Reconstruction talk:Proto-Japonic/əni

Derived from Middle Chinese during the process of kanji borrowing

Japanese sources are consistent in tracing this to Middle Chinese 隱 (MC 'j+nX|'j+nH) (compare modern Min Nan reading ún; Min Nan is often closest to Japanese on'yomi), as an extension of the "hidden, not visible" sense.

There are a few other terms that demonstrate shifts from final /-ɴ/ to /-ni/, such as 紫苑 (shion → shioni).

The uniformity of the Ryukyuan terms again points to borrowing rather than inheritance. Compare Japanese 谷 (tani) and its reflex as tan in Okinawan, as shown here at JLect.

And, FWIW, the NKD entry here at Kotobank references a Nihon Shoki line that includes the kanji 鬼, with a kana rendering of ヲニ. That initial ヲ might suggest ⟨o₁⟩ → /wo/, not ⟨o₂⟩ → /ə/. ONCOJ doesn't seem to include any term oni or woni, however, so I can find no confirmation there; the MYS includes 餓鬼 (gaki), but no instances of 鬼 on its own.

If this is indeed a term based on a Middle Chinese character borrowed during the period of initial literacy in Japan, we're talking somewhere around the importation of Buddhism, so starting 552 CE -- see w:Buddhism_in_Japan#Arrival_and_initial_spread_of_Buddhism. Too young to be Proto-Japonic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Yet the Shuri term in the Okinawa-Go Jiten Data Shu on the JLect search results lists tani, but I cannot find this term in Sakihara (2006) p. 174, only the penis sense (< PR *tane (“seed; penis”)), and I cannot find a shortened term *tan on the preceding page either. Both tani 'penis' and tani 'valley' (literary) have the same pitch accent, so it got confused for the penis sense and thus is likely unused in spoken Okinawan (Naha dialect). Other Ryukyuan cognates that I could find are Northern Amami-Oshima (Yamatohama) -θani as a suffix (see here), Miyako (Hirara) tani, Miyako (Minna) tanidzuku (lit. 'bottom of valley').

The Nakijin term is either matā or safu (cognate with Okinawan saku). The Okinawan term also has a term suku and a Miyako term su̥ku in Sarahama dialect means 'valley', but all other dialects mean 'bottom', cognate with standard Japanese 底 (soko, “bottom”), attested only 30 times in Western Old Japanese, all in the Manyoshu. We can add Hachijo (Mitsune) soko, Hachijo (Sueyoshi) shigi, Kikai (all dialects) suku, Northern Amami-Oshima (Yamatohama) suxu (see here), Kunigami (Yonamine, Nakijin) sukū ~ shikū, Yoron shiki, Oki-no-Erabu (all dialects) sukū, Miyako (Minna) shuku, Miyako (Uruka, Ikema) su̥ku, Yaeyama (Ishigaki) suku, Yaeyama (Hateruma) su̥ku, Yonaguni sugu. Thus, the soko 'bottom' sense is a Proto-Japonic word, but not the tani 'valley' sense; those ones are loanwoards from Japanese. @荒巻モロゾフ: what's your opinion on psuedo-Goguryeo *旦 (*tan, “valley”)?

@Eirikr: You are looking at a Japanese loanword, exactly the opposite of what you're looking for. See PJ *kani (“crab”), despite some dialects having *-i loss but not Okinawan; also if this were a real loanword then reconstructed Southern Ryukyuan **oni would be expected, not *on, opposing to the strange PR *koni (“country, land”).

Anyways about the historical attestation, what about 重い (omoi, “heavy”) and it's proto form (c.f. Okinawan 重さん (nbusan) < *ubO)? Chuterix (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Second, Japanese *uni would be expected instead of oni. Chuterix (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chuterix --

• Your last contention here is frankly bizarre. If you expect Middle Chinese 隱 (MC 'j+nX|'j+nH) to appear in Japanese as uni, then I suggest that your phonological model is incorrect, as this runs counter to observable reality. Middle Chinese 隱 (MC 'j+nX|'j+nH) is clearly realized as in (newer kan'on) and on (older goon) in Japanese.

As additional data, if you look at the 隱#Chinese entry and look through all of the "Characters in the same phonetic series" in the ===Glyph origin=== section, you will find that the ones that have Japanese on'yomi readings almost all have readings of both in and on. One is only in, and one is only on, and the rest have both.

