Talk:Old Japanese

Untitled

I would like to expand this topic with much more detailed linguistic informtaion. I would appreciate help in merging it with the content already here. I will try to complete it within the next few days, depending on time constraints. Bendono 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Am I correct in understanding that "Quadrigade" corresponds to the modern consonant-stem verbs, such as aruku, tatsu, etc., while "Upper Monograde" corresponds to modern vowel-stems? Do the "k-irregular", etc., mean that they end in ko₂, ki₁, ku, kuru, kure, ko₂? What is the difference between the two rows on each of the adjective types? E.g., what's the difference between -ki₁ and -karu? What are the differences between teh various pronouns listed, such as wa, a, ware, and are? Nik42 07:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I added a few notes of clarification to the verbs and adjective sections. I will add more to the pronoun section a little later. The article is rather bare now and I plan on updating it in the near future. Bendono 08:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Subscript numbers

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I don't see any explanation of what the distinction is between vowels with subscript 1s and vowels with subscript 2s. Kairos 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is discussed in the both the Phonemes and Transcription sections. Also, there is a link to Jōdai Tokushu Kanazukai. As stated, it applies to the entire syllable, not necessarily only the vowel. There are various theories, but there is no general academic agreement. In time it would be nice to discuss the theories in more detail. It is one of the most hotly debated topics in Japanese historical linguistics. If the wording is not sufficiently clear, please feel free to improve it or make suggestions as necessary. Bendono 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I believe it's somewhat misleading to claim that Old Japanese was spoken in "Japan", considering that the modern state is a rather modern concept. Hokkaido, for example, was colonized very late. I don't know the exact extent of the language but I feel the information should be more specific.

Do we have any information of the various stages of Japanese? When does the Old Japanese period end? Was it followed by "Middle Japanese" or did it go right into modern Japanese?

Peter ^Isotalo 20:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Many wooden tablets ("mokkan") written and dated to the Old Japanese period have been excavated from all over the country. Also, several dialects are recognized. The most prominent of them is the "Azuma" (=Eastern) dialect which is contained in Books 14 and 20 of the Man'yōshū. (This is most definitely not Ainu.) Listing anything more specific than "Japan" will be most misleading and imprecise.

Old Japanese ends in 794 when the capital moves from Nara to Heian. It is succeeded by Late Old Japanese (sometimes called Classical Japanese). The general divisions are as follows: Old Japanese (-794), Late Old Japanese (aka Classical Japanese) (794-1184), Middle Japanese (1185-1333), Late Middle Japanese (C1333 - 1600) Early Modern Japanese (1600 or 1603 - 1867), Modern Japanese (1868-). Except for Modern Japanese, I plan on writing about all of these over time. Bendono 02:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good info. I really look forward to seeing those articles.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

ISO 639-3

This article handles the same with ISO 639-3 "Old Japanese"? Since there is no example on the website, I am not sure. --Aphaia 01:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The 639-3 description states: "A language of Japan. The ancestor of modern Japanese. 7th-10th centuries AD." There are several problems with this. First, Old Japanese lasts through the end of the 8th century. Late Old Japanese ranges between the 9th and 12th centuries. These two are rarely if ever grouped together, and even if they are, the century range does not correspond. Second, the ancestor of Modern Japanese is Middle Japanese, not Old Japanese. Middle Japanese may be broken into early and late middle Japanese. The registration is useless. Bendono 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I tried to find other historical Japanese including Middle Japanese and Late Old / Classical Japanese. I haven't found others and agree with you the registration is not helpful for us. --Aphaia 10:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a v. useful and interesting discussion (thanks!), and deserves more prominence. I’ve added “ojp – but see caveat” in this edit, which explains the problem and links to this discussion.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Explain why /r/ isn't initial?

