Re: (Wandered from) Re: English as a creole.

On Jul 10, 12:05 am, Darkstar <darkstar...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:17 am, Bart Mathias <math...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Darkstar wrote:
On Jul 7, 3:21 am, Bart Mathias <math...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

Presumably you are suggesting that Japan-bound or -located speakers of
post-proto-KJ had turned the ancestor of "nunmul" (Yale "nwunmul")

What's Yale? I must be forgetting something.

Yale transcription of Korean, invented by Sam Martin. It has the
distinct advantage of avoiding ugly things like "eo" and "eu" for the
vowels written that way in a popular system (use "e" and "u"
respectively instead; I guess you'd use /o'/ and /u'/), but one pays for
it by writing the round high back vowel as "wu" except after labials.

into something on the way to "namida" and the bare word (that has now become)
K "mwul" into "midu," and then replaced their word for "eye" with a new
word from south-east Asia/Austronesia.

First of all, one should note that J has open syllabels, while
Korean, Tungusic and Mongolic have closed syllables, so anything like
nun/na; myr/mida is perfectly regular as far as the number of phonemes
are concerned. The second Japanese vowel is either a recent
development or a recent loss, and the second /-n/ could not survive in
Proto-Japanese (something like *nanmida was forbidden phonemically).
Also cf. na-ku (to weep), possibly the same root.

Bob Ramsey has argued that Korean also goes back to an open-syllable
language.

When dealing with closed syllables those clever Japanese simply added a
vowel. In many cases where the final consonant was a nasal the
nasal-vowel combination got replaced by a newly developed final "n," but
the vowel shows up sometimes in old fossilized spellings for words like
"Shina-no." I'd expect "nwunmul (nunmyr)" to come out something like
"nunumitu/nunamitu/nunamiti/nunamita/..." if borrowed. If you're saying
instead that they go back to a common ancestor in proto-KJ, then you
should really cite rules from, say, Martin or Whitman, or demonstrate
the validity of new sound-change rules.

I don't have rules for that, but no one cancelled assimilation or
universal Okkam's rule which means here that a languages would not
develop additional vowels where assimilation would do. That would be a
redundancy. Simple ways always work, and just dropping a consonant
before another consonant is much simpler.

Also, note that it's _absolutely natural_ for both languages to form
"tear" as "eyewater". It would in fact be unnatural if they hadn't
done so, because I could cite at least 15 instances when similar
bodyparts and other words with likewise circumlocutary formations
(kutibiru -ipsul (lips), tekubi-sonmo'k (wrist), agohige-tho'ksuo'm
(beard), hitkuti-hanmogym (one sip), etc, etc.). They might not
always be related genetically, but they have the same pattern. Do not
confuse it with European languages where "tear" is always a distinct
word.

"Na-k-" has to do with sound, not moisture, let alone eyes!. It has the
same root as "ne" < *na-?i = "sound, tone, chirping." It must be
related to "nar-" = "to (re)sound, ring" although just how is not clear
to me.

On a second thought:
naku, naita: the root is */naR/.
/-kV/ is regular for Korean /-r,-l/ ...
Possibly, from /ul-da/ (cry, ring), because there are regular
correspondences between Jap. /n-/ and Korean /0-/. So I could agree.





Is the final "n" in Korean "nwun" a post-proto-KJ addition?

Proto-Tungus-Manchu has *(n)yisal and Proto-Mongolic *nidu"n (eye),
which seems to confirm that Korean *nun is more archaic.

Korean "u" to Japanese "a"?

K /nugu/ (who): J /nan-/ (what),
K /kudyn/: J /katai/ (hard),
K /ya-ru/ : J /chuo'-/ (give)
Here, *a > u looks like a relatively rarely occuring proto-Korean
innovation, e.g., /para-m/ (wind), but /pul-da/ (to blow) [of
course, /l/ = /r/ in Korean, because they are designated by the same
letter.]

Actually, that's [r] = [l] in Korean. You have to choose either /l/ (as
Yale does) or /r/. There's only one phoneme between those two sounds,
and it's not because of how people *write* but how they *talk*.

Ok, right.

Of your three comparisons, only K /kwut-/ : J /kata-/ doesn't look silly
to me.

