Talk:所

OJ to1 */two/?
In ONCOJ there exists a two (to1) meaning 'place' https://oncoj.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/oncoj_dictionary.sh?search=two&part=f&mode=typeset, but it's only phonetic attestation is in the Azuma Uta, where identifies 1128 as Western Old Japanese (standard) and 3489, 3546 as Eastern Old Japanese. In poem 3489 he redirects to. This is what he says there (too lazy to format):

(63) (L) MK tó, tóy (< tó + -i nominative suffix) ‘place’ ~ OJ tô, tö, te ‘place‘. This etymology is followed by a long discussion at the end of which Whitman says: “The vowel correspondence for MK tó(y) : OJ -te is regular; for non-suffixed forms we would expect *ta. The occurrence of both tô and tö in Old Japanese may have something to do with this irregularity. There is also evidence for an earlier morpheme *ta in forms like OJ sita ‘below’ < si ‘down’ + ta (viz. simô ‘downward’ < si ‘down’ + mô ‘direction’), and könata, etc., ‘here, this way’ < kö ‘this’ + -na genitive + ta” (Whitman 1985: 215). There are multiple problems with this etymology. First, as Whitman himself admits, neither OJ tô nor OJ tö corresponds regularly to MK tó. Thus, they must be ruled out from the start. The occurrence of both tô and tö cannot be used as an explanation for the irregularity in suggested external comparison, because this irregularity is easily explained internally: the original form is tô, which is regressively assimilated to tö in the word tökörö ‘place’, the only case in which /tö/ occurs (JDB 1967: 485). In addition, it is now well known that the /tô/ : /tö/ contrast collapsed in Late Western Old Japanese (Mabuchi 1972: 131) or at least started to collapse, and there are other examples in Late Western Old Japanese where original /tô/ was substituted with /tö/, as in the case of nöritô ‘liturgy’ > nöritö (Bentley 2001: 6-7). Second, the form -te, occurring in usirö-N-te ‘behind’ and omö-te ‘front side’, cited by Whitman, indeed corresponds regularly to MK tóy, but the problem is that MK tóy is morphologically divisible into MK tó and -i, while te is not. In other words, it can only correspond regularly to MK tóy, but not to MK tó. Connecting OJ -te to OJ -ta is speculative, but even if one accepts it, then -te should consist of *ta + nominative suffix -i. But this ‘nominative’ suffix -i in Old Japanese (if its existence can be cogently shown in this case in the first place), as I demonstrated above in the morphology section, is a loan from Korean. This suggests a loanword rather than a genetic relationship. Third, the existence of -ta in compounds like sita and könata is not a particularly strong case. In spite of the existence of both OJ sita and simô, the first element *si does occur in an independent form. Also, OJ mô ‘side’ is supported by EOJ wote mô ‘that side’ and könö mö ‘this side’ (MYS XIV: 3361), ta-nö mô ‘field side’ (MYS XIV: 3523), as well as by ya mo ‘eight directions’ and yö mo ‘four directions’ in Western Old Japanese, the latter attested several times. No comparable evidence can be provided for -ta. I have demonstrated elsewhere that the alleged genitive marker -na does not exist in Old Japanese (Vovin 1994: 249, 253; 2005a: 102-107); therefore könata is likely to be an irregular development of *könö kata ‘this side’. In addition, the contrast between OJ sita and simô is not really between ‘below’ and ‘downward’, since OJ simô indicates the lower part of the stream or the ‘down part’ more removed from the central part, while OJ sita does not have these connotations (JDB 1967: 353). Thus, I reject this etymology with the exception of OJ -te ‘place’, which could be a loan from Korean.

End of quote.

See also and its talk page.

This is also why the Shin'yaku Kegonkyō Ongi Shiki does not distinguish to (2) and two (1).

also not phonographically attested in Kojiki; real attestations go to Manyoshu and one buddhist foot stone poem.

I will now change PJ reconstruction. Chuterix (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Now, (ignore colon) for the 8432932th time. Chuterix (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What to do about, etc?
 * Chuterix (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Next is -te in omote is from so I suppose we reject this etymology on all sides?
 * Also what is usirəde? Chuterix (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Fuller response at User_talk:Chuterix. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)