<p>On p. 43 of <a href="https://books.google.ch/books?id=nIvqAC7FNBQC&amp;pg=PA43&amp;lpg=PA43&amp;dq=%E2%80%9Cexoactive%E2%80%9D&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XmtAGZlMTr&amp;sig=ACfU3U1W0kDVBpQQlml0TV2I4zufOSX5Uw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjW65jwoZPqAhWksXEKHUkXDJ8Q6AEwBHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%E2%80%9Cexoactive%E2%80%9D&amp;f=false" rel="noreferrer">ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese</a> By Axel Schuessler we have the following introduction:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/V8khh.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/V8khh.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>which is later expound on:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/QUzs4.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/QUzs4.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>On p. 44 we find the exact example that you are asking about:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Fbs7s.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Fbs7s.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>It also comes with an explanation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/HDjOn.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/HDjOn.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>There is a little explanation also here:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] endoactive (introvert) verbs also can be tr. like mai 'to buy (something)', Exoactive verbs are the extrovert, transitive / cauastive ounterparts (mài 'sell something to someone')</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We could have used the familiar labels 'middle' for 'endoactive', 'active' or 'causative' for 'exoactive', 'passive' for 'exopassive'.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Understanding exoactive as causative variant might be an easier connection to make.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-21T16:40:27.160Z
Does this mean that 娶 is anomalous in its relation with 取? If that is so, how did they even make the connection that it is the exoactive form of 取?
Axel Tong
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-21T17:15:10.723Z
I'm trying to wrap my mind around this right now as well. It seems like it is really a Japanese concept adopted into Chinese. I'll have a closer look and see what I can see.
Mou某
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-21T16:11:33.490Z
2020-06-21T16:32:22.223Z
2020-06-21T16:32:22.223Z
Mou某
<p>These terms were devised in the late 20th century analysis of Classical Japanese, originally, <a href="https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/82128/WPL_39_December_1990_247.pdf" rel="noreferrer">for the difference between</a> -(さ)す (glossed as <em>externally instigated</em>) and -(ら)る (glossed as <em>internally instigated</em>). This <strong>exoactive</strong> vs <strong>endoactive</strong> reflects <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=95T3MrK34eAC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA108" rel="noreferrer">18th century Japanese use of 他動詞 vs 自動詞</a> (<em>tadoushi</em> vs <em>jidoushi</em>).</p>
<p>In more traditional Western-orientated linguistic parlance, this is equivalent to <strong>transitive</strong> vs <strong>intransitive</strong>; in Modern Japanese, this is how it is presented to students. E.g. 散る (ちる) <em>chiru</em> vs 散らす (ちらす) <em>chirasu</em>. However, there are pairs even in Modern Japanese which definitely do not fit this description, e.g.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>部屋を出る (へやをでる)</p>
<p><em>heya (w)o deru</em></p>
<p>to go out of / leave the room</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... where there is an explicit object, but the verb is endoactive (with る), yet transitive. Contrast this with:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>結果を出す (けっかをだす)</p>
<p><em>kekka (w)o dasu</em></p>
<p>to yield / come out with results</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... where there is an explicit object, the verb is still transitive, but exoactive (with す). There is <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=LYOv9VrYiqAC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA182" rel="noreferrer">also a school</a> that calls them <strong>causative</strong> vs <strong>inchoative</strong> pairs.</p>
<p>However, <a href="https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/linguistics/2004_anderson_joshua.pdf" rel="noreferrer">on application to Chinese</a>, endoactive vs exoactive was used for <em>directional</em> transitive verbs, e.g.:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;buy&quot; 買 <em>mǎi</em> vs &quot;sell&quot; 賣 <em>mài</em></p>
<p>&quot;buy grain&quot; 糴 <em>dí</em> vs &quot;sell grain&quot; 糶 <em>tì</em></p>
<p>&quot;hear/smell&quot; 聞 <em>wén</em> vs &quot;ask&quot; 問 <em>wèn</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>... and <a href="https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/96904/filename/TOKYO_tone_published.pdf" rel="noreferrer">a wide range of pairs</a> that fit a similar semantic alternation. This regular(ish) association of exoactive = Middle Chinese 去聲 (departing tone) implies some sort of regular morphology in Old Chinese, which is believed to be a final *-s suffix, which later (in the Han?) became *-h and ended up in departing tone.</p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=nIvqAC7FNBQC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA40" rel="noreferrer">Schuessler</a> expands on this endoactive/exoactive distinction with the endopassive/exopassive one, as well as providing a simplex (neither -active nor -passive) version, and associates them with different proposed derivational phonology by their outcomes in Middle Chinese. Some of the above examples were reallocated.</p>
<p>This tonal difference is what accounts for 取 vs 娶, which in Middle Chinese have rising and departing tones. This distinction is preserved in (colloquial) Min but lost in Mandarin and (most of) Cantonese. However, if &quot;take&quot; is the endoactive (<em>internally motivated</em>) direction, then how is &quot;to take as a wife&quot; an exoactive (<em>externally motivated</em>) one? That's the semantic leap that Schuessler has to make, and provides an explanation for:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>However, the key was apparently the person as indir. object.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-21T18:56:24.653Z
2020-06-21T19:45:05.300Z
2020-06-21T19:45:05.300Z
Michaelyus
<p>I have noticed that Chinese characters are labelled as “exoactive”, “endoactive”, “exopassive” and “endopassive” on <a href="https://wiktionary.org" rel="noreferrer">Wiktionary</a>.</p>
<p>For example, it says that <a href="https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%A8%B6#Chinese" rel="noreferrer">娶 (marry)</a> is the exoactive version of 取. I am unable to find other websites which utilize this term, and its usage seems to be rather obscure.</p>
<p>Now, I do understand that 娶 is a phono-semantic compound, where the character’s sound is indicated by 取, and its meaning indicated by 女. Could the aforementioned terms be related to this concept?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-21T15:13:19.557Z
Not an exoactive Chinese **character**, but an exoactive form of the morpheme/word. These definitions may be found in the source literature (maybe Schussler..?)
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-21T15:16:05.720Z
@dROOOze then again, the main search results are that of wiktionary. So perhaps the wiktionary editors use it more than the original researchers...? Anyway, the larger problem is that I don’t really understand the use of the term in relation to the Chinese character. What does it even mean when 娶 is the exoactive form of 取?
Axel Tong
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-21T16:01:16.700Z
Looks like Schussler. https://books.google.ch/books?id=nIvqAC7FNBQC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=%E2%80%9Cexoactive%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=XmtAGZlMTr&sig=ACfU3U1W0kDVBpQQlml0TV2I4zufOSX5Uw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW65jwoZPqAhWksXEKHUkXDJ8Q6AEwBHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Cexoactive%E2%80%9D&f=false and it seems to do with tone in relation to meaning.
Mou某
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-21T20:30:16.603Z
By the way, "娶 someone" is gender-exclusive language, limited to heterosexual male. "娶(取) Take a wife" involves materializing women (you can take a thing rather than a human being). It is a outdated in the background of gender equality and diversity. "跟 someone 结婚" is more gender-neutral language.
Bósài
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-21T20:35:58.820Z
Another example, 奸 has a 女 on the left, words for the character: 奸细 (spy) 强奸 (rape). However, the cost of creating new Chinese characters is too high. Not only the support of Unicode are needed, but also the support of font manufacturers, word processing software and operating systems are required.
Bósài
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-22T16:21:12.443Z
@YiFan I don't think there is such connotation in modern usage either. I haven't know such possible historical connotation until browsing the answer below.
Bósài
<characters><terminology><linguistics>
What is an “exoactive” Chinese character?
# What is an “exoactive” Chinese character?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-06-21)

