# How Conservative Is the Morphology of Hachijō? A Few Comparative Reflections on the rentaikei/shūshikei Distinction in Japonic Languages

Étienne Baudel

► To cite this version:

Étienne Baudel. How Conservative Is the Morphology of Hachijō? A Few Comparative Reflections on the rentaikei/shūshikei Distinction in Japonic Languages. Time in East Asian Endangered Languages Grammar, History, and Society, Fondazione Università Ca' Foscari, 2025, 10.30687/978-88-6969-913-9//007. hal-05024243

HAL Id: hal-05024243

https://hal.science/hal-05024243v1

Submitted on 24 Apr 2025

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 Attribution 4.0 International License
# How Conservative Is the Morphology of Hachijō?
## A Few Comparative Reflections on the *rentaikei/shūshikei* Distinction in Japonic Languages

Étienne Baudel

CRLAO - École des hautes études en sciences sociales, France

**Abstract** The opposition between 'adnominal' (*rentaikei* 連体形) and 'final' (*shūshikei* 終止形) forms of verbs and adjectives is one of the most commented features of the Hachijō language, as it is considered both a remarkable archaism and a possible argument towards its classification within the Japonic language family. This article is dedicated to a description of this opposition in Hachijō, in comparison with other Japonic languages, and especially with Eastern Old Japanese.

**Keywords** Japonic. Hachijō. Old Japanese. Historical linguistics. Morphology.

**Summary** 1 Introduction. – 1.1 What Is Hachijō? – 1.2 The Adnominal/Final Distinction. – 2 The Adnominal/Final Distinction in Hachijō. – 2.1 The Use of Nominal and Final Forms. – 2.2 Non-Past Forms. – 2.3 Copula and Negative Auxiliary. – 2.4 Past Tense. – 2.5 Adjectives. – 3 The Adnominal/Final Distinction in Mainland Japanese. – 3.1 In Classical Japanese (CJ). – 3.2 In Western Old Japanese (WOJ). – 3.3 In Eastern Old Japanese (EOJ). – 3.4 In Contemporary Dialects. – 4 The Adnominal/Final Distinction in Ryukyuan. – 4.1 In Old Okinawan (OO). – 4.2 In Modern Ryukyuan Languages. – 5 Conclusion.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# 1 Introduction

## 1.1 What Is Hachijō?

Hachijō is a small Japonic variety,<fnref n="1" /> spoken on several islands in the south of the Izu archipelago, roughly 300 km south of Tōkyō. Its name comes from the name of the most populated of those islands, Hachijōjima 八丈島, but it is usually simply called ᵃima-kotoba<fnref n="2" /> 島言葉 ‘island speech’ by its speakers.

Hachijō was until recently considered a dialect of Japanese rather than an independent language. However, based on several arguments such as possible lack of mutual intelligibility with neighbouring Japanese varieties (see Iannucci 2019, 100-20) and debates on its classification within the Japonic family (see Hirako, Pellard 2013, 52), the tendency is now to consider it a separate language.

Although there is no official census of the number of speakers, Hachijō is now severely endangered due to the pervasion of standard Japanese in the local communities (through education, media and immigration from the mainland). It is likely that there are now not more than a few hundred fluent speakers, all elderly. Thus, it was included in 2009 in UNESCO's *Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger* (Moseley, Nicolas 2009), alongside Ainu and six of the Ryukyuan languages.

As it is spoken within the Tōkyō Metropolis and exhibits interesting and sometimes remarkably archaic features, Hachijō was studied quite early, compared to other languages of Japan. Namely, its first thorough description was made by Hoshina in 1900; then, a very large-scale study was conducted by the NINJAL in 1950, and ever since, it has been quite abundantly described on many aspects, including its verbal morphology. Thus, this article is mostly based on already existing sources. However, when necessary, mentions will be also made to newer data that was collected during a field trip in March-April 2023, with about a dozen informants.

<footnote n="1">1. Many thanks to Aleksandra Jarosz, Akiyo Kubo-Herlédant and Hao Li for their help during the preparation of this article.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. Note on transcriptions: in this article, forms of contemporary varieties and minority languages are provided in simplified International Phonetic Alphabet ('simplified' meaning not taking into consideration vowel reduction or pitch accent), while standard Japanese forms are provided in Hepburn transcription. Finally, Classical Japanese forms are transcribed following Vovin 2003, 13; Old Japanese forms follow Vovin 2020, 27-33, and Old Okinawan forms follow the system created by Serafim and Shinzato (2021, 18-84).</footnote>
## 1.2 The Adnominal/Final Distinction

‘Adnominal’ or ‘attributive’ form (*rentaikei* 連体形 lit. ‘form connecting to a substantive’, **RT**) and ‘final’, ‘conclusive’ or ‘predicative’ form (*shūshikei* 終止形 ‘full-stop form’, **SS**) are two grammatical categories that are still widely taught in Japanese schools when learning verbal and adjectival morphology. As their names indicate, while the adnominal form is used preceding a substantive (in which case the verb or the adjective qualifies the following noun), the final form is used to form conjugate verbs and adjectives in a predicative function. However, depending on the Japonic variety and period, the use of the adnominal or the final form can also be triggered by some particles, or have different pragmatic meanings.

In any case, in the current standard language (that is, the dialect of Tōkyō) and, more generally, in most contemporary Japanese varieties, those two forms have almost completely merged together (if we neglect the word’s pitch accent) [tab. 1]:

<table><caption>Table 1 The *rentaikei/shūshikei* in standard Japanese</caption><thead><tr><th><i>Rentaikei</i>連体形</th><th><i>Shūshikei</i>終止形</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>高い山</td><td>= 山が高い</td></tr><tr><td>taka-iyama</td><td>yama=ga taka-<i>i</i></td></tr><tr><td>high-RT mountain</td><td>mountain=NOM high-SS</td></tr><tr><td>‘A high mountain’</td><td>‘The mountain is high’</td></tr><tr><td>立つ時</td><td>= 立つ</td></tr><tr><td>tats-u toki</td><td>tats-<i>u</i></td></tr><tr><td>stand-RT time</td><td>stand-SS</td></tr><tr><td>‘When [I] stand’</td><td>‘[I] stand’</td></tr></tbody></table>

Thus, in practice, this terminology is not necessary any more to describe the modern standard language (except in some marginal cases, such as な na vs だ da for adjectival nouns, or *keiyōdōshi* 形容動詞), but it is inherited from the description of Classical Japanese (CJ) and Old Japanese (OJ), in which it forms an important part of the morphological system (cf. *infra*).

## 2 The Adnominal/Final Distinction in Hachijō

The existence of a distinction between adnominal and final forms of verbs is one of the most commented features of Hachijō. It already occurs in the first Hachijō attestations (Satō 1781, MS *Izu kaitō fudoki*), and was noted in the first linguistic comment on the language (Dickins, Satow 1878, 470), which already compares those Hachijō forms with their Eastern Old Japanese counterparts found in the *Man’yōshū*.
Namely, the equivalent of the Japanese forms quoted earlier in Hachijō are shown in Table 2:

<table><caption>**Table 2** The rentaikei/shūshikei in Hachijō</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei 連体形</th><th>Shūshikei 終止形</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>タカケヤマ<br>taka-ke jama</td><td>= ヤマガタケー ~ タキャー<br>jama=ga take: ~¹ takja:</td></tr><tr><td>high-RT mountain<br>'A high mountain'</td><td>mountain=NOM high-SS<br>'The mountain is high'</td></tr><tr><td>タトトキ<br>tat-o toki</td><td>= タツ<br>tats-wu</td></tr><tr><td>stand-RT time<br>'When [I] stand'</td><td>stand-SS<br>'[I] stand'</td></tr></tbody></table>

Later on, Tachibana and Tōjō (1934, 45) and Hōjō (1948) elaborated on this discovery, and made it an important argument for the putative classification of Hachijō as a daughter-language of Eastern Old Japanese (EOJ). However, we can wonder how much Hachijō really resembles EOJ, especially if we take into consideration not only the non-past of regular verbs and adjectives, but also the various irregularities of their systems. More generally, we can wonder how conservative Hachijō morphology is in this perspective.