• Separately, I mentioned Japanese 谷 (tani) simply as an example of a word that appears in Ryukyuan branches as an inheritance rather than a borrowing, and this demonstrates that final -ni reflects as -n instead, even in Okinawan -- not just in the southern Ryukyuan varieties. Even Proto-Japonic *kani demonstrates more variation in the Ryukyuan languages than either *koni or this *əni -- precisely because the latter two are borrowings from Japanese.

You argue that the southern Ryukyuan branches would necessarily show oni if this were a borrowing. I counter that this depends on the circumstances of the borrowing. We know from 紫苑 (shion, shioni) that the final -i in Japanese is an excrescence. It is not unexpected that the Japanese term may have been originally realized without that final -i, and that older form may be what is reflected in the southern branches. Alternatively, compression of final -ni to -n (in various of the Ryukyuan languages) may have been an older process, which had ceased operating by the time that mainland kuni was borrowed.

Either way, lack of final -i in the southern Ryukyuan pronunciations of this word is not conclusive.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This term has dialectal variant ウニ /uni/ in Iwate, Ibaraki and Ishikawa prefectures according to 日本国語大辞典. *ə never turns to /u/ in the mainland, or it suggests it was *oni. I am suspecting that this term was originally a non-central variant of 雲丹(うに) (uni, “sea urchin”), but I couldn't found accentual evidence (鬼 is 2.3B <LL>; while 雲丹 is irregular, <HL> in both of Tokyo and Keihan, A in Tarama island (as [unguː]), when Tokyo is ignored it would be 2.2A <HL>, not corresponding). According to Tokuyama & Celik (2020)'s Tarama dictionary, [un] exists as a compound 鬼虎 [untura] (name of a historical figure from Yonaguni) though, 鬼 is [uni] as single word entry. This may suggest the term is borrowed from the mainland. It cannot be regarded as Proto-Japonic *əni anyway.

On the *旦, it might be combination of error and ateji. The Hanja assigned to 谷 in Samguk Sagi includes 呑 (ᄐᆞᆫ), 旦 (단), 頓 (돈/둔). Among them, 呑 can be interpreted as a wrongly written letter from 谷. 旦 is slightly different to be confused with 谷/呑 in the shape. 頓 is too different to be confused with the others in the pronunciation. 旦 is appeared as in "水谷城縣一云買旦忽" as the sole case; considering also "貴旦縣，本仇斯珍兮" which might have correspondence with «貴 (OC *kluds, may be *kus in Late Old Chinese) :: 仇斯 (굿 (kwus))≫ and «珍兮 (OC: *ʔl'ɯn-ɢeː, 珍 can correspond with 돌/ᄃᆞᆯ[1]) :: 듫 (tulh)», I think it meant originally "plain, meadow", but the unified Silla people forgot what it was and ateji 谷 was introduced from Japan later.

Korean gugyeol is developed under the influence of Japanese katakana (Vovin (2020) said that "origin of katakana traced back to kukyel" but that is opposite, his ground is only based on tha variants of ソ resembles 立 that is gugyeol based on Korean 셔‐ (sye‐), but I've read the source Ōya (1912, to be exact it was 1909, what the heck did he referenced?) and confirmed his research is a fabrication. The 立 without last stroke was rather broken そ (p.33); The one that's same shape as 立 didn't exist, but the one without a dot on the top which can be interpreted as also based on 曾 did (p.33). ソ with bar on the top is also same as above (p.6)). The 谷 might be one of examples of Japanese ateji which intruded in Old Korean (Actually, so-called Peninsular Japonic shares a trait of dropping of final vowel with the dialect of Gotō islands where is known as a home of pirates/traders to Korea).

And I've found also traces of katakana ミ in Samguk Sagi toponyms.

• 本推良火縣一云三良火: 밀‐ (mīl-, “to push”) = 推, this verb has long vowel which suggests that it was mira-; it uses 三 as native Japanese reading /mi/ in completely phonetic purpose.
• 本高句麗冬彡一作音忽郡: 冬音 is read 두름 (twulum, “bundle”) in idu, that is based on the verb 두르다 (twuluta, “to surround, to wrap”, it has verb stem twulG-, so 冬音 twongum can become the transliteration). Phonetic compatibility between 彡 and 音 /-m/ is possible only in the case when 彡 is katakana ミ /mi/. 두르미 (dureumi) also exists as dialectal form of 두름.

荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent additional detail, thank you! Very interesting about the kana too -- that is unexpected and most fascinating. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)