Reconstruction talk:Proto-Ryukyuan/pE((p/b)E)t(O)zi(C)a

Modern reflexes
How would one tie up the reflexes? I'd propose an alternate preform *pemiza which would explain the divergent developments here:

The first syllable must be *pe, with Yaeyama innovating *i > ï by assimilation from the second vowel.

The second syllable must have been *mi. It's clear that this was retained in Miyako (*mi > n) and Yaeyama with alternation in Yonaguni (mi > bi). In Northern Ryukyuan, it went through an intermediate *pepiza > *piiza by consonantal assimilation, giving the long vowel common to the Northern Ryukyuan forms.

Finally, the last syllable must be *-za, with regular conversion to a palatal in Northern Ryukyuan. The long vowel in the Northern Ryukyuan forms was probably derived from some suffixal element, probably a diminutive *-wa.

Any other opinions? Kwékwlos (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Curious what evidence there is for a diminutive *-wa suffix, and what reflexes that might have in mainland Japanese? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thorpe (1983), p. 261, mentions such a diminutive. Kwékwlos (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kwékwlos, any idea where Thorpe got that? He mentions it in passing, but with no source or other explanation given.
 *  (Side note -- this kind of thing is why I hate so much of academic linguistics. The authors too often wind up so far up their own backsides that you have to traverse their sigmoid colons to even begin to get a handle on their implied context.) 
 * ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * He must have thought that final -a in some Ryukyuan reflexes had to come from -awa, but evidence suggests that the normal reflex in most languages is a long -aa. This runs into problems in page 275, where a form *garasu-wa would have predictably yielded garasuu instead of attested garasaa. Then that *wa, according to him, must have been extracted from *kuwa (page 271, an invalid reconstruction; the correct reconstruction is *kura based on OOk. evidence). Kwékwlos (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kwékwlos -- Oofda, that's a bit of a contortion. Thank you for tracing that.
 * I note too Thorpe's strange contention that the -su reconstructed as part of *-(a)nisu for negative ending -(a)zu means "thing" (page 242) and is the same as the -su ending referenced in that garasu entry (page 275). Notably, the -su ending appears solely in the names of birds, so far as I'm aware.  1) There's no clear reason why a negative verbal auxiliary would incorporate a noun, especially as the final element, and especially after the 連用形 of the preceding portion, given what we know of other Japanese verb formation patterns; and 2) if su actually meant "thing", why is this only apparent in the "not" suffix and in bird names?
 * Anyway, thanks again! I am recognizing that we should take Thorpe with a little bit of salt. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, for the reconstruction, should *pemiza be preferred over *pebeza? Kwékwlos (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Frellesvig (2010, pages 69-72, 120-123) speculates that -su as part of *-(a)nisu originates in k- ~ s- copula (which is also speculated to be origin of suffixes of adjectives and past tenses):
 * "On the other hand, the infinitive and conclusive -zu is in several respects like -ku, the infinitive of the adjectival copula (cf. 3.2.2.4.1). Both serve as a stem in the formation of further forms, cf. gerund -zute and -kute, and conditional -zupa and -kupa (note also the variant gerund -zuni and the extended gerund -zusite). Finally, -(a)zu is syntactically like the existential verb ar- in using the infinitive in conclusive function."
 * "Also like -ku, negative -zu may be extended with ar-, especially to combine with auxiliaries which never or only rarely attached directly to the negative auxiliary. For example, the negative combines with the conjectural -(a)m- and the subjunctive -(a)masi- only in the ar- extended form: -zu ara-m-, -zu ara-masi, and although direct combinations of the negative auxiliary with tense auxiliaries are attested (see 3.1.4.5.3), they are very rare and -zu ari-kyer- or -zu ari-ki- are more frequent."
 * "Note also that the k ~ s alternation is exhibited by the adjectival copula infinitive -ku and the *-su which takes part in formation of the innovative negative forms (3.1.4.8.3) and which may also form part of the semblative (see immediately below); the morpho-syntactic similarities between the adjectival infinitive and the negative infinitive are easier to explain if, as suggested here, they originate in variant copula forms."
 * Arfrever (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Is (not attested in OJ) really derived from ?
 * This is probably why he asserts -su 'thing'. Chuterix (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Excessive moves and ridiculous "reconstructions"
@Chuterix, please slow down. You have moved this page six times within this one day. That is entirely excessive, and a strong indication that you do not know what you are doing -- 1) this is extremely disruptive, and 2) the resulting "reconstruction" is a patently ridiculous deconstruction that looks more like a bad hand at Scrabble.

If you are so very uncertain about a possible reconstruction that you cannot clearly specify 1) any but the last vowel, 2) any but the first consonant, or 3) even how many morae this is supposed to have, then you do not have enough grounds for creating a reconstruction.

In such cases, I would strongly suggest that you 1) slow down, and 2) seek input and consensus from other editors before moving / editing.

I am very happy to see other editors interested in and passionate about Japanese and Japonic terms and etymologies. I counsel you to be more judicious in your edits, lest your passion cause more disruption and confusion than insight and discovery. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't a reconstruction this uncertain be left to the etymology sections of the descendants? Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 and many others which are obviously related but we cannot pin it down to a single form. Thus it has been left to the etymology sections. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬) 14:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, @Pulimaiyi -- anything this uncertain should be left without an entry in the  namespace. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)