90419
I was trying to read a Japanese kanji dictionary for grade school (小学校) and I
came across a construction that left me a bit puzzled.

In explaining the Kanji for "right", the dictionary says:
"みぎ手をあらわす「」と、「口」（くち）をあわせた字。". Now, if I understand correctly, "あわせた" is the
perfect, or past, tense of the verb "あわせる", to put together. The text then is
saying that 「右」 is a character that puts together 「」representing a right hand
with 「口」.

But I don't understand why the text uses the past tense for "あわせる". In English
it makes more sense to use present tense since this union isn't something that
happens at a specific time. Does the use of the perfect tense here implies
something else? Would the text be acceptable and have the same meaning if the
dictionary form was used instead?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-21T12:00:34.690
90416
2021-09-21T14:05:32.873
2021-09-21T13:47:25.983
46748
46748
question
verbs past
Using the Perfect Tense to Talk about Something Timeless
I'm not sure I want to delve into the matter of _past_ vs _perfect_ at the
start of this (see the bottom of this answer for this detail).

Let's consider the phrase that you have:

> みぎ手をあらわす「」と、「口」（くち）をあわせた字

We can make a whole sentence for what's being said,

> 右という字はみぎ手をあらわす「」と、「口」（くち）をあわせた字です。

We can translate this into English as

> The character 右 is a character that has joined 口 (mouth) with , which
> expresses the right hand.

I looked in my own 小学館 kanji dictionary for the same character. Here's the
explanation of the composition of the character I found there.

> 口をかばう、みぎ手をあらわすじ。

> A character that expresses the right hand protecting the mouth

So, what I want you to notice here is there is a bit of _editorial_ choice or
style going on here in how to express the **composition** of the character 右.
In other words, the definition you found could easily have been written as

> 右という字はみぎ手をあらわす「」と、「口」（くち）をあわせる字です。

In English, this would be

> The character 右 is a character that joins 口 (mouth) with , which expresses
> the right hand.

You might like "has joined" over "joins" (or visa-versa), but that's a
stylistic choice. Either way, we understand what's being said. Semantically,
there is perhaps a very slight difference, which I'd say is more philosophical
than anything.

**[Indulge me a bit in some speculation.]** When using "has joined" (あわせた)
we're thinking of the character as something that was "created" sometime in
the past and continues to preserve this form: so, we're thinking about the
character a bit historically. When using "joins" (あわせる) we're not thinking of
the character as something from the past but as something being presented to
you right now in a particular form. ( _Really, this is rather a pedantic bit
of hair-splitting speculation. Neither an English speaker or a Japanese
speaker is going to necessarily analyze (or think of) it this way. I'm just
presenting this _interpretation_ as a way for you to think of these two uses:
ie., to help you wrap your head around what you're encountering._)

All that said, what I also want you to notice is that it wouldn't really be
quite accurate to call " _a character that has joined..._ " something in the
past. It's expressing the idea of _how **this** was made **and** continues to
be_. The character is still the same; what's being said is **not** that at
some point in the past it was one way and now no longer is. It continues to be
the way it was constructed. This idea of something done in the past which
continues to be true into the present is called the _perfect_. The _past_
tense is used to express an idea that is located in the past which may (or may
not) be true anymore.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-21T13:38:11.547
90419
2021-09-21T14:05:32.873
2021-09-21T14:05:32.873
4875
4875
90416
answer