comparison.JAPANESE.2_critique.htm






COMMENT

RESPONSE TO GERALD P. MATHIAS (mathias@hawaii.edu) BY PATRICK C. RYAN




Dear Professor Mathias:

Once again, many thanks for your critique of June 26, 1997.

I cannot fully express my gratitude for your careful reading of and extremely pertinent advice on the PL / IE / and Japanese comparison essay.

I am going to detail the changes I have made in accordance with your suggestions:

1) All roots listed by you as demonstrably derived from Chinese have been eliminated: 14, 17, 24, 28, 33, 36, 37, 38, 60, 75, 80, 90, and 97.

    A) While a study of the phonological changes Chinese loan words into Japanese have undergone is interesting in itself, it has only an indirect bearing on the argument presented here.
2) I have cited Old Japanese wherever I had a citation of it. If you could furnish any additional OJ forms for the words cited and discussed, or if you would care to suggest other words that might be related, I would be glad to seriously consider them for inclusion in the essay.
    A) I have attempted to reconstruct hypothetical OJ forms, which I have included under the entries.
3) The assumed relevance of the stress-accent is twofold:
    A) syllable reduction (amply demonstrated, I hope) is only understandable in terms of stress- accent induced vocalic deletions;

    B) the appearance of a in syllables that are believed to originally have had a different vowel (o or e) is tied to the absence of the stress-accent;

    C) I suggest that the rising tone is tied to long, stress-accented vowels;

4) Yes, I do posit a stress-accent for earliest Japanese. The main reason is 3B above but, since the stress-accent was a vital morphological device of the Proto-Language, its presence is presumed. Even in a language like Modern Chinese, where stress-accent plays virtually no role, the syllable forms (and the intense reduction from classifier+root forms) suggest that it was once very prominent;

5) I use the subscripts for two different purposes:

    A) to identify a different source for a phoneme: e.g. intervocalic b -> w; w = w(1) ; even though they both seem to develop identically from the point at which they were realized as /w/;

    B) in the case of F and F1, to distinguish among sources for the F but also to distinguish further developments, which differed, suggesting that there perhaps was some difference among them which we have not yet defined;

    C) I have revised the entry for (11), which now reads:

      (11)$E and $E-FA (speaking), *ye- / *yew-, speak (i+u -> MJ iu, id. / yu+u -> MJ yu-u, id.); (IE in ya:-, speak (excitedly); and 2. yu/u:-, outcry, especially rejoicing)

      I just skipped a step; avocalic w can always be diphthongized with the preceding vowel as - u;

    D) I am not currently of the opinion that the basal form is OJ *ip-u, as you cite in your critique.
6) I do not reject OJ p. OJ p (-> F) [from PL P[?]F and PF[H]] becomes MJ h.
    A) OJ F(1) [from PL F and F[H]] becomes MJ 0. I am attempting with these subscripts to distinguish etymologically rather than positionally why some OJ F becomes 0 and some h.

    B) So, to sum up, I believe Japanese f- has not originated with one of these labials (unless perhaps wh) by itself but with some other element (like n) that became aspiration. So, yes, I am trying to explain "fortified f's" in this way;

7) You bring up a very interesting point with (55):
    (47)HHA-R[H]A-$E (water-color-like), *ha'ra:i-, gets clear (-> MJ haré-ru, id.; *); (IE *ar- in ar(e)g[^]-; a/a:ier-, a/a:ien, day, morning)

    (53)HA-NA-SE, *h1a:nas-, speak (-> MJ h(1)anás-u, id.; *); (IE 3. an6- + -s, in ansu-) MJ h(1)ós-u, id.; *); (IE a:s-, *dry, in Latin a:reo:, listed under a/a:s-)

    (55)HHE-$E, *h1e:'ye, fire, flame (-> MJ h(1)í, id.; *); (IE 4. a/a:i-)

    (56)HHO-$A-RO-FA (heated-part-plural), *h1o:'iru, daytime (-> MJ h(1)iru, id.; *); (IE in erkw-; *ari-, listed under a/a:yer/n-); (cf. Egyptian hrw, day) MJ h(1)i, id.; *); (IE 4. a/a:i-) MJ h(1)áre, id.; *); (IE a/a:yer/n-)

What I have found in some other languages, is that, though /h/ will be retained as /h/, /H/, the pharyngal fricative, really a stronger sound, simply disappears. In the case of (55-57), I believe that a glide (y) is responsible for maintaining HH as h when it normally would become 0.. In (53, 58), I expect that H will be retained as h.

