Ambiguous nature in meaning (花火)

5 comments

1. I think it’s ambiguous and compounds do not necessarily have such nuanced meanings. Because 花火 (firework) and 火花 (spark) are both valid words but mirror each other, regardless of the interpretation you choose for fireworks, it would be hard to argue that the opposite is true for sparks

2. General pattern is descriptor-noun. So flower-fire is a flower-like fire. “Spark” is probably more an exception than the rule.

3. Always figured it was because fireworks bloom like a flower and are pleasing to look at.

4. I will also say it is ambiguous. For another example, the Japanese word for “A flower blooming” is 開花 – Open + Flower. So, is the flower opening, or the Open flowering? You have the right idea with breaking down the meaning of the individual kanji, and understanding how Japanese compound words are made. Taking it too literally like this is fun to understand Japanese poetically, but the language is not this strict on a granular level and a lot is up for interpretation. This tracks with Japanese as a whole, since the written form is originally an entirely foreign script applied to what was, apparently, an unwritten language. Kanji characters similarly have multiple meanings that are literal and more conceptual when needed.

5. Is 明日 the sun that will eise, *becoming* brighter? Or is it the *bright* sun, falling as it lets the next’s day sun be the bright one?