# Proto-Japonic *e and *o in Eastern Old Japanese

Thomas Pellard

► To cite this version:

Thomas Pellard. Proto-Japonic *e and *o in Eastern Old Japanese. Cahiers de linguistique - Asie Orientale, 2008, 37 (2), pp.133-158. 10.1163/1960602808X00055. hal-00373303

HAL Id: hal-00373303

https://hal.science/hal-00373303v1

Submitted on 3 Apr 2009

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Proto-Japonic *e and *o in Eastern Old Japanese

Thomas PELLARD

In this article I examine the correspondences found between Western Old Japanese high vowels and Eastern Old Japanese midvowels in light of the recent hypotheses concerning the Proto-Japonic vowel system. Correspondences in both the morphology and the lexicon are established and then comparative evidence from several modern Japanese and Ryukyuan dialects is adduced to show that these are instances of retention of Proto-Japonic *e and *o.

**Keywords** : Eastern Old Japanese, Proto-Japonic, Japanese dialects, Ryukyuan.

Cet article examine les correspondances existant entre les voyelles hautes du japonais ancien de l'Ouest et les voyelles moyennes du japonais ancien de l'Est, à la lumière des récentes hypothèses sur le vocalisme du proto-japonique. Des correspondances à la fois dans le lexique et dans la morphologie sont établies, puis des données comparatives de plusieurs dialectes japonais modernes et de langues ryukyu sont fournies pour confirmer qu'il s'agit de cas de rétention des voyelles *e et *o du proto-japonique

*Mots-clés* : japonais ancien de l'Est, proto-japonique, dialectes japonais, langues ryukyu.
# 1. INTRODUCTION

The Old Japanese (OJ) language of the 7th and 8th centuries is known to us through a collection of mostly poetic texts written in Chinese characters used phonetically. The overwhelming majority of these texts, more than 4000 songs plus some prose, originates from the Yamato plain in Western Japan, where the government of the Yamato state was located. But several texts contain some material written in special varieties of Japanese from the Eastern provinces. These are:

- the *Azuma uta* (AU), 238 poems in volume XIV of the poetic anthology *Man'yōshū* (M, completed in 759), presented as poems from the Eastern region (out of which 8 are variants);

- the *Sakimori uta* (SU), 93 poems in volume XX of the *Man'yōshū*, composed by border guards from the Eastern region conscripted to Kyūshū, as well as by their wives;

- the *Hitachi Fudoki* (HFK), an imperial gazetteer of the Hitachi province, located in Eastern Japan, which contains 9 poems and was written after the imperial decree of 713.

These texts exhibit some peculiar phonological, grammatical and lexical elements, which can only be explained as dialectal features: most of the OJ texts are written in Western Old Japanese (WOJ), the language of the political center of the Yamato state, while the AU, SU and HFK reflect Eastern Old Japanese (EOJ), a dialect continuum of the Eastern provinces, which correspond to the modern regions of Tōhoku, Kantō and part of Chūbu.

These features are most numerous in the SU, whose authors are clearly identified as coming from the Eastern provinces. On the other hand some of the AU are clearly not written in EOJ but have been in fact composed by dignitaries of the capital sent to the East by the government (Mizushima 1984:221-222). The 9 poems of the HFK contain very few EOJ features and are not a very useful source.

Although comparatively well studied (Fukuda 1965, Hōjō 1966, Mizushima 1984, Mizushima 2005), EOJ data paradoxically
seem to have been until recently rather underestimated<fnref n="1" /> in the study of the history of the Japonic<fnref n="2" /> language family, long victim of the common prejudice that WOJ is the variety of Japonic closest to the proto-language. But it is clear that EOJ data are essential in many aspects (Antonov 2006, Vovin 2007, Vovin in press). Indeed, as will be demonstrated below, a thorough study reveals that a number of the peculiarities observed are in fact not unique to EOJ but can be found in some modern Japanese dialects and Ryukyuan, a sister branch of Japanese in the Japonic family<fnref n="3" />. They are thus not innovations but archaisms reflecting the proto-language.

The most striking of these features are the cases where we find WOJ high vowels *i*₁ and *u* respectively corresponding to EOJ<fnref n="4" /> midvowels *e*<sub>(1/2)</sub> and *o*<sub>(1)</sub>. Similar correspondences are also found between WOJ and Proto-Ryukyuan (PR), which leads us to reconstruct the midvowels *e* and *o* in Proto-Japonic (PJ, first centuries CE). The reconstruction of these vowels is also partially supported by philological evidence (Miyake 2003). A system of at least 6 vowels incorporating *e* and *o*<fnref n="5" />, absent from previous reconstructions based mainly on internal reconstruction of WOJ

<footnote n="1">¹ Notable exceptions are Hōjō (1966), Thorpe (1983), Haggers (2000), and Hino (2003).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² *Japonic* is now a fairly common term including both Japanese and the Ryukyuan languages.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ I have modified transcriptions of data from Japanese and Ryukyuan dialects to a more phonetic notation, but without any accentual or tonal marks.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Eastern Old Japanese will be transcribed as Western Old Japanese, with A-type (*kō-rui*) syllables marked with a 1 subscripted after the vowel (*i*₁, *e*₁, *o*₁), and B-type (*otsu-rui*) ones with a 2 (*i*₂, *e*₂, *o*₂), those without distinctions remaining unmarked (*i*, *e*, *o*), without discussing here the problem of whether EOJ had this distinction (it seems that EOJ did not distinguish between *i*₁ and *i*₂ or *e*₁ and *e*₂, but distinguish *o*₁ and *o*₂; see Fukuda 1965, Mizushima 1984, Mizushima 2005).</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Hattori (1978-1979) and Frellesvig & Whitman (2004) both reconstruct a seventh vowel, respectively *ü* and *i*, but for different reasons. Their hypotheses are supported by very few examples and have not received general acceptance.</footnote>
(Whitman 1990, Martin 1987), is thus now generally accepted for PJ (Hattori 1978-1979, Frellesvig & Whitman 2008, Vovin in press).

