Talk:大人

Min Nan and Wu senses and pronunciation
Frank, could you please check this entry? Apparently the term is pronounced differently in Min Nan and Wu, depending on the sense. I'm not sure I can trust Min Nan Wiktionary and not sure if I got Wu transliteration 100% right. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If comparing with Japanese pronunciations, Min Nan is almost reverse, if I got it right. (tāi-jîn (title of respect) - taijin (big person)) --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Min Nan (both senses) and Wu (1st sense) checked. I don't know how the second sense is pronounced in Wu. Please comment here if you can. Wyang (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, my source was: in Wu section had /duɲɪɲ/ (vernacular) and /dazən/ (literary). They may be applicable to both senses? Since "zen" is used for high level words, I used it in the second sense. The Wu edit was done in . --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds correct then. I wish someone compiles a comprehensive character-indexed dictionary for Shanghainese sometime soon, like those for Min Nan and Cantonese. 上海話大詞典 is a good start, but it is far from comprehensive and too much emphasis is given for dialect-specific words. Wyang (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks about right. Never heard of the second sense pronounced in Shanghainese, but that's how I would pronounce the second sense. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 03:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Etymology
The term otonau is derived from +. So this etymology is unlikely. But then compare. Any thoughts @Eirikr? Chuterix (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * おとなしい is more like "mature" than "silent". This is pretty clearly noun otona + suffix -shii.
 * For cases of verb-derived -shii adjectives, look for a causative stem base. If otonashii were derived from a verb, it would likely have to be otonu, which does not exist.  Any such -shii derivative from otonau would manifest as otonawashii.
 * As a (lengthy) side-note, I suspect that the シク活用 paradigm arose because most of these adjectives appear to be straightforward derivations from causative verbs. There was a syntactical pattern in Old Japanese of ending a sentence with an inflecting word in the 連用形.  For causative verbs, these could be semantically parsed as predicative adjectives instead.  For example:
 * konomu "to prefer, to like" → konomasu "to cause to prefer" → konomasi "causing to prefer" (as 連用形) → "(having the quality of) causing to prefer" (reinterpreted as an adjective)
 * utagau "to doubt, to suspect" → utagawasu "to cause to suspect" → utagawasi "causing to suspect" (as 連用形) → "(having the quality of) causing to suspect" (reinterpreted as an adjective)
 * There are a few that take slightly different path, but still evince this same causative → adjective relationship:
 * ma + pusu (from 目 "eye" + "to lower something, to put something down", itself seemingly the causative / transitive counterpart to ) → mabusu "to (cause to) lower one's eyes" → mabusi "lowering one's eyes" (as 連用形) → "(having the quality of causing one to be) lowering one's eyes" (reinterpreted as an adjective)
 * I suspect that the シク活用 paradigm was invented to allow for these terms to be used in explicitly adjectival ways. The -shi ending of the causative 連用形 forms overlaps nicely with the 終止形 ending for regular adjectives.  But since this し is also part of the original stem (the 連用形 of the underlying causative verb), the additional inflectionary endings for adjectival use are suffixed to this し, rather than replacing it as in regular ク活用 adjectives.  It is not implausible that this originally-causative-continuative し ending was then reanalyzed further as an adjective-forming suffix, allowing for flexible use in the coinage of other terms, such as   + し as in otonashii, or   + し as in bakabakashii, etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr: Can your theory explain that, comes from an unattested , as a extinct verb pair? (compare Old Japanese poru ("to want")) Compare old japanese yo2ru ("to approach", intransitive) and yo2su ("to draw close", transitive) Chuterix (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chuterix:
 * I don't actually think that there was any verb hosu. The attested form  is already transitive, so there wouldn't be any pairing of horu ↔ hosu, since that kind of pairing only happens when the -ru component is intransitive.
 * The basic shape of -shii adjectives as an outgrowth of causativeness would appear to work semantically, however -- horu ("to want something") + -shii ("having the quality of causing the action of the appended verb root") → hoshii ("having the quality of causing someone to want" → "wanted, desirable"). This is consistent with the meanings of hoshii.
 * The problem is the morphological structure. We would expect horu → hora- (mizenkei as the stem to which the causative attaches) + -si (causative suffix in the infinitive) → horasi (causative infinitive: "causing to want") → horasi (shift from causative infinitive to シク活用 adjective).  But we don't see any evidence of any form horasi: only hosi (modern hoshii).
 * We could posit that the medial -ra- drops out -- but why? The mizenkei verb stem persists in other verb-derived -shii adjectives, so why would it vanish here?  This is inconsistent with other known derivations, and we have no mechanism to explain this deviation from the norm.
 * This is why I worded the etymology the way I did at 欲しい#Etymology_1 -- adjective is clearly related somehow to verb, but the exact details of that relationship remain unclear. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Route:
 * Unattested root (verb?) *p-:
 * Wants (verb) *p-ər-u
 * Wanted (Adjective) *p-əs-i
 * @Eirikr perhaps -ki attributive is past tense? compare english Chuterix (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr perhaps -ki attributive is past tense? compare english Chuterix (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr perhaps -ki attributive is past tense? compare english Chuterix (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr perhaps -ki attributive is past tense? compare english Chuterix (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Frellesvig (2010, pages 88-89) mentions:


 * (Emphasis mine; infinitive here means 連用形) Arfrever (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Arfrever, thank you for the quote.
 * I'm not aware of any known cases where a シク活用 adjective derives from a base word gaining the -si ending from the adnominal conjugation -si of the recollective past auxiliary suffix (terminal form -ki). The semantics and syntax are all wrong, making this difficult to entertain.  I agree with Frellesvig that OJP posi is related to verb poru, but I cannot agree with his conjecture about the derivation of posi.
 * It isn't clear to me what Frellesvig is talking about here with regard to -mi and -ni, and I am quite curious. Could you help clarify?
 * @Chuterix, your post completely loses me. What is the point of those conjugation tables?  They seem to be horribly broken.  I'm not aware of any words  with a reading of just fu, or  with a reading of fosu -- this seems to be pure gibberish?
 * Separately, past-recollective auxiliary -ki is in the terminal / predicative form (終止形). This cannot be used adnominally -- for that, you must conjugate the auxiliary into its adnominal form (連体形), which is -si.
 * Meanwhile, for シク活用 adjectives, suffix -si is the terminal / predicative form (終止形). This cannot be used adnominally -- for that, you must conjugate the suffix into its adnominal form (連体形), which is -siki.
 * In addition to this morphological issue, there's also the semantics (meaning) -- the recalling of known fact expressed by auxiliary -ki has no discernable connection at all with the basic adjectival sense expressed by suffix -si. You suggest an analogy with English -ed, and while that might work in translation for things like posi → "wanted", it falls apart entirely when looking at things like warawasi → "laughable (having the quality of causing one to laugh)" or mabusi "blindingly bright (having the quality of causing one to lower one's eyes)".
 * Regarding any possible root verb stem *p-, we already have such a root in the verb auxiliary suffix -pu -- and that expresses iteration, continuous action, or resulting state. Nothing to do with desire.  I do not think we can sensibly posit any such root for verb poru and adjective posi.
 * ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr: According to the KDJ 2 entry, repetitive suffix -pu is either from, or from.
 * The broken template is due to using this entry name 大人 for the conj table. No reading of *p- actually exists for this kanji set anywhere.
 * My hypothesis treats root *p- following kami nidan. Chuterix (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chuterix: "My hypothesis treats root *p- following kami nidan."
 * ... huh? That makes no sense.  Neither of these poru nor posi evince any kami nidan-ness.  ?????  There is no standalone verb pu meaning "to want" attested anywhere.  The closest we get morphophonemically is, intransitive, from older 上二段 verb pu, with causative / transitive counterpart . ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I am also inclined to disagree with @Chuterix's hypothesis above that the root of por- verb and posi would be *p-.
 * I found this page with "Bjarke Frellesvig's Japanese Handouts", which have some excerpts from his book, possibly with some changes.
 * "4 Verbs and adjectives.pdf":


 * "5 GRAMMAR formation and katsuyookee.pdf":


 * So -kyeku form for -ki / -si Direct Past (called Simple Past in 2010 version of book), from *-ki-aku, implies that -ki was also the adnominal form in earlier stage of language.
 * porise- > posse- (modern 欲する) is simplification from EMJ time, when geminated consonants were allowed.
 * I speculate that porisi > posi is simplification from earlier time, when geminated consonants did not yet exist and when -si had both Conclusive/Adnominal functions. posi would then adjust its conjugation scheme to behave like adjectives.
 * (@Eirikr: You can read about -mi and -(a)ni in "4 Verbs and adjectives.pdf", in section Infinitive-2.)
 * Arfrever (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @Arfrever. I will have to re-read this later; I am tired enough that I am not sure I'm fully following.  :)  Frellesvig mentions that direct past -si is used conclusively in OJP, right after talking about how the adnominal also functions nominally -- and indeed, we see adnominal conjugations used nominally and conclusively in OJP, which makes me wonder if the instances of conclusive direct past -si might actually be this same "end the sentence with an adnominal" pattern.
 * Re: "I speculate that porisi > posi is simplification from earlier time, when geminated consonants did not yet exist and when -si had both Conclusive/Adnominal functions." -- are you describing porisi as pori- + direct past -si?
 * I think chances are high that this is an old term and the medial -ri- was elided to produce posi. It is less clear to me why past-recollective / direct-past -si would suddenly morph into an adjective, and at that, into the very specific シク活用 adjective instead of the regular ク活用 adjective, which also has a conclusive form of -si. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Distinction between ku and siku (and ziku) adjectives was invented in traditional school grammar. Many siku adjectives are deverbal or originating from reduplication of nouns or adverbs, but for these adjectives their si is a derivational suffix, not (part of) inflectional suffix. All adjectives have the same inflectional suffixes, with the minor exception that if the stem of adjective ends in -si or -zi, then another -si is not added in the Conclusive. (See also chapter about adjectives in Frellesvig's book/handouts.) Arfrever (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)