I have noticed that Chinese characters are labelled as “exoactive”, “endoactive”, “exopassive” and “endopassive” on [Wiktionary](https://wiktionary.org).

For example, it says that [娶 (marry)](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%A8%B6#Chinese) is the exoactive version of 取. I am unable to find other websites which utilize this term, and its usage seems to be rather obscure.

Now, I do understand that 娶 is a phono-semantic compound, where the character’s sound is indicated by 取, and its meaning indicated by 女. Could the aforementioned terms be related to this concept?

**Tags:** characters, terminology, linguistics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Not an exoactive Chinese **character**, but an exoactive form of the morpheme/word. These definitions may be found in the source literature (maybe Schussler..?)  
> **username_0**: @username_1 then again, the main search results are that of wiktionary. So perhaps the wiktionary editors use it more than the original researchers...? Anyway, the larger problem is that I don’t really understand the use of the term in relation to the Chinese character. What does it even mean when 娶 is the exoactive form of 取?  
> **username_2**: Looks like Schussler. https://books.google.ch/books?id=nIvqAC7FNBQC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=%E2%80%9Cexoactive%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=XmtAGZlMTr&sig=ACfU3U1W0kDVBpQQlml0TV2I4zufOSX5Uw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW65jwoZPqAhWksXEKHUkXDJ8Q6AEwBHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Cexoactive%E2%80%9D&f=false and it seems to do with tone in relation to meaning.  
> **username_3**: By the way, "娶 someone" is gender-exclusive language, limited to heterosexual male. "娶(取) Take a wife" involves materializing women (you can take a thing rather than a human being). It is a outdated in the background of gender equality and diversity. "跟 someone 结婚" is more gender-neutral language.  
> **username_3**: Another example, 奸 has a 女 on the left, words for the character: 奸细 (spy) 强奸 (rape). However, the cost of creating new Chinese characters is too high. Not only the support of Unicode are needed, but also the support of font manufacturers, word processing software and operating systems are required.  
> **username_3**: @YiFan I don't think there is such connotation in modern usage either. I haven't know such possible historical connotation until browsing the answer below.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-06-21. Score: 18 | Accepted answer

