CHAPTER 7

PROTO-JAPANESE BEYOND THE ACCENT SYSTEM

ALEXANDER VOVINUn ivers i t.t, o/' Huu'ui' i at lllc1nou

l. Introduc'tionThis chapter deals with tu'o problems: the controversy over the archaic

nature of thc 2.5 accent class of norninals lbund only in Kansai Japanesc ($2) andthe possiblc correlation bctween low register and vowel lcngth (\3). Although atfirst glancc these two problcms look unrelatcd, I wil l attempt to show bclow thatthey are both relevant lbr reconstructing ccfiain segr.r.rental features of pJ thateither have bccn considered controversial unti l now, or havc passed altogetherunnot iced.

The traditional reconstruction of pJ accent fbr binroraic nouns is presentcdin thc fbllowing table. Thc follor,l ' ing sources are used: the Ruiju rr.r,rigi.rir i (RM,l0ll l ; a dictionary which rnarks pitch accent), and also dialect data frorn tnodernKyolo, Tokyo, and Kagoshima. Segmcntal fonr-rs of nouns are given in theirMiddle Japanese (M.f ) form.

Accent c lass and reconstruct ion RM Kvoto Tokl 'o Kagoshima2. | /a.ii

'cdgc' p J * l l t l H H H H . H H - H L I I . L H - H I l L . L t l - L2 .2 l i r i i

' b r i dgc ' p . l * t l l HL I l L . HL -L L t l . LH -L HL . L I I - L2.3 /Lnt t

'1 lou'cr ' p. l +LL L I - I I L . H L - L L I I . L H - L L I I . L L - H1 . . 1 / . r i

' r hops t i c ks ' pJ *L I J LH L I I . LL -H I l L . I l L -L t -H . LL - l l2.5 / i r t r ' sp r ing ' p . l *LF LF iLHT LF , LH- t - I I L . I I L -L LH . LL -T I

Table I

This reconstruct ion, which can be t raced to Kindaichi (1975), and is a lsoadopted in iLTT, presents the pJ accent system as practically identical witl i theone found in Lhe futi ju nt.t,ogishct.lt is also quitc close to the rnodem Kyoto systcrnHowevcr, not everyone agrces: this systern is considered controversial by somelinguists (Tokugawa 1972, Ramsey 1979,1980), who proposed that the p.l sysrern

Pitch shapcs in ntodem dia lects arc g ivcn both in isolat ion and wi th a fo l louing paf i ic leI Depending on part icular manuscr ipts.

142 ALIJXANDER VOVIN

was closer to the rnodern Tokyo systetr. Nevcrtheless, the dctarled argumentsprcsented by Marrin in favor c.l1'the traditional systern (.ILTT: 162-1 5) havc beenlcti virtually uncontested unti l today. Twclvc years ago I also provided a detailedrefutation of thc Tokugawa-Ramsey hypothesis (Vovin 199-5). based on internal,phi lo logical , and external cv idence, therefore I wi l l not d iscuss the wholceontro\ crsy again herc.

2. The segmental source ofoccent class 2.5However, there sti l l rcmains one controversial point, which is in some

scnsc peripheral to the controversy betwccn traditional and Tokugawa-Rarnseyrcconstructions, but sti l l deserves our attention and needs to be resolved one wayor another. This point concerns the archaic nature of the accent class 2.5, which istbund only in modern Karrsai dialects. The philological evidence fbr its existenccis rrrore controversial, since not all manuscripts o1- the Rlrflr nt.togisho havc the'eastern dot' (to-ten), believed to ntark the distinctive fall ing pitch on the sccondr.nora of nouns belonging to the accent class 2.-5. Naturally, supporters o1'thetraditional rcconstruction, who are 'Kyoto-oriented'. bclieve in its archaic naturc,u,hile Tokugawa and Rarnscy, who are 'Tokyo-oriented', insist that this accentclass represents a local innovation in Kansai dialects. The r.nost recent challengeto the archaic nature ol- thc 2.5 class was presentcd by Unger who writes(2000a:20-2 I ) :

Thc Russiat t l inguist Pol ivanov spcculated that l inal la l l inu pi tch is a t racc o1'a" t r unca t cd " nasa l phonemc . Ma r t i n ( 1987 .361 n . I t o Chap ts r . { . s \ l , l ) t h rnks hcgot thc idca by contpar ing Korean rrc lo l r 'morning' rv i th. lapanese r- r .srr id. .which is 2.5 and coulc l bc taken back to an ear l ier *asa.r l . Howevcr. Mart infbund that a handful of Ryukyu * 'ords u, i th f lnal nasals unrcf lected in nrain-is lands cognatcs arc scat tcred randornly across reconstructcd accent c lasscs. andHirata ancl I havc huntcd in vain lbr addi t ional Koreirn ntatches rv i th f inal nasalslbr . lapanese 2.5 nasals. Poi l ivauov's explanat ion for c lass 2.5 is thcrcfbre-dubious. ( ln any case. he suggcsts no l ink bctwccn c lasses 1.2 and 2.-5. and apar lf ronr thc la l l ing pi tch in Kyoto- typc dia lccts. therc sccms to be nonc) . . . the f -actthat c lass 2.5 is rs lat ivc ly sntal l and dist inct ivc only in one dia lcct groupsuggcsls that i ts or ig ins should bc sought i r . r rc lat ivc ly recent dcrc loptnentswi th in that group.

Hcrc I assunlc that Unger confuses two different issucs that have noconnection bctween tl.rern whatsoever; f lrst, the correspondence of 2.5 class nounsto nouns with final -lr in Korean, and second, the conespondencc of f inal -ly',found in Haterulna, to -O in other Japanese dialects. The archaic nature ofHaterurna -N has been persuasively refutcd in the l iteraturc (JLTT:74, Oyler l997),and it wil l not conccnt us here. The flrst problern, however, remains, and I wil ld iscuss i t be low in deta i l .

First. thc idea that nouns in accent class 2.5 havc parallets in MiddleKorean (MK) words rvith flnal -nr indeed belongs to Polivanov (1924), who,however, givcs not just onc exarnple but two. Second, Unger and Hirata areapparently unaware of the othcr l i terature on the subject whcrc additional parallels

PROTO-JApr

reflecting a correlation betrMK words with final -m ahave been in vain. The foltsources where they were fir

Old Japanese'r

r r .va 2.-5 'ntoming

l l l l 2.5 'crane'

M. l l i l r 2.5 'p igweed'

l t un r 2 .5 ' sp r i ng '

. s l l x r r ' r vh i t c '

ad. jcc l ivc accent: B

r loun acccnt :2.5 < +siru 'o-m

Az rn r r r ' b l ack '

adjcct ivc accent: B

nor- ln acccnt : 2.5 < *kurwo-m

i ' r lz 'dark '

at i jcct ivc acccnt : A

noun acccnt : 2.5 < *kura-m

uka 'rctl'

ad. jcct tvc accent: A

lroun i lcccnt : 2.5 < *aka-m

rrx o 'b luc/grecn'

ad.jcctiVc accent: fl

noun acccnt : 2.-5 < *awo-m

The table above rerJapanesc nouns. However. i ,distribution of these words iKorean cxternal ev idence is

I Acccnt notat ions arc g ivcn accacccntual data on OJ arc not suffica The compar ison ol - . lapanese and( 1966:23t i ) . but u, i thout rhe discus2.5 in Japanesc.

tentsbeenr i ledmal.hole

,omenseywaych is

r thecondI theture,)centenge'ntes

PROTO-. IAPANESE BEYOND TI IE ACCENT SYSTEM t43

rcflccting a correlation between Japanese nouns belonging to accent class 2.5 andMK words rvith final -m are provided, other-wise their hunt would probably nothavc been in vain. The following table summarizes these known parallels and thesourccs where they were flrst suggested:

Old Japanese'r I \ l iddle Korean sourcc

zr.srr 2.5 'rrorning

/ r / /1 / 2 .5 'c ra r lc '

r ) r ' h r i r r ' t no rn i ng '

/l ri/rlrirl-i 'crirncPo l i r ano r l 9 l - l : l - 51

M.l l i l i r 2.5 'p igrvccd'

pun r 2 .5 ' sp r i ng '7r i f t i r i

'p igvn eed'r

7 ; l r i r i ' sp r i ng '

\ \ ' h i t n ren l 9 t l 5 : l 0 l

. r l r l r . r 'u 'h i tc '

adlcct ivc acccnt : B

noun accent: 2.5 . ' - +sinvo-m

lrrnrz 'b lack '

adjoct ivc acccrt t : B

l ro l ln i lcccnl : 2.5 ' - *kunvo-rrr

i r r i a 'dark '

ad. jcct ivc acccnt : A

noun acccnl : 2.-5 < *kura-r .n

rr la ' rcd '

ad- jcct ivc acccnt : A

noun accent: 2.5 < saka-nr

a r rn ' b l ue /g recn '

adjcct ivc acccnt : B

noun acccnt : 2.5 < +arvo-m

ch r i ' dancc ' ( r ' . )

t h - v t i - n t ' d a n c c ' ( n . )

. t l u 7 r - ' h c l p ' ( r , . )

tv t ) l l ' - t ' r -nt 'help ' (n. )

. r ' l r . r - ' laugh' ( r . ' . )

r t i r : - t t t i - t r t ' laugh' (n. )

. x r l - ' c r y ' ( r , . )

v i t l -v ' r i -nt 'cr1, ' (n. )

l r i l - 'change" ( r ' . )

k i l - i - n t ' changc ' ( n . )

Vov in 1994:150(pre-p.l nominalizcr *-r.n for

ad.jcct ivcs dcnoting colors)

e n o,ounsI -1/,re of9e1),wi l l

iddlewho,a areallels

Tablc 2

The table above represents external evidence in favor of *-m in some.lapanese nouns. However. it does not irnr-nediately tell us of the possible age anddistribution of these words in Japanese itself. Thus, we sti l l have to see wlietherKorean external evidence is applicable to pJ as a whole or is localized in Kansai

' Accenl nolalions are givcn according to EMJ as rcf'lcctcd in thc RrrlTl nt.vitgish6. sincc thc

accentual data on OJ are not suf f lc icnt and. /or arc controvcrs ia l .'The conrpar ison of . lapanesc and Korcan rvords for 'p ig ivccd'was proposed or ig inal ly by Mart in(1966:2313). but wi thout thc discussion o1'corrc lat ion between t inal -nr in Korean and accent c lass

2 .5 i n Janancsc .

t44 ALEXANDER VOVIN

alone. Traditionally all thc comparisons above, including the four lexicalcomparisons and the correspondencc of accent class 2.5 in nouns designatingcolcrrs to the norninalizer -m in MK were considered to be examples suppofiingthe genetic rclationship between .lapanese and Korean. In order to confim ordisprove this position. I wil l offer a detailed analysis of all etyrrologies below.

( l ) OJ usu 2 .5 ' r r o rn ing ' -MK dch6n r ' i d . ' . A l t hough th i s con rpa r i son i susr"rally used to support thc theory of genetic relationship betwecn Japancse andKorean. (cf. Martin 1966:236, Whitrnan 1985:244), therc are problelns with thisetyrrology. First. as whitrnan notcs, it is diff lcult to account for the aspirated/-ch-/ in the MK form (Whitman 1985:244). MK oc'hrim < proto-Korean (pK)*acoKom or *aKocorn, none of which could comespond to pJ *asa 2 5 < pre-pJ*asam. Second, Japancse r.r.ra 'moming' has a Imited distribution in Japancse: it isfbund in Ryukyuan only in Shur i and Shi to i d ia lccts as ?a.sa (OGJ l99l :123.Hirayarr.ra 1966284). lt is significant that the word does not present itself in thesouthern Ryukyus. where the rnainland Japanese influence was nrinimal. Thus. thclirnited attestation exclusively in Shuri and Shitoi suggests that in thcse twodialects it is a loanword fiom rnainland Japanese, especially givcn that anotherword, pR *tutor.nuti 'rnoming' (a cognate of M.l tutomete 'carly rnoming'discussed below), is attcstod throughout the Ryukyus, and is also present in Shuri( l { i rayarna 1966:2t34, Hi rayarna 1967 202, OGJ l99l :123) . In addi t ion, the wordn.ra'nro-rning' is also attcsted in u:trrrtu poems, but rnost of the poems in which itappears' do not have very distinctivc EOJ features.(' I suspcct that EOJ nsn rnay bealso a loan front WOJ. Givcn all this and the fact that it is irnpossible to connectpJ *asa < pre-pJ *asam with pK *acoKorn or *aKocom, I think that OJ a.sa is aloan liorn some lbrm of old Korean like *acharn that already had an aspirated+-ch- (and not a sequencc *-Koc- or *-coK-) that would be expected to beborrowcd as o.f or pJ *-s-. Even though oJ a.sa and MK ach6rn are not geneticallyrelated, the accent pattern 2.5 is sti l l confirmed by the Korean word as derivingfiorn *-n, but since the Korean loanword is wcll attested only in WOJ, it canconfirrr the archaic nature of *-m only fbr central Japanesc (cJ),/but not for allo f Japanesc.

(2) O.f tunr 2.5'cranc'- MK rr.r,zilx,t int-i ' id. '. Thc correspondences seemto bc irnpeccable, and there are no problems that would point to a loanwordscenario, unlikc the etymology for 'rnorning' discussed above. The -i in thc MKforrn is l ikely to be a dirrunitive suffix, cf. tv'ulem without this suffix in thedivergcnt ceycwu dia lect (choy 1987:878). In addi r ion, a l though the word is notattested in EoJ, it docs not suff-er frorn l imited distribution in Ryukyuan:Kikaij ima (Amarni), Sani (Arnarni) tsuru; Tokunoshima (Arnami) Lwruntui;

' Scc cranrples convcnicnt ly pror , idcd in Mizushima (19134:646).

" 1 'hc only real cxccpt ion is MYS 3-502. which has sornc rypical EOJ vcrbal morphology.- 'C'entral

.lapanese' rcI-ers to a branch of Japancsc which cornprises WOJ, MJ, and rhe ntajority ofntodern rnain land c l ia lccts. but i t does not inc ludc I rO. l and the nrodcm Hachi jc l - j ima dia lect .

PROTO-J,,

Yoron. Izena. Kumej imtt.|ilru: Shirobe (Miyako),Takebu (Yaeyama) tfiruEven if the Japanese worprohably l iom the periorthis etymology fully supfrom a lost f inal *-m.

