9703
Given that もの has a rather similar usage as a generic modifier for turning a
property into a thing with that property (as 物) or turning a property into a
person with that property (as 者) -- it seems plausible that before the
introduction of Kanji the word もの referred generically to people and things.

Is there any concrete evidence in favor of that theory? Any details which I
have overlooked which make it implausible?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-12-05T19:31:38.270
9697
2012-12-06T13:09:42.203
2012-12-06T09:37:24.717
1067
1067
question
history homophonic-kanji
Was there a single word/concept もの which was later split into two (now distinct) kanji 者 and 物?
Before answering the question, I would like to clarify one thing: for most
purposes, [物]{もの} and [者]{もの} are _not_ two separate words, but a single word
もの which has two kanji notations depending on its meaning. This is clearer
when we consider compound words such as にせもの. When someone uses the word にせもの,
it is not always clear even to the speaker whether it is 偽物 or 偽者. This is
because we treat にせもの as a single word, not the common pronunciation of two
distinct words.

But this is just an analysis of the modern usage of the word. Is it reasonable
to consider that もの was historically a single word from the beginning? I think
that it is, and the best explanation might come from Occam’s razor. Assuming
that we did not have a distinction between animate and inanimate things is
simpler than assuming that we had two separate words for animate and inanimate
things which happened to have the same pronunciation (or which used to have
distinct pronunciations but were later merged). Therefore it is reasonable to
assume the former unless we have evidence for the latter possibility.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-12-06T13:09:42.203
9703
2012-12-06T13:09:42.203
15
9697
answer