/palam/ goes back, as I hope you know, to a word I'll type as /p@l@m/,
where /@/ stands for the old dot vowel. That vowel has come out in NK
sometimes as /a/, sometimes as /u/. But better cases than "wind" and
"blow" for an intra-Korean /a/ : /(w)u/ can be found in the families of
words like "red/clear/bright" (/p(p)Vlk(V)-/).

"Akai" is not related to "pulk-". I've found no correspondences for
that.

I assume you got "K" and "J" backwards in your third comparison. Even
so, don't recognize your /chuo'-/, which is presumably related to K
/cwu-/.

Backwards it was... Korean root /chu-/ (give) and Japanese /ya-ru/
(send, give as a gift). I can show K /ch-/ is regular for J /y-/ if
that matters.

Why isn't J "water" "mida" instead of "midu,"

Proto-Japanese and Korean */a/ is regular for OJ /u/ in many cases
[such as /kada/ (go): /kuru/ (come), /hada/: /suru/ (do), /tal/ : /
tuki/ (moon), etc.]. This seems to be a recent development in proto-
Japanese. Also note that Japanese /u/ still has little labialization
and is much closer to /y/ (back vowel). So this part seems plausible.

"Go" and "come" are sort of interchangeable in English, but pretty
distinct in Japanese and Korean. I don't buy that comparison.

Oh it's one of the best. And it's easy to prove because lots and lots
of Altaic and even other Nostratic languages have */ga(l), ka(l)/ for
"come/go/walk".
Cf. Tungusic /gagda-/ (go, walk) as in Nanay /giagda/ (walk) [/gd/ is
regular for Korean /l,r/],
Mongolian /garakh/ (come out),
proto-Turkic */kel/ (come) ("kel" is stable throughout the Turkic
languages),
Brahui /ka-/ (go),
Armenian /ga-/ (go),
mainstream PIE */ghe:, gwa:/ (go, come), including OE /ga-n/

Also note, that "kuru" is one of the few completely irregular verbs in
Japanese which indicates its archaicness.

I would
point out that there is little evidence for a particular vowel in the
Japanese word for "come"; the best evidence suggests perhaps an original
schwa or mid front vowel. Pretty much the same for J /s-(uru)/, but in
this case the MK was /@/ in /h@-/, which makes a better case for a
relationship than MK /ka-/ = "change location to somewhere else" and OJ
?/ko2-/ = "change location to here."
Japanese has a long history of delabialization; it's quite likely that
an earlier /u/ was round. I'd say "no longer has much labialization"
rather than "still has little ..."

Ah... no... Too far-fetched.
As to vowels, don't forget that the J root is rather /kV/ (kuru, kita,
konai, koyo), and the Jap. 1st base is /ko/, while J /o/ is often
regular for K /a/, as in "otoko, otto, oto:san", while *ata is a
universal root in Altaic languages meaning "father, man", so /a/ is
stable there. Hence, Turkic "Attila", Proto-Tungusic */a"di, edi/
(man) and Korean /ady-l/ (son), as I've mentioned earlier.

I admit, there's merely a poor proof for /u/:/a/ [suru: hada,
kuru:kada, suki (like, love): sarang (love), tuki: tal (moon), sumu/
sun-de: sal-da (live), kuroi (black):kumyn (cloud) (?)]. But vowels
are notoriously difficult to reconstruct, so I believe other arguments
for "namida" would be sufficient.

But getting back to my query, the fact is that OJ "water" *was* /mi1du/.

How many other cases of Korean "l/r" to Japanese "d" can you cite?

MK /-tyr/ : OJ /-tati/ : Proto-Tungus-Manchu */-sal/ (plural),

K /l/ : J /t/ I wouldn't have questioned. /t/ ~= /d/. (Not that I buy
that particular comparison, but I'd have accepted it for /l/ : /t/.)

MK /-Vro/ : OJ /-de/ (instrumental case),

There is no such form in OJ. You must be thinking of /-ni-te/ (whence
NJ /-de/).

I guess so, I was typing that just offhand.

Mod. K /ary-mda-/ : OJ /utu-ku/ : Proto-Tungus-Manchu */uligd-/
(beautiful),

What happened to the /p/ in K /alumtap-/? What kind of morphmeme is
/-mda-/?