(3) MJ ./ i.vu 2.5 ,1

attestation on the JapanesH,,n:1|y4r . r . r i 19181. so i ti ls OJ lbnn was *p iy t wi/-wi/ goes back to pJ *qidiff i cult. However, sincecountelpart /-wi/, thereNcvcrtheless, there is atnamely the correspondenwork wc must first assumof -1- to -1-, which is possassurre that MJ /i.vu < ysupportcd, but it is entirYonaguni dialect which irnedial -.t- corresponds Iternporal and geographicelsewhere (JLTT:20). Thrthis chapter, but there areon Yonaguni r/- (Whitmalproto-fom of the Japanecorrespondence of pK *-t.MK) or a correspondenceand both require a greatetymology conditionallyetymology. and therefore,Japanese accent class 2.5 t,

(4) OJ paru 2.5 ,s1

grave phonetic problerns. I/ i/. Second, even if this wxaCu corresponding to Mmerely coincidental reseml

t Marlin proposed to reconsrrucrnowadays it seerns that this prop''

l dcdicatc a substanlial chaprer

nA

(

e)tl :

i ;

of

PROTO-JAPANESE BEYOND TIIE ACC'[]NT SYSTEM 145

Yoron, Izena, Kuntejirna (Okinawa), Ishigaki (Yaeyama) tsuru, Hirata (Miyako)

frrrr; Shirobe (Miyako), Kawahira (Yaeyarna) l^sirrr; Kuroshima (Yaeyama) .[r4:Takebu (Yaeyanta) t.f iru; (Nakamatsu 1987:4t3, 1 17, 165, 201, 248, 281. 326)'

Even if the Japanese word is a loanword from Korean, it rnust be a very early onc,

probably fiom thc period of rnutual cocxistence on the Korean peninsula. Thus,

this etyr-nology fully supports the interpretation of accent class 2.5 as rcsulting

from a lost f inal *-nt.

(3) MJ /i1,u 2.5 'pigweed' - MK pilt im ' id.'. First, there is a problem of

attestation on the Japanese side. The word appears fbr the first time in the herbary

Honzou,amt'ri (9ltt), so it is MJ, not OJ. This leaves room for unceftainty whether

its OJ fbrm was *piyu with ko-ruil- i l or *pwiyu with r.rl^stt-rui l-wil . Since olsu-rai

/-wi/ goes back to pJ *oi or *ui, this would make a comparison with Korean rather

il i ff icult. However, since k6-ruil- i l appears more fiequently in OJ than its tt lsu-nri

counterpart /-wi/, there is a strong possibil i ty that it was actually OJ *piyu.

Neverthcless. thcre is another possiblc phonetic problcrr.r in this comparison.

namely the correspondcnce of MJ --t,- to MK -/-.n In order for this conrparison to

work wc must f lrst assurle that MK pil i lm < pK *pitum, with well-known lenition

of -l- to -1-, whrch is possible, but again cannot be proven. Second, we also must

assume that MJ /i.t 'u < pJ *pidu. The hypothesis that O.l . l ' < pJ *d is widely

supported, but it is entirely based, I am afraid, on a mistaken theory that the

Yonagur.ri dialect which indeed has init ial z/- corresponding to QJ 1' (though oJ

medial -.1'- corresponds to Yonaguni --) ', not -zl-) preserves, alone anlong all

ternporal and geographical varieties of Japar.rese. a pJ *d which shifted to }

elsewhere (JLTT:20). The full discussion of this problem is outside the scope of

this chapter, but there are some good prelirninary argulnents against pJ *d based

on yonaguni r / - (whi tman 1985:18) . ' 'Wi th pJ *p idu being re jected as a possib le

proto-fbrn-r of the Japanese word, we are faced with two possibil i t ies: either

corespondence of pK *-t- to pJ *-y- (assuming that a lenition took place prior to

MK) or a correspondence of pK *-l- to pJ *-y-. Neither is an enticing solution.

and both rcqr.rire a great deal of explanation, but I ar.n wil l ing to accept this

etymology conditionally for t ire time bcing. Sti l l , i t is not a very reliable

etymology, and therelbre, it cannot provide full support for the correspondcnce of

Japanesc accent class 2.5 to MK -rl.

(4) Oi paru 2.5 'spr ing ' - MK pw6m ' id . ' . Here. I bel ieve. we have two

grave phonetic problcrns. First, OJ -/1 never corresponds to MK -O- excepl befbre

/i/. Second. even if this was to be confinned, there are no other instances of pJ*aCu corresponding to MK u,o. Thus, I think that thcse two words represcnt a

mcrely coincidental resetnblance.

' Mart in prgposcd to rcconstruct pJ K +i on thc basis of th is corrcspondcncc ( Mart in | 966:2 I I ) . but

nowadays it scct.t.ts that this proposal is no longer supported.

" l dcdicate a substant ia l chapter to th is issuc in a fbr lhcomtrrg book (Vovin. fbnhconl ing).

146 ALEXANDER VOVIN

(5 ) . lap i lnese acccnt c lass 2.5 for nominal forms of adjcc l ives l " designal ingcolors - MK verbal norrinalizer -rr. Phonctically, the conespondence seetns to bcimpeccablc. However, thcrc are trvo problcms. First. this particular shift from anoriginal accent class to accent class 2.5 when a word is uscd as a nominal is

l irnited in Japanese to adjcctives only. Second, we cannot verify that the sal"neprocess was applicable to other varieties simply because accent 2.5 class is not

attcsted in other varieties of Japancse outside MJ and the Kansai dialccts ofr-nodcrn Central Japanese (CJ). Thc l imited attestation within Japanese in this case(quite sirnilar to the case of the word for 'n-rorning' discussed above), I bclieve.pcrints rnore to thc borrowing scenario lrom some varicty of Old Korean to CJthan to colnmon genetic inheritance. This is even rlorc l ikely in the l ight of thelact that we arc dealing here with derivational and not irrf lectional rnorplrology;and thc fbnner is nrorc casily borrowed than the latter. Thcrcfore, I believe, thiscorespondence confims the archaic naturc of accent class 2.5 within CJ, but not

rvithin Japanese itsell ' .

Thercfbre, an attempt to rcsolve this controversy with the help of externaldata leaves us with only a partial solution. lt could be confinned that accent class2.5 has an archaic nature in CJ. so Tokugawa and Ramsey's point of view that thisaccent class originated in the post-MJ era can be rcliably refuted. However, it isirnpossiblc to confirrn the existence of accent class 2.5 in pJ. bccause out of thefive exarnples discussed above only (2) has a potential for being explained eitheras a comlron inhcritance or as a very old borrowing.

Neverlhcless, external evidence should ncver take precedcnce in

cxplaining internal data, otherwise one runs the very high risk of fall ing into a

Moscou'Nostratic trap. where intcrnal etymologies arc disregarded and externaletyrnologies overridc the intemal data. I bclieve that there is substantial internalJapanese evidencc supporting the archaic nature of acccnt class 2.5 not only onthc level of CJ, but on the pJ level. This evidence is bascd rnainly on dcrivationalmorphology. Consider the fbllowing examples:

a. O.l x,rlsn 2.5 'cldcr'

cf. O.f v'o.iarlc- 'to rule' < *wosarnaCi- < *wosatn-(r)a-Ci-.

b. OJ togu 2.5 'b lamc, of fence'cf . C)J toguntc- 'to blarne, to reproach' < *togamaCi- < *togarn-(r)a-Ci-.

r" So-cal lcd adjcct i res in MJ and other latcr var iet ies ofJapancsc are in {act qual i ty vcrbs. and not"ad. ject i r ,es" in thc scnsc of thc tcrnr assigned to adject ivcs ofEuropean languages. Thus. e.g. . MJ

l i i r t r - docs not lnean 'dark ' but rathcr ' to bc dark ' .

PROTO-JI

c. OI tutwo(_ni)cf . MJ tutome'to stnve, tounclear.

d. OI pa.t,a 2.5 '<

Examples (a-d) alsome denominal verbs uulLtldnlL't 'u "to wann up'kl 'omeru 'to purify' (< tnagame- 'to prolong vot,analyzes these verbs as cr(ILTT 792). At first gtanthat intransitive verbs crwhich Martin reconstruclalalarnlru'to bc warmedare lhrce argurncnts again

( l ) * -ma- i s a su funnecessary entity. By Cwith the nominalizer *-m

(2) Mart in 's analyrproduces yet one more supafi as norninalizer *-m-

rcceive qui te a symmetr ic i

transitives: adjecinrransi t ives: adjec

(3) In Mart in 's anrbr.rllz nouns and adjecttvetrcated as a final phonemrafter adjectives.

