Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Chuterix, as I mentioned in my edit comment, the use of ⟨angle⟩ ⟨brackets⟩ indicates spellings. Since reconstructed entries like this one cannot have any specific ancient spelling, your representations cannot go in ⟨angle⟩ ⟨brackets⟩, and should instead go either in /slashes/ to indicate phonemes, or just in italics to indicate non-English terms.
Arisaka's Law states that -o2 was generally not found in the same morpheme as -a, -o1 or -u.
If I understand this correctly, this suggests that ⟨-o₁⟩ (or ⟨o⟩ in our OJP Proto-Japonic entries) was stable (where it was the original value), and that it was ⟨-o₂⟩ (our OJP Proto-Japonic ⟨ə⟩) instead that manifested as some other vowel value when in juxtaposition with -a, -o1 or -u.
Now, quite what constitutes "the same morpheme", I am not certain -- were compound nouns viewed as a single morpheme? In this specific case, was tokoro viewed as a single morpheme?
→ If so, then it seems that the ⟨-o₁⟩ in OJP 跡(⟨ato₁⟩) might instead be the shifted value. Or, we somehow have two to elements meaning "place", one manifesting as ⟨to₁⟩ and the other as ⟨to₂⟩... but that strikes me as unlikely.
I think we need to nail down more specifically what Arisaka's law entails, and quite what vowel changes are expected, and what that means about the underlying unshifted vowel values. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig18:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Extremely obvious compound nouns such as 黄泉つ国(yo2mo2-tu-kuni) are likely exempt from Arisaka's law. Fossilized compound morphemes must have also belong to Arisaka's law. Chuterix (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
