"no more" の "more"

although i both ought to be and have been (for about the first time this quarter) studying for Russian final tomorrow, i've been thinking more about 日本語—as in: this upcoming trip could be very embarrassing, but at least i still know enough to bend the Kotoeri keyboard options to my will....

i've started developing a theory about what is different, conceptually, about 日本語, as a language and, in particular, in its written form. many many others (languages, that is) fall on one side of the Spelling scythe. which is to say: either spelling constitutes a sub-subject (English, French) or it is a no-brainer (i'm germinating a joke about a That Language spelling contest with no end) because the language in question is purely phonetic: one sound, one letter (and No Child Left Behind). i don't think that it is alone in this, but 日本語 totally confounds the category of Spelling in a really profound way. on one hand, it is a phonetic (or, rather, syllabic) language. but, on the other, the relative limitation (how many ひらがな/カタカナ (hiragana/katakana) characters are there? less than 100, with the inclusion of てんてん (") and まる (º—and, by the by, if you put "まる" into Kotoeri, you get the option of inserting one of a number of single or concentrified circles!)) varieties?)) of syllabic forms completely obscures the reality of the written language's multiplicity. taking dictation in ひらがな could be done semi-consciously and, more importantly, with a high degree of "understanding" (with many subjectively possible transcriptions, all with their own translation): each syllable could be written using any number of 漢字 (kanji), and, further, each could be combined with one or more of those preceding or following it. Spelling, in 日本語, is, therefore, at once immediate and always beyond reach; for this reason, it, as a concept, is in need of restructuring.

the phrase that circumscribes the phenomenon is " 'AB' の 'A' " (or, i suppose, " '何に何に' の '何' "). it's given as an explanation in speech for something written in the mind of the speaker, upon encountering a discrepancy between how a certain syllable could be written—and, as such, understood. if we try to map this onto a language like English, it becomes meaningless. or, to be more precise: only about Spelling (or, in the illogicality of the English montage, about pronunciation). as in: "the 'e' in 'excellent.' " here, let's not even go into which 'e' is in question.... the point is that nothing about any of the 'e' sounds has the slightest to do with superlative goodness. if i say "the 'e' in 'expectorate' is just the same as the first one in 'excellent,' " i have no intention (excepting the frequent foggy-lungedness this here numbing chill conduces?) of bringing any substance from either word up close, but only attempting to instill correct speech in my would-be mad-going pupil. i might as well use 'eggs,' which sometimes look like coughed-up coagulations but which, notwithstanding, are an exxxxellent source of protein.