One rnight argue iand acccnt class 2.5, be,or -ment bclong to the 2.rnake go to thc end', frrpai

" No t l i s t cd i n Zdb . Ohno (199only obl iquc cvidence fbr tnat tthc basis ofthc fact that the vo,,as u 'c l l as possib ly on the basrs rr r Vcrbs l ikc homaru'praiscs ' ot

n g" D

beanis

me1otof

tse

CJthegv;hisnot

nalASS

hist r stheher

lno analmalon

rnal

PROTO-.IAPANESE BEYOND THE ACCENT SYSTEM 147

c. OJ tutw,o(-n i ; r r 2 .5 'ear ly in the rnorn ing,cf. MJ rulotnere'id.', believed to be a derivation from the oJ tutv,ome_'to strivc, to tnake effbrt ', although thc sernantic connection rernainsunclear .

d. OI pa.tu 2.5 'quickly' , cf . MJ / 'o.t,unte_

,Io quicken..

Exanrples (a-d) allow us to reanalyzc the derivation ofall deadjectival andsorle denominal verbs in -me- such as aralotl lent .to renew' (< arala-.ncw,).atatemeru " to warm up' (< orataku- 'wanr ' , i lumeru. to hur t ' (< i tu_.painfu l ' ) ,k i .vomeru ' to pur i fy ' (< k i ) ,o- 'pure ' ) , sebameru ' to narrow' (< semlba- .narrow') ,nagume- ' to pro long voice when rec i t ing poetry ' (< naga- ' long ' ) , e tc . r r Mar l inanalyzes thesc verbs as consisting of stem+suffix *-rna- + transitivity f l ipper *_Ci_(ILTT 792) At f irst glance, his point of view scerns to be supported by the facrthat intransitive verbs comespon<1ing to trarrsit ives in -meru all cnd in -ntut.tt.whiclr Martin reconstructs as *-ma-ra- (19g7:792): uratamartL .to be renewed'.atulutnunt 'to be warmcd up', sehamunt 'ro become natrow', etc. However. thereare thrce arguments against Martin's analysis:

( l) *-rra- is a suffix with an unclear function, thus it represenrs an extraunneccssary entity. By Ockham's razor ir is, therefore, pref-erable to replace itwith the norninalizer *-m to which verbalizer *-(r)a_ is added.

(2) Martin's analysis of intransitiv es in -ntaru as having a stcm in *-ma-ra-produces yet one more suffix *-ra- with an unclcar function. I icanalyze tl.re -ntarpan as nominalizer *-m * ysl6slizer *-(r)a- + passivizing suffix *_r_. Thus, wcrecelve quite a synlmetrical picture of how transitives and intransitives arc derived:

transitives: adjectival stern + *-nr * *-(r)a- + *-Ci-intransitives: adjectival stern l *-1r * *-(r)a- + x-1-

(3) In Mafiin's analysis it is unclear why his verbalizer *-ma- ls added tobolh nouns and adjcctives. This strangc fact can be easily explained if *-rn istreated as a final phonerne of the nominal root, but as a nominalizing suffix *_rnaf tcr adject ives.

one rnight argue against the connection between the final r-m rn nounsand accent class 2.5, because not all nouns with denominal vcrbs in _nrcruror -tnant be long to the 2.5 class. Thus, oJ kipa 2.3 'brink', cf. oI kipa,t?e- .tomake go to the end' , k ipamar- , k iparn- ' to reach the end' , oJ.s iu, '2 .1 .wr ink le ' .

" Not l is ted in Zdb. Ohno (1990:t t t t4) t ranscr ibcs i t as tutv 'o rv i th type A / -u,o/ , a l though thcre isonly obl ique o ' idence for that (s ince thc word i tsc l f is nor at tested phonographical ly in O. l ) onthe basis of thc tact thal the vowels /u/ and 1oi do not normal ly .u,r . rb in. rog. tn.r wi th in one root .as wcf f as possibly on thc basis of the type A r,'owcl in the vcrb ruttone- 'to strive, to makc cflbr1.lr Verbs llkc h.nrt'r'tr 'praiscs'

ctr hu:irnLertr 'bcgins'. of coursc, do n.t bclonq hcre.

ci-

d not., MJ

l4u n LITXANDER VOVIN

OJ .s lnnnl - l r ' to wr ink le ' (Modem. lapanese s iv 'onte-) . The second case looks l ikea real exception. but I rvil l try to show later that there is evidencc for OJ kipa 2.3'br ink ' having an or ig inal 2.5 accent .

Therc are also sorne bird narnes belonging to accent class 2.5 besides 1lo"l' c rane 'a l ready rnen t i oned above : . s rg i ' sn ipe ' , OJ t c t t l u ' c ranc ' , l r . r b l ' k i t e ' ,tokilnki 'rbis'. lukulzrrl lr 'owl'. Cf. sufflx -me in other bird names: stt:ume'sparrow' . kumome'seagul l ' . . r in lc 'har t ' f inch ' . MJ lubukuronte 'swal low' . I t isinteresting that that none of thc bird narles found in acccnt class 2.5 has thissufflx. Thus. it is possible to speculate that accent class 2.5 in these wordsoriginatcd as a truncation of thc sr,rff lx -rie.

The evidence citcd above directly points to *-m as a source ofaccent class2.5. ln addi t ion. there is in tcrnal ev idence that ind icates that some k ind of nasal(no d i rect cv idence for * -m) undcr l ies accent c lass 2.5:

a. OJ lr.s[l lr.r 2.5 'a breath cxhaled through a narrou'cd rrouth', cf. OJusfir)obuk-lu,;lu' lontuk- 'to exhale a breath making one's ntouth narrowcr'< *usu'onpuka- < ?*uswom-puk-(r)a-.

b. J nusu 2.-5 'cggplant ' , c f . MJ nusubi 3.5b ' id . ' , wi th unclear suf f lxat ion <*nasunpi < ?*nasumpi. which can be an altcrnation of an earlier *nasutn-

l .

Finally, thcrc are some exafirples that constitute additional externalevidence (whether these are to be taken as cognates or as early loanwords):

a. OJ pemi 2.5 'snakc' has *-m preserved intact due to the fact that it isfollowed by obsolctc sufflx -r (dirninutive'?). Marrin believes IhaI OJ pemi2.5 < *paCi imi 3.6 (JLTT:404). Cf . MK p61'dm'snakc ' .

b. OJ nlrsl 2.5 'rnaster' "- ' OK *rrVlim ' lord' (> MK '.nint). The vocalism inthc first syllable may bc a problernl the vocalism of the first syllable in OKis unclear.

c . OJ mosu(-n i ) 2 .5 ' t ru ly ' , possib ly f rorn mu- ' t rue '* - .so ' ' ! ' , which can becompared with MK c'hom 'truly, really'.

d . OJ .saru 2.5 'monkcy ' - WM sannay' t ' in ' id . ' .c. OJ u.sagi 3.6 'harc'. cf. development of 3.6 to 2.5 in OJ pemi 'snake'

above. Cf. Koguryo *osigam 'hare'.

The last cxarnple brings us to an intcrcsting internal issuc. On the basis ofKoguryo *osigam we would expect that the p.l xusagi would bclong to accent

'Zdb l is ts.srurr i l - as a consonanlal vcrb. Thc cramples. both in logographic scr ipt in OJ and in

phonet ic in MJ. prol idc no basis lbr conclusion thal .v iualr - used to be a consonant rather than a

vou,e I r,crb in O.l. The earliest knovn'n attcstation of this "'erb

is in thc fom silrrbi/arrlit'r'ir 'has

*,rinkfed' (Konjuku nutnoguturi 26.2) that shows that it is either a consonantal or upper-bigradc

vou'c l vcrb (Ohno 1990:695).' ' I anr indebted to Bla inc Er ickson lbr noint ins th is out to l Ic .

