Hey all.
Because I like to waste my time looking up random things instead of actually studying what I should be focusing on, I came across the multiple alternate readings for 抜 that WaniKani actually features on their page for it (There’s no lack of non-jouyou alternate readings for all sorts of kanji and WK doesn’t generally bother to put them down as readings on the kanji pages, for understandable reasons). The Japanese reading is of course ぬ, and it lists バツ、ハツ、ハイ as on’yomi readings.
Normally what this means is that the multiple Chinese readings came from multiple separate imports of the Chinese character/reading throughout history. In this case ハツ is the 漢音 reading (from the 7th and 8th centuries during the Tang dynasty), and バツ is a 慣用音 reading, which means it’s not actually from Chinese, but rather a popularized mispronunciation. ハイ is… well it uhh it’s from… one sec let me look this up… apparently there’s no info on it anywhere I can find.
Multiple sites list ハイ as a reading, but either words using it don’t actually exist and all of these online dictionaries are just copying off each other assuming that someone else knows something they don’t, or it DOES exist and I just lack the skills to search for it. I’m willing to believe it’s the latter issue, but I need help. Jisho.org supposedly lets you search for all uses of a kanji with a specific reading, but if you actually try doing it it doesn’t work. Kanshudo lists this reading but then goes on to say the kanji in its database have 3 readings, none of which is ハイ. Wiktionary, which is one of the few resources that lists things like which type of on reading a kanji is, doesn’t list it as a reading at all. Which is part of why I’m suspicious.
Anyone with better vocab knowledge or google-fu able to help me out? And also, why would WaniKani bother listing such an obscure reading? It runs counter their usual M.O., especially since all of the vocab on the site uses the ぬ reading (yup, even バツ and ハツ aren’t used here). I’d put this post in the feedback subforum except that I’m more curious about the reading than bothered about WK’s choice to include it.