Origin Of Japanese Language

Why ask why? To learn!

kaerupop said:

I'll read it. Why do you think Japanese is different from Korean in these basic words?
☝

Click to expand...

Good question. I think that's a very important, yet mistreated question. Altaicists have argued, even without Korean or Japanese in the postulated languages assumed to be included within the hypothetical Altaic language tree, that:

Let's us discard the notion of requiring "number correspondence" as a basic prerequsite for establishing linguistic affinity because the time depth is so much deeper than the Indo-Eurpean-Hittite languages that every student of Historical Linguistics 101 is familair with.

There should be some Japanese editions of Andrew Roy Miller in print. Read some of his, and you might be able to understand that numbers aren't everything. Good excercise though. So why ask why? If someone asks me, I say it's human nature to ask, and to explore!

Why are you surprised?

kaerupop said:

surprised :futon:
The Korean will never say "[That] many Korean words were borrowed into Japanese during that same period. This is a very natural 2-way process that is observed between many languages that come into contact with another," I think.
☝
中央日報 - 韓国の最新ニュースを日本語でサービスします

Click to expand...

I am Korean, but I don't know for sure why you are surprised. ☝
I went to the page, but wasn't sure which sentence gave you the impression that no Korean would say that a 2-way flow of words between Japanese and Korean is only natural.
Can you give me an exact quote, and tell me what it means to you?
Also, I'm interested which part was deleted in the English version of Joong-ang-il-bo, Jan.04.2005 edition.

I don't read Japanese, so I need some help!

You still didn't respond to my other point that your statement needs support of concrete examples to encourgae discussion. Sorry to push you! ;-)

I have a very interesting copy of loan words in Chinese called "ﾅ?ﾂｿﾅ津ｪﾅ?Oﾋ愿椎津ｪﾃｧ窶?窶弋
(in simplified characters)" and I find so many neologisms created by Japanese scholars during the Westernizing period used as the standard expression in Chinese written material. Chinese linguists and historians are not ashamed to admit this interesting language phenomenon.

The Japanese scholars did a very fine job of cultural translation of many Western notions, like literature=bungaku, function=kinoo, kanshu, (excuse my bad Japanese) and the like. The Kokku-gakku school of Japan, reinterpreting the Chinese classics, reemployed classical terms in a new, global setting to adapt itself to a changing world.

The ultra-right nationalist elements will persist in any country, (a good example will be France, the nationalists of which want to purge the French written and spoken languge of all Americanisms) and of course, there are what's called language policy, and language legislation; however, in the context of the scientific study of languages, such artificial movements have only a small bearing on the grand scheme of things, in the development of language.

EDIT: I gave the full quote because your quote seemed to be unclear, without the context. However, I underlined the part which you found problematic.

to lexico Re : languages in contact; asking for some courtesy...

lexico said:

True, but I would have appreciated it if you had said "between 1910 and 1945," instead of the alternative; it's better to keep politics out of academic discussions, in my humble opinion.

Click to expand...

I talk about the "curiouser and curiouser" list.

languages in contact; asking for some courtesy...
It's better to keep "the war" out of a friendly thread "What is your favourite period in Japanese history ? ", in my humble opinion.
☝

lexico said:

Moreover may I remind you that many Korean words were borrowed into Japanese during that same period?

Click to expand...

I recalled 3 Korean words.
Perhaps, "Korean living in Japan" used them.
slang word : chon-ger (a unmarried man) not used today
slang word : chalin-ko (a bicycle) used by boys
food word : kimuchi

lexico said:

If someone asks me, I say it's human nature to ask, and to explore!

Click to expand...

Please tell me the Korean words of "body".
hand, foot, nose. eye, tooth, ear, hair, head, tongue, belly, back

lexico said:

I am Korean, but I don't know for sure why you are surprised.

Click to expand...

I often read the Korean web news.....

lexico said:

The ultra-right nationalist elements will persist in any country, (a good example will be France, the nationalists of which want to purge the French written and spoken languge of all Americanisms) and of course, there are what's called language policy, and language legislation.

Click to expand...

the Korean "language purification movement"...
The Korean people hate "Japanese words in Korean", I think.

Et tu, Brutus! *stabs* *blood squirts* *dies in agony*

kaerupop said:

It's better to keep "the war" out of a friendly thread "What is your favourite period in Japanese history ? ", in my humble opinion.

Click to expand...

Hey....Kaerupop, I know what you're trying to do.
Want to throw some dirt on my character? Ad homini, shame on you!
(Sorry guys, for wasting disk space. Just need to clear my name. Will be brief.)
Is this what you have in mind?
Why isn't Japan teaching history like the Germans? < What is your favorite period?

That was my response to SMIG's (untitled) It's fascinating how differently Japan and China coped in the late 19th century where he says the following.

SMIG said:

I have never been convinced that Japan suffered the same shock that Germany did. Was their society shaken to the roots like German society?

Click to expand...

If you'd read my rather long post to the end, you should've read my conclusion, too.

lexico said:

Yes, I believe the Japanese did suffer tremendously, and they were the first to get hit with (sic. by) Einstein's monster. There was no precedent.