## 2.1 The Use of Nominal and Final Forms

It is worth mentioning that the use of the final or the adnominal form in Hachijō obeys many rules, the details of which go far beyond the scope of this article. In a nutshell, we can say that in Hachijō, the adnominal form can:

* mark the adnominal use of a verb, ex.: ma:dżan=jo ε-o toki 'when [I] play mahjong' (Asanuma 1999, 242)

* nominalise a proposition, ex.: omi=ga oġar-o=wa mottomo da 'what you are saying is true' (Asanuma 1999, 73)

* be triggered by some particles, ex.: ġigoto: ε-o=wa '[they] are working' (Asanuma 1999, 180)

* express interrogation: adan ε-o 'what will [I] do?' (Asanuma 1999, 180)

On the other hand, the use of the final form can:

* mark the 'final' (i.e. predicative) use of a verb, ex.: jo: tsuri=ni ik-uu '[I]'m going to catch some fish' (Asanuma 1999, 239)

* be triggered by the use of other particles (ex.: ik-uu=tgi:=ja 'it seems [they] are going' (Asanuma 1999, 32)
In fact, the final form of verbs is rarely used in Hachijō, the most common way of forming a declarative sentence being to use the adnominal form with the particle =wa (probably originating from the topic particle). Thus, in his 2001 book dedicated to Hachijō morphology, Kaneda considers that functionally in the contemporary language, the -o=wa form is best considered to be the proper 'final form' of verbs.

## 2.2 Non-Past Forms

In the non-past, the final/adnominal opposition is based on an opposition between -o and -u [tab. 3].

<table><caption>**Table 3** Verbal rentaikei/shūshikei in Hachijō.</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei 連体形</th><th>Shūshikei 終止形</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>シゴトニ イコワ</td><td>ソバニ イクト</td></tr><tr><td>sigoto=pi ik-o=wa</td><td>soba=pi ik-uw=to</td></tr><tr><td>work=LOC go-RT=PT</td><td>vicinity=LOC go-SS=PT</td></tr><tr><td>'[I'm] going to work'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 217)</td><td>'If [you] go nearby'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 124)</td></tr><tr><td>エー デロ トキ ủ</td><td>シェキガ デル</td></tr><tr><td>e: der-o toki</td><td>šeki=ga der-uw</td></tr><tr><td>house.Acc go.out-RT time</td><td>sneeze=SUBJ go.out-SS</td></tr><tr><td>'When [I] leave home...'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 194)</td><td>'[I] sneeze'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 107)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Thus, the Hachijō system appears extremely straightforward and regular, as there seems to be no allomorphy at all in the non-past; -o and -u being respectively the only adnominal and the only final marker for both classes of verbs (i.e., vowel and consonant verbs). Only the verb 'to do' has a slightly irregular pattern, as we can observe a variation of its root between a plain alveolar s- in the final form, and a palatalised c- in the adnominal:<fnref n="3" />

<table><tr><td>アダン ショ</td><td>ケガー スト</td></tr><tr><td>adan c-o</td><td>kega: s-uw=to</td></tr><tr><td>what do-RT</td><td>injury do-SS=PT</td></tr><tr><td>'What will [we] do?' (Asanuma 1999, 180)</td><td>'If [they] get hurt' (Asanuma 1999, 180)</td></tr></table>

<footnote n="3">³ In some occurrences, the adnominal form also has a non-palatal allomorph s-o, which was given by some native speakers (in my personal data) as a more recent form. It could indeed be influenced by the final form.</footnote>
We can wonder about the origin of this palatalisation and we will see that the comparison with Ryukyuan might provide an explanation for it (cf. *infra*).

However, when we look at some uses of the final form with other particles, such as the form Kaneda calls ‘conjectural form’ *suiryōkei* 推量形 (2001, 114, morphologically ‘final form + *now*’), and the one Kaneda calls ‘emphatic form’ *kyōchōkei* 強調形 (2001, 115, ‘final form + *ne*: ~ *nja:*)’, we can see that there is some irregularity in the Hachijō system. Namely, all vowel verbs (including the irregular *kuru* ‘come’) can have two forms before these particles: one with the final mark -*ru* and one without, the latter being perceived as older form. Thus we have: *ku-now* / *kuru-now* ‘would come’, *mi-now* / *miru-now* ‘would see’, etc. Thus, in the case of vowel verbs, there seems to be some conditioned allomorphy, which we will try to explain through the comparison with Old Japanese.

## 2.3 Copula and Negative Auxiliary

In Hachijō, both the copula and the negative auxiliary verb also have distinct adnominal and forms in the non-past [tab. 4]:

<table><caption>**Table 4** The *rentaikei/shūshikei* opposition in copulas</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei 連体形</th><th>Shūshikei 終止形</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>オヤガ ダメ ダーンテ<br>oja=ga dame <b>da:</b><sup>1</sup>=nte...<br>parent=SUBJ bad <b>be.RT=PT</b><br>'Since [her] parents are no good...' (Asanuma 1999, 233)</td><td>≠ イソガシケンテ ダメ ダラ<br>isogaçi-ke=nte dame <b>dara</b><br>busy-RT=PT bad <b>COP.SS</b><br>'Since [I'm] busy, [it]'s no good' (Asanuma 1999, 41)</td></tr><tr><td>イソガシクテ ミンナー ジャ<br>isogaçi-kwte mi-<b>nn:a:</b><sup>2</sup>=dza<br>busy-CONJ see-<b>NEG.RT=PT</b><br>'Since [we]'re busy, we don't see [each other]'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 223)</td><td>≠ ウノ ヒト ワ ミンナカ<br>wno=çito=wa mi-<b>nnaka</b><br>this=person=PT see-<b>NEG.SS</b><br>'[I] don't see that person'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 223)</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="2"><ol><li>This form is from the Sueyoshi variety. In other varieties, <b>da</b>: has a cognate form <b>do</b>: or <b>doa</b>.</li><li>This form is from the Sueyoshi variety. In other varieties, <b>na</b>: has a cognate form <b>no</b>: or <b>noa</b>.</li></ol></td></tr></tfoot></table>

As we will see in the next subsection, these markers are parallel to the adnominal and final forms encountered in the past tense.
## 2.4 Past Tense

In Hachijō, the final/adnominal opposition in the past tense of verbs and adjectives<fnref n="4" /> is marked by an opposition between -oa ~ -o: ~ -a: (depending on the topolect) and -ara [tab. 5].

<table><caption>**Table 5** The rentaikei/shūshikei opposition in the past tense</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei 連体形</th><th>Shūshikei 終止形</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>シマザケー ノマー<br>AIMA-ZAKE: nom-a:<sup>1</sup><br>sake.ACC drink-PST.RT COP-PT<br>'[Because I] drank local sake...'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 104)</td><td>※ ショーチューヨ ノマラ<br>GO:TGW:=jo nom-arashōchū.ACC<br>drink-PST.SS<br>'[I] drank shōchū'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 19)</td></tr><tr><td>カゲブチョ ミターデ<br>kagebuto mit-a:<sup>2</sup>=de<br>silhouette.ACC see-PST.RT=PT<br>'When [I] saw [your] silhouette...'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 63)</td><td>※ ユメー ミタラ<br>JUME: mit-ara<br>DREAM.ACC see-PST.SS<br>'[I] had a dream'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 239)</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="2"><sup>1</sup> This form is from the Sueyoshi variety. In other varieties, -a: has a cognate form -o: or -oa.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><sup>2</sup> Cf. note above.</td></tr></tfoot></table>

Again, the system appears very regular with no allomorphy whatsoever. It should also be noted that in a few fossilised occurrences first described by Kaneda (1991), Hachijō also uses another past tense form in -tči or -dži, in which there is no opposition between final and adnominal. We will also discuss its origin in comparison with OJ (cf. infra).

## 2.5 Adjectives

Finally, Hachijō also distinguishes adnominal and final form of adjectives through an opposition between -ke and -kja [tab. 6].

<footnote n="4">4 The adjectives have the exact same -a: ~ -o: / -ara markings, since they are seemingly made of the adverbial marker -kw followed by the copula arw (ex: wreci-k-ara: / wreshi-k-arara).</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 6** The rentaikei/shūshikei opposition in adjectives</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei 連体形</th><th>Shūshikei 終止形</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ウンマケ よギゾーシー<br>wmma-ke mugi-zo:ci:<br>tasty-RT wheat-porridge<br>'Tasty wheat porridge'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 129)</td><td>≠ よギゾーシーワ ウンマキャ<br>mugi-zo:ci:=wa wmma-kja<br>wheat-porridge=TOP tasty-SS<br>'The wheat porridge is tasty'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 223)</td></tr></tbody></table>

However, a few final forms in -i are also attested,<fnref n="5" /> often triggering vowel coalescence with the adjective root, as in:

* *ama-i → ame: ~ amja: vs ama-kja 'sweet'

* *mudzukaçi-i → mudzukaçi: vs. mudzukaçi-kja 'difficult'

* *waru-i → wari: vs. waru-kya 'bad'

* *-be-i→-bei ~ -be: ~ -bi: vs. -be-kya 'should'<fnref n="6" />

* *co-i → cei ~ ci: vs. co-kja 'aware'

These contracted forms are especially common in pre-modern sources, but are given as old-fashioned by native speakers, who seem to prefer -kya forms in almost all contexts except frozen idioms and code-switching with standard Japanese. Given the fact that -s- is usually dropped in medial position in Hachijō (Kaneda 2001, 22), it is highly likely that those contracted final forms are archaisms perpetuating OJ *-si, which means that -kja must be the result of a recent innovation (cf. infra).

