Reconstruction talk:Proto-Japonic/wopitə

Mistake?

JA sources do trace Japanese 夫 (otto) from earlier oputo, perhaps as a shift from opito. However, the initial o- is commonly traced to 男 (o), ancient wo, not from woto- "youth" as in 男 (otoko) or 乙女 (otome). See the Daijisen entry at Kotobank, for instance.

Moreover, as a clear compound, this seems like a poor candidate for a reconstructed lemma entry.

@Mellohi!, Kwékwlos, Suzukaze-c, anyone I've missed, should this entry be moved / removed / otherwise dealt with? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr: It should be *wo + *pitə, indeed. But I fail to see any reason why compound words are poor candidates for reconstructed lemmas as long as the cognates clearly indicate descent from a proto-term instead of being formed independently, e.g. *wiljakumô. Anyway I'm repinging @Kwékwlos due to his username being misspelled. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 01:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mellohi!: Re: compounds, point taken. I may have gotten my wires crossed and was overthinking the idea of etyma. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Mellohi!, Kwékwlos, Suzukaze-c: I did a survey of the Man'yōshū. I find zero instances of をふと, the expected realization of the putative OJP descendant term. There are instances of をひと instead, but none that align with modern Japanese 夫 (otto) -- all appear to be unrelated occurrences of を (often as a particle or as 男) + various other things spelled as ひと (most commonly 一).

The earliest I can find for おっと is 1220. See the KDJ entry here.

Meanwhile, をふと is traced to 898, but the text listed in the KDJ entry is younger, at 1113.

Both entries trace this to original form をひと. Is there any evidence for OJP form をふと?

FWIW, I find it more likely that the labial consonant /p/, lenited form /ɸ/, potentially led to a later shift in vowel, as seen in other compounds like modern Japanese 仲人 (nakōdo, from older naka + udo, likely from naka + bito with the voiced labial causing a vowel shift and voicing of the "t"). I think the Proto form would have to be pitə. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I had suspected it since the beginning that the medial vowel in the compound was -i- that was contracted later (cf. contractions of *pitə itself in Ryukyuan). Moving the page very soon. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 17:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)