Why is 'no smoking' [禁煙]{きんえん} (lit. 'smoke is prohibited'), whereas 'to
smoke' is [吸]{す}う (lit. 'to inhale (smoke)')? In English (and some other
languages), the verb 'to smoke' is related to the noun 'smoke', but since it's
not the case in Japanese, it is strange to see 煙 pop up. Is it a _calque_?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-13T07:50:21.673
68178
2019-05-16T02:20:02.613
2019-05-13T08:18:25.610
5010
30039
question
etymology wago-and-kango
Why is 'no smoking' 禁煙, whereas 'to smoke' is 吸う?
The Sino-Japanese word (kango) that directly corresponds to 禁煙 is 喫煙【きつえん】 (喫
= "take and enjoy"), which is a suru-verb that can be found in stiff
situations including statistical or medical contexts. (We say 禁煙 but not 禁喫煙
for [this reason](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/53782/5010).) On the
other hand, (たばこを)吸う is a wago which is commonly used in casual day-to-day
situations. English speakers happen to use the same word ("to smoke") in
almost all contexts, but in Japanese, 喫煙 and (たばこを)吸う are very different in
register. (English speakers distinguish [sweat and
perspire](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/33686/5010), for example.)

When someone wants to prohibit smoking, it's possible to use some negative
imperative expression of 吸う (e.g., ここでたばこを吸ってはいけません), but it would sound like
as if you were saying this to a child. 禁煙 is almost always preferred because
it's short, authoritative and serious.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-13T08:34:09.330
68181
2019-05-13T08:34:09.330
5010
68178
answer
I take it that you are inclined to think some verbal element denoting the
_act_ of smoking should be present in the Japanese word meaning "no smoking",
in parallel with the English phrase, but things really doesn't have to be that
way.

Observe, for instance, that in English "no tobacco" (or "no cigarette") can
convey the same meaning as "no smoking", and it doesn't contain a verbal. (By
this I do not mean that "tobacco", "cigarette" and "smoking" have the same
extension in meaning. The point is to show that in the phrasal template "No
XXX", XXX doesn't have to be a verb-derived word, and by the same token
there's no necessity for XXX in「禁XXX」to be verb-derived. )

And neither is there any morphological rule stating the second component in
two-kanji compounds beginning with 「禁」 should denote action rather than an
object.

Sure, in some other possible world, 「禁吸」(in which 「吸」 stands for the act of
"煙草を吸う") might be a word meaning "no smoking" but in this world (one where "no
drinking (alcohol)" is indeed 「禁酒」, not 「禁飲」 though 「禁飲」 seems to be something
of a word all its own), we have 「禁煙」, and it's not strange at all.

To answer the last question -- no, I don't think the presence of 「煙」 is due to
the translation of "smoking" but rather to whatever rules govern the process
of compound formation, like those involved in the formation of words centered
around tobacco/smoking such as「喫煙」「断煙」「卒煙」「嫌煙」.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-14T15:58:31.743
68221
2019-05-16T02:20:02.613
2019-05-16T02:20:02.613
11575
11575
68178
answer