However, such a glide is not available for (47) or (54), and, accordingly, I am revising them to:

    (47)HA-R[H]A-$E (air-color-like), *ha'ra:i-, gets clear (-> MJ haré-ru, id.; *); (IE *ar- in ar(e)g[^]-; a/a:ier-, a/a:ien, day, morning)

    (54)HA-F[H]O-S[H]A (‘wind-blow-state'), "h1au:sa:-, dry, empty (-> MJ h(1)ós-u, id.; *); (IE (a)we:s-, "*cool", listed under 10. aw(e)-, "blow, sigh, breeze")

I do not believe that any of the above originally had a labial though it is possible that a labial glide (w) in (54) might have been responsible for maintaining the /h/ (HHO-F[H]A-S[H]A -> *hwasa -> *ho2s(a))

8) I have partially bought your argument for (7); here is the revised entry:

    (7)$E-F[H]E-P[?]FE-$E ($E, (‘abdomen + web-like'), *'yau:bi (<- *'ya:F1bye <- *ye'F1e:beye), belt (-> MJ óbi {cf. Shuri ?u'bi};87); (*awebhy-, {basis 5. aw-} for webh-; )
9) Good point on (30); here is my revision:
    (30)?A-M[H]A-$E (top-being=superior-non-past [see (A5)]), *amai, sweet (-> MJ amai, id.; *); (IE in *a:mel-, sweet, in Albanian ambëlë, sweet, listed incorrectly under om-, om-, raw, bitter); (cf. Egyptian im(3), kind, gentle, well-disposed, pleasing, be gracious, delighted, charmed)
I mention non-past -i under Morphology (A5).

10) Based on the IE parallels, where teros- only means "star", I believe that this is probably not a causative though I can see that a causative having the same form has been formed. You say that the "e remains a problem"; I do not understand this.

11) There are many languages that have something like *mi(C) for "eye" but in the meaning "see", I am not yet persuaded to abandon *mir-:

    (48)?E-M[H]A-(RE) (‘eye-activity-apply'), *mir-u- (re-analyzed as mi-ru), sees, looks (-> MJ mi-ru, id.; *); (IE *Hme(r)- -> me:/ir-, listed under 5. me:-; cf. Latin mirare; cf. Egyptian (i)m3, see)
12) On (49), here is the entry:
    (49)Q[H]E-$A (‘itched, scratched'), *ke:'yake:'ya-, write (-> MJ kák-u [perfect kai-ta];*); (IE in kaik[^]- [<- k[^]aik[^]y <- k[^]ai-k[^]ai], scratch, comb); {note: this suggests the Japanese were using a medium for writing before brushes}
I only mention kai-ta to show the -i appearing in an anomalous form.

13) I am not sure I understand your question here. The -r, as I think the cognates show, is simply a reflex of RE that is very common in designating an activity performed with a tool of some kind:

    (52)KX[H]O-$A-RE, *ko:'ir-, cut (-> MJ kír-u, id.; *); (IE s+ke:i- in ske/e:i-; *keir- in Greek keíro: and Albanian shkjer, listed under 4. (s)ker-)
14) I can definitely see your point on (53):
    (53)HA-NA-SE, *h1a:nas-, speak (-> MJ h(1)anás-u, id.; *); (IE 3. an6- + -s, in ansu-)

but my idea is not really very different; I just have your ha nominalized with -na, and an appropriate (I hope) verb (emit). I could just as easily accept HA-NAS-U but would not be able to include it because I cannot identify in IE a cognate with -NAS.

15) On (54), I am not convinced that hos- and hi- are related.

16) Regarding (71) and (77), and (47), I have added this entry to Morphology:

    (A32) verbal: -SA ("strong"), -sa, causative (really intensive, implying perfective); (IE s- mobile)
17) I take (47) and (58) to be closely related but slightly different (HA vs. HA-$E).

18) Japanese ni, load, I would analyze as (NO-$E, basket-like) but I have no IE cognate; if the verb stem were nor-, as I have predicated, is there any precedent for

    nor+se -> no:se

    ???

19) let us pass by (66) since I was really grasping at straws; I may take it out.

20) Regarding (21), as a understand it, the -ra can go either way: transitivizing intransitives or intransitivizing transitives???

Here is the new entry:

    (21)SA-QA(-RO) in *sagar-, hang down (-> MJ sagár-u, id.; *); also sagé-ru, hang down (transitive); (IE sengw-)
The é suggests to me that we have a causative: saga + i.