Click to expand...

But as I stated in my earlier response to the favorite period question, my main historical interest lies in the Meiji period.
And I said academic, not friendly, though we could get friendly, too, I guess! :lover:
There, it's history; here it's language, so let's not confuse the two. ;-)

kaerupop said:

I recall 3 Korean words.
Perhaps, "Korean living in Japan" used them.
slang word : chon-ger (a unmarried man) not used today
slang word : chalin-ko (a bicycle) used by boys
food word : kimuchi

Click to expand...

I suppose you remember these from listening to your Korean-Japanese neighbors, right? Like naturalized Koreans? Thanks for giving these, Kaerupop. You know, moments like this, makes everything worth the while! Especially because you did not corrupt your data by hyper-correcting it using a dictionary. I begin to believe that you are a serious student of language science. I wish not to add unnecessary commentary, unless someone needs it. This is a gem. If you ever find some more, I want, I want, I want! If you want some of what I collected, I'll give 'em to you.

kaerupop said:

Please tell me the Korean words of "body".
hand, foot, nose. eye, tooth, ear, hair, head, tongue, belly, back

Click to expand...

Here you go. I would normally assume you are not interested in Sino-Korean since the topic is genetic affinity, right?
body:/MOM/ "body"
......./MOM-?TUNG-I/
......./MOM-?TUNG-A-RI/
......./MOM-THONG/ "torso" /-THONG/ probably a Chinese loan
foot:/PAL/
nose:/KHO/ <MK./KOH/ /KHO-?PEKI/
eye:./NUN/ /NUN-?KAL/ /NUN-SHI-?KAL/ /NUN-SHI-?KA-RI/
tooth:/I/ < MK./NI/ /I-?PAL/ <MK./*NI-S-PAL/
incisors:/AM-NI/ < MK./*ALP-NI/ "front-tooth"
canines:/SONG-GON-NI/
molars:/O2-KU2M-NI/, /O2M-NI/, MK./AKU2M-NI/
ear:/KUI/ < MK.KUIZ /KUI-?TE-KI/ /KUI-?PUL/ "ear loab"
hair:/MO2-RI-THO2L/ /MO2-RI-KHAL/ /MO2-RI-KHA-RAK/ /MO2-RI/ MK./MO2-RI/ MK./MA-RI/ all "hair on the head"
hair:/THO2L/ MK./THO2L/ MK./THO2-RI/ /THO2-RO2K/ MK./THO2-RO2K/ /THO2-RO2-KI/ /THO2-ROK-JI/ "bodily hair"
hair:/KO-UT/ "pubic hair" "armpit hair"
head:/MO2-RI/ MK./MO2-RI/ MK./MA-RI/ /TE-KAL/ /TE-KA-RI/ /TE-KAL-THONG/ /TE-KAL-?PAK/ /TE-KUL-?PAK/
tongue:/HIO2/ </XIO2/ </*SIO/, /SE/, /HIO2-?PA-TAK/ /SE-?PA-TAK/
belly:/PE/ /PE-AL/ /PE-?TE-KI/ /PE-?TE-JI/ /E/ /PE-CHANG-JI/ Changji is a Chinese loan
back:/TU2NG/ /TU2NG-?PE-KI/ /TU2NG-?KOL/

Let me add the highly varied "mouth"
/IP/ /IP-AKU/ /AKUI/ /AKU-JI/ /AK-JI/ /AK-JI-THONG/ /AKA-RI/ /AKU-RI/ /AKU-CHANG/ /AKUL-CHANG/ Chang is a Chinese loan, /JU-TUNG-I/ /JU-TUNG-ARI/ "mouth" /-PU-RI/ in /YA-PU-RI/ "chat, story".

/-JU-KA-RI/ in /THO2K-?JU-KA-RI/ "chin"
/AKU/ is also the angler fish with a big mouth (diff. from 窶佚･ﾅ津ｻ), a delicacy in Korean cuisine; I wonder if Japan has the fish, too?

These are mostly phonemic (with the exception of SH) transcriptions after the sandhi (consonantal assimilation). Phonological transcriptions may slightly differ, but they are predictable by the phonological rules of Korean. The distinction between /ae/ and /e/ has been ignored in this transcription. Although Korean orthography clearly distinguishes the two, modern spoken Korean tends to confuse them.

P,T,K: unvoiced unaspirated plosives
PH,TH,KH: unvoiced aspirated plosives
S: fricative, SH: palatalized fricative before an /I/, no lip rounding as in English (phonological only. Not an independent phoneme.)
J: unvoiced unaspirated affricate, no lip rounding as in English
CH: unvoiced aspirated affricate
O2: open O, as in English "bought," with minor lip rounding
U2: unrounded high, medial vowel between I and U, no lip rounding.
?: co-articulation of the vocal cords, having the effect of a tense plosion when it is combined with an unaspirated plosive, fricative, or affricate as in ?P, ?T, ?K, ?S, ?J. Somewhat similar to the Japanese 窶堙?歎 /Q/ when it comes before another consonant.

