Reconstruction talk:Proto-Japonic/peru

Basis for reconstructing this with /e/?
I do not see any clear reason to reconstruct this as /peru/ instead of /piru/ at the Proto level. In fact, the hangul transcription of contains a clear diphthong /ui/. This manifests in modern mainstream Korean as /e/, as we see in genitive particle -- but this is a relatively recent innovation. Other terms even in the modern language still manifest as some variation of /ui/, such as. The transcription date of 1501 points to Middle Korean, and I believe this is before the /ui/ → /e/ shift had occurred.

What reason do we have for /peru/ instead of /piru/? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Pellard (2013) p. 84-85 explains this. Chuterix (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thank you for the link! That explains it in sufficient detail.
 * Re: the hangul attestation, I suspect the vowel might have been phonetically something like /ʌɨ/, where that /ɨ/ corresponds to Ryukyuan ⟨ï⟩ in Pellard. But the use of the diphthong glide in the hangul is still quite interesting. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)