So in this article we have a small section that talks how /r/ cannot be word initial. Wouldn't it be reasonable to explain why /r/ isn't initial? Something like this http://erssab.u-bordeaux3.fr/IMG/pdf/labrune_article_final_r.pdf could be used as source material. Of course, there are other theories as well that attempt to explain why /r/ isn't initial that can must be explained as well. So? FinalZero 17 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FinalZero 17 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

下一段 verbs

I did some research on this while studying in Japan, and when we got to verb conjugations we read that there is only one verb that was conjugated in this manner, that being 蹴る. I've still got photocopies of the stuff somewhere I can dig up if anybody wishes to see them. Kaji01 07:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No need. I have the entire OJ corpus. 蹴る is not attested in OJ. It first appears in LOJ (Heian period). Early examples can be found in 観智院本名義抄, 落窪物語, 栄花物語 etc. The OJ word for "to kick" was kuw- (蹴う) and it is 下二段. There are plenty of resources, several referenced, that clearly state that 下一段 does not exist yet at this stage of the language. Bendono 09:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Whither e₁ and e₂?

In the phonological rules section, only six of the eight OJ vowels are mentioned. <a, u, o₁> in one class, <o₂> alone in another, and <i₁, i₂> being neutral. What of e₁ and e₂? If the i-variants hadn't been mentioned, one could assume they were neutral, but right now they're in a kind of limbo. Anyone care to correct this? --Wtrmute (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be best to omit that detail. The rules were discovered by Arisaska Hideo in 1934. Regarding e₁ and e₂, he said that they "should be feminine [second group] or neuter"; however, in his data they are masculine (first group). Various other resources list slightly different groupings. For example, Ōno (2000) gives {a, i₁, u, o₂} and {e₁, e₂, i₂, o₁}. He also goes on to seriously discredit the vowel harmony theory. The section is weak, but the resources are not very consistent on the issue either. Bendono (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mixing old Japanese with Jōdai nihongo

This article is mixing old usage of Japanese with 上代日本語 (Jōdai nihongo). In Jōdai nihongo, much vocabulary of Yamatokotoba is found than Chinese Kango. We shouldn't mix borrowing Chinese characters with pronouncing the vocabulary in Yamatokotoba. Huge number of Japanese pronunciation exsisted in Jōdai nihongo. --210.139.234.58 (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Extinct languages vs. Category:Extinct languages of Asia

Category:Extinct languages of Asia is itself a category within Category:Extinct languages. — Robert Greer (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are Old Japanese and Old Chinese classified as 'extinct'? I don't see people classify Old English as 'extinct'--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

attn Bendono: the meaning of K

I'm afraid that, if K means /k/, as was indeed my first reading, that paragraph's argument is incoherent to me. What does it even mean to distinguish /ko₁/ and /ko₂/ "except for /wo/"? By contrast, if K is a cover symbol for consonants, the reasoning is along the believable line that /o/ and /wo/ might only fail to be distinguished after /w/. And anyway, if K did mean /k/, why didn't the original writer set it in lowercase? Do you have a good reason (e.g. a source!) for your interpretation? 4pq1injbok (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not read your edit very well. Being the original editor, I had written it as /Co₁, Co₂/. I must have missed when someone later changed it to k. I have previously made this same correction before, so had probably been confused by your edit which I had assumed was still correct. Here is the source of the mistake. I'll restore it. Regards, Bendono (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