One word of warning; the forms you find here are either historical, modern standard spoken, dialectal, or slang Korean. Please verify with your dictionary if you intend to use any in a converstaion. You might end up offending someone if you use the wrong, vulgar form in front of a friendly, elderly guest! One rule of thumb is the one-syllabled forms are usually the standard. The longer ones are often considered obscene or simply vulgar. But not always!
I have some questions for you, if you don't mind, Kaerupop.
I'd like to know the Japanese forms for "1. a tree leaf, 2. a grass leaf, 3. flat-fish, 4. to be flat, 5. a flat object, 6. a wooden plank, 7. a butterfly, 8. to fold something, 9. a small plate, 10. a large plate." If there are variants, kiddy words or slangs, I would also appreciate them very much. Please specify which syllable is Sino-Japanese (kan'on,go'on) within a mostly Japanese word. Thanks, I think we're getting somewhere!

I understand your disappointment....

kaerupop said:

I often read the Korean web news.....
the Korean "language purification movement"...
The Korean people hate "Japanese words in Korean", I think.

Click to expand...

Don't listen to the Nazi's, whether, German, Japanese, Korean, or Chinese. Or else you get burned, or get into mindless fights! I don't put too much trust in what I get in the media. But some stuff are good, too. It always helps to know what a layman's view is. (If you are a media person, I'm not denying that you are a specialist in journalism; I'm only saying that you specialize in generalism. Am I making any sense? ☝ ) If you know what to believe and what to examine before believing, that is. Sometimes academic journals are too difficult to read, or too much trouble to follow. TV, and nespapers can help you catch some of the flashy stuff from the academic world.
Dr. Choi, Hyon Bae, is a highly repected linguist in Korea. He struggled to preserve the Korean language from extinction when it was banned during the Japanese occupation of Korea. He even wants to purge Chinese characters from Korean written language, which I think is a bit too extreme. But because of his unique role in the preservation and study of the language, many people will let him have his way. I don't think he's a Nazi; but at the same time, I don't agree with everything he says. So don't let it bother you. The sensationalism of the media is the culprit, I think.

Here I provide Middle Korean forms when I was able to find them, along with Old Japanese forms also attested in modern dialects
body: MK mom / OJ mï < *muy < *mu-Ci
hand: MK sown / OJ te < *tay < ta-Ci
leg: MK pál, foot: MK tàlí / leg, shin : OJ paNki
nose: MK kwoh / OJ pana
eye: MK nwun / OJ më < *may < *ma-Ci
tooth : ? / OJ pa
ear: MK kuy / OJ mîmî
hair: ? / OJ ke < *kay < *ka-Ci
head: Early MK mati > mari/ MiddleJ tsuNpuri/tumuri, OJ kasira
tongue: MK hye / sita
belly: MK poy / OJ para
back: MK tung < *tunko / OJ se < *s@y < *s@-Ci
mouth : MK ip / OJ kuti

lexico said:

I'd like to know the Japanese forms for "1. a tree leaf, 2. a grass leaf, 3. flat-fish, 4. to be flat, 5. a flat object, 6. a wooden plank, 7. a butterfly, 8. to fold something, 9. a small plate, 10. a large plate." If there are variants, kiddy words or slangs, I would also appreciate them very much. Please (if you know) specify where there are any Sino-Japanese readings. Thanks, I think we're getting somewhere!

Click to expand...

tree leaf : ha, sometimes happa < pa
flat : hira- < *pira, tairaﾂ < ta-pira
flatfish : hirame < pira-me
butterfly : chô or reduplicated chôchô < tepu
to fold : oru < woru
plate : sara (dish) / ita (of metal, etc)

Sidetracking, but not really...

Sidetracking from the "Origins" topic, may we continue this discussion about recent loans?
I think it is relevant, eventually, because we are identifying similarities that should be excluded from the "Origins" debate. Right?
However, we must guard ourselves against the possibility that an original cognate being borrowed. So we must not make any hasty conclusions!

Since you gave me three examples of Korean loans in Japanese (Korio-Japanese?), I think I owe you at leat a couple of Japanese loans in Korean (Japono-Korean?) that I've heard or used before. Very numerous, so this is just a small sample.
Please provide the Japanese form IF the Koreanized form is different. If you do not comment, I will assume that the Japanese form is identical by default.
If the meaning has shifted, or changed in scope, please comment on that, too. If the word has gone out of usage, please say so.
Although there should be articles and dictionaries covering this topic, I think this kind of comparison by native speakers has much significance, because two heads are better than one. The following is what I suspect came from Japanese in recent times, mostly in the early half of 20th century, but also more recent ones are there.

1. KURUMA "cart" heard often in 1960's and 70's, but rarely heard now

2. TAMA "glass marbles" same as above

3. OYAJI~OYAPUNG "mafia boss" still used in some action film

4. SHIDA "assistant" used occasionally

5. ?PANG-?KU "hole in a flat tire" "any kind of damaging puncture" still used!