PROTO-JI

c lass 3.7 (LHL-L) that caccent c lass 3.6 (LHH_Ihave a number of casesaccentuatton could makealthough the bulk of thr'sa lmon'

2.512.3 ' l or abo,typical for accent classesnrade above regarding thsuggests a hypothesis tlattrit ion: a number of wcunder 2.4, 2.3, and 3.6. r5lirrrhcr supporl rhis aflrit ir

OJ asa 'hemp' 2

Kyoto and Shuri is ineguaccentual class, although l

Now we can retur2. -5. OJ k ipami , l imi t ' ,

drKyoto has irregular accenand not 3.6, suggesting, hr

Final ly , I am norntonotroralc accent classwords. I would rather fol( lJH-L) and 2.2b (HL-L) .the fall of pitch that Ungethc fall within Ihe last mc

./it I I ov, i n g case pa rtic le, buThe isolation forrn for mo,to the fact that Kyoto autoalso ncccssary to keep in rregister class. Thus, one stbelonging to accent class I

Therelorc, I believcsolne extent external, to l irf inal consonant *-rn. It rs tto1'final *-r.r.r for every nourno surprise, because not erfiom these nouns. It is notexplanation is even smalleris that accent c lass 2.5 rsrightfully belongs ro pJ. Hbecause its specific shape

r5 Mart in notecl that . .a nunrber o lsh i f i cd t o 2 .1 " ( JLTT : I 77 ) .

case looks l ike-or OI kipct 2.3

.5 besides /lo' lr: ' , l r . r b l ' k i t e ' ,alnes" sllzltme;wal low' . I t is;s 2.5 has th isr these words

ofaccent c lassr kind of nasal

routh', cf. OJruth narrower'

r suffixation <arlier *nasum-

ional externalvords):

fact that it iss that OI pemi

re vocalism insyllable in OK

which can be

pemi 'snake'

)n the basis ofong to accent

ript in OJ and inrant rather than avabiturikeru 'has

or upper-bigrade

PROTO-JAPANESE BEYOND THE ACCENT SYSTEM I4g

class 3.7 (LHL-L) that conerates wi th accent crass 2.5 (LH_L), but r t belongs toaccent crass 3.6 (LHH-H), which corrcrates wi th 2.4 (LH-H). F.ur thennore, wehave a number of cases where either a lack of accentual dutu o. rrregurarity inaccentuation courd make a choice between 2.5 and 2.4 0r 2..5 0, i : qucrtionabre,a l though the burk of the ev idence norma'y points to crass z. i (c f . , e .g. , .sare'salmon' 2.512.3'r or above-rnentioned u,,^ra .elder,

2.512.4,r\. The sa'e prcture rstypical for accent crasses 3.6 and 3.7. This, in combinat ion wi th the observat ionmadc above regarding the potentiar Koguryo cognatc *osigar.r for pJ *usagi 3.6,suggests a hypothesis that the srnall Jasses 2.5 and 3.7"a/b becarne srrall byattrit ion: a number of words that used to bclong to those classes are now fbundunder 2.4, 2.3. and 3.6. r 's There is one addrt ronar extemal compa.son that courdlurther suppor-t this attrit ion hypothesis:OJ asu 'hernp'

2.3 _ MK sam ,id., . The accentuation in both modcrnKyoto and Shurr is irregular (JLTT:3g4), possibry suggesting a shift frorr anotheracccntual class. although Kyoto and Shuri contradict each other.Now we can return to the issue of why oI k ipa,br i 'k , is 2.3 rather than2 5. oJ kipctni 'r imit ',

derived frorn kipatn- .to reach the end,, is 3.6 (arthoughKyoto has irregurar accent). the 3-mora accent class that correrates with 2.3 is 3.4,and not 3.6, suggesting, however, that the original crass of tr4r,,rruy rruu" becn 2.-5.Finally, I arn, not. srrre that Unger is right when t "

lrr",-t, that the'onol rorarc accent c lass 1.2 (H-L) corre lates wi th accent crass 2.5 lbr b imoraicwords' I wourd rathcr follow the traditionar position that it corrcrates rvith 2.2a(llH-L) and 2.2b (HL-L). The principar diff 'erence between 1.2 and 2.5, regardingthe fall of pircrr that Unger rnentions, is thai in Kyoto-type diarects class 2.5 hasthc fall v'ithin rhe last mora ,in i.vtratetr /brnt, and r4ie,:ihe last mora he/itre tha./bllov'ing t 'ase parric/e, but crass 1.2 in hoth.a.rer has the fall ct/ ierrhefirst rnora.The isolation forrr fbr modem Kyoto is HL, the same as to, u...nt class 2.2, dueto the fact that Kyoto automatically rengthens one-mora words to two_moras. rt isa lso necessary ro keep in min. tnai z .s i , u to*- regis ter c lass, whi le I .2 is a h igh_register class. Thus. one should not expcct to find any final *-,n unJc.tyrng wordsbelonging to accent c lass 1.2,

Therefbrc. I berievc that there is suflrcient evidence, rnainly internal ancr tosorne extent extcrnal. to l ink the origins of accent class 2.5 in pl wrtn a loss of thcfinal consonant *-rn. rt is true that it- is not fossible to dernonsirate the probabirityof f inal *-rn for every noun belonging to accent crass 2.5, but that shourd come asno surp'se, because not every noun in this crass has verbal .oun*,pu., ' dcrivcdfrom these nouns' It is not surprising that the number of words with an cxternalexplanation is even smailer. Thus, th*e concrusion for the trrst pu.t ortnr,, chapteris that accent crass 2.5 is not a recent innovat ion in Kansai d iarects, but that i tr ightfully belongs to pJ. However, within the pJ accent systenr i1 is secon<lary,because its specific shape (the fall of pitch wrthin the last rnora) rs due to a

:;Y,::il i: j:i j l1l;X#i:r., of words in crass 2.1/5 with nnaropcrr vower in ord.rapancsc harc

1 5 0 ALI]XANDER VOVIN

sinplif ication of segmcntal phonetics, nanlcly the loss of the final consonant *-tn.

This should come as no sulprise. becausc pitch acccnts. l ikc lones. do not

represent an original characteristic of a language; they rnust colne from

somcwhere. This 'sorncwhere' usually tulxs out to bc certain segmental f 'catures

that cither merged w'ith other features, or have been lost altogethcr, leaving their

traces in the shape of tones or pitch accent. This brings us to the second problcnl

to be discussed in this chapter: the conelation bctween low register and vowel

length.

3. The segmental sources oJ low registerMartin suggested that pj low register probably reflects init ial vowel length

in pre-p.f (ILTT:249-53). I later argucd that this solution is l ikely to be only

partially plausible, because thcre are morc words with init ial low registcr than

words with high registcr, and this creates a typologically unjustif icd situation lvith

long vowels occurring more frcquently in init ial syllables than short vowels(Vovin 1995:131). I proposed to remedy th is by posi t ing two sources for words

with low register: pre-pJ vowcl length. as suggestcd by Martin, plus prc-pJ init ial

voiced consonants. and offcred somc external cvidence fbr the origin of low

register from init ial voiccd consonants (Vovin 1995 124-31). This solution,

although typologically more clegant, suf-fers from three rnaior problems:

(1) Until recently it was impossible to tell on thc basis of the internal

Japanese evidence which low register words would retlcct init ial vowel length and

which u'ould reflect init ial voiced consonantsl

(2) t was sti l l adhering at this point to thc traditional reconstruction that

posits pJ *b- and *d- on the basis of the Sakishima Ryukyuan evidence. This

crcated two different reconstructed series of voiced *b- and *d-: one on the basis

of the Sakishima evidence. and the other on the basis of the lou'register;

(3) It was unclear what to do with high register words that start with

vowels or nasal sonorants *m- and *n-: surely these are also voiced. Thus. on rny

earlier cxplanation, they should be all expected to be found in low register classes,

which ccrtainly also have the ir share of vowel and nasal sonorant inlt ial words.