<table><caption>Table 1: PJ vowels</caption><thead><tr><th>*i</th><th>*u</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>*e</td><td>*ə</td><td>*o</td></tr><tr><td>*a</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

PJ *e and *o are thought to have raised to *i* and *u* in WOJ, but some in some cases they may have been preserved as *e*₁ and *o*₁:

<table><caption>Table 2: Diachronic developments of PJ vowels</caption><thead><tr><th>WOJ</th><th>&lt;</th><th>PJ</th><th>&gt;</th><th>PR</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>i<sub>1</sub></td><td>&lt;</td><td>*i</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*i</td></tr><tr><td>i<sub>2</sub></td><td>&lt;</td><td>*ui</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*i</td></tr><tr><td>i<sub>2</sub> (e<sub>2</sub>)</td><td>&lt;</td><td>*əi</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*e</td></tr><tr><td>e<sub>2</sub></td><td>&lt;</td><td>*ai</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*e</td></tr><tr><td>e<sub>1</sub></td><td>&lt;</td><td>*ia</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*e</td></tr><tr><td>e<sub>1</sub></td><td>&lt;</td><td>*iə</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*e</td></tr><tr><td>i<sub>1</sub> (e<sub>1</sub>)</td><td>&lt;</td><td>*e</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*e</td></tr><tr><td>u</td><td>&lt;</td><td>*u</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*u</td></tr><tr><td>o<sub>1</sub></td><td>&lt;</td><td>*ua</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*o</td></tr><tr><td>o<sub>1</sub></td><td>&lt;</td><td>*au</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*o</td></tr><tr><td>u (o<sub>1</sub>)</td><td>&lt;</td><td>*o</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*o</td></tr><tr><td>o<sub>2</sub></td><td>&lt;</td><td>*ə</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*o</td></tr><tr><td>a</td><td>&lt;</td><td>*a</td><td>&gt;</td><td>*a</td></tr></tbody></table>

Still, Miyake (2003:96-97) remarks that aside from the verbal adnominal suffix (see 2.1.), there are no cases where PR *e and *o corresponding to WOJ *i*₁ and *u* are reflected as *e*₁/₂ and *o*₁ in EOJ.
This article presents further evidence for the PJ midvowels and their preservation in EOJ.

## 2. PROTO-JAPONIC *o

We can find a fair number of cases where EOJ $o_{(1)}$ corresponds to WOJ *u*. Although they are well known, these correspondences have not yet been clearly shown to be cases of retention from PJ. Comparison with several modern Japanese dialects and with Ryukyuan supports this theory.

### 2.1. Adnominal forms of verbs

OJ has a special inflected form for verbs, traditionally called “adnominal” or “attributive” (Jap. *rentaikei*), used in relative clauses, in nominalized clauses and in certain focus and interrogative constructions. For adjectives and verbs belonging to certain conjugational classes, it is distinct from the “conclusive” form (Jap. *shūshikei*) used in main clauses. We find in EOJ as many as 48 adnominal forms marked by a final *-o*_{(1)} for consonant-base verbs and auxiliaries (20 in the AU, 27 in the SU, 1 in the HFK), whereas in WOJ these verbs and auxiliaries lack the adnominal/conclusive distinction and have a uniform ending in *-u*.<fnref n="6" /> Here is an example of an EOJ adnominal form followed by a conclusive one:

<footnote n="6">⁶ The exceptions are for some irregular verbs which have a special conclusive form in -i and an adnominal ending -u. We should also note that in Middle Japanese the adnominal and conclusive forms were accentually distinct even when segmentally identical (Martin 1987:191-198).</footnote>
(1) 故奈 乃 思良 禰 爾 阿抱 思太 毛
ko₁na no₂ sira ne ni ap-o sida mo
Kona GEN white peak LOC meet-ADN time PT
“When [we] meet on the white peak(s) of Kona” (M 14.3478)

(2) 佐伎母里 爾 佐須
Saki₁mori ni sas-u
Sakimori LOC designate-CCL
“[He] assigned me to Sakimori [duty].” (M 20.4382)

We find only two cases of this -o₁ occurring in other conjugational classes: with *arapare*₂- “to appear” (*araparo*₁, M 14.3414) and the perfective auxiliary -n- (-n-o₁, M 14.3395, 14.3480, 14.3527, 20.4403), which have the adnominal forms *araparuru* and -nuru in WOJ. These can be explained as having been analogically leveled to a consonant-base in EOJ, a phenomenon well attested in Japanese and Ryukyuan also.

Some of these -o₁) forms are apparently used as conclusive ones, but the same situation is found in WOJ, a phenomenon known as *rentai-dome* in Japanese. Final adnominal forms are used to denote emphatic mood.

One problem with these special adnominal forms is that although they are too numerous to be considered as accidental misspellings, they are still in a minority: we find many more adnominal forms identical to WOJ than special ones. Nevertheless, one must recall, as mentioned in the introduction, that some of the EOJ poems are in fact written in WOJ, and that also EOJ has been subject to strong influence from WOJ, which led to its eventual and complete obliteration. It is therefore not surprising that we find comparatively so few dialectal features in the EOJ corpus.

The main issue for us here is to determine whether these adnominal forms are innovations or archaisms. I think it is possible to build a solid case for their archaic character by adducing comparative evidence from both modern Japanese dialects (2.1.1.)
and Ryukyuan (2.1.2.), and also by adding in other examples of the same correspondence not restricted to adnominal forms (2.2.).

