_. The consonants /b/ and /m/ are quite similar; both are bilabials
(made by closing both lips), distinguished only by a nasal sound in /m/.
What's more, /b/ is thought to have sounded like 'mb' in Old Japanese (as it
still does in e.g. Tōhoku); 'mb' and 'm' are even closer, and there's a number
of other b/m alternations in the Japanese lexicon. And of course the meaning
is basically the same, changing only from adjectival to verbal forms.

What about _hasamu_ , _hasamaru_? Well, they're not nearly as similar, and the
meaning, 'to interpose, to insert between; to be on either side; to get
between', while related, isn't quite the same. _seb-/sem-_ is about
narrowness, while _hasam-_ is about in-between-ness.

Now think from the point of view of the Japanese scribes and monks who chose
which _kanji_ to use for which Japanese word—which is to say, who translated
between Chinese and Japanese. They clearly decided to translate _hasam-_ as
_krêp_ 挾, 'press between' (one might expect the original 夾 character for this;
but in many cases the 'derived' characters like 挾 still could be used for the
'source' words like _krêp_ /夾, and I bet this was the case here). And they
decided to translate the _sem-/seb-_ family, 'narrow', logically enough, as
the Chinese adjective 'narrow', 狹 _ɦkrêp_. At the time both of them sounded
like _kep_ , which is how their got their _on-yomi_ ; _-ep_ in Japanese (in
this as in other words) changed into _-epu_ > _-efu_ > _-eu_ > _-yō_ , making
for modern _kyō_.

At some point some _genius_ also decided to write _hasami_ , "scissors", which
is just 挟み, with the 鋏 character, on the grounds of it being the same basic 夾
but having the 'metal' 金 determiner—despite the fact that in Chinese the
character actually meant 'metal tongs'.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-20T06:24:00.287
48559
2017-07-07T17:06:32.917
2017-07-07T17:06:32.917
622
622
44738
answer