Re: [edict-jmdict] Inclusion of gikun readings in JMdict/Edict

[Nils Roland Barth <jmdict.nbarth@********>]

Jim,
I looked into this more, and I’m pretty sure these are
intended as readings, not glosses/explanations.

Take a look at:
http://www.geocities.jp/libell8/8meisyou-seisyo.html
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/日本語訳聖書;
Note firstly that every example (dating to 1837) the first
word is read or annotated はじめ though the kanji/kana
spelling varies widely.

You also see examples like:
これに生(いのち)ありし
and:
太初(はじめ)に道(ことば)あり

生（いのち）
道（ことば）
…are pretty clearly non-standard readings of standard kanji/words.

I’m not a Japanese Christian, so I don’t know how people
read these, but my understanding is that people read
太初 and 元始 here as はじめ – i.e., these are genuine
ateji (more finely gikun, per EDICT naming).

Does this sound right?

[For those following along:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with
God. All things were made by him; and without him was not
any thing made that was made.”  John 1:1–3 (KJV)]

  ~nils

Jim Breen jimbreen@gmail.com [edict-jmdict]:
> I don't think はじめ is in any way a gikun reading of 元始. What those texts with
> "元始（はじめ）" in them are doing is explaining to readers what 元始 means. It
> is not a very common word in Japanese, for example it is not in any of
> the several
> big JE dictionaries I have. The 国語s have it and gloss it as "初め。おこり。もと。原始。"
> (広辞苑). No 国語 shows it with はじめ as a reading.
> 
> I have seen plenty of references in other forums about some older translations of the
> Christian bible in Japanese using rather archaic styles and vocabulary, and how the
> latter have to be explained modern readers. "元始（はじめ）" is most likely just an example
> of this.