### 2.1.1. Japanese dialects

#### 2.1.1.1. Hachijō dialects

The Hachijō and Aogashima dialects are two very closely related dialects spoken on islands 290 km to the South of Tokyo. Both have an opposition between conclusive forms in /-u/ and adnominal ones in /-o/ for verbs (Hirayama et al. 1965:190-206, Ōshima 1984:254-262):

<table><caption>Table 3: Verb forms in Hachijō dialects.</caption><thead><tr><td>Verb</td><td>Conclusive</td><td>Adnominal</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>"write"</td><td>kaku</td><td>kako</td></tr><tr><td>"get out"</td><td>dasu</td><td>daso</td></tr><tr><td>"hold"</td><td>motsu</td><td>moto</td></tr></tbody></table>

Here is one example of a conclusive form (3) and one of an adnominal form (4):

(3) uno hito mo kuni: kear-u te:ja
that person INCL country.LOC return-CCL HS
"Apparently he's going home too." (Hirayama 1965:193)

(4) wa=ga ik-o toki
I=NOM go-ADN time
"When I go..." (KKK 1950:208)

#### 2.1.1.2. Toshima dialect

This dialect, spoken in one of the Izu islands between the Izu peninsula and the Hachijō islands, similarly has adnominal forms in
/-o/, though they are also used as conclusive forms (Ōshima 1984:250-261). But we also find forms in /-u/, followed by an auxiliary, in the precise constructions which historically derive from a conclusive form followed by an auxiliary, as with the conjectural /bei/ (WOJ *be₂ki₁*) or the negative conjectural /mai/ (Middle Japanese *mazi*):

(5) kaze=ga φuk-u bei wind=NOM blow-CCL CONJ
“It will (probably) be windy.” (Ōshima 1984:265)

It thus seems that, as in other Japanese dialects, adnominal forms have replaced the conclusive ones, but the latter have been preserved in some constructions in this dialect. We can therefore reconstruct an ancient opposition between adnominal forms in *-o and conclusive ones in *-u.

<table><caption>Table 4: Verbal forms in Toshima dialect.</caption><thead><tr><td>Verb</td><td>Old conclusive</td><td>Adnominal & new conclusive</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>“write”</td><td>kaku</td><td>kako</td></tr><tr><td>“get out”</td><td>dasu</td><td>daso</td></tr><tr><td>“hit”</td><td>butsu</td><td>buto</td></tr></tbody></table>

It is important to note that the Toshima dialect is not directly related to the Hachijō group, and that these islands are separated by a great distance. Furthermore, there are several other islands whose dialects do not possess similar forms. This consequently excludes that their /-o/ forms could be common innovations or borrowings.

### 2.1.1.3. Akiyama dialect

The Akiyama dialect, spoken in the mountains between the Niigata and Nagano prefectures, has not been usually brought into
the discussion of EOJ or PJ adnominal forms, yet it constitutes another piece of independent evidence. Here again we find an opposition adnominal /-o/ vs. conclusive /-u/ (Mase 1992:197-202):

<table><caption>Table 5: Verbal forms in Akiyama dialect.</caption><thead><tr><th>Verb</th><th>Conclusive</th><th>Adnominal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>“write”</td><td>kaku</td><td>kako</td></tr><tr><td>“push”</td><td>osu</td><td>oso</td></tr><tr><td>“rise”</td><td>tatsu</td><td>tato</td></tr></tbody></table>

(6) kotta tʃijonoφudʒi=ga kats-u-rɔ: next.time.TOP Chiyo no fuji=NOM win-CCL-CONJ “Next time Chiyo no fuji (Sumo wrestler’s name) will probably win.” (Mase 1992:201)

(7) kat-o dotʃa: sokkɛ=no mon da win-ADN time.TOP like.this=GEN thing COP “It’s like that when you win.” (Mase 1992:201)

The Akiyama dialect has undergone a lowering of most of its high vowels *i and *u to /e/ and /o/, but not after every consonant, and especially not after /k/, /s/ or /t/. Hence this lowering cannot explain the adnominal forms in /-o/. Analogy with verbs whose base-consonant has not prevented the lowering of *u to /o/ cannot explain it either: why would verbs have had their ending lowered to /-o/ in adnominal function but not in conclusive function? It is more reasonable to consider the /-o/ in these adnominal forms as original.

### 2.1.2. Ryukyuan

Thorpe (1983:182-183) reconstructs a PR suffix *-o for attributive (here called adnominal) and emphatic mood, which also appears before prohibitive, achievement, interrogative, adversative
and concessive markers, but he does not discuss the comparative
evidence underlying his reconstruction at length.

Indeed one can find in most Northern Ryukyuan dialects
(Amami and Okinawa) a fossilized adnominal form appearing only
before some formal nouns VII and suffixes. It is felt as archaic by
speakers (Uchima 1997:34) and is usually not used anymore as a
true adnominal form, except in some traditional songs (Matsumoto
1998:199). Contrary to the actual adnominal and conclusive forms,
this form does not originate from a compound with the stative verb
“to be”.

For example, in the Northern Okinawan dialect of Nakijin
Yonamine, this form is found among others before the formal nouns
[ʔmjo:dui] (“interval”, “while”), [ha:dki] (“expectation”, “ought to”),
[kʰaŋiri] (“limit”, “as much as”), the terminative suffixes [madi:],
[gadi:] , [jakʰi:] , or the restrictive suffix [bikʰe:] , and even as a main
clause predicate when the adverb [deoi] (“very”) is used in the
sentence (Nakasone 1987:155):

(8) wa:=ga hak? -u ʔmjo:dui mattʃ? ure:
I-NOM write-ADN while wait.IMP
“Wait while [I] write [it].”

(9) wa:=ga hak? -u madi: mattʃ? ure:
I=NOM write-ADN until wait.IMP
“Wait until [I] write [it].”

(10) ʔari(:) gande: dʒoi hakʔ-u
he AMBIG very write-ADN
“He writes very well.”

These forms can be reconstructed with a final *-o, directly
attached to the root of consonant-base verbs. For instance, the

<footnote n="7">⁷ Formal nouns are nouns which are used as function words in some grammatical constructions.</footnote>
obsolete adnominal form of *t*-base verbs (/mat-/-/ “to wait”, /tat-/-/ “to stand”) has its final syllable corresponding to WOJ *to*<sub>(1/2)</sub> and not *tu*.

