Is the pronunciation of 翼 (tsubasa) 訓読み or 音読み?


I noticed that the first two syllables of the pronunciation of 翼 is tsuba,
which sounds very similar to Chinese word 翅膀(chibang). 翅膀 is the colloquial
form of 翼 in Chinese. Is this a coincidence? Or it's that when this word was
borrowed from Chinese, the writing of 翼 while the pronunciation of 翅膀 was
imported?




To answer the question directly,「[翼]{つばさ}」is a _kun'yomi_.

There is no proposed link between **つばさ** and Mandarin **chìbǎng**.

  * The academic attempt to derive the most ancient etymology for **つばさ** can be found in [The Tower of Babel](http://starling.rinet.ru/), where in their [Japanese Etymology](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Calt%5Cjapet) database there is a proposal that it is derived from a [Proto-Japanese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japonic_languages) root **/*tumpasa/** , and cognate to a Mongolian word **ǯiber**. As far as I know, there is no proposal that **つばさ** is a compound of other morphemes.

  * 「翅膀」is a compound comprised of「翅」and「膀」.「翅」([Old Chinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Chinese): **/*s-kʰe-s/** ) is of unknown origin, with variants「翨」and「」in old texts used largely as family names, but also sometimes used as a phonetic substitute for「啻」(also in old texts).「膀」just means _shoulder_.

* * *

Even if there was a link, having a Chinese-derived pronunciation does not mean
that something is _on'yomi_. _On'yomi_ are
[constructed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanqie) or derived from systematic
pronunciations of Chinese characters as recorded in [rime
dictionaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rime_dictionary), and Chinese-
originated pronunciations which are not based on these phonological references
are not actually _on'yomi_. Examples:

  * [麻婆豆腐]{まーぼーど​ーふ} - the reading for this word is _irregular_ , derived straight from Modern Mandarin. Apart from「腐」, the individual characters do not correspond to the _on'yomi_ of the characters, although they are _very close_ ; an _on'yomi_ reading would look like [麻婆豆腐]{まばとうふ}.

  * [梅]{うめ} - A _kun'yomi_ , believed to come from Middle Chinese, according to [_Daijirin_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daijirin) and [_Daijisen_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daijisen). The proposed evolution is: [Middle Chinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Chinese) **/muʌi/** , [Old Japanese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Japanese) ***/mme/** (written as **むめ** ), [Heian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heian_period) pronunciation **mume2** freely changing into **ume** , then finally settling to the modern pronunciation **ume**.

  * [茗]{ちゃ} - A _kun'yomi_ , derived from the _on'yomi_ of「茶」.




To answer the question directly,「[翼]{つばさ}」is a _kun'yomi_.

There is no proposed link between **つばさ** and Mandarin **chìbǎng**.

  * The academic attempt to derive the most ancient etymology for **つばさ** can be found in [The Tower of Babel](http://starling.rinet.ru/), where in their [Japanese Etymology](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Calt%5Cjapet) database there is a proposal that it is derived from a [Proto-Japanese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japonic_languages) root **/*tumpasa/** , and cognate to a Mongolian word **ǯiber**. As far as I know, there is no proposal that **つばさ** is a compound of other morphemes.

  * 「翅膀」is a compound comprised of「翅」and「膀」.「翅」([Old Chinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Chinese): **/*s-kʰe-s/** ) is of unknown origin, with variants「翨」and「」in old texts used largely as family names, but also sometimes used as a phonetic substitute for「啻」(also in old texts).「膀」just means _shoulder_.

* * *

Even if there was a link, having a Chinese-derived pronunciation does not mean
that something is _on'yomi_. _On'yomi_ are
[constructed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanqie) or derived from systematic
pronunciations of Chinese characters as recorded in [rime
dictionaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rime_dictionary), and Chinese-
originated pronunciations which are not based on these phonological references
are not actually _on'yomi_. Examples:

  * [麻婆豆腐]{まーぼーど​ーふ} - the reading for this word is _irregular_ , derived straight from Modern Mandarin. Apart from「腐」, the individual characters do not correspond to the _on'yomi_ of the characters, although they are _very close_ ; an _on'yomi_ reading would look like [麻婆豆腐]{まばとうふ}.

  * [梅]{うめ} - A _kun'yomi_ , believed to come from Middle Chinese, according to [_Daijirin_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daijirin) and [_Daijisen_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daijisen). The proposed evolution is: [Middle Chinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Chinese) **/muʌi/** , [Old Japanese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Japanese) ***/mme/** (written as **むめ** ), [Heian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heian_period) pronunciation **mume2** freely changing into **ume** , then finally settling to the modern pronunciation **ume**.

  * [茗]{ちゃ} - A _kun'yomi_ , derived from the _on'yomi_ of「茶」.