---

If I might append a different question about the 1 / 2 distinctions here. What's the actual positive evidence for the lack of the distinction in those cases where it's not recorded? Do we know, say, that whichever form of Chinese supplied the man'yougana would have been capable of writing distinctions like /si₁/ vs. /si₂/ if they had existed? 4pq1injbok (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question. If there was distinction between samtōji 三等字 the third grade character and yontōji 四等字 the fourth grade character in 歯音 /ts,tʃ,dz,dʒ,s,ʃ,ʒ,z/ group of Chinese phonetics, there would be /si₂/ vs. /si₁/ and /zi₂/ vs. /zi₁/. For example, in Old - Middle Chinese If there was /sɪǝg - sɪei/, /sɪar - sɪě/, /sɪuǝd - sɪuǝi/, /thɪǝg - tʃɪei/, /thɪar - tʃɪě/ or /thɪuǝd - tʃɪuǝi/ development, it should be /si₂/. However, that development never have done. More simplly, if there was a pronunciation like /sɪi/, /sɪui/, /tʃɪi/, /tʃɪui/, /tsɪi/ or /tsɪui/, it should be /si₂/. The difference between Samtōji and Yontōji was only Kaion 介音 /ɪ/ and /i/. Type 1 was /i/, type 2 was /ɪ/. Thank you. ஒலிசிந்நெக் (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Good news. di₂ and ri₂ are probably found, said Wikiresearch:Old Japanese. I am also sure that it's positive. ஒலிசிந்நெக் (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the southern Japan ?

In phonology section. There are northern(north-eastern), eastern, western and most-western Japan.

However, I don't know southern Japan, esp. in the Old age.

West-southern Japan is Ryūkyū.

If it means Kyūshū, esp. the Dazaifu, it should be written most-western Japan.

And in the Old age. Japanese is not so different from most-western to eastern.

For example, to separate Pannatu-Pannatsu-Pangatsu are only consonant gradation of -nn- and -ng-. a house •ipë-•ipa are only existance of concrete postfix -i or not. *•ipa-i > •ipë. to where ni-na are conjugation as nna-nni-nnö (and nga-ngi-ngö).

ஒலிசிந்நெக் (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please improve my broken English.

I wrote facts, but not elegant nor fluent English. ஒலிசிந்நெக் (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether Old Chinese had open syllables

Thank you for your qualifying, 4pq1injbok.

You wrote in your comment "...depends on your reconstruction" but reconstruction is not mine but of Toudou Akiyasu(藤堂明保). He is No.1 scholar of Old Chinese phonetic study in Japan. Why was not cited more of his great works in English Wikipedia? ஒலிசிந்நெக் (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't know why, aside from the generic reason that most Anglophones can't read the Japanese literature. I see we don't even have a page on Toudou Akiyasu at present. Perhaps you'd like to start one?

I haven't seen Toudou's reconstruction, myself. I'm no expert on any of this, so take this only for what it's worth: but I find it unlikely on typological grounds that a language of the area and time would have no open syllables; and I think Baxter's solution to the problem of rùshēng-nonrùshēng contacts of reconstructing *-ps *-ts *-ks is preferable to Karlgren's old idea of *-b *-d *-g, on which the closed-syllable-only reconstructions I know of are predicated. 4pq1injbok (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. rùshēng-nonrùshēng (入声-不入声) dualism is now obsoleted. yánglèi-rùlèi-yīnlèi (陽類-入類-陰類) triangle theory is instead in Old Chinese (上古漢語). rùshēng are only codas /p, t, k/. Codas /g-k-ŋ/, /r-d,t-n/, /Φ-p-m/ triangle pairs are reconstructed. Note that Φ is not fai but zero(not exist). Coda /d/ became qùshēng (去声) in Middle Chinese (中古漢語). Thank you. ஒலிசிந்நெக் (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Writing system" section

The first part of the "writing system" section needs serious attention, particularly this part:

"On the other hand, Chinese characters are used semantically to represent Japanese syllables. It is called kuniyomi or kun'yomi. For example, 猿(monkey) was read as maci (not saru) as a particle because monkey was called maci(ra), not meaning monkey but phonetically maci (recently it is called ate-ji). It became more prevalent. For example, 八十一(81) was read as kuku(9x9) and 十六(16) was cici(4x4)."

First of all, there is no reason to use [c] in the transcription; it is not used anywhere else in the article. [s] is fine.

Secondly, because /masi/ is completely extinct in modern Japanese, only a very few people who already understand the topic will understand what is intended. 谷 used for the particle /dani/　would at least be tenuously connected to the modern Japanese people know.