# 3 The Adnominal/Final Distinction in Mainland Japanese

## 3.1 In Classical Japanese (CJ)

In CJ, adnominal and final forms are morphologically distinct for all adjectives, but only for some classes of verbs. Namely, the opposition is marked for the 二段 nidan 'bigrade' verbs and for all irregular verbs, but not for the 一段 ichidan 'monograde' and 四段 yodan 'quadrigrade' verbs. The global pattern was as follows [tab 7]:

<footnote n="5">5 It should also be noted that a few -ki adnominal forms and a few -shi final forms are attested in pre-modern sources (such as Ōhara 1811), but I suspect those to be influenced by classical Japanese. Similarly, a contracted adnominal occurs in Hachijō in a few words like *wake:-eु / wakja:-eु 'youngster', but I suspect those words to be loan-words from mainland Japanese (< wakai-shu) rather than genuine Hachijō syntagms.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 The adjective auxiliary -bei / bekya (classical Japanese beshi 可し), which attaches on the final form of a verb, appears to be the only -e adjective root in Hachijō.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 7** The rentaikei/shūshikei opposition in Classical Japanese</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei 連体形</th><th>Shūshikei 終止形</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Adjectives, class 1:<br>高き山<br>taka-ki yama<br>high-RT mountain<br>'A high mountain'</td><td>≠ 山が高<br>yama=ga taka-si<br>mountain=NOM high-ss<br>'The mountain is high'</td></tr><tr><td>Adjectives, class 2:<br>悲しき人<br>kanasi-ki fito<br>sad-RT person<br>'A sad person'</td><td>≠ 人が悲し<br>fito=ga kanasi-ø<br>person=NOM sad-ss<br>'[That] person is sad'</td></tr><tr><td>Bigrade and irregular verbs:<br>老ゆん人<br>oy-uru fito<br>get.old-RT person<br>'Ageing people'</td><td>≠ 人が老ゆ<br>fito=ga oy-u<br>person=NOM get.old-ss<br>'People get old'</td></tr><tr><td>R- irregular verbs (aru, woru, etc.):<br>有る所<br>ar-u toko<br>robe-RT place<br>'There is a place...'</td><td>≠ 個々で有り<br>koko ar-i<br>here be-ss<br>'[It]'s here'</td></tr><tr><td>BUT<br>Monograde verbs:<br>見る時<br>mir-u toki<br>look-RT time<br>'When [I] look'</td><td>= 見る<br>mir-u<br>look-ss<br>'[I] look'</td></tr><tr><td>Quadrigrade verbs:<br>立つ時<br>tat-u toki<br>stand-RT time<br>'When [I] stand'</td><td>= 立つ<br>tat-u<br>stand-ss<br>'[I] stand'</td></tr></tbody></table>

By observing Table 7, we can see that the standard language (i.e. the dialect of Tōkyō) only seems to preserve adnominal forms: *takai* < *takaki*, *kanashii* < *kanasiki*, *oiru* < *oyuru*, *aru* < *aru*. For the rest, this pattern is almost entirely inherited from Old Japanese (OJ), as we can see *infra*.
## 3.2 In Western Old Japanese (WOJ)

In WOJ, the adnominal/final opposition can be summed up as follows
[tab. 8].

<table><caption>**Table 8** The rentaikei/shūshikei opposition in Western Old Japanese</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei 連体形</th><th>Shūshikei 終止形</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Adjectives:</strong><br>多可吉多知夜麻<br>taka-kyi tatiyama<br>high-RT Tatiyama<br>'The high Tatiyama' (MYS 17.4003)<br>于都俱之枳 [...] 古弘<br>utukusi-kyi kwo=wo<br>pretty-RT child=ACC<br>'[My] pretty child' (NSK 121)</td><td>浪高之<br>NAMYI TAKA-si<br>wave high-ss<br>'[The] waves are high' (MYS 7.1143)<br>妻子 [...] 宇都久志<br>mye-kwo [...] utukusi-Ø<sup>1</sup><br>woman-child pretty-ss<br>'[His] wife &amp; children are pretty' (MYS 5.800)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Irregular and weak vowel verbs:</strong><br>美知久流之保能<br>miyi k-uru sipo=nə<br>rise-INF come-RT tide=GEN<br>'Of the rising tide' (MYS 17.3985)<br>Strong vowel verbs:<br>牟那美流登岐<br>muna myi-ru təkyi<br>chest look-RT time<br>'When [I] look at [my] chest' (KK 4)<br>R- irregular verbs:<br>伊可奈留夜比止<br>ika nar-u=ya pyitə<br>how be-RT=PT person<br>'What kind of a person' (BS 5)</td><td>之保美知久<br>sipo miyt-i k-u<br>tide rise-INF come-ss<br>'The tide is rising' (MYS 15.3707)<br>美等母<br>mi-Ø<sup>1</sup>=təmə<br>look-ss=CONJ<br>'Though [I] look' (MYS 18.4037)<br>乎思吉物奈利<br>wosi-kyi MÖNÖ nar-i<br>regrettable-RT thing be-ss<br>'[It] is a regrettable thing' (MYS 17.3904)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Past tense:</strong><br>妹等安里之時<br>IMO=tə ari-si TÖKYI<br>beloved=COM be-PAST. RT time<br>'When [I] was with [my] beloved' (MYS 15.3591)<br>Consonant verbs:<br>多都追奇其等爾<br>tat-u tukiy=Nkətə=ni<br>rise-RT moon=COMP=LOC<br>'Like the rising moon' (MYS 15.3683)</td><td>倭柯俱阿利岐<br>waka-ku ari-kyi<br>young=ADV be-PAST. SS<br>'[He] was young' (NK 11)<br>= 夜久毛多都<br>ya kumwo tat-u<br>many cloud rise-ss<br>'Many clouds are rising' (KK 7)</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>1</strong> This form is probably due to a haplology *-si-si > -si in the final form.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>2</strong> There might also be a hapax m-uru in MYS VI.942, but it was rejected by Vovin 2020, 506.</td></tr></tfoot></table>
Compared to Classical Japanese, the similarities are striking, but it
can be noted that ‘strong vowel verbs’<fnref n="7" /> such as *myi* ‘see’ did at that
time have a *rt/ss* distinction that was lost in CJ through the exten-
sion of the adnominal *mi-ru*. This indicates that the extension of the
adnominal form to the expense of the final form was already an on-
going phenomenon between OJ and CJ.

Furthermore, we can observe that strong and weak vowel verbs re-
spectively had an unmarked and a -u final form, such as *mi*, and *k-u*.
Thus, these forms are probably the direct ancestors of the fossilised
final forms of vowel verbs found before some particles in Hachijō: *ku-
no*: < *k-u-namu*, *mi-no*: < *myi-*o-*namu*, which means that the -ru forms
are indeed recent remodellings based on an extension of the adnomi-
nal form of those verbs to a final use (*mi*, *mi-no*: > *mi-ru*, *mi(ru)no*):

More generally, if we compare WOJ to Hachijō, we can observe that:

*   WOJ has an adjective adnominal -kyi, whereas Hachijō has -ke;

*   WOJ has no adnominal/final opposition in the non-past of con-
sonant verbs (*tat-u* = *tat-u*), whereas Hachijō features an oppo-
sition (*tat-o* ≠ *tats-w*). Both of these elements can be discussed
by comparison with Eastern Old Japanese (cf. *infra*);

*   WOJ has an adjective final form -si, whereas, in most cases,
Hachijō has -kja. Thus, it appears that Hachijō created a new
final form. According to Kaneda (2001, 85; 2012, 132), this new
form is based on the adnominal -ke, -kja being a contraction of
-ke followed by the final particle =wa;

*   WOJ opposes an adnominal -u and a final -i in the case of the verb *aru* and of all the derived stems, whereas the verb *ar-* is a regular consonant verb (*ar*-o / *ar*-w) in Hachijō. We will discuss this point when comparing Hachijō with other contemporary languages;

*   WOJ opposes a final past form -kyi from an adnominal past form
    -si, whereas Hachijō has only one form -tci, -dzi. This form is
    likely to be solely from the adnominal -si (Kaneda 1991), which
    means that the final form -kyi was eliminated from the language
    early on. This shows again an extension of the *rt* form at the
    expense of the *ss* form;

*   Hachijō also has a more recent past tense with an attributive
    form -a: / -oa / -o-, and a final form -ara, which did not exist in OJ.
    This form is, according to Iitoyo (1959, 223) and Kaneda (2001,
    109, 144), a former stative based on *aro, the final form being
    the contraction of *aro with the final particle =wa.<fnref n="8" />