<table><caption>Table 6: Ryukyuan adnominal forms</caption><thead><tr><th>Dialect</th><th>ADN</th><th>with</th><th>person<sup>8</sup></th><th>one</th><th>when</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>WOJ</td><td>tatu, matu</td><td>to<sub>2</sub></td><td>pi<sub>1</sub>to<sub>2</sub></td><td>pi<sub>1</sub>to<sub>2</sub>tu</td><td>itu</td></tr><tr><td>Chabana<sup>9</sup></td><td>matu</td><td>tu</td><td>pitʃu</td><td>ti:tʃi</td><td>?itʃi</td></tr><tr><td>Yonamine<sup>10</sup></td><td>tat<u>u</u></td><td>t<u>?</u>u</td><td>tʃ<u>?</u>u:</td><td>t<u>?</u>i:tʃ<u>?</u>i</td><td>hitʃ<u>?</u>i:</td></tr><tr><td>Naha-Shuri<sup>11</sup></td><td>tatu</td><td>tu</td><td>ttʃu</td><td>ti:tsi</td><td>?itsi</td></tr><tr><td>PR</td><td>*tato, *mato</td><td>*to</td><td>*pito</td><td>piteetu</td><td>*etu</td></tr></tbody></table>

In Southern Ryukyuan (Sakishima, e.g. Miyako, Yaeyama and Yonaguni), the situation is more complicated, and the forms which appear at first sight to correspond to *-o (in Yonaguni or Hatoma for example) should better not be taken at face value. The diachronic developments of the verbal morphology in Ryukyuan are a complicated matter, and the reconstruction of the Proto-Sakishima verbal system is particularly problematic because of some contradictory correspondences. This would require a separate treatment, which is far beyond the scope of this article<fnref n="12" />.

### 2.1.3. Conclusion on adnominal forms of verbs

Adnominal forms with a final /-o/ or reconstructible with an *-o are thus attested in several different (sub-)branches of the

<footnote n="8">⁸ The /t/ in the last syllable of “person” has undergone regular progressive palatalization in many of dialects.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Nakama (1992), Hattori et al. (1959).</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Nakasone (1987), Hattori et al. (1959).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ For more details on this problem, see Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo (1963), Nohara (1976).</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² See on this matter Thorpe (1983), Uchima (1984), Nakama (1992), Karimata (1999).</footnote>
Japonic family (EOJ, Hachijō, Toshima, Akiyama and Ryukyuan). Hence this excludes the possibility that these forms are a common innovation. The geographic distribution, with several attestations in very distant and isolated areas, also excludes the possibility of borrowing.

Whitman (1990:538-540) has proposed to explain EOJ's adnominal -o as a lowering of *-uwu < *-u-ru, but evidence for such a development in EOJ is scarce. It would also imply that EOJ and PR both underwent the same innovation, which is not realistic. Hayata (2000) considers the EOJ -o<sub>(1)</sub> to have a diphthongal origin and reconstructs the PJ adnominal ending as *-rua. But if *ua indeed develops into Old Japanese o<sub>1</sub>, it does not raise to u in WOJ (cf. *kazu-ape*<sub>2</sub> - “number-assemble” > *kazo*<sub>1</sub>*pe*<sub>2</sub> - “to count”). We would thus expect adnominal forms in -o<sub>1</sub> in WOJ too.

We can also add as further evidence the interesting inscription found on the Inariyama burial mound sword (471? 531?), also partially attested in the Eta Funayama burial mound inscription (5th c.). It may be interpreted as having an adnominal -o following the verb *take*<sub>1</sub> - “to be tall, great” (Miyake 2003:122):

<table><thead><tr><th>(11)</th><th>獲</th><th>加</th><th>多</th><th>支</th><th>鹵</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Later Han</td><td>*yüək</td><td>*ka</td><td>*tai&gt;*ta</td><td>*kie&gt;*cie</td><td>*lɑ?>*lɔ?</td></tr><tr><td>Early Middle</td><td>*fïwɛk</td><td>*kæ</td><td>*ta</td><td>*ciə</td><td>*lo?</td></tr><tr><td>Chinese</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>WOJ</td><td colspan="5">waka-take<sub>1</sub>ru “(the one who is) young and fierce”</td></tr></tbody></table>

Therefore it seems rather unlikely that the adnominal forms arose late in Japonic, as proposed by Frellesvig (2008), since there is definitely evidence for reconstructing the adnominal/conclusive opposition in PJ from comparative evidence.
## 2.2. Lexical examples

We find also some lexical examples exhibiting the same correspondence WOJ *u* :: EOJ *o*<sub>(1)</sub> and for which we can tentatively reconstruct PJ *o.

The toponym *To₂pe₂tapomi₁* (M 20.4324, WOJ *Töpotapumî* “Tōtōmi”) seems to be derived from *to₂po-tu-apa-umi₁* “distant-GEN-fresh-sea” (Ōno et al. 1974). I propose below several pieces of original evidence that point to a reconstruction of PJ *omi rather than *umi for “sea”<fnref n="13" />, which would agree with the EOJ *-omi₁* in *To₂pe₂tapomi₁*. First, most of WOJ words beginning with *um-* are attested also spelled as *mum-* in WOJ or Middle Japanese, but *umi₁* “sea” is not:

<table><caption>Table 7: WOJ and MJ *um-* ~ *mum-* alternations.</caption><tr><td>uma</td><td>~</td><td>muma</td><td>“horse”</td></tr><tr><td>umago</td><td>~</td><td>mumago</td><td>“grand-child”</td></tr><tr><td>uma-</td><td>~</td><td>muma-</td><td>“good”</td></tr><tr><td>umare-</td><td>~</td><td>mumare-</td><td>“to be born”</td></tr><tr><td>ume</td><td>~</td><td>mume</td><td>“plum”</td></tr></table>

Second, though Thorpe (1983:325) is unable to decide whether PR “sea” was *umi or *omi, I believe it is possible to reconstruct an initial *o here. In Thorpe’s reconstruction, PR initial *o and *u seem to have generally merged, but a closer look at the data reveals that certain dialects have in some cases different reflexes. For instance whereas Yoron uniformly has an initial /u-/ in the words below, other dialects have /(ʔ)u-/ only for some of them:

<footnote n="13">¹³ An anonymous reviewer has informed me that such a reconstruction has already been suggested by Leon Serafim, but his hypothesis unfortunately still remains unpublished.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 8: PR *um- and *om-</caption><thead><tr><th>Dialect</th><th>be born</th><th>grand-child</th><th>horse</th><th>sea</th><th>pus</th><th>think</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yoron<sup>14</sup></td><td>unurjuŋ</td><td>umaga</td><td>uma</td><td>umi</td><td>untʃu:</td><td>umujuŋ</td></tr><tr><td>Nakijin<sup>15</sup></td><td>ʔma:riŋ</td><td>ʔma:ga</td><td>ʔma:</td><td>ʔumi</td><td>ʔumi:</td><td>ʔumiŋ</td></tr><tr><td>Ishigaki<sup>16</sup></td><td>mari-</td><td>ma:ʔa:</td><td>ʔmma</td><td>ʔumï</td><td>ʔuŋku</td><td>ʔumo:ŋ</td></tr><tr><td>Yonaguni<sup>17</sup></td><td>ma:ruŋ</td><td>ma:ŋu</td><td>mma</td><td>unnaga</td><td>untu</td><td>umuŋ</td></tr><tr><td>New PR reconstruction</td><td>*umare-</td><td>*umag[a,o]</td><td>*uma</td><td>*omi</td><td>*omi</td><td>*omow-</td></tr></tbody></table>

On this basis I propose the following amendment to Thorpe’s PR reconstruction:

<table><caption>Table 9: Diachronic developments of PR *om- and *um-</caption><thead><tr><th>PR</th><th></th><th>Modern Ryukyuan dialects</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>*u</td><td>></td><td>(ʔ)m ~ Ø / #_m</td></tr><tr><td>*o</td><td>></td><td>(ʔ)u / #_m</td></tr></tbody></table>

In most Ryukyuan dialects the word for “sea” has an initial /(ʔ)u-/<fnref n="18" />, and should be therefore reconstructed as PR *omi < PJ *omi.

The word “snow” is attested as *yo₂ki₁* in EOJ (M 20.3423) and corresponds to WOJ *yuki₁*. While we usually find an EOJ *o₁* corresponding to WOJ *u*, we have here a problematic case of *o₂*, but we should note that this is an AU poem, and it may thus have been corrupted by the scribes of WOJ. We can find similar forms with an

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Nakamatsu (1999), Nakama (1992).</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ OGKS (1999-2003).</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Miyagi et al. (2002).</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Hirayama & Nakamato (1964), HDOBK (1986).</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ In most Southern Ryukyuan dialects, the expected initial /u-/ in “sea” has fronted to /i-/ (ex: Miyako /im/). Thorpe (1983:45) states that this development is regular: initial *u* or *o* is fronted to *i* before a “syllabic” consonant.</footnote>
o in several modern Japanese dialects located in the following prefectures (Tokugawa et al. 1989, Hirayama et al. 1992-1994): Aomori, Yamagata [jogī], Niigata, Sado, Nagano [joki]). In Ryukyuan, the cognates of WOJ yuki* usually mean not “snow” but “hail”, and no modern dialect seems to have retained a distinction between PJ *ju and *jo or *jə. Still, in the Old Okinawan poetic anthology *Omoro Sōshi*, believed to contain a number of spellings reflecting a stage before the raising of PR *e and *o (Vovin 2005: xix), the word “snow/hail” is found spelled only once as yuki (poem #583) and 15 times as yoki (poems #39, 100, 490, 514, 514, 583, 672, 672, 1000, 1085, 1085, 1086, 1287, 1511, 1511). This may thus imply that “snow/hail” had a midvowel *o rather than *u.

The form *wosagi*₁ (M 14.3529) for WOJ *usagi*₁ “hare, rabbit” is paralleled by some modern Japanese dialects which have an initial *o-* in this word: Kawabe [osaṇī], Toyama [oani], Wakayama [osagi], Gokosan [osagi] (Tokugawa et al. 1989, Hirayama et al. 1992-1994). Furthermore, the transcriptions of Koguryō toponyms in the *Samkwuk saki* (1145), which record a language in all likelihood related to Japanese in some way, contain the word “hare” transcribed as 烏斯舎, which can be reconstructed in Early Middle Chinese as *ɔ̄ siě γəm* (Pulleyblank 1991).

We also find other cases of the correspondence EOJ $o_{(1)}$ :: WOJ *u*, but we lack comparative evidence to confirm that they are instances of retention of PJ *o. This is the case for *ayapo-* (M 14.3539, WOJ *ayapu-* “dangerous”), *no₁re-* (M 20.4351, WOJ *nure-* “sleep”), *popom-* (M 20.4387, WOJ *pupum-* “to be unopened”), *ayo₁k-* (M 20.4390, WOJ *ayuk-* “shake”) and *-to₂to₂* (M 20.4421, WOJ *-tutu* “continuative suffix”, problematic since EOJ has an $o₂$ here).

We also find a doublet form *tayura* (M 14.3392) ~ *tayo₁ra* (M 14.3368) “agitated” with $o₁ ~ u$ for a word not attested in WOJ. This could reflect the coexistence of a pre-raising and a post-raising form (possibly in different dialects, though both poems are from the Shimōsa province).
Finally there is the problematic *semi₁do₁* (M 14.3546, WOJ *si-mi₁du* “fresh water”) which does not match the PJ reconstruction *mentu for “water”, expected from PR *mezu (Thorpe 1983:345):: WOJ *mi₁du*. Indeed the Ryukyuan evidence clearly points to a final *-u and not *-o (and also to a medial *e not *i).

### 3. PROTO-JAPONIC *e

Parallel to EOJ *o*<sub>(1)</sub>:: WOJ *u*, we find cases of EOJ *e*<sub>(1/2)</sub> corresponding to WOJ *i*<sub>1</sub>. In the same way, these can be shown to be retentions of PJ *e, with adnominal forms as the main bulk of evidence.

#### 3.1. Adnominal forms of adjectives

Adjectives have a special adnominal form too, marked by -ki₁ in WOJ, and we find a corresponding marker -ke₁/₂ in EOJ attested 18 times (10 times in AU, 8 times in SU):

(12) 阿志氣 比等 奈里
asi-ke₂ pi₁to₂ nar-i
bad-ADN person be-CCL
“[He] is a bad person.” (M 20.4382)

But first it must be noted that we can find a few occurrences of the adnominal marker -ke₁ in WOJ. One example is found in the *Kojiki*, known for its archaic features like the *mo₁/mo₂* distinction lost in most of the later texts<fnref n="19" />:

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ See Bentley (2002) for a discussion of the *mo₁/mo₂* distinction in the *Man'yōshū*.</footnote>
(13) 波斯祁 夜 斯
pasi-ke₁ ya si
dear-ADN EMPH EMPH
“How dear it is...” (Kojiki 33)

The same form *pasi-ke₁* is also found in M 15.3691 and M 15.3692, but the usual adnominal form of this adjective is *pasi-ki₁*, which is attested in the same construction as above (*pasi-ki₁ yasi*, M 7.1358, M 8.1619). The form with *-ke₁* is thus neither a *hapax legomenon* nor a scribal error, but can be explained as the preservation of a pre-raising archaic form.

Moreover, here again some modern Japanese dialects preserve this marker, and these are not a random collection of dialects: the dialects having /-ke/ all happen to also preserve the adnominal verbal suffix /-o/.

Thus adnominal forms in /-ke/ are attested in the Hachijō dialect (Hirayama et al. 1965:195–196, Ōshima 1984:259, 262):

<table><caption>Table 10: Adjectival forms in Hachijō dialect</caption><thead><tr><td>Adjective</td><td>Adnominal</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>“high”</td><td>takake</td></tr><tr><td>“bad”</td><td>waruke</td></tr><tr><td>“good”</td><td>joke</td></tr></tbody></table>

(14) taka-ke jama
high-ADN mountain
“A high mountain” (Ōshima 1984:262)

The Akiyama dialect also has a distinction between conclusive and adnominal forms of adjectives, the latter ones being marked by /-(k)ke/ (Mase 1992:205-207):
<table><caption>Table 11: Adjectival forms in Akiyama dialect</caption><thead><tr><th>Adjective</th><th>Conclusive</th><th>Adnominal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>“happy”</td><td>oreʃi:</td><td>oreʃike</td></tr><tr><td>“good”</td><td>e:</td><td>eke</td></tr><tr><td>“red”</td><td>akɛ:</td><td>akakke</td></tr></tbody></table>

(15) satʃo non-de aka-kke tsurɔ ʃi-ter-o na alcohol.ACC drink-SEQ red-ADN face.ACC do-DUR-CCL EXCL “[You] have drunk alcohol and your face is red.” (Mase 1992:206)

(16) atama-kke=ga ſire: head-hair=NOM white.CCL “[His] hair is white.” (Mase 1992:206)

Although in this dialect most of the *i have lowered to /e/, this /-ke/ is not explainable as a lowering of *-ki, since WOJ ki₁/₂ corresponds to a palatalized /tʃi/ in Akiyama (Mase 1992:61–89):

<table><caption>Table 12: WOJ ki₁/₂ :: Akiyama tʃi</caption><thead><tr><th>Word</th><th>WOJ</th><th>::</th><th>Akiyama</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>“time”</td><td>to₂ki₁</td><td></td><td>totʃi</td></tr><tr><td>“fog”</td><td>ki₂ri</td><td></td><td>tʃire</td></tr><tr><td>“tree”</td><td>ki₂</td><td></td><td>tʃi</td></tr><tr><td>“breath”</td><td>iki₁</td><td></td><td>etʃi</td></tr></tbody></table>

We can thus assume this suffix goes back to PJ *-ke. Nonetheless, the conclusive forms like [akɛ:] must come from *aka- i, and this *-i must in turn be a lenition of adnominal *-ki, as happened in other Japanese dialects<fnref n="20" />. At present I can only propose

<footnote n="20">²⁰ I would like to thank Bjarke Frellesvig for having pointed this out to me.</footnote>
that these forms are due to the influence of surrounding dialects and
Standard Japanese.

Unfortunately there is no Ryukyuan evidence in this case,
since Ryukyuan has an adjectival morphology in most parts
different from Japanese. According to Hirayama & Nakamoto
(1964), there is a marker corresponding to the WOJ -be₂ki₁ in some
Ryukuan dialects, the adnominal form of a debitive/conjectural
marker inflected like adjectives. This is in all likelihood a recent
loan from Japanese, the correspondences between Ryukyuan
dialects being highly irregular.

Martin (1987:812), who generally rejects the existence of PJ
*e and *o, has argued that EOJ -ke₁/₂ and WOJ -ki₁ are contractions
of -ku ari, the adverbial ending of adjectives followed by the verb
“to be”:

(17) -ku ari > -kai > EOJ -ke
> -ki > WOJ -ki₁

There are several problems which make this proposal
unacceptable. First, this construction would be very odd as the
origin of the adnominal ending, since the form *ari* is an infinitive
and conclusive form, but not an adnominal form (the adnominal
form of this verb is *aru*). Second, the construction *-ku ar-* is indeed
attested in OJ, and we also find the contracted form *-kar-*-. Both
survive in later Japanese and some dialects<fnref n="21" />. It is thus improbable
that there was yet a third, completely fused, version of this
construction, restricted to adnominal function.

Thus, although the evidence is less impressive than for -o, it
is possible to make a case for the archaic nature of the adjectival
adnominal suffix -ke. However the question of whether it existed in

<footnote n="21">²¹ It is even attested in most dialects of Miyako Ryukyuan: -kaz ~ -ka: (data from my own fieldwork).</footnote>
PJ is still open, as we lack Ryukyuan evidence for it, so we can only reconstruct it for Proto-Japanese, not Proto-Japonic.

### 3.1. Lexical examples

For the following examples there exists no standard PJ reconstruction, nor do we find straightforward comparative evidence. We can only suppose that they may be instances of PJ *e:

<table><caption>Table 13: EOJ *e*<sub>1/2</sub> :: WOJ *i*<sub>1</sub></caption><thead><tr><th>EOJ</th><th>::</th><th>WOJ</th><th>Gloss</th><th>Reference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>sawesawe</td><td>::</td><td>sawisawi</td><td>onomatopoeia</td><td>(M 14.3481)</td></tr><tr><td>sake<sub>2</sub>ku</td><td>::</td><td>saki<sub>1</sub>ku</td><td>“safely, happily”</td><td>(M 20.4368)</td></tr><tr><td>sake<sub>1</sub>ku</td><td>::</td><td>saki<sub>1</sub>ku</td><td>“safely, happily”</td><td>(M 20.4372)</td></tr><tr><td>ke<sub>1</sub>nite</td><td>::</td><td>ki<sub>1</sub>nite</td><td>“having come”</td><td>(M 20.4337)</td></tr></tbody></table>

The word *utikape*<sub>2</sub> (“seam”, M 14.3482) is not attested in WOJ, but we find a form *utikapi*<sub>1</sub> in a variant of this poem (3482’), possibly reflecting a post-raising form.

### 4. CONCLUSION

In this article I have established the correspondences Western Old Japanese *i*<sub>1</sub> :: Eastern Old Japanese *e*<sub>(1/2)</sub> and WOJ *u* :: EOJ *o*<sub>(1)</sub> and given comparative evidence from three independent Japanese dialects (Hachijō, Toshima, Akiyama), also from Ryukyuan, in both the lexicon and the morphology, to support the view that these are cases of retention of Proto-Japonic *e* and *o*. Based on this, I have proposed several Proto-Japonic reconstructions, most notably the verbal adnominal ending<sup>22</sup> *-o and the adjectival adnominal ending

<footnote n="22"><sup>22</sup> This reconstruction is for consonant-base verbs only and makes use of only the comparative method.</footnote>
*-ke. These constitute further evidence for the Proto-Japonic 6 vowels hypothesis. I also suggested an improvement to Thorpe’s Proto-Ryukyuan reconstruction and showed that PR distinguished initial *u and *o before *m.

Proto-Japonic *e and *o are best preserved in the morphology of both Eastern Old Japanese and Japanese dialects. Certainly the influence of Western Old Japanese and its successor Middle Japanese, which had lost PJ *e and *o, played a great part in the quasi-total elimination of these vowels in Eastern Old Japanese and peripheral Japanese dialects. Contamination by Western Old Japanese also explains why we find more raised forms than forms having preserved the midvowels. This situation can be interpreted as a typical case of an innovation spreading from a center (WOJ) and failing to affect the dialects located at the periphery or in isolated areas.

Unfortunately, the limitations of the Eastern Old Japanese corpus, along with the fact of contamination by Western Old Japanese, prevent us from grasping the whole details of its special features, both archaic and innovative. We should also bear in mind that Eastern Old Japanese was not a monolithic language, but a group of dialects spoken over a large area. A detailed study of the geographical distribution of these features indeed reveals several distinct areas influenced at different degrees by Western Old Japanese (Hino 2003).

Although Eastern Old Japanese data should be recognized and used as an important source for the study of the history of the Japonic language family, the nature and the size of the corpus hardly make it usable as a primary source. We should always try to find other comparative evidence before taking Eastern Old Japanese at face value. This is the principle which has been applied in the present analysis.
REFERENCES

ANTONOV Anton (2006). Le japonais et le coréen : une famille impossible ? Paper presented at the conference *La linguistique comparée en France aujourd'hui*, EHESS, Paris, 4th of March.

BENTLEY John R. (2002). The spelling of /mo/ in Old Japanese. *Journal of East Asian Linguistics*, 11(4), pp. 349-374.

FRELLESVIG Bjarke (2008). On reconstruction of Proto-Japanese and pre-Old Japanese verb inflection. In *FRELLESVIG B. & WHITMAN J. B. (eds.), *Proto-Japanese*, Amsterdam : John Benjamins, pp. 179-198.

FRELLESVIG Bjarke & WHITMAN John B. (2008). Evidence for seven vowels in Proto-Japanese. In : *FRELLESVIG B. & WHITMAN J. B. (eds.), *Proto-Japanese*, Amsterdam : John Benjamins, pp. 15-41.

FUKUDA Yoshisuke (1965). *Nara jidai tōgoku hōgen no kenkyū* [A study on the Eastern dialects of the Nara period]. Tokyo : Kazama shobō.

HAGERS Steven (2000). The attributive and conclusive forms of modern Japanese and Ryukyuan dialects in a historical perspective. *Studia Etymologia Cracoviensia*, 5, pp. 13-42.

HATTORI Shirō (1978-1979). Nihon sogo ni tsuite (1-22) [On Proto-Japonic]. *Gengo*, 7(1)-7(3), 7(6) - 8(12).

HATTORI Shirō, UEMURA Yukio & TOKUGAWA Munemasa (1959). Amami shotō shohōgen no gengo nendaigakuteki chōsa [A glottochronological survey of the dialects of the Amami islands]. In KYŪGAKKAI RENGŌ (ed.), *Amami: Shizen to bunka*, Tokyo : Nihon gakujutsu shinkōkai, pp. 433-464.

HAYATA Teruhiro (2000). The liquid and stem-final vowel alternations of Verbs in Ancient Japanese. *Gengo Kenkyū*, 118, pp. 5-27.
HINO Sukenari (2003). Nihon sogo no boin taikei — Jōdai tōgoku hōgen shiryō ni yoru saikō [The vowel system of Proto-Japonic — a reconstruction based on Eastern Old Japanese data]. In VOVIN A. & OSADA T., *Nihongo keitōron no genzai*, Kyōto : Kokusai Nihon bunka kenkyū sentā, pp. 187-206.

HIRAYAMA Teruo (ed.). (1965). *Izu shotō hōgen no sōgōteki kenkyū* [A general study of the Izu islands dialects]. Tokyo : Meiji shoin.

HIRAYAMA Teruo & NAKAMOTO Masachie (1964). *Ryūkyū Yonaguni hōgen no kenkyū* [A study of Yonaguni Ryukyuan]. Tokyo : Tōkyōdō.

HIRAYAMA Teruo et al. (eds.) (1992-1994). *Gendai nihongo hōgen daijiten* [Dictionary of modern Japanese dialects]. Tokyo : Meiji shoin.

HŌJŌ Tadao (1966). *Jōdai Azuma hōgen no kenkyū* [Study of the Eastern Old Japanese dialect]. Tokyo : Nihon gakujutsu sinkōkai.

HŌSEI DAIGAKU OKINAWA BUNKA KENKYŪJO (HDOBK) (1986). *Ryūkyū no hōgen — Yaeyama Yonaguni-jima* [Ryukyuan dialects — Yaeyama Yonaguni]. Vol. 11.

KARIMATA Shigehisa (1999). Miyako shohōgen no “shūshikei” no seiritsu ni tsuite [On the origin of the conclusive form of the Miyako dialects]. *Nihon tōyō bunka ron shū*, 5, pp. 27-51.

KOKURITSU KOKUGO KENKYŪJO (KKK) (ed.) (1950). *Hachijō-jima no gengo chōsa* [Linguistic survey of the Hachijō island]. Tokyo : Shūei shuppan.

KOKURITSU KOKUGO KENKYŪJO (KKK) (ed.) (1963). *Okinawago jiten* [Dictionary of the Okinawan language]. Tokyo : Ōkurashō Insatsukyoku.

MARTIN Samuel E. (1987). *The Japanese language through time*. New Haven/London : Yale University Press.
MASE Yoshio. *Nagano-ken shi — Hōgen hen* [History of the Nagano prefecture — Dialect volume]. Nagano : Nagano-ken shi kankōkai.

MATSUMOTO Hirotake (1998). Shodon hōgen no dōshi no hi-shūshi kei oboegaki [Note on the non-conclusive form of verbs in the Shodon dialect]. In : Tōkyō daigaku (ed.), *Tōkyō daigaku kokugo kenkyūshitsu sōsetsu hyaku shūnen kinen kokugo ronshū*, Tokyo : Kyūko shoin, pp. 199-213.

MIYAKE Marc H. (2003). Philological evidence for *e and *o in Pre-Old Japanese. *Diachronica*, 20, pp. 81-136.

MIYAGI Shin'yū, KAJIKU Shin'ichi, HATERUMA Eikichi & NISHIOKA Satoshi (eds.) (2002). *Ishigaki hōgen goi ichiran* [Vocabulary list of the Ishigaki dialect]. Suita : Ōsaka gakuin daigaku jōhō gakubu.

MIZUSHIMA Yoshiharu (1984). *Man'yōshū Azuma uta no kokugogakuteki kenkyū* [Linguistic study of the Azuma uta of the Man'yōshū]. Tokyo : Kasama shoin.

MIZUSHIMA Yoshiharu (2005). *Man'yōshū Sakimori uta no kokugogakuteki kenkyū* [Linguistic study of the Sakimori uta of the Man'yōshū]. Tokyo : Kasama shoin.

NAKAMA Mitsunari (1992). *Ryūkyū hōgen no kosō* [The old layer of the Ryukyuan dialects]. Tokyo : Daiichi shobō.

NAKAMATSU Takeo (1999). *Ryūkyūgo jiten* [Dictionary of the Ryukyuan languages]. Naha : Genken shuppan.

NAKASONE Seizen (1987). *Ryūkyū hōgen no kenkyū* [Study on the Ryukyuan dialects]. Tokyo : Shinsen sha.

NOHARA Mitsuyoshi (1976). Okinawa Naha hōgen dōshi no katsuyō [Conjugations of the verbs of the Naha dialect of Okinawa]. *Okinawa kokusai daigaku bungaku bun kiyō kokubungaku hen*. 4(2), pp. 29-41.
OKINAWA GENGO KENKYŪ SENTĀ (OGKS) (1999-2003). *Nakijin hōgen onsei dēta bēsu* [Phonetic database of the Nakijin dialect]. http://ryukyu-lang.lib.u-ryukyu.ac.jp/nkjn/

ŌNO Susumu, SATAKE Akihiro & MAEDA Kingorō (eds.) (1974). *Iwanami kogo jiten* [A dictionary of Pre-modern Japanese]. Tokyo : Iwanami shoten.

ŌSHIMA Ichirō (1984). Izu shotō no hōgen [Dialects of the Izu islands]. In : IITOYO Kiichi et al. (eds), *Kōza hōgengaku 5 — Kantō no hōgen*. Tokyo: Kokushokankōkai, pp. 233-271.

PULLEYBLANK Edwin G. (1991). *Lexicon of reconstructed pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese and Early Mandarin*. Vancouver : University of British Columbia Press.

THORPE Maner L. (1983). *Ryūkyūan language history*. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.

TOKUGAWA Munemasa et al. (eds.) (1989). *Nihon hōgen daijiten* [Dictionary of Japanese dialects]. Tokyo : Shogakukan, 3 vols.

UCHIMA Chokujin (1984). *Ryūkyū hōgen bunpō no kenkyū* [Study on the grammar of Ryukyuan dialects]. Tokyo : Kasama shoin.

UCHIMA Chokujin et al. (ed.) (1997). *Okinawa-ken no kotoba (Kita-Ryūkyū)* [The language of the Okinawa prefecture (Northern Ryukyu)]. Tokyo : Meiji shoin.

VOVIN Alexander (2005). *A descriptive and comparative grammar of Western Old Japanese; Part 1: Sources, script and phonology, lexicon, nominals*. Folkestone : Global Oriental.

VOVIN Alexander (2007). Once again on doublets in Western Old Japanese. In : FRELLESVIG, B., SHIBATANI, M. & SMITH, C. J. (eds.), *Current issues in the history and structure of Japanese*, Tokyo : Kuroshio shuppan, pp. 351-373.
VOVIN Alexander (in press). *Koreo-Japonica: A re-evaluation of a common genetic origin*. University of Hawai'i Press.

WHITMAN John B. (1990). A rule of medial *-r- loss in pre-Old Japanese. In : BALDI P. (ed.), *Linguistic Change and Reconstructive Methodology*, Berlin & New York : Walter de Gruyter, pp 511-545.

Thomas PELLARD
CRLAO-EHESS
54, Bd Raspail
75006 Paris
FRANCE
thomas.pellard@gmail.com