6. TASHIPANG "dashboard in a car" heard in 1980's, not sure now.

7. E:NG-?KO "stalling of an engine" --(extended in some cases)--> "out of gas"

8. PI:-RU "beer" I used to hear my grandfather say

9. KOP-PU "glass" Also my grandfather's, I hear this is from Dutch koppa "glass"> Japanese ?

10. KHU2-RA-SU2 "glass" This must be recent, from Eng. glass > Japanese

11. PHI:-JU2L "beer pitcher" This is a very recent loan, I think, from the 1990's.

12. OMU-RAISU2 "omlet over fried rice" still used.

13. KHARE-RAISU2 "gravied curry over rice" shortened to KHARE nowadays, still used

14. TONG-?KASU2 "pork cutlet" strange marriage of Chinese and chopped English, still used.

15. TEM-?PU-RA "deep fried stuff" from Port. "tempora"? still used.

16. O:-TENG "deep fried fish cake" Chinese 窶ｹ窶ｺﾂ静ｷ, but the reading is Japanese?

17. O2-MUK "fish cake" This can't be Japanese, but I want to know what you call it.

18. ANG-?KO "sweet red bean filling" still used, but sounds old-fashioned somehow. Going back to Korean KOMUL or SOK for "filling"

19. ?PA:NG "bread" From Port. pan~? This will last forever. My kids love /?PANG/!

20. KHU-SHA "push-up" This is one of my favorites. Not sure if still used. Japanese?

I heard one seargent saying this in the Army, but only this one individual. Must be from his military training school. Not sure. I've heard the Polynesian /KAPU/ became the English "taboo," and the Amerindian /potako/ becoming English "potato." From these examples, we can see that consonants can jump from one place of articulation to another in the loaning process.

But does this happen only in loaning? The Indo-European /GWARM/ has the English "warm," Sanskrit "gharmas," Latin "formus," but Greek has an unrelated initial consonant "th" as "thermos." So from this, we also have an example of consonantal shift which involves jumping the bounds of place of articulation within languages of common origin. But historical linguistics found no way of explaining this. "Thermos" is an "unexplainable exception" as in "no rule is without exception."
Hmmmm.... *thinking, contemplating with an evil smile* :20:
Why should consonantal shift remain within one place of articulation?

Okay, I want to give you some air to breathe, Kaerupop, so I'll stop here with 20 only. Waiting for your comments! The more, the better. Be verbose!

lexico said:

the Amerindian /potako/ becoming English "potato."

Click to expand...

Slightly off topic: Do you have a source for this? I did a term paper on the economical history of the potato once & this is the first I hear about this. What I came across as origins were bappa (Carib) -> bappata (+ Spanish suffix) -> batata -> patata. Another version leaves out the 1st two stages & sees batata as the Caribbean origin, but I never heard of potako.

Watching over the airhead!!!

bossel said:

Slightly off topic: Do you have a source for this? I did a term paper on the economical history of the potato once & this is the first I hear about this. What I came across as origins were bappa (Carib) -> bappata (+ Spanish suffix) -> batata -> patata. Another version leaves out the 1st two stages & sees batata as the Caribbean origin, but I never heard of *potako.

Click to expand...

Actually, quite on topic. Thanks, for even reading this boring material. I mean exciting for me, and a couple of lingomaniacs, oops, slander? but I guess you're one of us!
I'll look it up. I'm not quoting any source specifically, so my memory may have fooled me. But if I did read about it, it must be in one of my textbooks, or could have been from one of the lectures. I just hope it wasn't from some stupid fake movie. Yeah, so please don't quote me on that, yet. I'll try. (I'm afraid I'm gonna get fried for quoting from my airy brain!! Help!!)

EDIT: I can't find anyting supporting *potako, the closest I could find was Asturian pataca, but couldn't make a connection with potato's etymology. PageWise http://idid.essortment.com/potatohistory_rvap.htm says, "The name of the famous potato, the world's number one vegetable is probably a corruption of the Indian name for the plant -- patata or papa...Sweet potatoes were used in the West Indies and Central America and in the Southern part of North America. They were referenced in the journals of Columbus and Magellan. They were called "batatas."
But your information, Bossel, seems more analytic. Could you give me a reference?
If I may quote the etymology that you found Incan. /PAPPA/ > /PAPPATA/ > /PATATA/ (broad transcription) the second consonantal sound shift P > T can be obseved. So, I guess the original logic is sustained.
This is interesting.
Question: How can someone fail in supporting his data, and still uphold his original scheme?
Answer: By having quick, smart people around him to point out flaky arguments before things get hairy. Thanks again, Bossel. This is better than grad school!

lexico said:

Actually, quite on topic. Thanks, for even reading this boring material. I mean exciting for me, and a couple of lingomaniacs, oops, slander? but I guess you're one of us!

Click to expand...

Only marginally, my interests don't go as deep as yours & Tomach's. Linguistics is part of my English studies, but I'm more the guy for the broad overview, the important details (as phonetics & phonology) I leave to others.

But your information, Bossel, seems more analytic. Could you give me a reference?
If I may quote the etymology that you found Incan. /PAPPA/ > /PAPPATA/ > /PATATA/ (broad transcription) the second consonantal sound shift P > T can be obseved.

Click to expand...

Well, my memory obviously isn't any good, either.
Bappa/pappa is - as you said - considered Incan, not Carib as I wrote above. The only source I have at the moment is this one.

