Incorrect reading explanation for 現す

The text says “Do you remember learning 現れる? This has the same exact pronunciation!”
現す is あらわす
現れる is あらわれる
On the other hand, 表す have the same pronunciation, so I think that’s what they meant.

They mean that the kanji is read the same way in those two words.


Kanji being the same, isn’t it kind of obvious ?

Kanji have different readings all the time, so no?


現れる is the passive form of 現す so it makes perfect sense that they both use the same pronunciation, it’s far from being uncommon and I’ve never seen pointed out in reading explanations before. It’s not helpful at all. Pointing out that 現す and 表す have “exact same pronunciation” makes more sense and is actually helpful.

A lot of kanji readings that are the same as in vocab you’ve already learned have that, though…


Except when they don’t like with 来る?

1 Like

That is actually not the case. They are verb pairs, where 現す is transitive and 現れる is intransitive.


It’s the intransitive form.

But wouldn’t it make more sense to link the same kanji together?

1 Like

Yeah, I don’t get what the complaint is here. It’s simply just a reinforcement that if you know the reading of the kanji from the one word that it’s the same in the other.


Actually to add to seanblue, this is not true. The passive form of 現す is 現される not 現れる. So your criticism isn’t even predicated on a correct foundation.

1 Like

It is cool that you notice these common readings between different vocab. And they are most probably etymologically related. It is good to make note of these kind of things, but I don’t agree it is a flaw in wk. You could just as easily make the case for the way it is now. And this is how wk chose to do it with all the in/transitive pairings.

1 Like

In that case, please show me an example where transitive and intransitive form use same kanji but different pronunciation. It would be the exception. If you guys are happy with reading explanations pointing out the obvious, be it. I just think it would be much more helpful to point out actual homophones
Homophone definition : have the exact same pronunciation.

No it’s exactly what I meant, I just expressed myself incorrectly, not being English native and using proper grammar terms.

easy. 出る and 出す :slight_smile:

(in)transitive is not correct in terms of grammar for Japanese verbs.
it is better to think of them as ‘self-move’ and ‘other-move’ (for action/move verbs).
there was a link to cute doll video, where it is described in details/


入る and 入れる as well.


Even when you tried to fix it it’s still not correct. There are multiple pairs of transitive/intransitive verbs with the same leading kanji with different readings.


But pointing out the obvious makes it easier to remember, though


There are exceptions. Vast majority of transitive/ intransitive verbs use same pronunciation.

I think it makes sense for wk to point out the obvious. You’ve used this reading for this kanji before, nothing new you need to learn here.

But I agree that it’s interesting how a lot of words probably used to be the same, but are now written using different kanji because there were different words for them in Chinese.

痛む/傷む/悼む come to mind, as do 見る/観る/診る