Thirdly, this example appears before a clear statement that 猿 could be used to represent /masi(ra)/ as in monkey, although I suppose this is implied in the reference to kanbun above; still, if you weren't already with the intricacies and history of the Japanese writing system I think you would be very hard pressed to understand what is going on.

I propose that this system be rewritten to show how the use of characters spread more naturally, rather than leaping right to the extreme cases:

1) Use of Chinese chars to represent Chinese (semantic and phonetic relation to chars): 谷 for the current Chinese pronunciation of 谷 2) Use of Chinese chars to represent Japanese words (semantic but no phonetic relation to chars): 谷 for /tani/, "valley" 3) Use of Chinese chars to represent Japanese sounds (phonetic but no semantic relation to chars): 与 for /yo/, etc. 4) Use of Chinese chars to represent Japanese words (no semantic or direct phonetic relation to chars, but secondary phonetic relation via 2 above exists): 谷 for /dani/

I know that the standard Wikipedia response is "go ahead and do it, then," but I do not have the academic expertise to say which of the above preceded what, how the evolution happened, etc.

However I note that several contributors to this talk page clearly do, and I urge them to restructure this section to make it clearer even to people who have not learned any Old Japanese yet (a test the 猿 example fails). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.252.2 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and attention. First of all, yes, I am not good at English. Althought I AM AN EXPERT OF OLD JAPANESE. Old Japanese uses phonetically kun'yomi even it is not related with its meaning. For example, to write 猿 is equal to write まし in hiragana. It is similar to that to write 猿 is equal to write masi, if early middle Japanese people knew alphabet. See you later and again. ஒலிசிந்நெக் (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello ஒலிசிந்நெக்; yes, I see from your edits that you are indeed an expert on Old Japanese. I don't dispute that 猿 was used to write /masi/ (in contexts other than meaning "monkey" (/masira/). My point is that since the word /masira/ meaning "monkey" is now extinct, it is a confusing example. (Although a cool one.) I think that since /tani/ 谷 is still a living word, it will be more relateable for people. Also, we need a statement using Chinese characters to represent Japanese words based on semantics predated the second-stage use of Chinese characters to represent Japanese word groups unrelated by semantics. I will go ahead and make some changes, then; please feel free to edit it if I am wrong in the particulars! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.206.98.238 (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

[this space reserved]

I'm back. First of yours, you are right. /s/ is fine. I wrote those paragraph before "/s/ = [s, ʃ, t͡ʃ, t͡s, c]".

Second of yours, you are better. 谷 /dani/ is attested ex. 万01/0018.

Third of yours, it is not probed yet that kun'yomi predates kun'gana (see below). Sophisticated those days people could write Chinese character(i.e., kanji). Then, could they all write Chinese sentences (i.e., kanbun)? No, they ALL could NOT. Only some smart people could write kanbun.

There were six ways to write Old Japanese using Kanji.

1. On'gana: one character represents one syllable phonetically
2. Kun'gana: one character represents one or more syllables phonetically
3. Puzzled Kun'gana: sort of 八十一 /kuku/, 十六 /sisi/
4. On'yomi: one character represents one syllable semantically (a few instances)
5. Kun'yomi: one character represents one or more syllables semantically
6. Kun'doku: Reading kanbun as Japanese (just in time translation)

Those facts should reflect to main article. Thank you. ஒலிசிந்நெக் (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

References

I spent a while time looking for "Jōdai Izen no Wago", but came up with nothing. There wasn't anything by that name in WorldCat. If it is to be included, it needs to be properly cited.

There were several other issues:

• Is the publisher Shinchō-sha?
• If it's in a journal, which is the template it was using, what's the journal's name?
• What is the ISBN? The one given was not a valid ISBN of any sort.

I have removed it because of these issues and because it was not cited in the body of the article. It would be nice to have more sources, either in Japanese or English, but it should be done right.

Otherwise, I've cleaned up the references so they are consistent (only romanized Japanese), put Frellesvig's stuff into the proper template, and added Vovin's grammar. --Limetom 06:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)