22) Regarding (23), SO-$E, skin-like, for some reason seems to very often show up as ‘back'.

23) Regarding (15), ko, I even have -ko, diminutive, in Basque, another language which separated early enough to keep vowel quality intact.

24) I feel certain that (51) is from ko-i because the x in the Egyptian word for wood, x(i)t, which, if my theory is correct, can only come from K[?]XO or KX[H]O. I have found (I think) that our earliest ancestors named cutting instruments for sharp molluscs, which is what KX[H]O is.

25) If you are headed in the direction of OJ having only -a-, I can sympathize. This is certainly the case with many of the languages with which we will both be most familiar. So, I am faced with KX[H]O-$V even in the face of kír-u. "Tree"is "lumber, wood" in Japanese, I think. If KX[H]O means "shell", then a -$E derivative meaning "knife, cutting implement"would be right in line with what I see in many other languages: IE -i of differentiation (or relatedness)..

26) My argument for original Japanese -e- is that there are cognates in the list that have the IE form CVC not CVjC, what would be needed for Japanese CeC to be secondary. Also, I try to distinguish between e (original, low front) and e: (from Vj, mid-low front) just as o (low back) and o: (from Vw, mid low back). You will have to be the judge of whether I succeed in this.

    Also, some languages like Basque preserve the original vowels (occasionally); this can be for conformation. Also, the back vowels produced retroflex articulations in AA. So, when we have Arabic D, T, S, Z, we know that PL had T?SO, T?O, T[H]O, TS[H]O; and also the Egyptian reflexes are different: ‘, t, t, ‘ (opposed to D, d, d, D).

    In a nutshell, the problem in Japanese seems to revolve around correctly identifying the two different types of e and o, only one of each is original E and O.

27) On (92), I would favor, at this time, a separation of "quick" and "grow", with "grow" from PF[H]A, "fat":

    new entry:

    (14)PF[H]A-HA-$E, (‘fat-stative-like'), *Fa:'e, grow, in (-> MJ haé-ru, id.); (IE in 3.sp(h)e:(i)-, prosper, spread one's self out = become fat, proceed, have success, succeed)

28) On (98), thank you for the correction and the excellent suggestion:
    (98)MA-QA (‘full-bend'), *maga-, bend (-> MJ maga-ru; id.; *; also mageru, bend (transitive)); (IE meng-)
29) Excellent suggestion on (74):
    (74)T[H]A-RA, 'ta:r-, become slack, loose (-> MJ tar-um-u, id.; * [for -um-, see #110, ‘bear, *become'); (IE 1. ter-)
30) On (87) and (88), based on the IE cognates, I believe these should probably be keep separate; one seems to be a physical, the other a spiritual problem.

31) On (95) and (95), I will not say you and others are wrong, but again, based on the apparent IE cognates, and the subjective vs. objective differentiation that seems to be made, I will prefer to keep them separate for a while.

32) corrected (25); thank you.

    (25)SO-$A-P[?]O-FA (pulled-bubbles), *'syabu-, suck, chew (<- *'syabou-) (-> MJ shabu- ru, id.; *); (IE seib- {English sip}, listed under seip-)
33) (84) was reaching for the moon and getting only Limburger:
    (84)?A-FO (plant-leaf), *'aF1o, green, blue (-> MJ áo, id.; *); (IE in 7. wer-; w(e)ra:d-; werdh-)

34) With OJ papi:, I think we may be dealing with ‘live coals' rather than ashes. I would relate it to IE 2. (s)p(h)er-, and my PF[H]E, in spite of the vowel (reduplication *pepe -> *pape); seen in hí no ko, spark.

35) On (18), K[H]E, shadow, dark, is one of the best distributed terms I have found. It would take an eclipse at midnight to sway me on this one.

36) On (32), is the torii not a symbolic door? Or gate? delimiting sacred territory.

37) On Amaterasu, you have to admit the meaning I suggest is appropriate; incidentally, the idea of the sun as a female is a concept that, I would suggest, proves the northern provenance of the Japanese.

Well, your suggestions have helped me to greatly improve my presentation, and I think you for them, and look forward to a regular interchange of ideas, or well, my ideas and your knowledge. Thank again so much, and I will be greatly looking forward to hearing from you again.

Pat






the latest revision of this document can be found at

HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/Athens/Forum/2803/comparison.JAPANESE.2_critique.htm< /strong>

Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * (501)227-9947

PROTO-LANGUAGE@WorldNet.att.net