It was a history paper, & I wrote it more than a year ago. I have a whole bunch of bookmarks but didn't find it in there, it was probably in one of the books I used. Somehow I have in mind that the Spaniards confused the potatoes with the sweet potatoes that were cultivated in the Caribbean & hence wrongly used the local term - batata/patata - for sweet potatoes to designate the largely unrelated common potato.

to lexico Re : Et tu, Brutus! *stabs* *blood squirts* *dies in agony*

to lexico
Hey, don't make an excuse!
Make your brain(filled with half 10000 years-Korean history) cool!
Your off-base post is too long.

My advice is :
Before you post, select the thread.

I am sure you make water anywhere.

Let's stick to the topic of historical linguistics

lexico said:

we can see that consonants can jump from one place of articulation to another in the loaning process.
But does this happen only in loaning? The Indo-European /GWARM/ has the English "warm," Sanskrit "gharmas," Latin "formus," but Greek has an unrelated initial consonant "th" as "thermos." So from this, we also have an example of consonantal shift which involves jumping the bounds of place of articulation within languages of common origin. But historical linguistics found no way of explaining this. "Thermos" is an "unexplainable exception" as in "no rule is without exception."
Hmmmm.... *thinking, contemplating with an evil smile* :20:
Why should consonantal shift remain within one place of articulation?

Click to expand...

First, the correct reconstruction of the proto-IE root for "warm" is *gwherm- I think, with aspiration. It gave birth to Greek "thermos", Sanskrit "gharmas", Latin "formus", and in English its various forms evolved into "warm", "burn" or "brand". But the Greek form with an unexpected dental *th is not an "unexplainable exception" : it is the normal development for PIE *gwh in this environment (I think it is before front vowels) for Greek. And yes there is for sure an explanation. I am not a specialist of IE, but I can suppose that the velar *g fronted by assimilation before front vowels : its articulation point became shifted to a closer place to that of the following vowel.

Sorry, "chalin-ko" is not a Korean word

Today, I went to the small library.
I took up the Japanese dictionary from a bookshelf and refered to it.

chalin-ko
[slang]
1 a pickpocket (a boy picking pockets )
2 a bicycle

"chalin-ko" is not a Korean word...
Sorry... :sorry:

What is this rule called in IE? & more Questions

ToMach said:

Let's stick to the topic of historical linguistics.

Click to expand...

A fine suggestion all of us can agree with, I think.

ToMach said:

First, the correct reconstruction of the proto-IE root for "warm" is *gwherm- I think, with aspiration.

Click to expand...

That is correct; there should be an aspiration there.

ToMach said:

It gave birth to Greek "thermos", Sanskrit "gharmas", Latin "formus", and in English its various forms evolved into "warm", "burn" or "brand". But the Greek form with an unexpected dental *th is not an "unexplainable exception" : it is the normal development for PIE *gwh in this environment (I think it is before front vowels) for Greek.

Click to expand...

I have three questions, ToMach.
1. Do you know of any other instances exhibiting this unique consonantal leap from Velar K > Alveolar T in an IE language?
2. As for the explanation you gave here; has it been formulated as a standard rule, or is it a recent theory proposed to explain away marginal oddities, which is currently under examination?
3. What are the details of the Velar+Frontal Vowel > Alveolar+Frontal Vowel rule? The restraints, phonological environment, languages exhibiting this phenomenon?

ToMach said:

And yes there is for sure an explanation. I am not a specialist of IE, but I can suppose that the velar *g fronted by assimilation before front vowels : its articulation point became shifted to a closer place to that of the following vowel.

Click to expand...

I would normally expect, in such an environment-induced assimilation, for the velar to palatalize, as in Parisian French; ce-, ci-, ge-, gi-, and certain cha-'s.
What would prevent palatalizing and choose "alveolarizing" instead in the case of Greek "thermos?"
Is there a rule to explain this preference in classical/archaic Greek?
Are there parallel instances in any of the other classical languages?
Are there parallel instances in the history of Japanese or Chinese that you are aware of?

If the explanation you gave has universal validity, it appears that labials, alveolars, and velars (P's, T's, K's, or biconsonantal clusters of P, T & K) can alternate given the right kind of environmental restrictions. What do you think?

chilin-ko; Japanese, Korean, Turkish?

kaerupop said:

Today, I went to the small library.
I took up the Japanese dictionary from a bookshelf and refered to it.
chalin-ko
[slang]
1 a pickpocket (a boy picking pockets )
2 a bicycle
"chalin-ko" is not a Korean word...
Sorry... :sorry:

Click to expand...

Hey, no need to apologize, Kaerupop. That kind of genuineness is what makes science go! ^.^ Like I said, hypercorrected data are usually unreliable and therefore unuseable, because it's been tampered with.

Besides, you cannot always trust what you read in a dictionary. Lexicographers often have to make a balanced judgement when in doubt, and sometimes are compelled to quote folk etymology or a controverisal theory which may very well prove wrong afterwards. I do appreciate your follow-up, though; still not as much as the original!

