« first day (1101 days earlier)      last day (141 days later) » 

2:12 AM
How is everyone?
 
 
3 hours later…
ssb
5:16 AM
it's hot
and it's humid
and I don't feel fine..
 
> In addition to being a genitive, no was in OJ, and still is in NJ, an adnominal form of the copula. The genitive function of no seems to derive in pre-OJ from the function as adnominal copula, but at the OJ stage both functions of no were firmly established and fully independent. (A History of the Japanese Language, Frellesvig 2010, p.126)
 
ssb
In what way is it an adnominal form of the copula?
or rather what does that mean だっけ?
My jargon is still so rusty
 
Oh, you know how sometimes AであるB can be replaced with AのB?
 
ssb
Ohh, right
Was your reasoning for quoting that related to some discussion that I missed?
 
Various linguists trace that back to an old copula with forms like に and の and にて > で
Well, we've been sort of discussing it on and off over a period of months :-)
There's a couple older copulas, the n- one and the t- one
You'd recognize the difference from にある>なる and とある>たる, and from にして versus として
Martin call the n- one "objective" and the t- one "subjective"
It seems like に was originally a verb form, which explains why the conjunctive て was able to attach to it (as you know, て normally only attaches to verbs!)
 
ssb
5:29 AM
All this time I've been saying I'd learn more historical linguistics and classical Japanese, but..
 
So it's possible there was an older copula verb in pre-Japanese that it is a form of. I linked to a paper which suggested it was *ぬ "locative BE"
 
ssb
I only have vague familiarity with a lot of these constructions
 
ぬ as in いぬ?
 
Probably not
I put a star next to it to indicate that it's unattested / reconstructed :-)
It may not have existed
But it doesn't seem to have a semantic relationship to いぬ・しぬ・ぬ, does it?
 
there was also that rare beast, the monosyllabic verb, 寝(ぬ).
that's related to being in one place...
 
5:32 AM
Hmm. True!
I like being able to make this all make sense in my head, fit into a bigger picture, although I'm afraid not all the conjecture I've internalized may be right :-)
 
ssb
Are we talking about the verb ending ぬ like ならぬ or?
but that's not a copula, is it
 
No, a pre-Japanese copula which had already vanished (at least in that form) by Old Japanese
 
viewing にて as a -て verb construction makes some sense
negative ぬ is different
 
Most people agree on what that て is, but it seems odd to suggest that て attaches to a particle there and almost nowhere else
 
there's also perfective ぬ
that might be related
 
5:35 AM
Especially since つ, from which て is thought to be derived, never attached to に
 
if ぬ is already locative / perfective as a kind of verb, appending つ on that would be redundant (at least for the perfective part)
 
So the reconstruction of *ぬ is an attempt to address that problem
 
missed something -- which problem?
 
Explaining how て could attach to に
 
i.e. treating ぬ as a verb, in order to explain how て attaches to it?
aha
thx
this idea is growing on me
 
5:37 AM
The idea is that it was reanalyzed from a locative verb form to a copula form
And that this took place before Old Japanese was first written down
 
perfective ぬ could very well be some root verb that originally meant something like "to be in a state"
that would explain it's use as a perfective auxiliary,
and also dovetail into the use of に as a locative
 
Yes, this relates locative に and essive/copular に as originally the same thing
Vovin analyzes no and ni as forms of a defective pre-Japonic copula n-
Frellesvig says that the genitive no seems to have come from the adnominal copula no
No doesn't look (morphologically) like a verb form
To doesn't look like a verb form either. (Where did copular to come from?)
 
I note that, similar to perfective ぬ, there is perfective つ
 
5:59 AM
dubious about the nasu - nosu bit
how does that fit with naru - noru?
and the corresponding Korean pair of doublets?
nahta (nasu) - nohta (nosu)
nada (naru) - ?? (noru)
any idea what MYS is?
c.f. slide 5
probably Man'yōshū?
found it, was Man'yōshū.
 
