Talk:城叱

Derivation
, was the final 叱 here used purely phonetically, or is this related at all to the genitive ? I wouldn't really expect it to be the genitive, but I'm curious how the OKO spellings work. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * is indeed an attested OK genitive, but probably not here.
 * The source for this lemma is 城叱肹良望良古, where the logograms are the two bolded hanzi. We see that 城 is followed by the phonogramic sequence 叱肹良. 肹良 is contextually a variant of the accusative particle, and we know from other sources that 1) the OK genitive 叱, just like its Middle Korean descendant ㅅ, appears to have been incapable of combining with the accusative; and 2) again like Middle Korean ㅅ, when 叱 does combine with other case markers, it follows them instead of preceding them; hence 花以叱 flower-INSTR-GEN, 時中叱 time-LOC-GEN, 解說果叱 interpretation-COMIT-GEN. So if a combination with 肹良 were even possible, we should have expected 肹良叱 and not 叱肹良.
 * So linguists are confident that 叱 here is used phonetically only, as what Korean scholars call 말음첨기자 (末音添記字).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Clear explanation, thank you! Good to get the fuller context as well.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)