I have no solid proof whether "chalin-ko" is Japanese, Korean, or some other in origin. But the Standard Korean "ja-jo2n-ko2" could easily have corrupted into "ja-ro2n-ko2" when heard by a child, or a foreigner. So let's keep it open. However, I am curious about the /L/ in the syllable /LIN/; Was it ﾆ旦ﾆ椎?ﾆ停?愴坦 or 窶堋ｲ窶堙ｨ窶堙ｱ窶堋ｱ that you found in the dictionary? I did notice many Japanese web pages romanizing ﾆ椎? as RI or LI. I wonder if that has anything to do?

BTW, have you heard of NE-TA-PA-I for "swindling" or "pickpocketing?"

lexico said:

1. Do you know of any other instances exhibiting this unique consonantal leap from Velar K > Alveolar T in an IE language?
2. As for the explanation you gave here; has it been formulated as a standard rule, or is it a recent theory proposed to explain away marginal oddities, which is currently under examination?
3. What are the details of the Velar+Frontal Vowel > Alveolar+Frontal Vowel rule? The restraints, phonological environment, languages exhibiting this phenomenon?I would normally expect, in such an environment-induced assimilation, for the velar to palatalize, as in Parisian French; ce-, ci-, ge-, gi-, and certain cha-'s.
What would prevent palatalizing and choose "alveolarizing" instead in the case of Greek "thermos?"
Is there a rule to explain this preference in classical/archaic Greek?

Click to expand...

A quick glance in a textbook like Szemerényi's Introduction to Indo-European linguistics (1996 [1990]) give me the following info
Evolution of PIE "gutturals" in Greek :
1) Velars : *k, *g, *gh
velars everywhere
2) Labiovelars :
*kw :
labials before a, o and consonnants
dentals before e and i
plain velars before and after u
*gw and *gwh :
dentals before e
labials before i
In other dialects of the Hellenic branch, like Mycaenian, it seems that labio-velars were preserved.
Being not a specialist of Greek nor IE, I cannot answer about the details of those phonetic changes from a labiovelar to a dental.
I can only notice that the dental/alveolar place is right between labial and velar : it would not be surprising that the collapse of a labio-velar would end into a dental/alveolar, especially if this labiovelar was palatalized before front vowels (palatal is even closer to dental than velar). By palatalized I mean with really a palatalized articulation or even a true palatal, not sibilants/affricates from the palatalization of velars like in French.
But again, this is only a tentative hypothesis.

Are there parallel instances in any of the other classical languages?
Are there parallel instances in the history of Japanese or Chinese that you are aware of?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I really Know only Japanese, and its short history shows no great consonnantal change

If the explanation you gave has universal validity, it appears that labials, alveolars, and velars (P's, T's, K's, or biconsonantal clusters of P, T & K) can alternate given the right kind of environmental restrictions. What do you think?

Click to expand...

We're talking about single consonnants with labiovelar articulation, independent phonemes, not velar+labial clusters. And this has nothing to do with plain velars becoming labials, which would be rather unexpected.

What is this sound /*gwTh/ called?

Thanks for the reference and your personal contribution to the issue.
According to your information, the alveolarization of the Proto-Indo-European /*gwh/ before a frontal vowel /*e/ into the Classical Greek aspirated alveolar /th/ seems to be an established regularity in IE historical linguistics, contrary to what I had assumed in my earlier post. I have some further questions.

ToMach said:

We're talking about single consonants with labio-velar articulation, independent phonemes, not velar+labial clusters.

Click to expand...

You say that /*gwh/ in Proto Indo-European /*gwherm/ is understood as a sound unit co-articulating the two places of the labia /P/ and the velum /g/ simultaneously, and not in temporal sequence. But if we consider that the co-articulated sound /*gwh/ is not observed in any natural language, and hence has only theoretical existence, there should be no difference in postulating a cluster /g/+/Ph/ or /gh/+/P/ to explain the post-PIE developments if metathesis is allowed.
For consistency of notation, however, let's stick to your standard of notation for the remainder of this post.

From your information via Szemerenyi, the alveolarization of Proto-Indo-European labio-velars /*kw/ and /*gw(h)/ into the Classical Greek alveolar /t(h)/ is expected under the following environments and none other, right?

PIE /*kw+e,i/ > CGk./t+e,i/
PIE /*gw(h)+e/ > CGk. /t(h)+e/

ToMach said:

I can only notice that the dental/alveolar place is right between labial and velar : it would not be surprising that the collapse of a labio-velar would end into a dental/alveolar, especially if this labiovelar was palatalized before front vowels (palatal is even closer to dental than velar). By palatalized I mean with really a palatalized articulation or even a true palatal, not sibilants/affricates from the palatalization of velars like in French. But again, this is only a tentative hypothesis.

Click to expand...

I believe your postulate is the only logical way to explain the particular sound shift at this point, and also find your reasoning sound and formally acceptable. I'd like to pursue this further, if you don't mind.

The co-articulated /*gwh/ can also be denoted /*gPh/ since the positions labia and velum are obstructed simultaneously, right?

I understood your "true palatal" sound as the palatal plosive /T/ in the hard palatal position, right?

