Talk:Old Japanese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Old Japanese article.
Article policies

I would like to expand this topic with much more detailed linguistic informtaion. I would appreciate help in merging it with the content already here. I will try to complete it within the next few days, depending on time constraints. Bendono 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Questions

Am I correct in understanding that "Quadrigade" corresponds to the modern consonant-stem verbs, such as aruku, tatsu, etc., while "Upper Monograde" corresponds to modern vowel-stems? Do the "k-irregular", etc., mean that they end in ko2, ki1, ku, kuru, kure, ko2? What is the difference between the two rows on each of the adjective types? E.g., what's the difference between -ki1 and -karu? What are the differences between teh various pronouns listed, such as wa, a, ware, and are? Nik42 07:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I added a few notes of clarification to the verbs and adjective sections. I will add more to the pronoun section a little later. The article is rather bare now and I plan on updating it in the near future. Bendono 08:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subscript numbers

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I don't see any explanation of what the distinction is between vowels with subscript 1s and vowels with subscript 2s. Kairos 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is discussed in the both the Phonemes and Transcription sections. Also, there is a link to Jōdai Tokushu Kanazukai. As stated, it applies to the entire syllable, not necessarily only the vowel. There are various theories, but there is no general academic agreement. In time it would be nice to discuss the theories in more detail. It is one of the most hotly debated topics in Japanese historical linguistics. If the wording is not sufficiently clear, please feel free to improve it or make suggestions as necessary. Bendono 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I believe it's somewhat misleading to claim that Old Japanese was spoken in "Japan", considering that the modern state is a rather modern concept. Hokkaido, for example, was colonized very late. I don't know the exact extent of the language but I feel the information should be more specific.

Do we have any information of the various stages of Japanese? When does the Old Japanese period end? Was it followed by "Middle Japanese" or did it go right into modern Japanese?

Peter Isotalo 20:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Many wooden tablets ("mokkan") written and dated to the Old Japanese period have been excavated from all over the country. Also, several dialects are recognized. The most prominent of them is the "Azuma" (=Eastern) dialect which is contained in Books 14 and 20 of the Man'yōshū. (This is most definitely not Ainu.) Listing anything more specific than "Japan" will be most misleading and imprecise.
Old Japanese ends in 794 when the capital moves from Nara to Heian. It is succeeded by Late Old Japanese (sometimes called Classical Japanese). The general divisions are as follows: Old Japanese (-794), Late Old Japanese (aka Classical Japanese) (794-1184), Middle Japanese (1185-1333), Late Middle Japanese (C1333 - 1600) Early Modern Japanese (1600 or 1603 - 1867), Modern Japanese (1868-). Except for Modern Japanese, I plan on writing about all of these over time. Bendono 02:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Very good info. I really look forward to seeing those articles.
Peter Isotalo 11:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISO 639-3

This article handles the same with ISO 639-3 "Old Japanese"? Since there is no example on the website, I am not sure. --Aphaia 01:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The 639-3 description states: "A language of Japan. The ancestor of modern Japanese. 7th-10th centuries AD." There are several problems with this. First, Old Japanese lasts through the end of the 8th century. Late Old Japanese ranges between the 9th and 12th centuries. These two are rarely if ever grouped together, and even if they are, the century range does not correspond. Second, the ancestor of Modern Japanese is Middle Japanese, not Old Japanese. Middle Japanese may be broken into early and late middle Japanese. The registration is useless. Bendono 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, I tried to find other historical Japanese including Middle Japanese and Late Old / Classical Japanese. I haven't found others and agree with you the registration is not helpful for us. --Aphaia 10:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explain why /r/ isn't initial?

So in this article we have a small section that talks how /r/ cannot be word initial. Wouldn't it be reasonable to explain why /r/ isn't initial? Something like this http://erssab.u-bordeaux3.fr/IMG/pdf/labrune_article_final_r.pdf could be used as source material. Of course, there are other theories as well that attempt to explain why /r/ isn't initial that can must be explained as well. So? FinalZero 17 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FinalZero 17 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 下一段 verbs

I did some research on this while studying in Japan, and when we got to verb conjugations we read that there is only one verb that was conjugated in this manner, that being 蹴る. I've still got photocopies of the stuff somewhere I can dig up if anybody wishes to see them. Kaji01 07:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No need. I have the entire OJ corpus. 蹴る is not attested in OJ. It first appears in LOJ (Heian period). Early examples can be found in 観智院本名義抄, 落窪物語, 栄花物語 etc. The OJ word for "to kick" was kuw- (蹴う) and it is 下二段. There are plenty of resources, several referenced, that clearly state that 下一段 does not exist yet at this stage of the language. Bendono 09:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whither e1 and e2?

In the phonological rules section, only six of the eight OJ vowels are mentioned. <a, u, o1> in one class, <o2> alone in another, and <i1, i2> being neutral. What of e1 and e2? If the i-variants hadn't been mentioned, one could assume they were neutral, but right now they're in a kind of limbo. Anyone care to correct this? --Wtrmute (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be best to omit that detail. The rules were discovered by Arisaska Hideo in 1934. Regarding e1 and e2, he said that they "should be feminine [second group] or neuter"; however, in his data they are masculine (first group). Various other resources list slightly different groupings. For example, Ōno (2000) gives {a, i1, u, o2} and {e1, e2, i2, o1}. He also goes on to seriously discredit the vowel harmony theory. The section is weak, but the resources are not very consistent on the issue either. Bendono (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)