Hmm. In modern Japanese, の can also often be paraphrased with にある, with a locative meaning: 大阪の家 ⇔ 大阪にある家
 
hm, yes, but sense is different (don't know if that matters though for this analysis)
okay, slogged through enough of that poem to get a sense of how なす is being used there
seems like [essive] + す (in the sense of active / causative) == a bit like "to make something like XX"
within the context of htat poem it makes more sense to me than in the isolated context of the slide
"making like XX" == nasu
"being XX" == naru
かな。。。
FWIW, the specific poem Frellesvig mentions is at etext.lib.virginia.edu/japanese/manyoshu/Man13Yo.html#3234
(for the nasu bit)
This nasu could be analyzed as the causative of hypothetical nu.
with naru as the corresponding passive / spontaneous.
s/causative/causative\/active/
 
6:42 AM
I need a way to absorb books into my brain faster :-)
@ssb I think this Frellesvig 2010 book would be a good place to start :-)
 
ssb
Which?
Oh I found it
6000 yen..
 
Curious about the kyere etc. forms --
aren't these all ki + some form of aru?
or is that decomposition purely hypothetical?
I was under the impression that it was largely accepted, but I'm not as widely read as I'd like, and maybe I got the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the way...
 
Yes, -kyer- "modal past" < *-ki-ar-
 
does anyone else find it odd that he doesn't mention that here?
 
He mentions it in his book :-)
Page 48
 
6:54 AM
aha, and on the very next slide (#31)... doh.
 
He gives two glosses, so perhaps he doesn't consider it clear which ki it is (I've seen previous discussion of this, but I've forgotten it already)
Oh, sorry, I don't have that open anymore
 
he's building a case for ki, so I was surprised he didn't bring this up sooner.
 
Incidentally, the case he builds for ki/si as a suppletive adjectival copula fit pretty well with Nishiyama's synchronic analysis where i is a suppletive form replacing ku ar-u most of the time
 
Slide 34, he deconstructs negative auxiliary zu as ani su
not familiar with that analysis -- i is a suppletive form in which contexts?
 
That makes sense, it gives a source for the voicing
Ah, here's the basic idea
 
6:57 AM
(ani + su commentary later, after we [hopefully] clear up suppletive i :) )
 
Adjectives derive most of their forms from the analytic 〜く+ある
So you get e.g. past 高かった = 高く+あった taka-k'atta
 
When you insert a particle, you can see it clearly: 高くもあった・高くさえなかった
 
高くさえなくあった。。。(^^)
 
With just a few frozen forms
The main exception in modern Japanese is that we don't say 高くある, we say 高い
But there are a couple situations where 高くある is possible, too
 
7:00 AM
how does that jive with the existence of OJ forms like takaki?
 
As before 〜べき
 
is this posited at the proto-J stage?
 
The analysis I was giving is mostly a synchronic one, but it fits decently with the history
It's just a little more complicated in a historical perspective
い comes from き of course
The /k/ was lost
 
some time from the Heian through Muromachi, but with reasons unclear for why ki > i was preserved but not ku > u
sure, politics moved east,
but if that was the whole reason, we should still have ki as well as ku
okay, I think I understand what you (and by extension Nishiyama) are saing.
re: ani su, that caught my eye in particular, as ani is a negation component in Korean
modern, anyway
dunno about Middle Korean or earlier
 
I'm not sure I follow--isn't loss of /k/ common in western dialects? As in ありがたく > ありがとう
 
7:03 AM
I've heard mention that Kansai still uses -u
 
Yeah
 
but parts further east and west still have ku
lots of innovation in Kansai
(historically, I mean)
 
Okay, I suppose I understood you backwards
 
whoops! anything I could help clarify?
 