Korean has many similar assimilations and many suffixes, so I thought
the first part of the root constitutes sufficient proof. Possibly */
aryl-da-un/ which would correlate to Mod. J /utsuku-shi-i/ [Again, /-
l/:/-k-/:/gd/, that can be shown. But -da- and -shi- are supposedly
different suffixes here.]

There is, so far as I can determine, no such thing as "OJ
/utu-ku/." There is /utukusi(-)/

That's what I meant.

that cries out for division somewhere
(it's too long, and we know the final /si/ or /Vsi/ was a pre-OJ
morpheme), but I see no way to justify your hyphen. You apparently like
to make things up.

Did you consider OJ /urup.asi(-)/? Well, but that still won't be a case
of /l/ : /d/...

If there's Mod. J /utsukushii/ there's supposed to be */utuku-/ root
in OJ. I don't have a dictionary of OJ at hand to support that,
though...

Mod. K /po'l/ < ./po'r/ : OJ /pati/ (bee),

I'd give you a point for that one if it were OJ /padi/.

But Korean and Japanese hardly differentiate voiced and unvoiced! It's
not like in the IELs, where this distinction is crucial.

Mod. Kor /arh-/ : J /ita-/ (hurt) : Proto-Tungus-Manchu */en-/,

Now we've got K /a/ : J /i/! What is the rule for when this happens?

(If I could justify comparing those words otherwise, I'd want to make it
K /al-h-/ : J /ita-si/ | /it-asi/.)

Vowels are not reconstructable beyond a certain period. In some cases
they coincide, in others get jumbled. Try IELs, it's the same.

Anyway, it's still the more
imaginable /l/ : /t/, not /l/ : /d/. Ditto your next examples.

MK /pirys/ (first) : OJ /pito/ (one),
Mod. K /ul-da/ (to cry, weep), /y-m/ (sound) : OJ /oto/ (sound), OJ /
uta/ (song)

"/y-m/ (sound)"? Aren't you thinking of *Sino*-Koorean /um/?

Why "Sino"?



K

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As a follow up:

We've found no /l/:/d/ correspondences, because there are very few or
no relevant Japanese roots that have an archaic /-d-/. As of now, I
could mention only "karada" (akin to "kare" (he, that person)?)

Such transitions as ude < te clearly show that -d- may be a recent
innovation. Similarly, cf. mada (yet) and madzu (first of all). That's
not enough material to make any specific assumptions, but just enough
to suspect that neither *midu, nor *mida could be a normal root in
Proto-Japanese, they are supposed to be later development from
something else.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (Wandered from) Re: English as a creole.
    ... Yale transcription of Korean, invented by Sam Martin. ... it by writing the round high back vowel as "wu" except after labials. ... The second Japanese vowel is either a recent ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: (Wandered from) Re: English as a creole.
    ... Yale transcription of Korean, invented by Sam Martin. ... It has the distinct advantage of avoiding ugly things like "eo" and "eu" for the vowels written that way in a popular system, but one pays for it by writing the round high back vowel as "wu" except after labials. ... When dealing with closed syllables those clever Japanese simply added a vowel. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCPzckPyRLSC84KyQ1JGwkPyEiTFo0Sj5lJE5PQhsoQg==?= =?ISO-2022-JP
    ... that earlier Japanese might have had an -like vowel later replaced by ... I don't see how there could be a Meiji e/ye distinction. ... Having learned Korean before Japanese, the Korean values of the vowels ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: Tefu-tefu read as Choo-choo
    ... brief stage as diphthongs, which Japanese, and Korean, abhor. ... Japanese", to save "MJ" for "Middle/medieval J." ... (I also wish information on Chinese and Korean diachronics were easier to find on the Internet.) ... The best case for echo vowel would have it */tiara/, ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: The mystery of differing conjugation
    ... East Asina> Languages, I suppose). ... I figured I knew enough Japanese to skip the freshman and> sophomore courses, and I just wanted to finish college, even if I> ended up pumping gas the rest of my life. ... >> What is it in Korean? ... >> the original roots were preserved as well. ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
Quantcast