My tentative solution was to posit an init ial glottal stop or *H- for high register

words starting with vowels and nasal sonorants versus smooth vocalic ingress and

pure nasal sonorants for low register words (Vovin 1995:131-32) . As I wi l l t ry to

demonstrate below, this solution may sttl l be partially true. although at that t ime

without a solution to ( I ) it was lrlere speculation.

Regarding the major problern ( I ) above, Hattori was the first l inguist to

suggest that Ryukyuan preservcs vowel length in some words belonging to accent

c lasses 2.3,2.4, and 2.5 (NSNT 21 ,22) . He a lso added a couple of exarnples of

words with vowel length from accent class 2.2. Hattori 's proposal was largely

PROTO-JA]

bascd on correspondencerand Onna, as vowel lenlHatror i labeled 2.1-2.5 nosarne classes without vow,2.3b-2.5b below). The apparc a number of examples(NSNT 2 l : 103 -05 ) , t he expresentatrons are very scaout. l lattori 's correspondtsignil icant refinement of Fby Moriyo Shirnabukuro,Shirnabukuro, this volumernostly corclate with thernost u,ords belonging tootherwise secondary (SShirnabukuro managed treconstruction of vowel ldialects rather- than just ondata are not consistent. INakij in dialec regularly cr2.3a-2.5a, whi le there is nclcngth in Shuri (subclasses

Gloss &

rnortar 2.

brcath 2.,

needle 2. ,

shadow 2

bucket 2.

bridegroc

flower 2..

nountaln

cloud 2.31

shoulder I

board 2.4i

ra in 2.5b

sweat 2.51

Shimabukuro recons2.5a in th is table and in the

' t ' Fn. I in Shimabukuro's chapter

PROTO- jAPANESE BEYOND TI IE ACCI INT SYSTEM l5 l

based on correspondences within several Okinawan dialects, in particular Shuri

and Onna, as vowel length does not seem to be prcserved outside Okinawa.

Hat tor i labeled 2.3-2.5 nouns wi th vowel length as subclass ( l ) and nouns in thc

same classcs without vowel length as subclass (2) (these are labeled 2.3a-2.5a and

2.3b-2.5b bclow). Thc apparcnt weakness of Hattori 's proposal is that while there

are a nurnber of examplcs with and without vowel lcngth fbr classes 2.4 and 2.5

(NSNT 2l :103-05) . the examples wi th vowel length fbr c lasses 2.3 and 2.2 in h is

presentations are vcry scarce (NSNT 22'.100-0 l). In addition, as Martin pointed

out . Hat tor i 's concspondences somet imes are not consistent (JLTT:252-53) . A

significant refinerncnt of Hattori 's proposal has been made in a reccnt dissertation

by Moriyo Shimabukuro. who demonstrated two impo(ant facts (2002: see also

Shirnabukuro, this volutne). First, words with l irst syllable vo\\ 'el length in Shuri

rrostly corrclate with the low pitch classes 2.3-2.5, and init ial vowel length in

most words bclonging to classes 2.1-2.2 is eithcr found in colnpounds or is

othenvise sccondary (Shimabukuro 2002:293). Second, most lmportant,

Shirnabukuro rnanagcd to find a strong intcrnal colTclation supporti lrg a

rcconstruction of vowel lcngth in Ryukyuan on the basis of two Okir.rawan

dialects rather than just onc, thus taking carc of Martin's objection that Hattori 's

data arc not consistent. Shirnabukuro demonstrated that init ial accent in thc

Nakij in dialcct regularly corresponds to vowcl length in Shuri for thc subclasses

2.3a-2.5a, rvhile thcre is no such colrcspondcnce in the case of absencc of vowcl

lcngth in Shur i (subclasses 2.3b-2.5b) (Shi rnabukuro 2002:203):" '

Gloss & accent class Naki i in Shuri

nrortar 2..la

brcath 2.4a

necdlc 2., la

shadou' 2.5a

bucket 2.5a

bridegroonr 2.5a

l lorver 2.3b

nrountain 2.3b

c loud 2 . lb

shoulder 2.4b

board 2.4b

rarn 2 .5b

su'cat 2.5b

Table 3

Shimabukuro reconstructs vowel length for the words belonging to 2.4a-

2.5a in this table and in the absence of any other cogent explanation I would l ike

' " Fn. I in Shirnabukuro's chaptcr rn th is book explains the syrnbols used in Tables 3-6

' lulsi(:) -

'?u:si

i lc i( :) : '1i : .^ i

p la l i ha : i

ha lg i ( : ) ka :g i

n u l t n i ( : ) u : k i

mu lhu( : ) ,n ru .ku

_phirna: hana

yarrlil: Jarlla

KUIIU: KLl l l lu

hata: kata

hica: '1 ica

_'?arli '/anri

hasi : '?asi

;t)

oIt)fi]

1 5 2 ALI ]XANDER VOVIN

to agree with him. What rernains to be explained, though, is the absence of wordsbelonging to 2.3a in this table; in this regard we achieved no significantirnprovement ovcr Hattori. Shirnabukuro also presents tl.rree exceptions to the

correspondence o1'long vowel in Shuri to init ial acccnt in Nakrjin, whcrc init ial

acccnt in Nakij in corresponds to short vowel in Shuri (Shimabukuro 2002:204):

Gloss & accen l c l ass Nak i i i n

bonc 2.- la

boat 2.4a

sca 2.4a

phLrlni( :)

phu-lni(: )' iulnri( :)

hun i

huni

?umi

Table 4

Shirnabukuro argues that the vo\vel of the first syllable "must have been

long earlier in its history. but it has bcen irregularly shortened" (Shimabukuro

2002:204). I-le further suppofis this point with cxarnples of long vowels in thesethrec words found in thc Kamishiro. Onna, and Matsuda dialects (Shimabukuro

2002:204), but this is sti l l reminiscent of Hattori 's irregular correspondencescrit icized by Martin. Although Shimabukuro may be ultimately right. for the sakeof kecping the corrcspondences as tight as possible, I wil l omit these three wordsfrom tufiher consideratton.

Therefore. although the issuc of regularity within Okinawan raised byMartin has bcen" I believe. rcsolved answered in Shimabukuro's dissertation.there renrains a problem as to whether it is possible to reconstruct separatesubclasscs (a), involving vowcl length, and (b), without vowel lcngth for accent

class 2.3. I believe that in spite of the fact that both Hattori and Shimabukurcrfailed to providc a decisive answer to this problem (both give iust one cxampleeach for subclass 2.3a (NSNT 22:100. Shirnabukuro 2002:204, 369)). theirintuit it,c solution is in fact correct, because there are uncontroversial examplesbelonging to subclass 2.3a that I add in Table 5 which is othcruise based on atablc found in Shimabukuro's dissertation that presents the reconstruction of two

diffcrent subclasses (a) and (b) for acccnt classes 2.3-2.5 (Shirnabukuro 2002:369-

7 0 ) . ' 'One can clearly sce that words bclonging to subclass (a) have vowel length

in their f irst syllables. supporting Martin's hypothesis about the origin of thc low

register from vowel lcngth. But it can be supported only partially, since thcre are

no traces of vowel length in the u'ords belonging to subclass (b). However, it doesnot make sense that some words itt p.l have init ial low register. and others have

r - I took thc l ibcrry o1'ntaking sorrc changes to Shirr rabukuro's pJ and pR reconstruct ions that ,1br

cxample. rcflcct the cument u'isdonr on presen'ation of prir.nary pJ *o and xc. which underwcnl

rars ing in ( 'entra l Japancsc to, 'u/ and, , i i . tsesidcs *ords bclonging to 2.3a. I have also tnadc sotr te

other addi t ions rvherc ShimabLrkuro 's onsinal cxarnrr les d id not seern to be suf l ]c ient .