<footnote n="7">7 We borrow the terminology used by Vovin 2020, 506.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 Kaneda (2001, 144) also explains the negative auxiliary forms through an *aro/*aro=wa opposition, as he proposes that the attributive form no: ~ noa ~ na: originates from nak-o (a form attested in some topolects, cf. Kaneda 2001, 22), itself from *naku + aro. Similarly, the final form naka would originate from *naku aro, followed by the final declarative particle =wa.</footnote>
## 3.3 In Eastern Old Japanese (EOJ)

The EOJ data being quite scarce, it is harder to get a clear picture of the full paradigm of that language. In general, most forms appear identical to their Western counterparts [tab. 9]:

<table><caption>**Table 9** The rentaikei/shūshikei in Eastern Old Japanese</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei連体形</th><th>Shūshikei終止形</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Adjectives, class 1:<br>能可抱与吉尔<br>sənə=kəpə yə-kyi=n<br>it hat=face good-RT=LOC<br>'That face being good[-looking]'<br>(MYS 14.3411)</td><td>安路許曾要志母<br>ar-o=kəsə ye-si=mə<br>be-RT=PT good-SS=EXCL<br>'[It]'s so good to have...'<br>(MYS 14.3509)</td></tr><tr><td>Adjectives, class 2:<br>加奈思吉兒呂我<br>kanasi-kyi kwo-rə=ga<br>adorable-RT girl-DIM=SUBJ<br>'[My] adorable girl' (MYS 14.3351)</td><td>古呂之可奈思<br>kwo-rə=si kanasi-Ø<br>girl-DIM=EMPH adorable-SS<br>'[That] girl is adorable' (MYS 14.3537)</td></tr><tr><td>Irregular and weak vowel verbs:<br>久流比等母奈之<br>k-uru pyitə=mo na-si<br>come-RT person=PT is-not-SS<br>'No one will come' (MYS 20.4353)</td><td>阿尔久夜<br>ani k-u=ya<br>INTERJ come-SS=PT<br>'Alas! Will [he] come?' (MYS 14.3411)</td></tr><tr><td>Strong vowel verbs:<br>美流波々<br>myi-ru papa<br>look-RT mother<br>'My mother who saw' (MYS 20.4330)</td><td>? (missing data)</td></tr><tr><td>R- irregular verbs:<br>伊刀奈流等毛<br>itwo n-i nar-u=təmwo<br>thread be-RT=CONJ<br>'Even though they get unravelled' (MYS 20.4405)</td><td>阿志氣比等奈里<br>asi-key pyitə nar-i<br>bad-RT person be-SS<br>'[He] is a bad person' (MYS 20.4382)</td></tr><tr><td>Past tense:<br>安里之波可<br>ari-si paka<br>be-PST.RT rumour<br>'A rumour said [there] was'<br>(MYS 14.3385)</td><td>? (missing data)</td></tr><tr><td>Consonant verbs:<br>多姧由久阿礼波<br>tabi=ni yuk-u are=pa<br>journey go-RT I=TOP<br>'I, who will go on a journey...'<br>(MYS 20.4327)</td><td>和波由久<br>wa=pa yuk-ul=TOP go-SS<br>'I will go'<br>(MYS 14.3366)</td></tr></tbody></table>
However, in a minority of occurrences, different forms specific to EOJ also occur [tab.10]:

<table><caption>**Table 10** Irregular *rentaikei* in Eastern Old Japanese</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei 1 (= WOJ)</th><th>Rentaikei 2 (≠ WOJ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Adjectives, class 1:<br>曾能可抱与吉尔<br>sənə=kapo ya-kyi=ni<br>that=face good-RT=LOC<br>'That face being good[-looking]'<br>(MYS 14.3411)</td><td>/<br>須美与氣乎<br>sum-yi yə-key=wo<br>live-NOMIN good-RT=ACC<br>'[There,] where it is good to live'<br>(MYS 20.4419)</td></tr><tr><td>Adjectives, class 2:<br>加奈思吉兒呂我<br>kanasi-kyi kwo-rə=ga<br>adorable-RT girl-DIM=SUBJ<br>'[My] adorable girl'<br>(MYS 14.3351)</td><td>/<br>可奈師家兒良尔<br>kanasi-kye KWO-ra=ni<br>adorable-RT girl-DIM=LOC<br>'[Away] from [my] adorable girl'<br>(MYS 14.3412)</td></tr><tr><td>Irregular and weak vowel verbs:<br>久流比等母奈之<br>k-uru pyitə=mə na-si<br>come-RT person=PT is-not-SS<br>'No one will come'<br>(MYS 20.4353)</td><td>/<br>可閑利久麻呂尔<br>kapeyri-k-u<sup>1</sup>=maNte=ni<br>return-come-RT=until=LOC<br>'Until [I] come back'<br>(MYS 20.4372)<br>安良波路萬代母<br>arapar-wo<sup>1</sup>=maNte=mə<br>appear-RT=until=EXCL<br>'Until [it] appears'<br>(MYS 14.3414)</td></tr><tr><td>R- irregular verbs:<br>伊弊奈流伊母<br>ipye=n ar-u ima<br>home=LOC be-RT beloved<br>'[My] beloved who is at home'<br>(MYS 20.4415)</td><td>/<br>安路許曾要志母<br>ar-wo=kəsə ye-si=mə<br>be-RT=PT good-SS=EXCL<br>'[It]'s so good to have...'<br>(MYS 14.3509)</td></tr><tr><td>Consonant verbs:<br>多姧由久阿礼波<br>tabi=ni yuk-u are=pa<br>journey go-RT l=TOP<br>'I, who will go on a journey...'<br>(MYS 20.4327)</td><td>=<br>由古作枳尔<br>yuk-wo<sup>1</sup> sakyi=ni<br>go-RT ahead=LOC<br>'Where I'm going'<br>(MYS 20.4385)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 It seems common in EOJ to mark the non-past adnominal with -u instead of -uru for vowel verbs. For instance, =maNte 'until' is always preceded by an adnominal in both EOJ and WOJ, but EOJ has k-u=maNte in 4 occurrences, and no occurrence of *k-uru=maNte. Other examples include: op-u (MYS 14.3488), meyNt-u (16.3880), yəs-u (14.3548), nak-u (14.3458), wakar-u (20.4381), the passive -are- (ex: nur-ar-u yatuko 'the scolded lad', 16.3879) and the perfective -n- (ex: kyi-n-u=kamə '[I] came', 20.4364)
2 Arapare- is a vowel verb in WOJ, but a *hapax legomenon* in EOJ. Thus, it could also be that this verb is simply a consonant verb in EOJ, but in my opinion, this -o in *araparwo* is to be seen as a regular vowel verb marker in EOJ, since -o also occurs in other vowel verbs such as *kyi-n-wo=kamə* ‘[I] came’ (MYS 14.3527).

3 An adnominal marker -ə also occurs for consonant verbs, but only after the bilabial -m-. Thus, -ə can be considered a purely graphic variant of -o (Vovin 2021, 30).

In addition, one occurrence is problematic, but could also be putatively interpreted as adnominal forms of the weak vowel Nte- ‘go out’ (according to Kupchik 2023, 174):

<table><tr><td>伊豆流湯能<br>iNt-uru YU=nə<br>go.out-RT hot.spring=GEN<br>'Like the hot water that springs'<br>(MYS 14.3368)</td><td>= 於毛比度路<br>omwop-yi [i]Nt-worwo<sup>1</sup><br>think-INF emerge-RT<br>'[I] recall'<br>(MYS 14.3419)</td></tr></table>

1 This occurrence is highly problematic, as the whole poem is almost impossible to analyse. However, both Kupchik and Vovin agree to analyse -toro / -Ntoro as an adnominal, either of *iNte-* ‘exit’ or of *tor-* ‘take’. If the second analysis is correct, then we must consider -o to be a consonant verb adnominal. On the other hand, if度 does not write *Nto* but *to*, as Vovin says is possible, another analysis could also be to interpret *-t-oro* as an adnominal of perfective *-t-*, parallel to WOJ *-t-uru*. However, since Kupchik considers that度 always writes *Nto* and never *to*, this hypothesis does not seem to be the most plausible to me.

Based on this inventory, we can see that there is a lot of allomorphy in EOJ. Namely, in the non-past of verbs, we can count at least:

* 4 allomorphs for the adnominal form: -o, -u, -ru, -uru (+ possibly -oro);

* 2 allomorphs for the final form: -u, -i.

These ‘Adnominal 1’ and ‘Adnominal 2’ forms appear to be in complete free variation in EOJ, since both forms occur in the same dialects and often in the same poems.<fnref n="9" />

However, as we can observe, the ‘Adnominal 2’ forms are much less common than their counterparts. In total, in Vovin’s corpus of EOJ texts (2021), I counted:

* 48 occurrences of -o vs. 138 -u for consonant verbs;

* 9 occurrences of -o, 13 occurrences of -u, 1 possible occurrence of -oro, and 29 occurrences of -uru for irregular and vowel verbs;<fnref n="10" />

<footnote n="9">9 However, the non-Western forms are more rare in some dialects than others, as illustrated by Kupchik 2011, 697.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 Interestingly, a putative form *-uro does not occur.</footnote>
* 3 occurrences of -ru for strong vowel verbs, with no further allomorphy;<fnref n="11" />

* 2 occurrence of -o vs. 27 occurrences of -u for -r- irregular verbs.

Thus, we can see that non-Western forms are not equally distributed, depending on the class of verbs, which might give us some insights on the prehistory of the EOJ system. Phonologically, however, -o forms are also not particularly restricted, since they can occur after all consonants.

Finally, two other adnominal morphemes -a and -e are sometimes reported for EOJ. However, the former is mostly based on one occurrence for which there are several interpretations<fnref n="12" /> and was therefore considered dubious by Kupchik (2011, 696-7) before he recently accepted it as genuine (Kupchik 2023, 334). Similarly, the latter is considered dubious by Vovin, who provides a different analysis for all proposed occurrences.<fnref n="13" /> Thus, we will exclude both from our inventory.

As for adjectives, we can list:

* Three possible allomorphs of adjective adnominal forms: -kye, -key, -kyi;

* Two allomorphs of adjective final forms: -si, -ø, with the same distribution as WOJ.

The variation between -kye and -key might look rather puzzling at first glance, since on the one hand -kye represents a majority of 'non-Western' occurrences (12 vs. 6), but on the other hand more adjectives have a -key form than a -kye form (-key is used with 6 different roots, and -kye only with 3, since 10 out of 12 of its occurrences are with the adjective root kanasi- 'pretty'). However, as pointed out by

<footnote n="11">11 A putative *-ro does not occur.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 Namely, the line 可欲波等里我栖 in 14.3526 is analysed differently by: Kupchik (2011, 697); Vovin (2021, 214); Kupchik (2023, 334):

kay-wo=pa təri=Nka sukaywop-a təri=Nka sukaywop-a təri=Nka su be.far-ATTR=TOP bird=POSS nestvisit-ATTR bird=POSS nestgo.back.and.forth.-ATTR bird=POSS nest'in the distant [is] a bird's nest''the nest of a bird that visits...''the nests of a bird that shuttles...'. All 8 other occurrences of this adnominal -a are found after the negative morpheme -n- and before a locative particle. Thus, if the *kayopa* is not considered an -a adnominal, it is possible to consider that -a in *na=n*- is in fact a nominalising suffix or a part of the negative suffix, as proposed by Hōjō (1966, 496-501). On the contrary, Ikier (2006, 101) proposes that this -a is a genuine adnominal and an allomorph of -o resulting from an assimilation with neighbouring /a/.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 This supposed morpheme only occurs 11 times and always after the negative iterative -an-ap-. Vovin proposes to analyse this -e as a nominalising morpheme in 1 occurrence: 14.3482a, as a converb morpheme in 4 occurrences: 14.3455, 14.3478, 14.3529, 14.3555, and as an eventual morpheme in the remaining 6 occurrences: 14.3394, 14.3466, 14.3482a, 14.3483, 14.3509, 14.3524.</footnote>
Kupchik, graphic <ye> and <ey> are frequently mixed in both direc-
tions in EOJ, which seems to indicate that both phonemes had merged
in at least some dialects (2011, 469). Thus, both of those spellings
probably point toward the same morpheme -ke.

In comparison to verbal forms, the non-Western adjectival adnomi-
nal -ke does not appear to be that rare, since I counted 18 occurrenc-
es of it and only 15 occurrences of -kyi in Vovin's EOJ corpus. On the
other hand, we can observe that -ke and -kyi occur in both adjective
classes and without apparent phonological conditioning, but that they
do not occur in the same poems, or actually, to some extent, in the
same dialects, as pointed out by Ikier (2006, 99), Hino (2003, 200)
and Kupchik (2011, 624), respectively.

Finally, regarding the origin of these non-Western adnominal
forms, the least we can say is that there is a strong consensus to
claim that they are more archaic than their Western counterpart, and,
based on the comparison with Hachijō and with other Japonic languag-
es (cf. *infra*), many specialists consider that they are probably direct-
ly inherited from Proto-Japonic (PJ) *-o and *-ke, respectively.<fnref n="14" /> In ad-
dition, as mentioned by Pellard (2008, 148-9), an adnominal adjective
form -ke also occurs in the earliest stage of WOJ, like 波斯祁夜斯 pa-
si-kye=ya=si 'how dear' (KK 32), and, as pointed out by Osterkamp
(2018, 47), an adnominal -o can also be found in some very early mok-
kan, for instance in 佐兇 [...] 波奈 sak-wo pana 'blooming flower'.

For vowel verbs, the picture is a bit less clear, but according to
Miyake (2003, 122), we might have an attributive ending -ro in a
syntagm found on the Inariyama sword: *waka-takye-rwo* 獲加多支函,
which he interprets as ‘being young and fierce’, with *take-* probably
being a weak vowel verb.<fnref n="15" /> If his analysis is correct, then we have to
assume that the *-uru* adnominal forms which are later found in both
WOJ and EOJ were somehow reshaped analogically from that proto-
form *-ro*. In that case, the instances of *-o / -u* adnominal forms in
EOJ would necessarily be an innovation, either due to a syncope or
to a form of extension of the consonant verb marking.

On the other hand, if we reject this analysis or if we consider that
one evidence is not enough, we could also suppose that the EOJ -o
/-u forms are the archaic ones, and that WOJ -uru is secondary. In
that case, we can assume that the PJ was *-o and that the *-ro suf-
fix was added later on (probably by recharacterisation on the model
of strong vowel verbs). This would explain the form attested in MYS
14.3419 iNt-oro. However, further research will be needed, especially
in Old Okinawan, in order to decide between those two hypotheses.

<footnote n="14">14 Serafim 1999; Miyake 2003; Frellesvig, Whitman 2004; Pellard 2008.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 As a matter of fact, all strong vowel verbs in OJ are in -i or -ï, while weak vowel verbs are often in -e.</footnote>
In any case, we can say that even though the EOJ system is highly irregular, Hachijō offers a remarkable parallel with its oldest layer, as can be illustrated in Table 11:

<table><caption>**Table 11** Parallels between Hachijō and Eastern Old Japanese *rentaikei*</caption><tr><td>ヨケ テンキデ<br>yo-ke tenki=de<br>good-RT weather=CIRC 'Since the weather is nice'<br>(Asanuma 1999, 194)</td><td>// 須美与氣乎<br>sum-i ya-key=wo<br>live-NOMIN good-RT=ACC<br>'[There,] where it is good to live'<br>(MYS 20.4419)</td></tr><tr><td>アオ コトン シタラ<br>a-o koto=n shit-tara<br>meet-RT decision=LOC do-PAST<br>'They decided to meet'<br>(Kaneda 2006, Awazu no ki, 3)</td><td>// 阿抱思太毛<br>ap-o siNta=mwo<br>meet-RT time=FP<br>'When [we] meet'<br>(MYS 14.3478)</td></tr></table>

In this regard, Hachijō appears remarkably conservative in two ways: **morphologically**, since Hachijō preserves a distinction that most neighbouring languages lost, sometimes several centuries ago, and **phonologically**, since Hachijō retains unraised forms that were already getting replaced centuries ago in EOJ. This parallel alone between Hachijō and EOJ is often used as an argument for the putative classification of the former as a daughter language of the latter. However, and while there might incidentally be very good other lexical and phonological arguments for this classification, we also need to remember that 'shared archaisms' can methodologically not be used as a tool for classification, as only 'shared innovations' are relevant in order to establish branches of a language family.

In order to better understand both Hachijō and all Japonic languages on the adnominal/final distinction, we still need to take a look at other modern languages.
## 3.4 In Contemporary Dialects

The distinction between adnominal and final forms seems to have disappeared from most contemporary Japanese dialects.<fnref n="16" /> However, it has been noted since at least the 1980s (Mase 1980) that two different Japanese varieties preserved parts of this paradigm until recently.

The first of these two varieties is the dialect spoken on Toshima, in the north of the Izu archipelago, which retains unraised adnominal verb ending -o, but generalised it to all uses, except before some particles which trigger the final form, like the conjectural -bei and -no: (Ōshima 1962, 45-7; Hirayama 1965, 53-6) [tab. 12].

<table><caption>Table 12 Traces of rentaikei/shūshikei in the Toshima dialect</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei 連体形 (now ubiquitous form)</th><th>Shūshikei 終止形 (conditioned use)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>アレモ イコダロベイ<br>are=INCL ik-o daro=bei<br>he=PT go-RT cop.CONJ=CONJ<br>'He'll probably go as well' (Ōshima<br>1992, 138)</td><td>≠ フネデ イクノー<br>φwne=de ik-ū=no:<br>boat=CIRC go-SS=CONJ<br>'[They]'ll (surely) come by boat'<br>(Ōshima 1992, 138)</td></tr></tbody></table>

The preservation of fossilised forms before some specific particles is a remarkable parallel to the fossilised unmarked final forms of strong vowel verbs that we saw earlier in Hachijō (*ku= no:*, *mi= no:*, vs. newer forms *kuwu= no:*, *mīwu= no:*), and the generalisation of the adnominal form to the expense of the final form shows again how strong this tendency is among Japonic languages. In that regard, we can also notice that the adjective forms, have a unique form in -i, which is inherited solely from the former adnominal, just like the Tōkyō dialect (ex.: *kuroi iro* 'black colour' / *kuroi=ne*: '[it] is black', Ōshima 1962, 107).

Finally, as Ōshima points out, the existential verb 'to be' in Toshi-ma is *ar-o*, *ar-w*, like it is in Hachijō, and not *ar-o*, *ar-i* like it is in EOJ. Thus, we have to assume either that both those languages exhibit an archaism that was lost early on in OJ, or that the verb *ar-* underwent

<footnote n="16">16 It is possible that it was preserved until recently in some dialects, but remained unnoticed. For instance, though I could not find any trace of it anywhere yet, Hirayama (1968, 119) claims that an adjective adnominal -ke also existed in some dialects of the Chiba prefecture. Similarly, some occurrences attested in the *Zenkoku hōgen shiryō*, if proven genuine fossilised forms, might represent traces of such an original opposition. For instance, in the town of Kamiōzu, Fukue (in the Gotō archipelago, Nagasaki prefecture), though the usual form of adjectives is -ka in both adnominal and final forms (ex.: *makke-ka* çi 'a vivid red fire', NHK, 9, 1967, 46), we can also see an adnominal -ki in *tçika-ki nīngen* 'the people surrounding' (NHK, 9, 1967, 46). As the study of those forms exceeds the scope of this article, they will not be discussed here. However, I would like to warmly thank Aleksandra Jarosz for bringing them to my attention.</footnote>
parallel remodelling in both of those varieties. As we will see (cf. *in-fra*), the Ryukyuan data might provide good insights to answer that question.

The second contemporary variety that retains some parts of this system is the Akiyamagō dialect, spoken in Nagano prefecture. The opposition is reported by Mase to be partly preserved for both verbs and adjectives [tab. 13].

<table><caption>Table 13 Rentaikei/shūshikei in Akiyamagō</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei 連体形</th><th>Shūshikei 終止形</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>kat-o dotça:</td><td>kats-wu=roa:</td></tr><tr><td>stand-RT time</td><td>win-ss CONJ</td></tr><tr><td>'When [you] win...' (Mase 1992, 201)</td><td>'[He] will probably win' (Mase 1992, 201)</td></tr><tr><td>アカッケツラ</td><td>アケーゲダダ</td></tr><tr><td>akak-ke tsura</td><td>ake:¹=ge da</td></tr><tr><td>red-RT face 'A red face' (Mase 2002, 19)</td><td>red.ss=COMP COP '[It]'s reddish' (Mase 2002, 19)</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 Since Mase does not provide an interpretation of the origin of this contracted form, we can wonder whether it originates from OJ -si, or from OJ -ki. As they strongly resemble neighbouring -i adjectives (which come from adnominal -ki), Pellard (2008, 150-1) supposes that they are likely to be an external influence. However, it does not seem impossible either to suppose that medial -s- was dropped in some context in Akiyamagō; in a similar way that in Hachijō (cf. *supra*). However, since this question exceeds the scope of this article, we leave it open for further research.

However, as explained by Mase (2002, 17-20), the opposition was already almost lost when this data was recorded in 1971, since very few speakers distinguished the two forms for verbs, and the ones who did only preserved in a minority of verbs, such as for the consonant verbs ending in -t- (probably because the difference between affricate and plain alveolar occlusive reinforced the opposition).

As for adjectives, the contracted final form is now seen as the default for both adnominal and final uses and, except in a few fossilised expressions such as *oreçi-ke koto* 'how happy [I am]!' or *nekottaraçi-ke jatsu* '[what] a naughty fellow!', the old adnominal actually does not occur any more (Mase 2002, 19). The system was also partially remodelled, since the former adnominal marker -ke can now agglutinate to the contracted form (*ago-ke kusa* 'green grass' > *age:-ke kusa*), but is not a compulsory in this use (19).

Thus, we can see that even though it offers remarkable traces of the OJ pattern, the adnominal/final opposition was not preserved as well in Toshima and Akiyamagō as it was in Hachijō.
## 4 The Adnominal/Final Distinction in Ryukyuan

Finally, I would like to finish this reflection with a few insights from Ryukyuan languages.

### 4.1 In Old Okinawan (OO)

The data is quite scarce in Old Okinawan, but the adnominal/final distinction does not seem to be preserved for verbs, as usually consonant verbs have a unique form in -u, and vowel verbs have a unique form in -ru. Besides the distinction between strong and weak vowel verbs was eliminated from the language, and the irregular verbs were mostly made regular, $kʰuh-‘to come’$ and $si-‘to do’$ being regular vowel verbs, and $syín-‘to die’$ being a regular consonant verb (Takahashi 1991, 21-2; Serafim, Shinzato 2021, 187-90). This lack of opposition is illustrated by Table 14:

<table><caption>Table 14 The rentaikei/shūshikei in Old Okinawan</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Consonant verbs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>おもうやに<br>ʔumu'-u=yoo-nyi<br>think-RT=like-ADV<br>'As [he] thinks...' (OS 6.#299)</td><td>おむうな<br>ʔumu'-u=naa<br>think-SS=PT<br>'Don't [you] think' (OS 15.#1122)</td></tr><tr><td>Vowel verbs:<br>ひょよせるわし<br>pyik-yusi-ru=wasi<br>pull-let.approach-RT eagle<br>'The eagle who drags...' (OS 20.#1340)</td><td>= よせるまし<br>yusi-ru=mazui<br>let.approach-SS-NEG.IA<br>'[We] can't let [them] approach' (OS 12.#721)</td></tr></tbody></table>

However, as pointed out by Vovin (2009, 633-4) graphical -o adnominal forms do occur in the *Omoro saushi*, and it is not trivial to identify what this allography was representing.

As for the past tense, data is also lacking, as only the adnominal form -syi is attested, ex.:

わかさあしとき
wakʰa-saʔas-syi tʰuk̥°yi
young-NOM be-RT time
‘when [we] were young’ (OS 7.#380).

However, we can note the remarkable parallel between the OO form ʔas-syi and the Hachijō *at-tɛi*, /tts/~/ttɛ/ being the regular outcome of geminated /ss/ in Hachijō.
On the other hand, the copula *ar-* maintains a clear distinction between adnominal and final forms:

<table><tr><td>つみのあるあち</td><td>だにあり</td></tr><tr><td>cidzimyi=nu ?ar-u ?adzyi</td><td>da=nyi ?ar-yi</td></tr><tr><td>hand.drum=SUBJ be-RT lord</td><td>certain=ADV be-SS</td></tr><tr><td>'The lord who has a hand drum'</td><td>'[That]'s true'</td></tr><tr><td>(OS 19.#1295)</td><td>(OS 1.#40)</td></tr></table>

Thus, the existence of a final form *ar-i* in Old Okinawan seems to indicate that Hachijō and Toshima *aro / aru* is in fact secondary, and probably due to an analogical remodelling.

Finally, it is almost impossible to get any Ryukyuan comparative data on adjectives, since they were completely reshaped with the nominalising suffix -sa, followed the copula *ar-*, or more rarely with adverbial suffix -ku, followed by the same copula *ar-* (Serafim, Shinzato 2021, 151). Thus, the old adnominal is only visible in a few fossilised forms,<fnref n="17" /> and the adjective final form *-si* is not clearly attested in the *Omoro saushi*.<fnref n="18" />

## 4.2 In Modern Ryukyuan Languages

Data from modern Ryukyuan languages is also challenging to use, since, as explained by Vovin (2009, 632), most modern contemporary Ryukyuan languages completely reshaped their paradigm and now distinguish an adnominal *-uru* from a final *-um*, both usually triggering palatalisation of the preceding stop (e.g., in Shuri Okinawan, quoted from Vovin: *'itʃ-uru 'go-RT', vs. 'itʃ-un 'go-SS'*. However, as pointed out by Thorpe (1983, 182), and further explained by Pellard (2008, 142-3), a few Northern Okinawan languages still preserve a fossilised adnominal form in some specific contexts, and those adnominal forms can, according to Pellard, only be traced back to PR *-o. For instance, in Nakijin Yonamine Okinawan we find [tab. 15].

<footnote n="17">17 Such as おきおふち ?uu-k ɔ̃yi ?uqpɔ̃udzyi big-RT grandfather 'great-grandfather' (OS 21.#1395), or わかいきよ wakʰa-yi kʰyuu young-RT one 'the young one' (OS 21.#1472), in which we can observe the dropping of medial -k-.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 A morpheme -syi seems to occur as a final form marker, for instance in いいけっし ?yik ɔ̃yi-syi 'vivid' (OS 11.#648), but Serafim and Shinzato (2021, 153) consider that it is not a final marker, but a 'derivational suffix for adjectives with emotional content'. Thus, they gloss it as 'affective adjective formative' (2021, 164). Similarly, an unmarked -si- adjective final form seems to occur for instance in ?uruwasyi-ə 'beautiful-ss' (OS 8.#402), which could indicate that the same haplology as in WOJ and EOJ took place in Ryukyuan, but this hypothesis is not certain.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 15** The *rentaikei/shūshikei* in Nakijin Yonamine</caption><thead><tr><th>Rentaikei 連体形</th><th>Shūshikei 終止形</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>wa:=ga <b>hak</b>?u=madi: matt?ure:<br>I=NOM write-RT=CONJ wait.IMP<br>'Wait until I write'<br>(Pellard 2008, 142-3)</td><td>‡ wa:=ga <b>hat</b>?u=n<br>I=NOM write.SS-FIN<br>'I write'<br>(Pellard 2008, 142-3)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Similarly, as Jarosz has already showed in her article on South-Ryukyuan historical phonology (2019, 407-8), the phonological system of proto-Sakishima caused the infinitive and conclusive forms to become homophonous, which caused a lot of analogical reshaping of the paradigm. However, according to her, traces of the adnominal/final opposition can be found in the diversity of forms among modern South Ryukyuan languages, since, for instance Nakachi Miyako *kaf-u* 'write' can only be reconstructed as *kak-u*, whereas the form found in Ishigaki Yaeyama *kak-u* can only point to *kak-o* (411).

Finally, it is important to our discussion that both Thorpe (1983, 154) and Jarosz (2019, 406) do not reconstruct a proto-Ryukyuan adnominal *-ru* for vowel verbs (as attested in WOJ), but *-ro*, which corroborates Miyake's analysis of the Inariyama sword. In addition, based on the Ryukyuan data, Thorpe proposes to reconstruct a proto-Ryukyuan adnominal *se-ro* for the verb 'to do', which, if we assume that WOJ and EOJ *s-uru* are secondary, could explain the palatalisation of the root in the Hachijō form *-o*.

## 5 Conclusion

As we have seen through the comparison of Hachijō with several other Japonic languages, we can only agree with Pellard's statement (2008, 144) that "there is definitely evidence for reconstructing the adnominal/conclusive opposition in PJ from comparative evidence". Even though most contemporary Japonic languages eliminated this opposition, we can also see several traces of it and several shared tendencies in its evolution.

In this perspective, the morphology of Hachijō is, indeed, to some extent remarkably archaic, as it preserves some oppositions that are long gone in other Japonic varieties in ways that appear very close to what we can reconstruct for Proto-Japonic.

However, on the other hand, several important innovations can also be observed, among which:

* the remodelling of *aru* / *ari* as a regular consonant verb (*ar-o* / *ar-w*);
* (possibly)<fnref n="19" /> the remodelling of *sinu* ‘to die’ (an irregular verb in WOJ) as a regular consonant verb (*ɛin-o* / *ɛin-w*);

* the merging of weak and strong vowel verbs categories;

* the elimination of the attributive past morpheme -ki;

* the making of a new past tense in -ar-, possibly from the EOJ progressive -ar-;

* the (partial) remodelling of vowel verb final forms with analogical final marker -rw;

* the (still ongoing) re-characterisation of final forms with the particle =wa, with the gradual elimination of all inherited final forms.

Among these innovations, some can be said to obey a general tendency in Japonic languages (such as the ‘normalisation’ of the copula and of irregular verbs, the extension of adnominal forms and remodelling of unmarked final forms, and fusion of all vowel verb categories), while some other can be said to be proper to Hachijō (such as the creation of a past tense with -ar- or the re-characterisation of final forms with the final particle =wa). In any case, it should be remembered that shared archaisms between EOJ and Hachijō cannot be used in order to prove a genetic relation between them.

In a nutshell, we can sum up the changes of the non-past verbal paradigm between PJ and Hachijō as follows, with innovations indicated in bold letters [tab. 16]:

<table><thead><tr><th>Class</th><th>Rentaikei</th><th>Shūshikei</th><th>Ren'yōkei</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Consonant verbs:<br>ex.: tər- 'take'</td><td>*tər-o&gt;tor-o</td><td>*tər-u&gt;tor-w</td><td>*tər-i&gt;tori</td></tr><tr><td>R- irregular:<br>ex.: ar- 'be'</td><td>*ar-o&gt;ar-o</td><td>*ar-i&gt;ar-w</td><td>*ar-i&gt;ari</td></tr><tr><td>N- irregular:<br>ex.: sin- 'die'</td><td>(?) *sin-oro&gt;ɛin-o</td><td>*sin-u&gt;ɛin-w</td><td>*sin-i&gt;ɛini</td></tr><tr><td>Weak vowel verbs:<br>ex.: əki- 'rise'</td><td>(?) *ək-oro&gt;oki-ro</td><td>*ək-u&gt;oki-/oki-rw</td><td>*əki&gt;oki</td></tr><tr><td>Strong vowel verbs:<br>ex.: myi- 'see'</td><td>*mi-ro&gt;mi-ro</td><td>*mi&gt;mi-/mi-rw</td><td>*mi&gt;mi</td></tr><tr><td>K- irregular:<br>kə- 'come'</td><td>*k-oro&gt;kw-ro</td><td>*k-u&gt;kw/kw-rw</td><td>*k-i&gt;ki</td></tr><tr><td>S- irregular:<br>se- 'do'</td><td>*se-ro&gt;ɔ-o</td><td>*s-u&gt;sw/sw-rw</td><td>*s-i&gt;ɔi</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="19">19 This verb does not occur in EOJ, therefore it is impossible to know if it was already irregular in PJ. Besides, it must be noted that the verb *ɛinu* is now rarely used in Hachijō outside of fossilised idioms, its synonym *marubu* ~ *marubu* (which means ‘to fall down’ in Standard Japanese) being way more common.</footnote>
And for adjectives [tab. 17].

<table><caption>**Table 17** The evolution of adjectival *rentaikei* and *shūshikei* between proto-Japonic and Hachijō</caption><thead><tr><td>Class</td><td>Rentaikei</td><td>Shūshikei</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>*taka-ke >taka-ke</td><td>*taka-<b>si</b> >take: ~ takja: / taka-<b>kja</b></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>*kanasi-ke >kana<i>si</i>-ke</td><td>*kanasi >kana<i>si</i>: / kana<i>si</i>-<b>kja</b></td></tr></tbody></table>

As stated earlier, the question of the exact form of PJ marking for weak vowel verbs and for the -n- irregular verbs remains puzzling, and will be tackled in further research on that matter.

## Bibliography

* Asanuma Ryōji 浅沼 良次(1999). *Hachijōjima no hōgen jiten* 八丈島の方言辞典 (Dialect Dictionary of Hachijō-jima). Tōkyō: Asahi Shinbun Publishing Service.

* Dickins, F.V.; Satow, E. (1878). "Notes of a Visit to Hachijō in 1878". *Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan*, 6, 435-77.

* Frellesvig, B.; Whitman, J. (2004). "The Vowels of Proto-Japanese". *Japanese Language and Literature*, 38, 281-99.

* Hino Sukenari 日野 資成 (2003). "Nihon-sogo no boin taikei – Jōdai Azuma-hōgen shiryō ni yoru saikō" 日本祖語の母音体系–上代東方言資料による再考 (The Vowel System of Proto-Japonic – A Reconsideration Based on Material of the Ancient Azuma Dialect). Osada, T.; Vovin, A. (eds), *Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language* / 日本語系統論の現在. Kyōto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies, 187-205.

* Hirako Tatsuya 平子 達也; Pellard, T. (2013). "Hachijō-go no furusa to atarashisa" 八丈語の古さと新さ. Kibe Nobuko 木部 暢子, *Shōmetsu kiki hōgen no chōsa hozon no tame no sōgō-teki kenkyū – Hachijō hōgen chōsa hōkokusho* 消滅危機方言の調査・保存のための総合的研究 – 八丈方言調査報告書 (A Comprehensive Study for the Research and Preservation of Dialects in Danger of Extinction – Hachijō Dialect Research Report). Tachikawa: NINJAL, 47-67.

* Hirayama Teruo 平山 輝男 (1965). *Izu shotō hōgen no kenkyū* 伊豆諸島方言の研究 (Research on the Dialects from the Izu Archipelago). Tōkyō: Meiji shoin.

* Hirayama Teruo [1968] (1992). "Zenkoku hōgen no sho-tokuchō – Nara-chō no omokage o nokosu Hachijō hōgen" 全国方言の諸特徴–奈良朝の面影を残す八丈方言 (Various Features of All Japanese Dialects – The Retention of Aspects from the Nara Period in the Hachijō Dialect). *Nihon no hōgen* 日本の方言 (The Dialects of Japan). Tōkyō: Kōdansha, 114-25.

* Hōjō Tadao 北条 忠雄 (1948). "Hachijō-jima hōgen no kenkyū – toku ni jōdaisei no ison ni tsuite" 八丈島方言の研究–特に上代性の依存について (Study of the Dialect of Hachijō Island – Especially About Some Archaic Inheritances). *Nihon no kotoba* 日本の言葉, 2(1)(6), 24-8; 2(2)(7), 21-7 [2 articles].

* Hōjō Tadao (1966) *Jōdai tōgoku hōgen no kenkyū* 上代東国方言の研究 (Research on Old Eastern Japanese). Tōkyō: Nihon gakujutsu shinkō-kai.
Hoshina, K. (1900). “Hachijō-jima hōgen” 八丈島方言 (The Dialect of Hachijō Island) [five articles]. *Gengogaku zasshi* 言語学雑誌, 1(2), 39-50; 1(3), 33-40; 1(4), 57-67; 1(7), 22-47; 1(10), 59-66.

Iannucci, D. (2019). *The Hachijō Language of Japan: Phonology and Historical Development* [PhD Dissertation]. Mānoa: University of Hawai‘i.

Iitoyo Kiichi 飯豊 毅一(1959). “Hachijō-jima hōgen no gohō” 八丈島方言の語法 (The Grammar of the Dialects of Hachijō Island). *Kotoba no kenkyū* ことばの研究, 1, 215-32. Tōkyō: NINJAL.

Ikier, S. (2006). *On the Adnominal and Final Predicate Forms in Eastern Old Japanese* [Master's Thesis]. Mānoa: University of Hawai‘i.

Jarosz, A. (2019). “Fine Details of a Larger Picture: Proto-sakishima *au and *ao Diphthongs”. *Folia Linguistica Historica*, 40(2), 401-37.

Kaneda Akihiro 金田 章宏 (1991). “Hachijō-jima Mitsune dōshi no keitairon – Kako no ‘ki’ o motsu tensu keishiki” 八丈島三根方言動詞の形態論 過去の「き」をもつテンス形式 (The Morphology of Hachijō Island Mitsune Dialect – the ‘ki’ Past Tense Form). *Kokubungaku kaishaku to kanshō*, 56, 1, 93-104. Tōkyō: Shibundō.

Kaneda Akihiro (2001). *Hachijō hōgen dōshi kiso kenkyū* 八丈方言動詞の基礎研究 (Basic Study of Verbs in the Hachijō Dialect). Tōkyō: Kasama shoin.

Kaneda Akihiro (2006). *Kaneda Akihiro kenkyūshitsu* 金田章宏研究室 (Kaneda Akihiro's Laboratory); *Hachijō hōgen* 八丈方言 (The Hachijō Dialect); *Awazu no ki* 違わずの木 (The Tree of the Missed Appointment).
http://www.akaneisc.com/dat/fdat_56.html

Kaneda Akihiro (2012). “Hachijō hōgen ni okeru arata na henka to jōdaigo” 八丈方言における新たな变化と上代語 (New Changes and Old Japanese in Hachijō Dialect). *Gen-go kenkyū* 言語研究, 142, 119-42.

Kupchik, J. (2011). *A Grammar of the Eastern Old Japanese Dialects* [PhD Dissertation]. Mānoa: University of Hawai‘i.

Kupchik, J. (2023). *Azuma Old Japanese – A Comparative Grammar and Reconstruction*. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Mase Yoshio 馬瀬 良歌 (1980). “Ikite iru Azuma-uta no gohō” 生きている東歌の語法 (Living Grammar from the Eastern Songs). *Gengo seikatsu* 言語生活 (The Life of Languages), 342, 34-40.

Mase Yoshio (1982). *Akiyama-gō no kotoba to kurashi: Shin’etsu no hikyō* 秋山郷のことば暮らし—信越の秘境 (The Language and Life in Akiyama-gō – An Unexplored Region of Shin-etsu). Tōkyō: Daiichi hōki shuppan.

Mase Yoshio (1992). *Nagano-ken shi – Hōgen hen* 長野県誌方言編 (Documents from the Nagano Prefecture – Dialect Volume). Nagano: Nagano-ken shi kankōka.

Mase Yoshio (2002). *Shin Etsu kokkyō Akiyama-gō hōgen danwa shiryō* 信越国境秋山郷方言談話資料 (Conversational Material of the Akiyama-gō Dialect, Spoken on the Shin-Etsu Border). Suita: Ōsaka Gakuin Daigaku Jōhōgakubu.

Miyake, M. (2003). *Old Japanese: A Phonetic Reconstruction*. London: Routledge Curzon.

Moseley, C. (ed.); Nicolas, A. (cartographer) (2009). *Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger*. 3rd ed. Paris: Unesco.

Nihon Hōsō Kyōkai (1967). *Zenkoku hōgen shiryō* 全国方言資料 (Japanese Dialect Materials), 9, *Hekichi / ritō hen* へき地・離島編 (Secluded Places and Remote Islands), III. Tōkyō: Nihon Hōsō Shuppan Kyōkai.

NINJAL (1950). *Hachijō-jima no gengo-chōsa* 八丈島の言語調査 (The Linguistic Survey of the Island of Hatizyō). Tōkyō: Shūei Shuppan.

Ōhara, M. (1811). *Hachijō-shi* 八丈誌 (Hachijō Documents) (ms.).

Ōshima, I. (1962). “Izu toshima hōgen no gohō” 伊豆利島方言の語法 (The Grammar of the Toshima Dialect, Izu Archipelago). *Kokugogaku* 国語学, 48, 42-53; 49, 107-15.
Ōshima Ichirō 大島 一郎 (1992). “Izu shotō hōgen” 伊豆諸島方言 (The Dialects of the Izu Archipelago). Hirayama Teruo 平山 輝男 et al. (eds), *Gendai nihongo hōgen dai-jiten* 現代日本語方言大辭典 (Dialect Dictionary of Contemporary Japanese), vol. 1. Tōkyō: Meiji shoin, 132-9.

Osterkamp, S. (2018). “A mokkan Perspective on Some Issues in Japanese Historical Phonology”. *Studies in Japanese and Korean Historical and Theoretical Linguistics and Beyond*, Festschrift presented to John B. Whitman. Leiden: Brill, 45-55.

Pellard, T. (2008). “Proto-Japonic *e* and *o* in Eastern Old Japanese”. *Cahiers de lin-guistique – Asie orientale*, 37(2), 133-58.

Serafim, L. (1999). *Why Proto-japonic Had at Least Six, not Four Vowels*. Presentation Given at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa Linguistics Department Tuesday Seminar.

Serafim, L.; Shinzato, R. (2021). *The Language of the Old-Okinawan Omoro Sōshi: Refer-ence Grammar, with Textual Selections*. Leiden: Brill.

Tachibana Shōichi 橋 正一; Tōjō Misao 東条 操. (1934). “Izu shotō hōgen” 伊豆諸島方言 (The Dialects of the Izu Archipelago). *Kokugo kagaku kōza* 国語科学講座 (Scientif-ic Lectures on Japanese Language). Vol. 7, Honshū tōbu no hōgen 本州東部の方言 (The Dialects of Eastern Honshū). Tōkyō: Meiji shoin, 42-55.

Thorpe, M.L. (1983). *Ryukyuan Language History* [PhD Dissertation]. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

Takahashi Toshizō 高橋 俊三 (1991). *Omorosaushi no kokugogakuteki kenkyū* おもろさう しの国語学的研究 (Philological study of the Omoro saushi). Tōkyō: Musashino shoin.

Vovin, A. (2003). *A Reference Grammar of Classical Japanese Prose*. London: Routledge-Curzon.

Vovin, A. (2009-20). *Man'yōshū, a New English Translation Containing the Original Text, Kana Transliteration, Romanization, Glossing and Commentary*. 11 vols. Leiden: Brill.

Vovin, A. [2005-09] (2020). *A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Jap-anese*. 2 vols. Kent: Folkestone Global Oriental.

Vovin, A. (2021). *The Eastern Old Japanese Corpus and Dictionary*. Leiden: Brill.