The proposed transitional "truly palatalized" /*gwh/ would then co-articulate the sound at three different positions simultaneously; the labia, the hard palate, and the velum, right?

Now what bothers me is that the resulting transitional sound, which can be expressed either /*gwTh/ or /*gPTh/ would then be something unheard of in any natural language.

So although the hypothetical sequence of "collapsing the labio-velar aspirate plosive /*gwh/, via the transitional co-palatal /*gwTh/, which then turned into a true palatal aspirate /*Th/, which then turned into the alveolar aspirate /th/ of 'thermos' in Classical Greek" (my interpretation of your explanation quoted above) is an admirable and logical model to accomodate the data at hand, it is hard to support it from the observation of naturally occurring consonants.

PIE /*gwh/ before /*e/ > /*gwTh/ > /*Th/ > CGk. /th/ in /thermos/

Do such sounds as co-articulated labio-palato-velar aspirate /*gwTh/, or /*KPTh/ in broad transcription, exist in nature? Phonologically speaking, I can make the implosive unaspirated version of the sound with relative ease when I "smack" my lips, palate, and velum all at the same time. I can even make the explosive aspirated version, the original /*KPTh/, with some serious effort. But does any known natural language make use of this sound, even as an allophone? Does it have a name?

The reason I'm asking all these questions is to re-examine our method of comparison between (Old) Japanese and (Old) Korean when surveying the possibility of genetic affinity (as far as primary data or reconstruction is available, of course). If we were looking only at exacting, or semi-exacting surface matches, we might very well be missing a lot of relevant material due to our tunneled vision, so to speak; hence comes all these seemingly irrelevant questions. What was Proto-Japanese like at 3,000 BCE?

lexico said:

You say that the /*gwh/ in Proto Indo-European /*gwherm/ is understood as a sound unit co-articulating the two places of the labia /P/ and the velum /g/ simultaneously, and not in temporal sequence.

Click to expand...

No, a labiovelar like *gwh is defined more precisely as a labialized velar consonnant, or a velar with lip rounding (which we call a labial secondary articulation and should be written in IPA with a subscript w),

But if we consider that the co-articulated sound /*gwh/ is not observed in any natural language, and hence has only theoretical existence, there should be no difference in postulating a cluster /g/+/Ph/ or /gh/+/P/ to explain the post-PIE developments if metathesis is allowed.

Click to expand...

Labialized velars are very common, but are often phonemically reanalyzed as a string of 2 phonemes.
Some languages have real labiovelar stops [kp] or [gb] : they are quite common in West African languages.

PIE /*kw+e,i/ > CGk./t+e,i/
PIE /*gw(h)+e/ > CGk. /t(h)+e/

Click to expand...

Right.
A more formal notation would be :
*kw > t/_e,i (V[+front])
*gw(h) > t(h)/_e

I understood your "true palatal" sound as the plosive /T/ in the hard palatal position, right?

Click to expand...

I mean the palatal stop written [c] in IPA. I was thinking of an allophone **cw instead of *kw before front vowels, but this would be rather unusual, I agree.

The co-articulated /*gwh/ can also be denoted /*gPh/ since the positions labia and velum are obstructed simultaneously, right?

Click to expand...

Answered above : only the velum is obstructed, but a lip rounding occurs simultaneously.

The hypotesized transitional "truly palatalized" /*gwh/ would then co-articulate the sound at three different positions the labia, the hard palate, and the velum simultaneously, right?
The resulting transitional sound, which can be expressed either /*gwTh/ or /*gPTh/, would then be something unheard of in any natural language.
So although the hypothesis of "collapsing the labio-velar sound /*gwh/, via the transitional co-palatal /*gwTh/, which then turned into a true palatal /*Th/, which then turned into the alveolar /th/ of 'thermos' in Classical Greek" (my interpretation of your hypothesis) is an admirable and logical hypothesis to accomodate the data at hand, it is hard to support it from the observation of naturally occurring consonants.

Click to expand...

I'd rather think of it as a palatalized velar [g'], which is a velar articulated at a point closer to the palate than ordinary, and with lip rounding

Do such sounds as co-articulated labio-palato-velar /*PTK/ or /*PTKh/ exist in nature? If so, what is it called? I can make the implosive version of the sound with relative ease as when I "smack" my lips, my palate, and my velum all at the same time; and the explosive version (the original /*PTK/) with some effort. But does any known natural language make use of this sound? Even as an allophone?

Click to expand...

Already answered : there is only one place of obstruction, the front of the velum. There is no closing of the lips (only rounding) and no palatal co-articulation (palatalized=moved toward the palatate). An *gwh is not an implosive, just an aspirated, released with greater air flow.

But I repeat again, most of this is based on suppositions : I don't know PIE

/*gwh/ with one obstruction & the alternations of /kimtchi/

Thanks for closing some of the gaps in my knowledge. If /*gwh/ is considered essentially a voiced velar with labial coloring (lip rounding) and aspiration, the co-articulation argument becomes unnecessary.

ToMach said:

Labialized velars are very common, but are often phonemically reanalyzed as a string of 2 phonemes.

Click to expand...

Do you mean in the stringed notation of phonological features, or the splitting into two phonemes in a real language?.

ToMach said:

I mean the palatal stop written [c] in IPA. I was thinking of an allophone **cw instead of *kw before front vowels, but this would be rather unusual, I agree.

Click to expand...

Unusual because of the rare combination of features of the palatal stop and the 2ndary labializing (lip rounding)?
If the /w/ feature was lost before the palatalizing, then the resulting /*c(w)h/ without the /(w)/ would be quite natural, wouldn't it?

ToMach said:

I'd rather think of it as a palatalized velar [g'], which is a velar articulated at a point closer to the palate than ordinary, and with lip rounding.

Click to expand...

lexico said:

PIE /*gwh/ before /*e/ > /*gwTh/ > /*Th/ > CGk. /th/ in /thermos/

Click to expand...

Following your line of reasoning, my previous interpretation of the Classical Greek /thermos/ should be modified as follows.

PIE /*gwhe/ > /*g'whe/ > /*g'he/ > /*che/ > /the/

ToMach said:

But I repeat again, most of this is based on suppositions: I don't know PIE

Click to expand...

Does anyone know for sure?

Moving on from what appears to be a natural chain of sound changes in the history of IE languages to Classical Greek, I would like to offer the following example of the well known /kimtchi/ in Korean.

MK. /tchimtchai/~/timtchai/~/kimtchai/ > Mod. K. /kimtchi/

Some have argued that /tchimtchai/ is a Sino-Korean reading of *窶卍ｾﾂ催 "immersed vegetable, pickle," and that the other forms are not naturally occurring forms but hypercorrections of /tchimtchai/; reverse palatalzing gives the other two forms /timtchai/~/kimtchai/ depending on the direction of the "assumed" palatalizing.

This analysis may very well be incorrect, itself a learned kind of folk etymology. /ki:m/ is an aboriginal word for "wild plants; laver" going back to < /ki:um/ < /ki:rum/ as in "fertile growth of plants." The second syllable can be an aboriginal noun suffix for food stuff, fish, plants, and personal names. The consonantal shift can be postulated in Ancient Korean developiong into various MK. allomorphs as follows, borrowing the logic from the IE example of CGk. /thermos/. Of course in this case, the aspiration and labialization are non-existent (Ancient Korean had no aspirated consonants), but this is a different language.

k > c > cj > cjh/_i : one Middle Korean form
k > c > t/_i : a second Middle Korean form
k > k/_i : Modern Korean

This is a rather late development in the history of the language, but it opens up the possibilty that parallel sound shifts may have occurred in its earlier history. We must consider this phenomenon of /ki/~/ci/~/ti/ alternation also when comparing the early stages of Japanese and Korean.
* okay guys, bash time *

I thought it was pretty much accepted that Japanese is an Altai language, along with Turkic and Mongolian languages?

Welcome aboard, Zafer!

Welcome to the thread, Zafer!
Since this is your first post, congratulations!
I hope you've been enjoying JFORUM, and made some interesting acquaintances!

If not, we can start now!
As for the Altaic theroy of Japanese origin (language), the matter seems to be un-settled, that is not settled yet.

All Altaicists agree that the three language families of Turkic, Mongolic, and the Tungusic-Manchu (language) families are mutually more closely related than with any other language group.

As for Japanese, Altaicsits are divided into two obvious choices.

It's almost impossible to prove a negative thesis, such as life does not exist on Mars, because we would have to dig up and test every single corner of the Red Planet. However, sitting at one's desk will prove nothing, no matter how long.

Hence, regardless of result, it is more productive to pursue a postive thesis that Japanese and the other Altaic language sub-families ARE INDEED RELATED. But as in the example of life on Mars. linguists must search into the darkest corner of all the Altaic languages and Japanese language before they can safely say either this oor that.

Let's keep talking, Zafer. Quite a bit of reading to catch up. Free tuition, and textbook provided. But no free room and board.
Sorry for the lame joke!

btw thanks for reviving this long-forgotten thread. I feel like a ghost upon its newly found prey!

It is quite fun to see that most Japanese people still hesitate to accept the influence from Korea.

I do not know exactly why ToMach said "the theory that the Japanese language arrived with the new immigrants from the continent" instead of "from Korea."(Of course I have a very very good guess, though)
ToMach, can you name the period when the meaningful number of people arrived at the Japanese islands from "the continent" other than "Korea"? At the moment you mentioned "immigrants from the continent" I totally lost interest in your remarks.

Korea was not only a bridge, no matter what you learnt in a Japanese class. It had its own powerful culture which directly influenced Japanese one significantly for many centuries. Thus, to make your opinion clearer, you should be clearer on your definitions. I mean, you should know when to use "Korea" and when to use "the continent."

Simple, huh?

Hello, Maverik, welcome to the forum!
This is a good place to get to know a lot of things, and what I find most interesting was the people, and their ideas.
I hope you enjoy your time here, and make some friends, too.
Feel free to explore, and post your ideas whenever you can!

Edit: I thought this might help our discussion.

Hey Lexico,
Nice to meet you.