These terms were devised in the late 20th century analysis of Classical Japanese, originally, [for the difference between](https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/82128/WPL_39_December_1990_247.pdf) -(さ)す (glossed as *externally instigated*) and -(ら)る (glossed as *internally instigated*). This **exoactive** vs **endoactive** reflects [18th century Japanese use of 他動詞 vs 自動詞](https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=95T3MrK34eAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA108) (*tadoushi* vs *jidoushi*).

In more traditional Western-orientated linguistic parlance, this is equivalent to **transitive** vs **intransitive**; in Modern Japanese, this is how it is presented to students. E.g. 散る (ちる) *chiru* vs 散らす (ちらす) *chirasu*. However, there are pairs even in Modern Japanese which definitely do not fit this description, e.g.

> 部屋を出る (へやをでる)
>
> *heya (w)o deru*
>
> to go out of / leave the room

... where there is an explicit object, but the verb is endoactive (with る), yet transitive. Contrast this with:

> 結果を出す (けっかをだす)
>
> *kekka (w)o dasu*
>
> to yield / come out with results

... where there is an explicit object, the verb is still transitive, but exoactive (with す). There is [also a school](https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LYOv9VrYiqAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA182) that calls them **causative** vs **inchoative** pairs.

However, [on application to Chinese](https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/linguistics/2004_anderson_joshua.pdf), endoactive vs exoactive was used for *directional* transitive verbs, e.g.:

> "buy" 買 *mǎi* vs "sell" 賣 *mài*
>
> "buy grain" 糴 *dí* vs "sell grain" 糶 *tì*
>
> "hear/smell" 聞 *wén* vs "ask" 問 *wèn*

... and [a wide range of pairs](https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/96904/filename/TOKYO_tone_published.pdf) that fit a similar semantic alternation. This regular(ish) association of exoactive = Middle Chinese 去聲 (departing tone) implies some sort of regular morphology in Old Chinese, which is believed to be a final \*-s suffix, which later (in the Han?) became \*-h and ended up in departing tone.

[Schuessler](https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nIvqAC7FNBQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA40) expands on this endoactive/exoactive distinction with the endopassive/exopassive one, as well as providing a simplex (neither -active nor -passive) version, and associates them with different proposed derivational phonology by their outcomes in Middle Chinese. Some of the above examples were reallocated.

This tonal difference is what accounts for 取 vs 娶, which in Middle Chinese have rising and departing tones. This distinction is preserved in (colloquial) Min but lost in Mandarin and (most of) Cantonese. However, if "take" is the endoactive (*internally motivated*) direction, then how is "to take as a wife" an exoactive (*externally motivated*) one? That's the semantic leap that Schuessler has to make, and provides an explanation for:

> However, the key was apparently the person as indir. object.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-06-21. Score: 7

On p. 43 of [ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese](https://books.google.ch/books?id=nIvqAC7FNBQC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=%E2%80%9Cexoactive%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=XmtAGZlMTr&sig=ACfU3U1W0kDVBpQQlml0TV2I4zufOSX5Uw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW65jwoZPqAhWksXEKHUkXDJ8Q6AEwBHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Cexoactive%E2%80%9D&f=false) By username_0 Schuessler we have the following introduction:

> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/V8khh.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/V8khh.png)

which is later expound on:

> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/QUzs4.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/QUzs4.png)

On p. 44 we find the exact example that you are asking about:

> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Fbs7s.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/Fbs7s.png)

It also comes with an explanation:

> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/HDjOn.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/HDjOn.png)

---

There is a little explanation also here:

> [...] endoactive (introvert) verbs also can be tr. like mai 'to buy (something)', Exoactive verbs are the extrovert, transitive / cauastive ounterparts (mài 'sell something to someone')

and

> We could have used the familiar labels 'middle' for 'endoactive', 'active' or 'causative' for 'exoactive', 'passive' for 'exopassive'.

Understanding exoactive as causative variant might be an easier connection to make.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Does this mean that 娶 is anomalous in its relation with 取? If that is so, how did they even make the connection that it is the exoactive form of 取?  
> **username_2**: I'm trying to wrap my mind around this right now as well. It seems like it is really a Japanese concept adopted into Chinese. I'll have a closer look and see what I can see.  

---

