Reconstruction talk:Proto-Japonic/koi

Derivation, derivatives
This is another highly problematic entry.


 * The compounding form in recorded Old Japanese was probably originally ku, with compounding form ko treated in Japanese sources as a shift from earlier ku. See the KDJ entry here in Kotobank, and the Daijisen entry at the top of this page, for instance.  Daijirin likewise states that kogane is a shift from kugane.
 * Old Japanese kugane could not derive from the hypothesized *konkanay. I believe this *konkanay is a mistake in reconstruction, and never existed.
 * The vowel shift from u to i is also in evidence in OJP kutu ("mouth", compounding form) and kuti (standalone form), so we don't need to posit any vowel value to allow for the shift to i.

I'll remove *konkanay for now. Longer term, I think we should consider moving this entry, unless we can clearly show that Japanese sources are incorrect about kugane. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've read through Pellard's paper "Ryukyuan perspectives on the proto-Japonic vowel system", accessible online at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01289288/file/Pellard_2013_Ryukyuan_perspectives_on_the_proto-Japonic_vowel_system.pdf. It would be good to include references for Proto entry reconstructions.
 * Pellard lays out a good argument for Proto-Japonic *koi. However, he doesn't go into the core issue we face with the standalone vs. compounding forms, where standalones appear to have that final -i that is missing from compounds.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)