Nishiyama's synchronic analysis likens く to で, so we have く+ある and で+ある
Which can fuse into い and だ, if I recall correctly how he phrases it
 
7:05 AM
if Kansai == *u* and Kantō = *ku*, then one would expect:
Kansai == *i* and Kantō = *ki*
given the eastern penchant for more conservative forms
 
Markdown is disabled on multi-line messages
 
interesting
 
Probably because of programmers pasting code :-)
Stack Exchange chat is silly.
 
anyway, one comment I ran into suggested that the preservation of ku in 標準語 was due to the capital moving to Edo at the end of the Muromachi.
(大賛成 re: silly)
but if ku preservation were only due to that change, then we should also see ki preservation in 標準語 -- but we don't.
which is curious.
 
I have no explanation
 
7:07 AM
sure
doesn't seem like anyone does
might come down to stylistic preferences and what songs were popular back in the day :)
humans (and languages) can be fickle
back to ani su,
is the a here meant to be the 未然形 ending of the preceding verb stem?
otherwise it looks unlikely.
 
Yeah, the 未然形 is viewed by many linguists as an artifact of analyzing Japanese at the mora level and not below
 
any idea what the prevailing view is regarding what it's an artifact of?
semantically it seems to make sense as a kind of irrealis, i.e. the verb in question hasn't happened or hasn't completed.
this actually makes negative ぬ and perfective ぬ identical
the action of the verb comes to an end (perfective ぬ) with the action incomplete (c.f. かかぬ) or complete (かきぬ)
so too with continuative auxiliary ふ
the action goes from being semelfactive (happens once) to ongoing
c.f. なびく vs. なびかう etc.
continuing in a not-quite-done state
i.e. ongoing or repeating
 
@EiríkrÚtlendi Identical in what sense? -(a)n- and -(i)n- seem to be different in form and meaning
 
as noted, ぬ marks end of action, with state depending on stem form of verb -- with 未然形, the verb is 未然, unfinished or unhappened.
 
Yeah, I see you're going with the traditional grammar analysis there
 
7:16 AM
with 連用形, the verb is carried out
 
Although I have no problem with analyzing -a- as a stem, either
 
one of the things I find interesting about the ani su listing is the idea that perhaps this might be a negative element a plus this hypothetical stative verb nu in the continuative form ni.
but that might be my thoughts running away with me; it's late here and I should really crash.
 
Frellesvig seems to suggest that originally it was part of a negative suffix *-an and the a at the beginning was reanalyzed as the mizenkei (in pre-Old Japanese?)
I'm going to have to read this more carefully later
 
an is a common negation element in modern Korean
 
This is a pretty interesting book, by the way :-)
 
7:24 AM
but then I also wonder if the idea of 未然形 might be applicable to this ki copula idea and the resulting question marker か, i.e. as an incomplete / inconclusive copular
 
Probably if I read through in order instead of flipping through I'll be less confused
 
interesting stuff, thanks for posting the link!
and now, I really must crash.
g'night!
 
Rest well!
 
 
2 hours later…
9:19 AM
Would 「投票しなかったら、構わないとするよ」be a good way of saying "If you don't vote, I will assume you don't mind"?
 
9:32 AM
@EiríkrÚtlendi Yes, Frellesvig thinks that perfective ぬ is related to this pre-OJ copula n-
 
 
4 hours later…
1:57 PM
How about 投票しない場合は、差支えないと思っていいですね。
投票しなかったら、それで構わないものと判断するよ。
とか
投票されない時は、差支えないものと判断させていただきます。<-- too polite?
 
I was thinking more of a colloquial thing :P
Something that would be said between friends
 
投票しなかったら、それでいいんだと受け止めるよ。
とかかな
投票しなかったら、それで構わないと思っていいよね。とか
 
Thanks Chocolate :)
 
Anytime ^^
 
 
1 hour later…
3:12 PM
この質問者、漢字読めないんじゃないかな。。。 japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/16294/…
 
3:23 PM
@ssb あら。風邪ですか
 
 
6 hours later…
9:28 PM
@snailboat, ta for the cite fix (japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/16148/…)
 

« first day (1101 days earlier)      last day (141 days later) »