Corpus composition research
Kanji Pair Research
Enter one kanji to discover other characters recorded in the same JMnedict name spellings, or enter two kanji to inspect that exact co-occurrence. Every count in this research view describes the imported corpus—not population popularity in Japan.
麻
Jōyō · KANJIDIC grade 8 · 11 strokes
李hemp, flax, numb
Jinmeiyō · KANJIDIC grade 9 · 7 strokes
Find exact-kanji names →plum
Recorded names
Name readings containing both characters
The pair only has to occur in the same written form; the two kanji are not required to be adjacent unless counted in the adjacency statistics above.
Given name
麻李菜
2 source-recorded spellings in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameMarina
まりな
麻李以
2 source-recorded spellings in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameMarī
まりい
麻李江
1 source-recorded spelling in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameMarie
まりえ
李麻
1 source-recorded spelling in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameRio
りお
麻李湖
1 source-recorded spelling in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameMariko
まりこ
麻李
1 source-recorded spelling in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameMari
まり
麻李亜
1 source-recorded spelling in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameMaria
まりあ
麻遊李
1 source-recorded spelling in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameAyuri
あゆり
李麻
1 source-recorded spelling in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameRima
りま
麻亜李
1 source-recorded spelling in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameMāri
まあり
麻李
1 source-recorded spelling in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameAsari
あさり
麻李梨
1 source-recorded spelling in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Given nameMariri
まりり
麻李琉
1 source-recorded spelling in this reading group contain both 麻 and 李Mariru
まりる
Evidence boundary
Co-occurrence is not popularity or etymology
The pair relation comes from exact JMnedict source rows through the compact kanji-usage index. KANJIDIC2 contributes character metadata only. A high corpus count can reflect dictionary coverage and should not be read as a national usage frequency.