PROTO-JAP,

init ial vowel lcngth, withregistcr. It is rnost l ikely I

Glosstor lo ise 2.3a

ol fshore 2.3a

ja r 2 .3a

bcan 2.3a

ba l l 2 . 3a

root 2.3a

l lowcr f .Jb

ntountain 2.3b

c loud 2 .3b

dog 2 .3b

wal .c 2. ib

shank 2 . l b

brcath 2.4a

ntoftar 2.4a

chopst icks 2.4a

needle 2.4a

board 2..{b

lbotprinr 2..{b

s l t ou ldc l 1 . 46

drcg: ) .4b

nun rhc r l . 4b

sk i r r 1. . {b

hueke r l . 5a

br idcgroonr 2.5a

r o i cc 2 .5u

:p i de l l . 5u

sh rdou l . 5a

s i r ca t 2 .5b

ra i r r 2 . 5b

:p r rng l . 5h

c ranc 2 .5b

origin in pre-pJ scgmentalsorne u'ords belonging to tlsecr.ns to be the only conctinit ial low register developseglnents. There are simplyaecounl of - words belonginwords belonging to subcl

PROTO-. IAPANESE BEYOND THE ACCENT SYSTEM

init ial vowel length. with low registcr and vou,el lcngth later rncrging as lowregister . l t is rnost l ike ly that the in i t ia l low register in subclass (b) a lso has an

Gloss pR pMJ pJ

tortoisc 2.3a *kha:rnc) *- ooO) * kamey * OO * ka:may * ooOolkhorc 2 .3a * '?u :k i ) * ooO) * ok i *_OO * o :k i x . .ojar 2.3a xkha:rnc) * ooO) * karne x C)C) * ka:rre * ooobean 2.3a *nra:r lc) *_ooO) * rranrcy + OO x ma:may * oo(.)bal l 2.3a *nra:i) * ooO) * r lar i * OO * nra:r i * ooOroot 2.3a *ntu:tul x ooO) * ntoto * OO * nro:to s oo()l lou'er 2.-3b * phana * OOI * pana * 0O * pana * OOnlountain 2.3b * vanra * OOI * 1,a1ta * OO * yalra * Oocloud 2.3b x khuntu * OOI * kuntwo + OO * kunto * (X)

dog 2.3b * ?cnu * OOI * irru * OO + c'u + OC)u,ave 2.3b * narni * OOI * natl i + OO * nanti * OC)shank 2 .3b * sun i * OOI * sunc ' * OO * sunc + (X)

breath 2.4a s'?i:ki) *ooo) * i lkyi *o[o * ' / i : [ki *oo[o

tnorlar 2.4a * '?u:si) *ooo) *uf su *O[O *' /u:[su *oo[o

chopsticks 2.4a *pha:si) *ooO) *pafsiy *O[O *pa:[suy *oo[O

nccdle 2.4a *pha:r i) *ooO) *pafr iy *O[O *pa:[ruy *oo[{)

boarcl 2.4b x ?ital * ool * i [ ta *o[o *i [ ta *o[c)

lborprinl 2.4b * 'latul * OO'l *a[to *O[O *a[ro *o[C)

shoulcl i i r 2.4b * kharal * (x)- l *kalta *o[O *kafra *O[o

dregs 2.4b * khasul * ool *kafsu *O[o *kalsu *o[o

numbcr 2.4b * khazu-l * Ool *kalnsu *O[o *kafnsu *o[o

skin 2.zlb *,-phada-l * OOI *pafnra *O[O *pafnta *O[t)

buckct 2.5a *wo:khe) *ooO) *wokeyT*Oo-l *wo:kayl *ooO-l

bridcgroon 2.5a *rro:kho) *ooO) *mukwo-l *OOl *mo:kol *ooO-l

vo ice 2 .5a *khu:c ) *ooO) *kq \ \ ,cy l *OOl *ko : rvay l *ooOl

spidcr 2.5a *kho:bo) *ooO) *kurnwo-l *(X) l *ko:nrf plo i +ooo-l

shadow 2.5a *kha:ge) *ooO) *kagcyT *OO-l *ka:nkay-l *ooOl

sweat 2.5b * ' /asi l* ool *ascl *ool *ascl *(x) l

rain 2.-5b * ' lanrcl * ool *amcy-l *ool *amayl*t)Ol

spring 2.5b * pharuT * Ool *parul*ool *paruT *OOl

cranc 2.5b * thurul * ool *turuml *ool *turunrl *ool

Table 5

origin in pre-pJ segrnental phonology. My carlier hypothesis that the init ials insotre words belonging to the low register classes go back to voiced segntents thusseelns to be the only concrete solution based on internal reconstruction, becauseinitial low register dcvelops either from init ial vowel lcngth or from init ial voiccdsegments. There are sirnply no other possible sources, and vowel length only takcsaccount of words belonging to subclass (a). I thereforc propose to rcconstruct p.lwords belonging to subclasses 2.3b-2.5b wi th in i t ia l vo iced onscts, inc luding

t 53

)nce of wordso significantptions to thewhere init ial

2002"204):

lst have beenShimabukuro)wels in theseShimabukuroTespondencest, for the sakce three rvords

ran raised by; dissertation,lruct separategth for accentShimabukuroone example369)), their

sial examplesse based on auction of twosro 2002'.369-

: vowel lengthgin of the lowiince there arewever, it doesrd others have

lructions that, forwhich underwent: also made somcent.

1 5 4 ALEXANDER VOVIN

voiced obstruents, nasal sonorants, and smooth vocalic ingress. All these wordshave short vowels in the first syllable. All words belonging to subclasscs 2.3a-2.5a are reconstructed with long vowels in the first syllable. Theoretically, theycould have voiced onscts as well, but we sirnply have no evidence lbr that. Itentatively reconstrucl voiceless onsets for words beginning with obstruents.vowcl-init ial words are reconstructed with init ial glottal stop *?-, which alsobehaves as a voiceless onset. Neveftheless, I reconstruct words with init ial nasalsonorants belonging to subclasses 2.3a-2.5a as having voiced onset and init ialvowel lcngth. Thc reason fbr this is cornbinatorial and wil l become clear when Idcal with reconstruction of onsets of high register words below.

As I n-rentioned above, there is a possible contradiction betwcen thisrcconstruction and a traditional reconstruction of pJ that posits pJ *b- and *d- onthe basis of the Sakishima b- and Yonaguni r/- evidence. The discussion of whythe Sakishima and Yonaguni evidence is not admissible falls outside the scopc ofthis chapter, but I bclieve that we should reconstruct just pJ *w- and *y-, and Iaddrcss this issue in greater detail in a forthcorning book (Vovin, fbrthcorning).Thus, the major problem (2), rncntioned above wil l be taken care o1, since thercwill not be two diflerent scries of init ial voiced obstruents reconstructed for pJ.

Thus, Table 5 above can bc re-written as in Table 6, elirninating low init ialrcgister for pJ altogether and replacing it with voiccd onsets for thc subclasses2.3b-2.5b and vowel length in first syllablc for thc subclasses 2.3a-2.5a.tE

As the major problerns ( l ) and (2) havc been solved above. i t is nowpossible to address problcm (3): that is, what kind of onsets should bereconstructcd for the words belongrng to high-register classes. Since init ial lowregister has been eliminated fiorn thc reconstruction, it does not make sense topreserve high register either. I think that high rcgister words should all bereconstructed as words with voiceless onsets and with shorl vowels in their f irstsyllables. Thus, the following reconstructions are suggested for the three diffbrenttypes of onsets (l use the syllables lal , l tal , and lnal as exarnples):

The reason for reconstructing nasal sonorant onsets belonging tosubclasses 2.3a-2.5a as voiced with vowel lcngth is purely combinatorial, as Imentioned above. Voiced nasals occur cross-linguistically rnuch more fiequerrtlyin the languages that have both voiced nasals and voiceless nasals (pre-glottalizednasals function as voiceless). Sincc I recorrstruct *?n- and *'?m- fbr words withnasal sonorant in i t ia ls belonging to t radi t ional accent c lasses 2.1-2.2,rcconstructing prcglottalized nasals for subclasses 2.3a-2.5a would produce morepreglottalized nasal sonorants than voiced nasal sonorants in the proto-language,which would be typological ly unexpected.r"

' " Notc that wc cannot cornplete ly c l iminatc non- in i t ra l p i tch: w,c have no segmental cxplanat ionlbr h igh pi tch on thc second mora of 2. . l . For 2.5. as i t rvas suggested above, thc la l l ing pi tch onthc secol td mora can bc expla incd as thc rcsul t of thc loss of f inal * -nt . but only onc word in thetehlc has a di rcct er idcrrce lb l i t ." I t is necessary to kecp in rn incl that a reconstruct ion ofpre-glot ta l ized nasals * ' ln- and *?m- mayactual ly be rewr i t tsn as a rcconstrucl ion ofvoicclcss nasals xhn- and *hnt- .

PROTO.JAI

Gloss

tor to ise 2.3a

ol l .shore 2.3a

.1a r 2 .3a

bcan 2.3a

ba l l 2 . 3a

roo t 2 .3a

f lowcr 2.3b

nrountain 2.- lb

c l oud 2 .3b

dog 2 .3b

wavc l . 3b

shank 2 .3b

brcath 2..1a

nrof iar 2.4a

chopst icks 2.4a

nccdlc 2. ' la

board 2.,{b

lootpr int 2.4b

shouldcr 2.4b

dregs 2.4b

t t r rnbcr 2. .1b

skin 2. : lb

bucke t 2 .5a

br idcgroonr 2.5a

voicc f . -5a

sp ide r 2 .5a

shaclou 2.5a

su cat 2.-5b

rain 2.-5b

spr ing 2.-sb

cranc l . -5b

T) 'pe of onse

vowcl zr-

0bstruent ld-

nasal na-

PROTO-JAPANESI ] BEYOND THI l ACCENT SYSTEM r 55

)rds.3a-heyrt. I)ntS.alsoasalit iale n l

Gloss pR PMJ pJ

tor lo isc 2.3a

of l lhorc 2.3a

. jar 2.-1a

bcan 2 .3a

ba l l 2 . 3a

root 2.- la

1 ' lou,er 2.Jb

mountain 2.3b

c loud 2 .3b

dog 2 .3b

r.var c l .Jb

shank 2 .3b

brcath 2.4a

rnortar 2.'{a

chopst icks 2.4a

necdlc 2. ' la

board 2..1b

fbotpr int 2.4b

shouldcr 2.4b

drcgs 2.4b

nunrbcr 2. '1b

skin 2.z lb

buckc t 2 .5a

br idegroonr 2.5a

vo i cc 2 .5a

sp idc r 2 .5a

shadou 2.5a

s\ \ 'cat 2.-5b

ra i n 2 .5b

sp r i ng 2 .5b

c ranc 2 .5b

*1hana * OOI* yama * OOI* khurnu * OOI* ' icnu * OOI* nami * OOI

* pana * OO *bana

* yarla * C)O *yanra

*_kunr* 'o x OO +gut.no

* inu * OO tcr tu

* nanr i + OO *naml

*kha:me) * ooC)\ * kanrey + Of) *ka:ruay

* ' / u : k i ) * ooO) * ok i * oo *o : k i

*kha:nrc) * ooO) + kanrc * OO *ka: tnc

*ma:rne' ) * ooO) + nramey * OC) * tna:may

*ma: i ) * ooC)) * nrar i x 0O *rna:r i

+nru: tu) * ooO) * moto * OO *t .nq: tq

this- o n

whye o fn d l, ' 6 t '

nere

. . 'l t la l

nowbe

low,e tol b efirst)rent

I t oA S I

rntlyl izedwith

1 . \

rorerage,

tatron

:ch on

in the

,- may

* suni * tJ() l * sunc * OO*'?i:ki) *ooO) *i [ t<i, i *o[o

*, i u:si l *ooo) *ulsLr *O[o

* ?iral * ool *i[ta *o[9* '?aruJ * ool *,,ftq *o[t)x khatal * ool *kafta *o[o

+pha:si) *ooO) *paf siy *O[o *pa:lrLry *,ro[{)

*pha:r i) xoool *palr iy xO[o *pa:[ruy *oof{)

*zunc

*' l i : [ki *oolc)

* ' lu:fsu *otfo

*i lra *o[O*altq *o[o*gafta *O[tl

* khasul * OO'l *kafsu *OfO *galsu *O[O

*_khazul * ool *kafnsu *o[o *galnsu *o[o

* phadal * OOI *palnta *o[O *balnta *o[O

*ri ,o:khc) *oool *u,okcyl*Oo l *wo:kay l *ooOT

smo:kho) *ooo) *nruku'ol *OO'l *nro:kol *ooC)l

*khu:c) *ooo) *kgr'n'cyl *oO1 *ko:wayl *oool

*kho:bo)*ooo) *kunnvo l * (X) l *ko :mIp ]o l *ooOl

*kha:gc) *ooo) *kagcy-l *ool *ka:nkay-l *oool

* '/asil * ool *asel *ool *atc l *ool* '?amcl l oo l *amey l *oo l *amav l *ool* pharu-l * ooT *paru'l *uol *barLr-l *ool* thurul * ool *t.,runrl *ool *durunr-l *ool

Table 6

Tvpc of onset 2.1-2.2 2.3a-2.5a 2.3b-2.5b

vorvcl a-

obstruent 1rr-

nasal la-

* '1a-

* ta-

* ' /na-

+ ' / a : -

E t i t : -

+ n a : -

* a -

*da

* n a

Table 7

r 56 ALEXANDER VOVIN

4. ConclusionIf rny reconstruction above is correct, it rnight have far-reaching

consequences for the study of the extcnral relationships of the Japanese languagefamily. A contrast betwecn srnooth vocalic ingress and an init ial glottal stop onone hand, and voiced and voiceless nasals on the other. has no parallels in the'Altaic' world. Instcad, these fcatures are widely found throughout South-EastAsia. lf the Japanese proto-language indccd arrived in Japan together with theYayoi culture, it should not be surprising to find some South-East Asian elunentsin Japanese, although at the present stagc ofour knowledge the exact naturc oftheconnection between Japancse and any of the major language farnil ies found inSouth-East Asia, if any, relnains at best hypothetical. The search for thesepossible conncctions is a legitimatc cnterprise, but it should bc carried out in acaLltlous manner.

RECONSTRI.

PROTO-JAPANESEISSUE,S AND PROSPECTS

Edited bY

BJARKE FRELLESVIGUniversity of Oxford 6 University of Oslo

JOHN WHITMANCornell UniversitY

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHI A